Talk:War of 1812/Archive 25

This Talk Page is even longer than the one I partly archived
I've walked away (except for occasional visits) from the Talk Page because it was taking up way too much time and effort, with little effect, from other things (not that, during the Pandemic, they're all that numerous.) For example, I'm finally reading a printed book again (Confederate Emancipation by Bruce Levine). Apparently, much more serious scholarly obligations are also driving User:Tirronan, a long-time editor of the main article (over a decade), away from regular visits.

However, alerted by a notification, I came back only to find that this page will (after this is posted) exceed 560 kB. It only had 41 kB when I slashed away about 411 kB to form /Archive 23.


 * 1) Someone needs to hack away again to fill /Archive 24.
 * 2) Start any debates (even ones in progress) afresh. Don't retrieve an old thread from the archive.
 * 3) Stop this madness.

With all the deepest of respects, —— Shakescene (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity was this before or after I accidentally included the entire talk page in one of my comments? I think I have fixed that, but check again would you, in case you just happened to look at the size while that was true? If not, so noted, will start thinking about how to do this. Elinruby (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Talk Page history, it appears that you doubled the talk page from roughly 280 kB to 560 kB, and then were only successful in reverting 5 kB of that addition. Unfortunately, you can no longer just Undo that original addition without undoing everything that came afterwards.
 * cur|prev 12:45, 25 July 2020‎ Elinruby talk contribs‎ 558,138 bytes -5,002‎  →‎Delete the outcome field RFC: delete accidental recursion undo|thank
 * cur|prev 12:33, 25 July 2020‎ Elinruby talk contribs‎ 563,140 bytes +281,570‎  undo|thank
 * 280 or 300 is beginning to push or pass the limit, but it's not quite so impossible as 560. Lowercase sigmabot III is working, but so far it's only archived 6 threads totalling about 30 kB. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of editing of the article and legitimate discussion going on, *some* (!) of which is helping the article to be improved, so there is good reason for some of the activity on the talk page. There's been some improvements on the article, with some things fixed up that have been dubious for some time. I would ask people NOT to debate the war. Its something we all like to do, but some people will come on here and start talking all about it, and I'm not sure it helps. The article says what it say. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy for it to say what it says if what it says is true. Meanwhile, the reason the archive is currently so large is that I accidentally selected all before the last time I pasted something. I guess. I see it in the history but it's not there when I edit the article, so it isn't as simple as me missing some text. I might need to get somebody in admin to empty a recycle bin or something. Not up for that conversation just now, but I will figure this out shortly. Meanwhile yes. I believe we should delete the infobox entry for outcome or we'll be here another decade or two scrolling through same speech over and over again. But even if the situation is only half as bad as it seems it is still time to archive again., are you saying you don't want to do it again? Elinruby (talk)`
 * PS I tried deleting and re-creating the section in edit mode; this did not help. I guess I need to open in IT ticket Elinruby (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, the reason I can't find it is that Davide was being "helpful" again; no telling what he did, but at this point it's his edit not mine. Elinruby (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, c'mon say it. I simply fixed the mess you created here by removing all the duplicated discussions. You can try to do again whatever you were trying to do (what section did you try to delete and re-create?), just please do not duplicate them. Davide King (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * removed duplicated discussions It's a good thing I know you were trying to fix an accidental cut and paste. And that I fundamentally don't care. This is a prime example of what I have tried to talk to you about before. When you do something like that, especially off the page, it increases the general paranoia of the page, especially since you keep making important changes without discussion. But as it happens I am mostly annoyed that I spent several hours tracking it down, because it was my mistake to fix. Since you took it upon yourself to "help" the responsibility is yours, that's all. I hope you fixed it right. Next time SAY SOMETHING. Above all, it's the courteous thing to do. Everyone on the talk page has now had their comments edited by you. Elinruby (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. You were the one to create this mess (it is not clear what you were trying to do or if it was a mistake) which I have fixed and re-added all successive comments, so yeah I fixed it, but I guess a "Thank you" from you would be too much to ask. I also suggest you to change has now had their comments edited by you to has now had their indents edited by you because the first one implies I did change the words and their meaning, when I merely indented them correctly; again, you are the only one who complained about it and I thought I did a favour by making clear who we are responding to; I also did see other users did the same thing and I thought it was fine as long as I did not change wording, which I did not. Again, is it so hard for you to indent correctly? I did stop doing that, by the way. Yet you do continue to indent wrongly. Try to fix that, it is your responsability now. Davide King (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously archiving every discussion from the talk page didn't solve the problem, as the debate only exploded again anew immediately after. In fact, it may have made the situation worse by removing any chance of the issue being settled by the then active RFC. I recommend against repeating the experiment. Here's my proposal: we start an RFC on the wording for the outcome of the war. All discussion on the subject is to be contained within the "discussion" section of the RFC. Any other comments on the subject shall be moved immediately. Once the RFC is over, an uninvolved editor closes it, and everyone agrees to abide by the close and never again bring up the issue. Or at least wait another decade. I have proposed the wording for such an RFC above. Please comment there with any suggestions you have for alternations in the proposal. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the discussions on the talk page have nothing to do with the outcome section. Frankly I think the whole discussion of who won the war needs to be deferred until the article itself is under control, I am seeing this at 2AM when my bathroom just flooded. So I am grumpy and if I say what I am thinking I will have another long reproachful essay in my inbox by morning. But. I DO NOT CARE WHO WON THIS RIDICULOUS WAR. Neither does anyone else. I want the article to be accurate. So does everyone else. I want the article to follow Wikipedia policy. The whole idea of never changing anything for another ten years is ridiculous. Some of the editors here can't leave references alone for a week. The article needs to change, and the outcome should come after that. Elinruby (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, the infobox has drawn the most acrimonious debate over the past few months, with that one issue spawning threads at a half dozen noticeboards and soaking up much of the talk page. It's also the simplest and clearest issue to resolve, since it can basically be summed up in a single question, which can easily be put to an RFC. I didn't mean that the article itself shouldn't be changed for another decade, just that perhaps we can settle this single issue so it doesn't have to be debated again for a while. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I did say I was grumpy. Part of the reason, imho, that there has been so much acrimony, is that editor are looking at a balloon and voting on whether it's a banana or a horse. Removing the field removes inaccuracy and strife. People who are interested in the topic can work on the article's many problems. Those who want to write essays can write them elsewhere. After six months or so it may be possible to summarize the article. Elinruby (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I've see a lot of infobox debates, even when there was no disagreement but the editors were just trying to figure out what to do. When the info is clear cut, they work well. Otherwise, due to what they fundamentally are, the are nothing but trouble. Each line of them is a simple, categorical statement in the voice of Wikipedia. Unless the item is clear-cut, trying to put in a "simple, categorical statement in the voice of Wikipedia." is a fundamentally flawed endeavor. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to unwatch this. If anybody wants my 2 cents please ping me.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Including something about Britain's reaction in the lede?
The last two sentence in the lede section mention the US a fair bit, and has had a sentence introduced in there that dicusses Canada - I was going to suggest something about how the UK reacted to the end of the war. Its not mentioned. I wanted to check in to get consensus, rather than just add it - What do people think?

"In early 1815, after a peace treaty had been signed, but before this news had reached the Americas, the United States defeated the British Army near New Orleans, Louisiana. Fighting also took place in West Florida, where a two-day battle for the city of Pensacola ended in Spanish surrender.[22] In Britain, there was mounting opposition to wartime taxation and merchants lobbied for the resumption of trade with the United States. With the abdication of Napoleon, Britain's war with France ended and Britain stopped impressment generally. This made moot the issue of American sailor impressment and removed one of the original causes of the war. The British then increased the strength of their blockade of the United States coast which had a crippling effect on the American economy.[21][23]

Peace negotiations began in August 1814 and the Treaty of Ghent was signed on 24 December 1814. News of the peace finally reached the United States in February 1815, about the same time as news of the victory at New Orleans. The Americans triumphantly celebrated the restoration of their national honour, leading to the collapse of anti-war sentiment and the beginning of the Era of Good Feelings, a period of national unity.[24] Both the restoration of honour and the "Second War of Independence" are important themes in American historiography and are considered important results by historians.[25][26][27] The failure of the American invasion of British Canada advanced the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation.[28] The treaty was unanimously ratified by the United States Senate on 17 February 1815, ending the war with no boundary changes,[29] except for the issue of some islands in Passamaquoddy Bay which were resolved after the war.[30]" Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you just complained about long quotes. Unlike in the U.S. and Upper Canada, the War of 1812 had little significance and was overshadowed by the Napoleonic Wars. And the British government did not use it to create a nationalistic mythology as happened in the U.S. and Upper Canada - they had Waterloo. So if you want, just say the war was quickly forgotten in the UK. TFD (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We do say in the first paragraph that Historians in Britain often see it as a minor theatre of the Napoleonic Wars while historians in Canada and the United States see it as a war in its own right. We may had something in the final paragraph as suggested by that In Britain, the war was quickly forgotten. Davide King (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD I'm complaining about people putitng long quotes from books in here. Well you guys are right, it was - but there would have been a reaction in the public and the government *at the time* where they were happy about it. There would be newspaper articles and it should be in hansard presumably. Shouldn't that be included? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead of the American Civil War merely says the South developed a "persisting myth of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy." It doesn't mention Northern public reaction. The Lost Cause myth persists in a huge way today with a depth of feeling about Confederate flags and monuments to Confederate generals. TFD (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, that;s cool - I'll just insert something like you two have suggested. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Rangers
Listed under United States in the Forces section of the infobox: what units are these? Elinruby (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These guys - I'll link them Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox results need to indicate the annexation of Canada was unsuccessful
This is probably another good example of how US centric this page is. Out of all the various things listed in the results box, the one main obvious result, that the attempt to annex/invade Canada, was not successful.... is not mentioned. I suggest a non controversial item like "US annexation of Canada unsuccessful" or if that's too controversial, "US Invasion of Canada Unsuccessful". Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Elinruby (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As argued here by, I believe the unsuccessful American invasion of Canada has more to do with advanc[ing] the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation than with the result, hence it is better discussed, perhaps with better sources and other improvements, in the main body. As argued here by , whom I wish would comment again because they may express my same or very similar points with better and clearer words and sources, the same could be said about the British invasion of Louisiana. Davide King (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a results field in the infobox. The war was about the US invading Canada. People want to look in the results box and see if the invasion was successful or not... if someone can't use the results box to see the result of the main event of the war, what is the point of it being there? Its as simple as that. Of course all the items can be read about in detail in the main page of the article (the same as the Treaty of Ghent) but that's not an arguement for having the main event of the war not in the results box - that's what the results field/infobox is for. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you are assuming the war was all bout the United States invading Canada, but the war was more complex than that and did not start merely because the Americans wanted to annex Canada. I agree with that it is who won the war that people look for in the infobox, not whether the invasion of Canada was successful or not. Davide King (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * who won the war then? Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No one, because it was a draw. My view is that no one but the indigenous nations lost; and everyone but the indigenous nations won. It is not my fault sources are colonialist-imperialist biased and say the war was a draw, not giving enough space and weight to the indigenous nations which did lose. Until recently, Tecumseh's defeat was not even in the infobox. What is your view? Davide King (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of military activity, yes, the war was about the US invading Canada, and the British pushed them back out, and then raided various cities, to get the US to stop. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we delete the results field then we don't have to worry about the list getting too long. If we don't say four times that nobody won then we will have room to state this other important consequence once. Elinruby (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We should delete it only when historians and reliable sources actually disagree, not when a few users disagree. Draw, military stalemate and status quo ante bellum are all terms used to describe the outcome of the war and it is not up to us whether they mean the same thing or not. We report what reliable sources say. Military stalemate and Status quo ante bellum have been both used in previous versions and there was no issue with it. I added Draw because that is the main result and does not contradict the other two, nor are they mutually exclusive that we have to choose only one. Davide King (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since annexation of Canada was not an objective of the U.S., their failure to do so is not an outcome. u|Elinruby, your argument supports saying the war was a draw and omitting the 1,284 consequences of the war being a draw. TFD (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD - The US invaded Canada and was unsuccessful, so that should be included as a result though, shouldn't it? Isn't that a pivotal result? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets drop the annexation part. Does anyone have an issue with including "US Invasion of Canada Unsuccessful" at least? If you do, please speak up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably not. They would have used the occupation of Canada as a bargaining chip. Canada would not have been a viable territory without access to the Atlantic, which was controlled by the British Navy in Halifax. Although the UK invaded the U.S. and tried to invade Louisiana, a British victory would not have meant all those territories became incorporated into the British Empire. You should really read The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784-1850 (McGill–Queen's University Press, 1988), which explains how the myth of Canadian victory in the war was created by the reactionary elites of Upper Canada long after the war ended. The reality was that most people in Upper Canada were late loyalists, i.e., economic migrants from the U.S., the United Empire Loyalists were not a distinct group, most residents did not care who won the war and did not participate in it, and the Family Compact disenfranchised most residents of Upper Canada after the war. About 10% of the "loyalists" were slaves. The myth was invented for immigrants who arrived after the end of the Napoleonic wars. Did you know that the St. Patrick's Day parade was illegal in Ontario until the 1980s? You're repeating views that the Family Compact invented 200 years ago and congratulations to Bishop Strachan that he has adherents today. I think that Canadian patriotism or whatever you call it should be based on what really happened, not on mythology. TFD (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , this was really interesting. Why is this not really discussed or mentioned in the article, perhaps in Memory and historiography? Do you believe that meets weight or other guidelines to be added there? Davide King (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD Putting aside a big historical debate, can we at least include "US Invasion of Canada Unsuccessful" in the infobox? If you have a problem with that speak up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The American Civil War of 1812 also brings up those points. The average Upper Canadian was noted as not having any great loyalty to Britain. Nor, for that matter were their American neighbors nearby. Again this was argued at length and beaten to death. Why do we have to go over the same thing this many times?Tirronan (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is "American honor was restored" a fact whereas the general consensus of Canadians is not? You persist in not seeing the disparity here. Write this up and source it and put it in the article. As matters stand this us just some sort of filter of interpretation which is completely opaque because it's in your head. I have no objection to a discussion of nationalist propaganda. On all sides.Elinruby (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm quite over the bias in this article. "US Invasion of Canada Unsuccessful" is a simple basic fact that should be included, but I have to come here and debate with people about it. Its just such a huge waste of time. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because that is the consenus of historians per here and here. We go by reliable sources and consensus among historians, not by the editors or nations' POVs. Ever thought that maybe you are the ones who are... gasp... biased, too? We have a Canadian views section, which you are free to improve and where you can add their viewpoints. Here,  also did say the Americans repelled the British at Baltimore and New Orleans, so either both should be mentioned in the infobox or neither should be. I am for neither; they are better described and discussed in the main body. Davide King (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * you're still treating it as a fringe theory. We're past that, and I had to file a ridiculous question about it to get past that too. You do not understand Wikipedia policy, seriously. And you keep quoting other editors. Stop that. 1) they can/should speak for themselves and 2) I know you misquote me, so why should I trust you quoting them? I mean, I ask you. And is all this bargaining just for attention or what?A semi-compromise was negotiated and you got bold, ok fine, but then you should have said so and you do not have consensus for your change, yet you refuse to change it back. I keep saying that. Elinruby (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not and I did not mention fringe in my response, so why did you bring that up? This is not about the result, but about "American honor" and the invasion of Canada, whether it should be added to the infobox. Also, stop telling me what to do and making accuses like that. Also apologies if I did misquoted you, but could you please give me a link for that? You did misquote me now that I did not even mentioned fringe, so we are even. I am quoting them because I believe they express themselves better than I do and because you continue to misinterpret my words, as shown by you bringing up fringe when I believe that applies only to American/Canadian win, not to this. I am quoting them also because I hope and wish they would actually reply you back. Davide King (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you need to stop bringing that up and using it against me. It was not even me to bring that up or who made the fringe claim first; and  did; and I believe  mentioned it too. I am merely agreeing with them. Davide King (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not "using it against you", I am trying very hard to explain to you that whether you know it or not you are quoting TFD from his fringe theory period. And not even in a way that makes any sense. It's increasingly clear to me that you will continue to post long sad essays in this thread as long as somebody answers you, so bye. You're against it. I get that.Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe was pretty clear here. I am not quoting him again, check the link to see yourself his own words. So no, I am not quoting  from his fringe theory period or whatever you mean by it; and it was not just The Four Deuces and I, but you do seem to hold something against us. Again, Rjensen and  used fringe too, so why are you blaming only us two and complaining about The Four Deuces and I? Davide King (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King and  Can we agree on a compromise, re-word this as  "US Invasion of Canada Unsuccessful" and insert that? Or does this need an RFC to look at it, which I think would be ridiculous, but if that's what it takes to get the obvious done, then so be it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just delete it. Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Info-boxes are not the place to list every battle. The British invasion ot the U.S. was also unsuccessful. TFD (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Just delete it, DL. You cannot negotiate with denialism. Elinruby (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to use rational argument rather than ad hominem attacks. No one objects to including information about the failed U.S. invasion in the article. My objection is to incorporating detailed information into the info-box which exists in order to provide a summary. The failure of the invasion was one of the reasons the war ended in a draw, not a result of the war. TFD (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My objection is to editors who won't follow consensus or Wikipedia policy, but here we are. If you think it's an ad hominem you should ask yourself whether the shoe fits. I am merely advising that they are wasting their carpals typing words that literally make no difference because the people they are talking to don't care what they say.Elinruby (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ironic you say that. Again, ever thought you and Deathlibrarian may hold a Canadian POV? No, it must be people that are denialis[ts] and that don't care care what they say [sic]! You also do seem to conflate the consensus of historians with an American POV. That may well be true, but we report what sources say and their consensus; and if they are pushing an American POV, whether because there are more American historians and you believe there is a national bias in this (although this is not supported), there is not much we can do. You and Deathlibrarian seem here to right great wrongs. Davide King (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not support as I'm in agreement with TFD and Davide King.
 * My compromise is "Both sides invasions unsuccessful" or leave it alone. I thought we were in agreement to the previous info box, but clearly not.  On the image header (on the main article) you have a representation of the defense of Canada with Issac Brock at Queenston Heights.  The same can be said for the representation with the defense of Louisiana with Andrew Jackson at New Orleans.
 * I was about to make a long response (adding authors, etc.), but in respect to Shakescene's latest post, I'll leave this as my last post for this archive.
 * Ironic Luck (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree, but honestly I find it unnecessary to add it since both invasions was unsuccessful and those failures were one of the reasons the war ended in a draw, not a result of the war. That is better discussed in the main body. I thought too the current version is a good compromise, with Draw and Both sides claim win, which are both true. Davide King (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The US invasions into Canada were ALL repelled. The British Raids on the US were a mix (Washington? was successfull). The Brits were still campaigning at the end of the war on US territory. So summing up the British raids as all unscuccessful is incorrect and re-writing history. The other point is, the British weren't invading to take land, they were raids to force the US to back off its attacks on canada. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King I'm sure I do hold a Pro Canadian point of view, as you hold a pro US point of view. The problem however, isn't that the article is pro Canadian, is it? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I wrote below, I do not think I hold an American point of view, I am trying to follow the consensus among sources and historians; however, I do believe you and Elinruby do hold a Canadian POV and this has caused some issues, including a few misunderstanding that did hold back us reaching consensus and end the diatribe. For example, you seem to believe that Draw is an American POV, but it is not; the Draw view is supported by the majority of sources and historians, no matter their nationality. I thought we had reached a compromise (Draw and Both sides claim win, with a link to sections at the end), therefore I would really appreciate and be thankful if we could all just accept the current one and avoid yet another request for comments, so that we can improve and work on the main body to make sure both the American and Canadian views are addressed and represented fairly. Davide King (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My perception of your viewpoint is that your viewpoint is Pro US (for example, you you did support for the Canadian viewpoint to be categorised as *fringe theory* ), but yes, I wouldn't say you were as fanatical about it as some of the other Pro US editors on here (which is most of them). *However* I'm actually not Canadian or British or American, so I see myself as being objective... so when I see two viewpoints, I believe they should both be included. But if you had to describe me as one or the other, yes you could say I was pro Canadian. However, if you talk to any Australians about the war of 1812 (that are aware of it), and everyone I have spoken to see it as a war where the US tried to invade Canada while Britain was fighting Napolgoeon, the US got booted out, their capital got toasted and they lost - the main bright point for the US being US navy did ok. Personally, I just want both viewpoints expressed, and the use of neutral language and the removal of jingoist language in a wikipdia article. For example, I personally believe that the US was aiming to annex Canada, but the article doesn't declare to that outright, so I admitted on that basis, it shouldn't be included in the infobox. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not pro-United States and I believe your Canadian bias comes from the fact Australia is part of the British Commonwealth like Canada, so I am not surprised they hold that viewpoint. Again, it is not a fact the United States tried to annex Canada; it is something that is still debated among historians. You are taking the Canadian views that the United States tried to annex it as fact when sources and historians are still debating this. By the way, I did add things like those to the lead While the war ended in a draw, both sides were happy with the outcome that saw the war ending and indigenous nations are generally seen among historians as the real losers. Both the restoration of honour and the "Second War of Independence" are important themes in American historiography and are considered important results according to the consensus of historians. The failure of the American invasions of British Canada advanced the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation. And I did add While acknowledging that the war is "usually seen as a draw", Brian Arthur argues that "it was in fact a British victory". According to Andrew Lambert, "Americans began to rewrite the war as a victory, exploiting the ambiguity of the diplomatic settlement achieved in the Treaty of Ghent on 24 December 1814, a status quo ante compromise that did not reflect the depth of America's defeat". to the Historians' view. Davide King (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, well that is a bit balanced that you did that, so thank you. I wouldn't say Commonwealth countries apart from the US think the War of 1812 is about the US invading Canada to take control of it, and then they lost. I'd say *ALL* countries apart from the US think the US tried to annex and lost. The only people that think the US wasn't trying to annex Canada are Americans. US had a general policy of annexing land on its borders and adding it to the country, they did it to the south of the border, taking over spanish possessions, and land from Mexico. They got Alaska from Russia. Why wouldn't they want to do it in Canada, when the British were occupied dealing with Napoleon?... particularly considering their enmity with the British. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe and  already addressed all your points, but let me tell you again that there is no agreement on whether the United States tried to annex Canada, yet you take it as a given fact. No one is denying that the United States invaded Canada and was repelled; just that this does not change the fact the result was a draw and de facto military stalemate because it was more than Canada. Both the Canadian won and American won viewponts are myths supported by both countries and is not surprising; however, draw or military stalemate is not a myth but is what I have read most historians and sources report. Davide King (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It still doesn't change the fact that over a decade, despite being shown all the evidence to the contrary, not a single position that you have shown has changed. Not a single one. In example, the invasion of Washington, was a raid, not an invasion. An invasion would detail intending to stay and expand the land that you took. Had the forces involved stayed, all flag-waving to the contrary, there would have only been a single outcome. There was never any chance that America was going to annex Canada. You have been told over and over and over, that many of us were exhausted by the continuing cycle of the same issues, with the same arguments, being repeated. You need help, I'm not an expert but I suspect that you suffer from the obsessive-compulsive syndrome. You either can't let go or this idea, or you enjoy this. Most of us do not. Bring something new to the discussion or leave it alone. Tirronan (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly I have had those thoughts also, but not about . 1. I have only been working on the article for about a month, but they have changed their mind several times about this or that in response to the discussion. 2. There is indeed something monomaniacal about the page, and imho it isn'to due to the person arguing from sources, it's due to the person who WON'T. Elinruby (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are coming into this about a decade late. So I suspect that you don't have the context that we do. So let's take the annexation issue to start with. If you go back and look in the archives you will find dozens of sources quoted. Then there are the US archives that you have access to as well as I do. I would hesitate to call the American government of 1812-1814 a failed state, but dysfunctional might well cover it. America was on a direct march to the American Civil War in 47 years. It literally couldn't get its act together enough to fight a war that it might very well lose. It shows up throughout the war. It couldn't agree on a taxation scheme that would pay for the war. And, America couldn't agree on annexing Canada. Finally, President Madison said and unequivocal NO. So, let us talk about the evolution of views. I didn't know that about annexation, I had to research it. I thought I knew better, I was wrong. I changed my stance. But, I see lots and I mean lots of the same repeated annexation arguments. I do not and will not resurrect all the sources that have already been discussed. I was of the opinion that America lost the war when I began working on this article, the naval sections btw. To my thinking, when America asked for terms GAME OVER. You usually are admitting defeat when you do that. I changed my view when I did my research. I've read the letter from Wellington to the Prime Minister, I've read the instructions from the PM to the negotiators at Ghent. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that Britain wanted out of the war period. I can quote the burthen mass of a Wasp Class ship sloop, I can quote the BM of a cruiser class brig. From the discussions here I have serious doubts that some of the folks arguing have done the work to have a serious discussion. But, repeating arguments that have been already dealt with over, and over, and over, it gets wearing. The fact that annexation, the single most argued point, and one that should have been laid to rest long ago, is back in the serious discussion is beyond infuriating. It has been dismissed by the mainstream histography long ago. Tirronan (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI the article currently says that annexing Canada was just a matter of marching. And you're right, I am not here because of the War of 1812. I don't claim special knowledge of the topic and think that the infobox should reflect the article. So perhaps while we are fixing the references someone who DOES have topic knowledge can work on the focus. By the way, I did not mean you; while you've had some outbursts here so have we all, and I find it possible to talk facts with you, which is really all I fucking ask. Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it was Jefferson that first said that. Of course of anyone involved before the War he was the one that most set up the country for failure. It was a commonly held belief. It was also dead wrong. It takes serious levels of investment and training in logistics to run a successful campaign. Neither side did that very well. Let us get to the heart of the matter. This was a minor war in the grand scheme of things. It was also a complex war on multiple levels. I would prefer that all parties that haven't got a solid background on the war carefully read Stag, Toll, and Taylor, for a start. The bane of this article isn't the lack of goodwill, We are battling "what everyone knows." I honestly thought I had a good handle on this war until I really got to reading, and did a personal dive into the congressional archives. Afterward, I came to the reluctant conclusion that I'd been a fucking idiot. I didn't like that conclusion but it was a good lesson. Some things that are driving me insane are related to conflation. Modern Canada, and Modern America, have almost nothing in common with the time period discussed here. But those views are dragged into this discussion. Upper Canada, wanted nothing to do with the war, and they hated the Confederation. They came to hate Americans for the same reason. Pillaging and killing farmers in the region. Alan Taylors' book on that covers it well. It would lead directly into the Canadian semi-revolution of the 1830's. I came to the conclusion, regardless of feelings on the matter, that Upper Canada contributed nothing not mandated and enforced bu the authorities, to the war. Mark my words, the American settlers were not one bit better. We are trying to fix modern labels to a very different situation that existed at the time. I am proposing we all take 30 days, study up and then return to discussions. Tirronan (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The people who need to do it won't, is the problem with that. I personally don't care who won this war, and I have Nazis still to write about. I fundamentally want some very simple things: I want the references to work, for a start. Somebody spun some articles off the sections and left the sections intact, which is silly, and should be fixed by summarizing the sections, which will also help with the length section. ETC. Elinruby (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tirronan Please don't talk to me about the US not annexing Canada. No one outside the US believes the US wouldn't of annexed Canadian territory given the chance on the North border, the same as they annexed Mexican/Spanish territory on the south border. To quote the president of the United States, just before the war - “The *acquisition* of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching” -Thomas Jefferson, 1812. I suggest you get a dictionary and look up the word *acquisition*. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The US goal was to grab parts of Canada as a bargaining chip and return it in a peace treaty. Historians who have studied the American documents (like New Zealander Stagg) are well agreed. Canadians (like Benn) who have never studied the American documents repeat the claims invented after the war by pro-British elites (in what is now Ontario) designed to squelch democracy in Canada. Jefferson made a private comment to Madison regarding tactics but Jefferson never planned to seize Canada while he was president for 8 years. Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Rjensen Stagg is not a NZ Historian. He is a US historian, he has lived and worked in the US for decades, and refers to himself as being an American in this article. So that gives us a US historian who says the US wasn't going to annex Canada and a British historian who say they were.... which just seems to reaffirm that only Americans believe they weren't trying to annex Canada...... At face value, its hard for anyone to believe they wouldn't try to keep it, but I will read up on moresources. I do note, Madison himself seemed dubious about giving it back he said, which seems to indicate that while some may have had certain intentions, the reality on the ground was different "the effect of (military) success on the public mind may make it 'difficult to relinguish territory that which had been conquered'"  Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , why do you keep emphasising historians' nationality? This was already discussed here and you were the only one to support the alleged national bias of historians on who won the war. You do seem to conflate the views of American historians as representing the American viewpoint rather than a consensus among historians that the war was a stalemate which transcends nationalities. As you noted in your own list there, there are a decent numbers of British and Canadian historians who agree with the consensus. The infobox is about the battleground, military result which was a draw or stalemate whereas the main body is the interpretation of them, where we include all views. Davide King (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King Please read the actual posts - we aren't talking about *who won the war*, we are talking about *whether the US intention was to annex Canada*. They are separate things, with different historians writing on them. My suspicion is, that only US Historians support the viewpoint that the US had no intention of annexing Canada - and arguably that fact would make that viewpoint less credible, because it only has support in one country. In any case, it was Rjensen that raised the fact he was a new Zealender, you need to ask him why he raised it, not me - I just corrected him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are again assuming that there is a national bias among historians. The consensus is there is not, there are simply different national narratives. I think highlighted that for the simple fact you assume there is a national bias among historians. Davide King (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure Davide King if as you say, there is no national bias - Can you give me the name of a non US historian who states the US wasn't trying to annex Canada? Can you give me the name of a British or Canadian historian who follows the viewpoint that the US won the war? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How wonderfully vague. I think I know which documents you are referring to and their purpose was not to state aims and objectives but to blame Britain for forcing a war and it would be stupid therefore to include one's own imperial ambitions. Other American documents, such as the private letters of some very influential people, make it abundantly clear that they desired, "...the final expulsion of England from the American continent", "...to drive the British from our continent", "...to strip her [Britain] of her colonial possessions", "[To] never die content until I see her expulsion from the American continent and her territories incorporated into the United States". The acquisition of Canada had been an objective of the US since 1775 and it would be rather odd if, when given an excuse to, they didn't seize the opportunity. Jefferson wanted the annexation of Canada to be "...a sine qua non at a treaty of peace" and Monroe was of the opinion that it would be "...difficult to relinquish territory that had been conquered".--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * .-- Moxy 🍁 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * After a little bit of reading, I admit its not 100% obvious that the US wanted to annex Canada but there was certainly a lot of people involved that did. (1) The war hawks largely wanted to annex canada (2) The Generals were of the view that they were fighting to Annex Canada and I gather they wanted to (3) Some politicians didn't want to annex it, but wanted to use it as a bargaining chip (4) Madison I think wanted to get it as a bargaining chip, but also admitted himeself, that once they got it, they may be keeping it. So saying that 100% the US was not going to annex Canada, and if they did get it, they would hand it back to Britain seems to me, to be not supported by what I have read. I'm no expert on this area though. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

references in the infobox - Please revert
Davide King - can you please put the references back into the infobox? I have entered a few of those. Please ask here and discuss it before you go and make a decision like that to remove them please - that's an important decision to make. I see you are doing some good work on here, but some things need to be consulted. Can you please ask the editors here what they think before going an makieng changes like that? Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He took the references out of the infobox again? They need to go back. It's one thing to say see, doesn't this look better and another to just unilaterally change something; for a start he needs to say something. Elinruby (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See below. I did not take them out. Again, [r]eferences are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in info-boxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. I did move that to the main body, so the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere. I could have easily took them out but I did not do that and I simply hidden them, so that when one edits, they are reminded that information is already cited and discussed in the main body. Davide King (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did not took them out! I simply used <-- --> to hide them because the infobox should only use references that are not in the main body already such as the ones about causalities. But they are still there, so that when one goes to edit, one see them and so avoid adding a template like citation needed. I may add a further hidden note to clarify this. Davide King (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion, and we agreed to have them in there, can you not hide them without having a discussion here please? That would be great if you could put them back in. Obviously some of us want them in there, as already discussed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All good, I've put some new ones in (most of which aren't in the main body) Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not sure about that, I believe disagreed, pointing out the guideline which state references should not be in the infobox when they are already in the main body or the information is obvious, so we should simply add them to the main body. We should only leave refs for the casualities which are not in the main body. My compromise was to keep them there, but to hide them. Also, I would really appreciate if we could work to turn the remaining refs into sfns and if you could add year, publisher and isbn to refs which do not include them so that we can verify them. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well you and Elinruby discussed it, I think you dissagreed. References were put in there. I then started adding some. Then you hid them. There was no discussion for them to be hidden. I'm happy to have that discussion if you want, but my personal opinion, given the controversial nature of the page, is that they should be referenced. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We should follow guidelines. They tell us that refs should not be used in the infobox when they are already in the main body. Technically, they should have been simply removed from there since they are in the main body, but I did compromise to leave them there, just hiding them to comply with guidelines. This page needs work, but it is controversial because a few users hold a Canadian POV and believe in the myth created by pro-British elites in Ontario designed to squelch democracy in Canada. The Canadian win viewpoint is that the United States failed to annex them, so they won, but that is not true according to historians and when looking at American documents; it is moot. What we need to work on is the main body, to verify refs, add pages, improve wording, etc. Maybe the main body will look so different and we will have to change the infobox anyway, but for now can we please move on from this and work on the main body first? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's funny, my expereicne had been that the Pro Canadian editors were willing to have both viewpoints, while other perhaps Pro US editors were manourvering to relegate a mainstream viewpoint, that Britain had won, to fringe theory. The view that Canada won the war is not true to *some* historians, however others, quite notable historians, support it. Two views. Can we please stop debating this and just leave be? Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * you seem to really enjoy copy editing. My suggestion to you, made in all helpfulness and with a total lack of sarcasm, is that you explore the tasks at the Community Portal. The reason people keep yelling at you is that you really don't seem to understand some policies, and you keep working on big contentious articles where they really matter. I suggest spending some time at articles needing wikilinks, and maybe observing for a while at the NPOV or RS noticeboards. I am letting the commenting out of references go, even though TFD is wrong about that, because yes, I can still see them. But it makes my work harder for no good reason.


 * Yes we should follow guidelines, and verifiability trumps all of them. There is an unsubstantiated claim being made about preponderance of the evidence, which you have simply accepted and I am trying to substantiate. I am being hampered by the current format of the references and the fact that for whatever reason many of them have incorrect page numbers, so I am chipping away at that. But you are not really helping here when you run behind people changing hyphens to 1-em dashes. There is a lot to do here but if you don't want to do it, wiki needs copy-editors pretty badly all over wikipedia. That said I do give you credit for at least reading the damn article. Elinruby (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * did add refs, including one for the consensus among historians, so which ones do fail in the infobox? Draw? Military stalemate? Again, they are all cited in the main body, so we should not repeat them there and Moxy did add one ref in place of the unverified ones regarding draw. My compromise would be to hide them, but leave them there so that one can see which sources are used for each claim and verify that. Davide King (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * None of the pro-American writers ever used the term fringe theory. They were basically a mirror image of the pro-Canadian and pro-British editors, rejecting the view that the info-box should say the war ended in a draw. TFD (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the pro-US editors on here ever used the term fringe theory? Really?, because I have quotes of you, RJenssen and Davide King all referring to it:
 * (1) "We should mention that dissenting views exists provided we have reliable secondary sources that discuss the dissent. per Wikipedia:Fringe theories. (Note that although the term is generally derogatory, this guideline merely refers to views that have little or no acceptance in reliable sources.) TFD (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)"
 * (2) "Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century. Old notions become fringe when the RS drop them. A main flaw from Canadian perspective is it ignores the massive losses suffered by Canadian First Nations, who are now considered full :::::::::partners in Canadian history. Rjensen"
 * (3) "This is nonsense. This section is titled The Viewpoint that Britain won the war is Fringe Theory [sic] and it starts by saying TFD has made the claim that the viewpoint held by a number of historians that the war of 1812 was a victory for Canada is Fringe Theory. So how is it not about that? The bottom line is that the majority of historians say the war is a draw and you two want to give more weight to the minority views than is warranted. They are indeed fringe as argued :::::::::by The Four Deuces in the sense that they go against the established consensus (no pejorative here). Stalemate vs. not stalemate is still majority view vs. minority view. We should report the majority view in the infobox and discuss the minority view in the main body, simple as that. Furthermore, I agree with The Four Deuces that some sources used to support your point do not actually do that and there was a bit of synthesis and original research in doing it. For example, one source :::::::::used to support your claim still says By my count, we lost the War of 1812 and we lost Vietnam. That's not a widely held opinion in the United States about the War of 1812. The common view is that the war ended in a draw. Even Deathlibrarian admits Yes it is a minority viewpoint, because yes, more historians support the viewpoint that the war was a draw. But a minority viewpoint is not the same as fringe theory - they are different. Except that is exactly what it is. Fringe is not :::::::::used as a pejorative as Deathlibrarian seems to believe (showing a clear not understanding of WP:Fringe) but that it diverges from the mainstream view that war was a draw which is true.--Davide King (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)" Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we stop saying Canada won or Canadian win? Canada was not a country, so that was what I was referring to when saying fringe; both American win and British win are minority viewpoints that are already represented in the infobox with Both sides claim win, so what is your point exactly? However, you do not seem aware of the "milita myth" and you seem to show no concern for the Conservative Party's Harper's government's spending in how that affected the perception of the war. Again, you seem to use this alleged national bias so that all American historians must inevitably represents the American views rather than the consensus that it was a draw. We should move on from this and concentrate where there really is American bias; the military result is not that. Davide King (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course Canada wasn't a country - that's obvious. "Canada won" is shorthand ...it's what we use, because everyone knows what we are talking about. Technically, its "Britain, with their Canadian colonial allies supported by Bermudan troops and with assistance by various privateers" you can type all that out if you want. As for my point, I was responding to TFDs claims that no one uses the term fringe theory, when clearly they did. As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm not really sure why you are bringing all this up, but fine. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * u|Deathlibrarian, by "pro-American editors" I thought that you were referring to the editors who thought the info-box should shouldn't say the outcome of the war was a draw because some sources say the U.S. won. See for example Talk:War of 1812/Mobile. They are a mirror image of the pro-British/Canadian editors. They didn't argue that the Canadian/British victory theory was fringe. TFD (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm outdenting here, OK, I don't know but to my taste when you have military stalemate and status quo anti-Bellum, Draw just seems redundant. As for a British Victory, no that is crap. You don't sign that treaty if you wanted to win. The hard evidence is not refutable. It sounds as idiotic as Americans who go to the Vietnam War and claim we didn't lose. It is just dumb. It isn't a fringe theory, it is just out and out stupid. Tirronan (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree.about draw. And in fact, status quo ante bellum is just a description of the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, no? If it is a single entry (ie Treaty of Ghent: status quo ante bellum then this takes care of.my objection that it wasn't status quo ante bellum for the tribes. Just saying. That wording implies that the term applies to the signatories, which is true, without getting into the question of why the tribes were excluded.Elinruby (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be redundant, but it is widely used, so why not use it? And I thought military stalemate was more related to and the result of the treaty itself, hence why it is in the bullet list. We do say that it was not status quo ante bellum for the indigenous nations in Territorial changes.--Davide King (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about draw being in there twice as redundant. Tirronan as for British victory, that may be your personal opinion (which I personally think is completely wrong) but it's not the articles opinion, which talks about the various viewpoints. We are here as wikipedia editors, not writing our own articles. I'm not arguing this with you, as a huge debate about who won the war is the last thing we need on the talk page, seeing as its constantly getting too big and needing to be archived every three days! I'm happy to have a discussion with you about it elsewhere if you like. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King I'm pretty sure enough editors here support the view that in in the infobox, draw and stalemate are the same thing( and don't need to be listed twice).... that there is a consensus to change it. Tirronan, Elinruby and I do, there was one other editor that did. I've asked Yrkps to verify where he stands, he hasn't responded. But really mate, I know you don't see it that way, but I think that's the consensus and it should be changed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet, the same thing apply to Both sides claim victory which has been criticised by and  so by your logic we should remove that too, but we return to the starting point. Here, I did change * to ** so that both Military stalemate and Status quo ante bellum are the results of the Treaty of Ghent which established them. I think it is fine because, as noted by Tirronan, You don't sign that treaty if you wanted to win and this is consistent with your definition of stalemate [as] where both parties are blocked from winning (so neither can win). A draw is where both teams in a game get the same score. The Treaty of Ghent effectively blocked either side from winning, hence military stalemate is appropriate as ** in the bullet list as a result of the Treaty of Ghent. Davide King (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide KingI know you want it in there, and I've read your arguments, and I respect that. But this is a simple case of, it appears all the editors want something, so it appears to me to have consensus, and consensus should be respected. If someone wants to start an RFC for The British victory aspect coming and get consensus for that, they can go ahead, but that's a separate conversation. At the moment, we are talking about draw and stalemate both in there as duplicative, and it seems most of us think that, even people on both sides of the "Who won the war" debate agree on it. If you really feel that strongly about it, do you think it should be an RFC and a vote? I mean, draw can still be in there, just be combined with stalemate, its not coming out or anything. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, now I did use ** to make clear both military stalemate and status quo ante bellum are the result of the Treaty of Ghent, so maybe that is better? You write draw can still be in there, just be combined with stalemate, so what is the issue? I did not make it Draw/Military stalemate because it would look awkward, so I did put it under Treaty of Ghent and now I made it even more clear that it is referring to the result of the Treaty of Ghent, so it is indeed different in this sense and not a duplication. One concern was that status quo ante bellum is just a description of the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, no? If it is a single entry (ie Treaty of Ghent: status quo ante bellum then this takes care of.my objection that it wasn't status quo ante bellum for the tribes. I believe my change to ** addressed this point and is no longer a duplication because it is now explicity referring to the the Treaty of Ghent which established both.
 * You and others were the ones to claim there was a difference between both terms, so I simply acted accordingly. Why not make clear that military stalemate and status quo ante bellum were established by the Treaty of Ghent, which indigenous nations did not take part of? Whereas draw was the result on the battlefield as all sides achieved some of their military goals and simply agreed to a draw. By the way, this discussion should be about the references in the infobox; since they are already in the main body and verified, they should be removed per guidelines.--Davide King (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King Ok, once again you have removed the references from the infobox!  can you stop going off on your own and making changes without consulting the editors on the page? I've already raised this with you. Removing references from the infobox is a major change, not a minor edit, a number of us think they are important. Its not your decision they come out. Please revert it and discuss it here before you do it again, or I will. If the editors here want them to come out, well then good, but that's not your call. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not tag it as a minor edit and I linked to WP:INFOBOXREF which is pretty clear. Do not make me quote it again for you. We should follow guidelines, not our own personal views. If you have a problem, you need to change the main body. They are already cited and verified in the main body. There was even a ref for Treaty of Ghent. Do we really need one to verify the Treaty of Ghent in the infobox? Please, check pretty much all other war-related conflicts. No refs in the infobox is the rule, not the exception, when they are already cited in the main body.--Davide King (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, the wording about the general consensus of historians which you wrongly accused me of changing was first added days ago not by me but by here. If the source confirms and verifies Moxy's wording, it should be reinstated.--Davide King (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes sorry, you are correct it was Moxy, not you. As for referencing in the infobox, there are a lot of articles that do it, in particular war of 1812. All these have references in the infobox, that are also referenced in the body - all casualty figures Battle_of_Ogdensburg, Battle of Maguaga Battle of the Mississinewa and Siege_of_Fort_MeigsDeathlibrarian (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , again, if they are referenced it is only because they are not in the main body. Here, all those things in the Results are already verified and uncontroversial facts, so there is no need to repeat or add more refs there; can we agree to a compromise and only leave the refs for the casualties?--Davide King (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King Check again - all those links I posted, with reference in the inforbox ARE also refrencesd in the main body. For me, the casulaties aren't so important, its more the controversial facts - the references support them so people will think twice about changing the inbox. In the context of the arguments over the inbox, having to put refrences there means at least the statements are soucrced. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King I do admit though, I've only been able to find exampese where people have referencd casutalty figures. Let me see if I can see other examples. Clearly if this article is the only one not following the wikipedia policy, then we can't do that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the guidelines are clear. The fact some articles may have references in the infobox when they are already in the main body simply shows that they should be fixed too; or perhaps they are there because it is not discussed in the main body, so it is following the policy, but maybe those refs should be moved to the main body and removed from the infobox. Please, check World War I and World War II or other war-related good articles. They do not have refs for results and at best only for casualties. My compromise is to remove the refs from Results but leave the others about Strength and Casualties.--Davide King (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King Ok, I agree with you, I'll remove them. I in fact can't see any other pages that duplicate the references, except in the case of casualties - so obviously there is no precedent for the guidelines being disobeyed that I can see, as I added them in, I'll take them out. I guess if anyone else has an issue, they can raise it, but so it just seems to be me and you talking about it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

How Britain won the War of 1812: The Royal Navy's Blockades of the United States, 1812–1815
As the title of this book suggests, it is mainly about the Royal Navy's Blockades of the United States rather than the war itself, so it should not be used to claim British victory and is yet another proof Deathlibrarian is misinterpreting sources. This interesting review notes that it is about the effectiveness of the British blockade of the United States during this conflict and so this book should be used to reference the blockade, not the result of the war. It actually concludes by saying  and, any thoughts? How many historians, who are alleged to say Britain won, are left? Davide King (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've not read the book myself. So that leaves me with little to argue the case with. At least the guy is a historian. However, he makes the assertion that the blockade, however credible, lost the war for the US. This due to the supposed rack and ruin of the American economy. That is a hard case to make since most of the damage was self-inflicted. The preceding administration of Jefferson had solely relied on import taxes to fund the federal budget. This was continued on by the Madison administration, and the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin was a budget hawk with ultra-conservative on the matter. The lack of a functional Federal Reserve system, such as we have now was yet another issue. My understanding of the book is that it really concentrates on the blockade itself. If so then I would consider it along with Lamberts book, which I did read, To be good on its primary subject matter. Where it Lambert's book fails is when it gets off the subject of the Royal Navy. A look at the reviews shows a very uneven reception. Without obtaining a copy, which at $68.00 I'm unlikely to do, I can't offer further optinion. Rjensen would be the guy I would go to. He has access to academia's views on it. Tirronan (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment
commented, about me - "It is just trolling to get his way. We have been dealing with this for a decade. If it isn't pro-British then it is POV obviously. Frankly, he should have an AFD run for a topic ban for non-stop POV warring. Tirronan (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)" - This is the most recent of many comments Tirronan has made here concerning me. I would request a strikethrough for this comment, follow WP:CIV policy, and refrains from making comments like this in the future. I find it hard to continue workng on this page with a pattern of comments like this being posted. I have mentioned this on his talk page, but to no avail. Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss your frustrations were other editors. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. Also, you should not name other editors in the headings of discussion threads. TFD (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD Please check the policy page - You can speak about WP civility issues on the relevant talk page, in fact it says you should do that first before proceeding - wikipedia mentions it here.. I'm actually happy not too if people would prefer it, but I thought it best to mention here to try to clear this up before it went further, which frankly I'd prefer it not too so I can get back to normal editing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that. Either produce a direct quote or collapse this discussion page. TFD (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD Yes it does: *"In escalating order of seriousness, here are the venues you may use for dispute resolution if the relevant page's talk page is insufficient:
 * User talk page. If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page. Be careful not to escalate the situation, and politely explain your objection. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement. If you are in active dispute with the user, consider offering an olive branch to them instead.
 * Third opinion. This forum can be used to request outside input from an uninvolved user regarding the problem. Like many Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes, it is limited to encyclopedia content disputes.
 * Administrators' noticeboard (AN/I). The Administrators' noticeboard is intended to report and discuss severe incidents of misconduct that require intervention by administrators and experienced editors.
 * The last step – only when other avenues have been tried and failed – is the Arbitration Committee, who will scrutinise all sides involved in the dispute and create binding resolutions."Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By all means please do Deathlibrarian. Tirronan (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that. But you have already mentioned your concerns at 02:46, 7 August 2020. I don't think we need any more discussion of the topic on this page, since it is between two editors. TFD (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All good, it was only posted her for Tirronan's benefit, as I thought that was fair. This has now been listed on the noticeboard '''3O Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Third opinion requests are not for dealing with behavioral issues, and this has much more than two participants. If y'all are having a behavior issue, please raise it at WP:ANI with appropriate supporting evidence. Regardless, this discussion seems to have gone on some time without a resolution. Might I suggest a WP:RFC to help solve the issue? If I'm reading things right, the centerpoint of this disagreement seems to be about who won. From my perusing of the above discussions, it seems there was no clear winner, but since the disagreement continues, opening an RfC might be the best way to solve this argument once and for all. If y'all can point out the exact disputed wording I can help you craft a neutrally worded RfC. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks CaptainEek I suspected that, but it seemed to list it as an option in the order of escalation. I'll put it to WP:ANI. The editors I think are currently in general agreeance and balance with the "who won the war" issue after much discussion and hard work by a few of the editors, so I am loathe to open up the "who won the war" can of worms again by putting it to RFC.  Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

No clear winner
Seriously, what is Deathlibrarian's problem with this wording? Regarding this, As the war does not have a clear winner is literally a shorthand for some say that either british or US forces won as you wrote. It does not say the war does not have a clear winner, it says the war does not have a clear winner, meaning that some say one side won and others say the other side won. Also they really need to stop to make it weasel as they did there, by adding every time that when we say (while) there are (most) historians who says the war was a draw, there a (few) historians who say one side won; it is already stated in Popular views and elsewhere, no need to repeat that every single time.

We cannot keep the wording from the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 and remove the one Deathlibrarian does not like. They obviously like when it says and as a result historians have debated the conflict's outcome for nearly two centuries but before that it literally states The War of 1812 does not have a clear winner, saying that it is because the war does not have a clear winner that historians have debated it for centuries, hence my proposal to say As the war does not have a clear winner. So yeah, we should state both things, not just the part they like. By the way, this seems to be yet another misunderstanding on their part because they think that wording implies that it was a draw, when it does not! Clear makes it clear that it is just a shorthand for some say that either british or US forces won as they wrote, hence no clear winner. See their response here.

I would like and  to weight their thoughts on this. I find it absurd we are even discussing this, but they keep reverting me.

Davide King (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, their wording seems to be original research or synthesis, for their favoured wording states That is not what the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 actually says.

This is a summary of what the sources actually says There is no mention of some historians [who] state the war does not have a clear winner [or] others [that] point to a victory by either British or the US. It actually says that some argue both sides won and others that both sides lost. It says most historians reach the middle position that it was a draw. This is what the source actually says and Deathlibrarian engaged in original research and synthesis by distorting that and using other unrelated sources of historians who say one side won over the other. Davide King (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Just one last thing I realised. If the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812, which does mention minority viewpoints such as that both sides won and that both sides lost, does not mention the one side won over the other viewpoint, maybe it is because and  are right that Deathlibrarian is making it much bigger and significant than it actually is. Davide King (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't write "As the war does not have a clear winner"... because it is stating, in wikipedia's voice, that equivocally, there was no winner, and not all the sources say that. Some sources say there WAS a clear winner. Routledge may say there was no clear winner, but other scholars say that the US won, and some say Canada won. Routledge isn't some magic source that overides all other sources. Your need to follow NPOV and included all viewpoints. Davide King I don't have my whole life to spend on this, if you aren't happy to compromise, I'm going to revert that paragraph to the longstanding version and leave it there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, let us leave space now for and  to express their thoughts. We are already discussing this between you and I elsewhere at your talk page. Davide King (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Alright, in an article about war then the military outcome matters. No offensive land campaign by either side ever established itself. In and of itself, that would lead me to a draw, white peace, or status quo anti-Bellum. They all mean the same thing. Nothing had been accomplished so we are letting the boarders stand. Which the Treaty of Ghent acknowledged by intent if not by word. I would suggest that the term status quo anti-Bellum encapsulated that exactly. This is as non-pov as it gets because both sides of the warring parties agreed to it. To put a win in either side's favor then a capitulation would have to be enforced on the other party. America never had the power to do so. And, per Wellington's letter, neither did Britain. Ultimately the admitted victory by the British in the Atlantic Theather of War, didn't affect America. in fact, its GDP was growing at a very healthy rate. There was no import so vital as to stop the economy. America fairly won the majority of the Great Lakes, the last thoroughly contested. Again except for bragging rights, this accomplished nothing. The Guerra du course or commerce war was irritating to Britain, but nothing more. Nor, except for some financial losses to American Shippers, did it actually affect America. Quite to the contrary, it jumpstarted the industrial revolution in the US. For proof, I give you the "Age of Innovation" by Felix Janzen. Economically, America sure didn't lose. The British Empire did not miss a step either. Politically, I'm sorry but this was a major victory for the US. It obtained a lot of respect from both France and Britain in as much that in naval matters, and trade. Before this war, both powers were almost piratical in their dealings with American shipping. An attitude oft-expressed "if they can't be bothered to field a navy, then we shall do what we want." After the war, that no longer happened. For all the bluster, America was not willing to go tilt at windmills and stayed out of Canada. That was a British political win. It doesn't happen often but in my assessment, both Britain and Amerca came out of this war just fine. A side note, the American military establishment took long steps forward out of this war. The American Army would become a model for logistics support, planning, and operations, that remain a model to this day. Military colleges to this day compare the Mexican-American War to the Crimean War, as to the effects of logistics in war. This was a direct result of the War of 1812. If you have to have an outcome then my suggestion would be Status Que Anti-Bellum. Or, to make it more digestible to average reader, draw.Tirronan (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks, this was all interesting but thankfully I think we reached a compromise on the current one, so that is out. I was specifically referring to a wording in the Historians' views section. Deathlibrarian and I did reach a compromise for us to say  But I find the bolded part really unnecessary as it makes it longer when As the war does not have a clear winner says the exact thing more concisely; it is just another sneaky way to say Hey, look, it was a British win! It was not really a draw when those are not really significant viewpoints, so much so that they are not really mentioned in the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812. So it is still a bit of synthesis and original research to use this source and then use all sources that says one side won over the other and put them together as if they are due. If they are not mentioned in that book or held as significant, we should not do the same. I think  is good at individuating original research and synthesis, so I hope they can comment too.  By the way, we have one or more paragraphs for each viewpoint already. One for the both sides won, one for Britain won and a much shorter one for the United States won. I am just tired of Deathlibrarian adding while weasel words every time we discuss it, so that we say while most historians say it was a draw, there are a few historians who say Britain won. Yes, we know, we already say that, there is no need to repeat it twice or more in that section. We still do not say that militarily the consensus among historians is that it was a draw; we still say majority of historians, although given sources states it as fact and make no mention of prominent historians or views thinking otherwise. Deathlibrarian still think that draw is American POV. Davide King (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is just trolling to get his way. We have been dealing with this for a decade. If it isn't pro-British then it is POV obviously. Frankly, he should have an AFD run for a topic ban for non-stop POV warring. Tirronan (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, Tirronan as far as I am concerned, I am here to try to keep the bias off the page, and I continuously get comments from you treating my behaviour here as a pest. You have accused me of behaviour that deserves a topic ban, please start the process now as I would like to discuss why I shouldn't be topic banned, and as part of that, I would like to discuss YOUR behaviour here, including some of the things YOU have said, which I think don't follow WP:CIV policy. If you are going to keep threatening me with a topic ban, start the process. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King You proposed that new sentence, and I actually agreed with it and made the compromise. I thought that was two editors working together Isn't that what you wanted? Now you are continuing the debate - can't we just finish this and leave it as it is? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am fine with the compromise, but I am still convinced it as a bit of synthesis and original research of sources; and that the original wording was perfectly fine. You still give too much weight to the few historians who dissent. This is normal in academia and does not mean there is a dispute among historians. We should follow what the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 says to establish weight. It makes no mention of American or British win, so at least in that sentences we should not say that. We should say that later as we already do. Davide King (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * All good Davide King - I'm fine with the compromise - I'm not going to start the debate here again, its just me repeating myself. Thanks for your efforts here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Significant viewpoint
, could you please show us that a British or Canadian win and an American defeat is a significant interpretation as we currently say? What we need to do to establish weight is sources that explicitly talk and discuss the result and say what are the view of the historians. Do they actually say that this viewpoint is significant? The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 does not mention it. The fact some historians or scholars may held that viewpoint does not establish weight that it is significant. So unless we have sources that explicitly discuss the historians' views and say the British viewpoint is significant, we should simply say or  Otherwise it is original research/synthesis. Davide King (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Davide King, this has already been discussed above, so it looks like we are looping back and going over things that have already been discussed. I don't know if we should be saying "significant" (by itself) which I agree with you, by itself may be undue weight - the wikipedia terminology we should be using is "significant minority".
 * Wikipedia policy establishes three categoires of viewpoints - these are established by Jimmy Whales himself.
 * wikipedia says about the difference between the levels of views:
 * -"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * -If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to *name prominent adherents*;
 * -If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
 * The viewpoint that Canada/Britain won the war is supported by prominent adherents, scholars including JC Stagg, Pierre Berton, Elliot Cohen, Don Hickey, and many others. Some of these, including Hickey and Stagg, are especially noted experts on the war. Therefore, the view that Canada won the war is classed as a *significant minority*, and the weight associated with that category should be assigned to the relevant section of the article. I agree, more weight should go to the majority view that the war was a draw, the old(longstanding) : :section had more weight for the draw view, and I was happy with that. If you feel there is too much weight for the "canada win" viewpoint, I'm happy for it to be adjusted. At the same time, if we are adjusting weight, there are only two historians who support the view that the US won, and its not generally discussed, so that should be adjusted down as well - I don't know if that two scholars supporting a view is an *extremely small minority*, but the longstanding version had that viewpoint mentioned so it :should probably stay in, or have consensus with the page editors to come out - easier if it stays in. I would suggest if we are going to start playing about with the weight in a major(controversial?) way, we look at the weight that was given in the longstanding version for the three viewpoints (may be count up the lines for each one?) That text was agreed to in third party mediation by the main editors who are active on this page, and as part of that mediation, the weighting was established after much discussion. When I say much discussion, I mean weeks if not months. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think the issue is that, and I think you are giving it more weight than it warrants. Whereas you believe that viewpoint is 2, we support a mix of 2 and 3, namely that it does belong on Wikipedia (i.e. I am not opposed to us saying Some historians hold that the war was a British or Canadian win and an American defeat) but this is not a significant viewpoint or a viewpoint held by a significant minority and that majority and most imply some consensus; and that the consensus, at least militarily, is that it was a draw. By the way, it could be that you are misrepresenting some of those historians, for example Hickey; furthermore, Berton is a popular historian, Cohen is not a historian and if you count Hickey for this, then you should also accept us saying that, at least militarily, the consensus is that it was a draw (this is different from the interpretations; some reach the interpretation that it was a draw too, i.e. both sides won; while others reach the interpretation that while militarily it was a draw or inconclusive, one side obtained another type of win, whether diplomatic, strategic or whatever) because Hickey states it as fact that, at least militarily, it was a draw.
 * Again, we say Draw in the infobox (referring to the military result), so we should say that Militarily, the consensus among historians is that it was a draw or stalemate; because if there is no consensus as you claim (I disagree), then we should say Inconclusive rather than Draw in the infobox. I also suggest that you reconsider the As the War of 1812 does not have a clear winner wording, which is perfectly fine, because some say it was an American win, others say that it was a British/Canadian win, hence there is no clear winner in this sense. We should also re-add that wording because it is exactly what the source say and we should report what reliable sources say, not making our own original research. Davide King (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In short, whether this minority viewpoint is significant or not (it is not, although it is more popular than other minority viewpoints), this does not change the fact the consensus among historians is that militarily it was a draw and that the consensus among historians regarding its interpretation is that both sides won and the indigenous nations were the real losers. You think that just because there is a minority viewpoint, that means there is no consensus; but as was noted many times by, it is very common and even normal to have or hold minority viewpoints in academia; that does not change the fact there is a general consensus among scholars on a given topic or field; it does not mean or imply that by virtue of there being minority viewpoints, whether significant or not, then there is not a general consensus among them; there is and in this case it is what I outlined above. Davide King (talk) 09:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King We've been over the consensus argument many times, I don't really have anything else to add... If I did I'd just be repeating myself. Davide King my life isn't this talk page. I've spent ages talking on here, the talk page is huge (again) and needs to be archived, and here we are still arguing over the same old thing. Let it be. If you want to change the page so that it says "a consensus of historians believe the war was a draw" hold an RFC and see what people think. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think this could be solved without a request for comments, for Hickey and others states it as fact that militarily it was a draw, hence consensus. You disagree only because you conflate the military result with its interpretations. My proposal would actually be to simply state in Historians' views that Militarily, the consensus among historians is that the war was a draw or ended in a stalemate [...]. This is only about militarily and does not exclude the views of those who say the Americans, the British and Canadians won in spite of the military stalemate; it does not exclude those who say that diplomatically, strategically or whatever, it was a win for one side over the other. Davide King (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * From a strictly military view, and that is not the only one with this article, it is a slam dunk. This was a draw. From that I mean you have to go to the various war colleges and look at their take on the war. As in what they teach about the war from a military view on operations and outcomes. It would be very hard to come to any other conclusion.Tirronan (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. We have all those stating it as fact. That is consensus.       Davide King (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's comments were about whether or not an opinion should be mentioned, not about the info-box. Certainly we should mention the alternative views especially since they played a role in propaganda by both sides and retain a following in popular culture. Similarly, while we can name prominent adherents of the steady-state model, such as Fred Hoyle, the info-box for the universe says it is approx. 14 million years old. It doesn't say it has always been there or was created 6,000 years ago, because those theories do not have broad support. TFD (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Tirronan while I'm loathe to get in a big debate about it (and I am very happy to discuss the military aspect of it in detail with you, but I don't think its appropriate on the talk page, so name the venue and I will be there to discuss it) I would say there has been a shift in opinion for people to say that in fact, Canada won. 10/15 years ago, I was looking for sources that supported that view, and all I could find was Carl Benn and Hickey... two historians and then Latimer published his book so there was a third. We only had Benn and Latimer as a reference on here at the time... because that's all there was! Then there seemed to be a shift, and more opinions have popped up, and since that time, now there are a bunch of historians who seem to support a canada win option, for instance in this article Both historians interviewed said that Britain won... 15 years ago, you would never have two historians in the same article saying that.... there only seemed to be two in the whole world!  My theory is the 200 year anniversary focussed attention on the war, and people reconsidered it, and Canadian and British scholars have tended to support the Canada win viewpoint, with a few Americans. The other thing is comments on Social media. I have noticed that in the past, in traditional forums, the comments would most often say it was a draw, or the US won. Comments on youtube videos about who won the war of 1812, to me at least, seem to be at LEAST half the people saying they believe Canada won. That's only popular opinion of course, but its interesting. But thanks for the comments about the war colleges, its not something I knew about. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD Please, tell me you still aren't trying to equate the view Canada won with fringe theory? Do you actually seriously want to discuss this? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly an "Alternative theoretical formulation" from within the academic community. So is the steady state theory. It's certainly odd to claim that a country that did not yet exist and was not a party to the war was the literal winner. It's like saying Ted Turner was the real winner of the First Gulf War because everyone tuned into CNN. Not meant to be taken literally. TFD (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TFDWell firstly you seem to be comparing the Historians that support the canada wins viepoint with Fred Hoyle. The second line of Hoyle's bio on wikipedia refers to him as a controversial scholar "He also held controversial stances on other scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term coined by him on BBC radio, and his promotion of panspermia as the origin of life on Earth" because he doesn't believe in the big hang theory. Please look at the wikipedia pages for scholars like Ron Latimer JCA stagg Don Hickey Elliot Cohen and Andrew Lambert . These are all legitimiate scholars, not fringe theorists or "controversial figures". Does it say anywhere on their pages they are controversial?

Also, if you look at the page for steady-state model is actually says that the theory is outdated, there is evidence as to why it doesnt work. The other thing is, this ISNT science, this is history. It comes down to people's interpretation. There can be more than one interpretation of an event, particularly where a national viewpoint is to be taken into account - there doesn't HAVE to be only ONE interpretation of an event. Just because one interpretation has more support than another, doesn't mean it is correct, particularly when there are more scholars from a larger country supporting a viewpoint that supports the national narrative for that country. As for Canada not being a country, please stop telling me that - I KNOW it wasn't - I live in Australia, which was also a collection of British colonies that becasme a country upon federation in 1900, much the same as Canada did - so I am all to aware of the process. "Canada wins" is just shorthand for "Britain and its British North American colonial allies" or whatever... its just easier to type "Canada wins", and that's how people generally refer to the viewpoint. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King Your mentioned before "inconclusive" vs "Draw" in the infobox. From memory, the template guidelines for mil hist result fields does limit it to three (1)use X victory, (2) Y victory, or (3)inconclusive. I would have to find it again and check, but if that is right, yes I would agree with you, we should follow that and use inconclusive and not draw. I think its best to keep with wikipedia guidelines where possible, and I relented to agree with you about the references coming out of the infobox on that basis. However, for me, the main issue was that there was some representation of the various viewpoint in the infobox. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The "history isn't science" meme is shorthand for saying that we shouldn't treat scholarhip in history in the same way as in science. In fact the same principles apply when it comes to determining the degree of acceptance of any theory. Sir Fred Hoyle by the way was a great scientist (Director of the institute of Astronomy at Cambridge) who came up with novel theories of the universe that challenged orthodoxy, just as a very small number of historians challenge the consensus view on 1812. You seem to be unable or unwilling to comprehend the distinction between an alternative view, which may become orthodoxy one day, and pseudoscience. Panspermia is a legitimate scientific theory that has little support among scientists. But obviously we can name notable proponents.
 * "Canada won" is not shorthand. It means that the two provinces benefited independent of the actual outcome of the war, just as Louisiana benefited from its victory. Are you aware that Canada's executive was entirely appointed by the British governor who also commanded the armed forces? "Canada" had no say in its own government or the war. Although it had an elected lower house, the house was not consulted on government policy or war.
 * TFD (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD Really, if you want to believe the view that Britain/Canada won the war is fringe theory, and you are trying to equate with some controversial British astrophysicist from the 1960s, go ahead, nothing I am going to type here is going to change it. The war was a draw, and Canada/Britian won, are BOTH viewpoints of who won the war - neither is accepted as the correct view, and the other the alternate view, they are both mainstream views. You seem to be unable to comprehend that there actually may be multiple mainstream views in history, may because you have a science background? "Canada wins" I'm using it as shorthand, as many others do... do you honestly think I am only referring to the two provinces with Canada in their title? When people are talking about the war of 1812, and they say "canada" do you thnk they are just referring to the two provinces amd not the whole country? Seriously? Are you expecting them to say British North America instad of Canada?, because most people aren't familiar with that term. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the "small number" (16 I have references for) of historians that support the view that Canada won, - you state that's a small number, so for a comparison, how many historians support the American view that it was a draw? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , and here we got to the crux of the matter! You believe that the draw viewpoint is the American POV! That is absurd; the American POV would be that the United States won. Draw is not the American view but the consensus held by most historians. Davide King (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the problem is that sources do not really say Inconclusive, they say it was a Draw or Stalemate. I believe Inconclusive already includes subcategories of that like Draw or Stalemate, so it is not an issue. They state it as fact that militarily it was a draw or stalemate. That is consensus and is different from the interpretations which does not preclude historians in saying one or more sides one without disputing that militarily it was a draw. That is exactly what Hickey does. Hickey has argued sometimes that both sides won and other times that it was an American defeat, yet he always maintained that militarily (and he makes it clear by using militarily himself) it was a draw. Davide King (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King The template guidelines give you only two options, "X victory" or "Inconclusive". So if someone won, it would be "American victory" if its not clear who won, like a draw, IMHO, it would be "inconclusive". They recommend not using other terms, (though as discussed, plenty of pages don't follow these guidelines). However, if you do want to follow the guidelines, you should be using *inconclusive* not *draw*. That's jsut my opinion, I'm not to bothered to be honest. Milhist results field here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believe Draw and Stalemate are subcategories of Inconclusive, so we should simply use the wording that reliable sources say. They do not say Inconclusive, they say Draw. I do not want to discuss this again, I just do not think it is really an issue. If you truly care about guidelines, we should also say that the consensus among historians is that militarily it was a draw, that the draw view is not the American POV as you wrongly believe, but the consensus among historians; which does not entail or imply unanimity, nor does it deny minority viewpoints held by a few respected historians which we mention already. When most sources say it was a draw and make no mention of a dispute among historians, that means there is some consensus. I am also not sure about Both sides claim victory because only the Americans did with Madison's speech; the Duke of Wellington and the Edinburgh Review did not think it was a win; and for Canada it was the "militia myth" and the idea of loyalty that was used by the Family Compact to disenfranchise and suppress people. But I do not want to discuss the infobox again, so let us just leave how it is. Davide King (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide King don't stress, - I said it was just my opinion, and I'm not too bothered by it, I'm fine with it as it is. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer White Peace. None the less, my thought is that military stalemate would be most accurate.Tirronan (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus among historians
made this edit, changing general consensus to major [sic] view, but the long-standing version already included the consensus among historians has been that the war ended in a draw and Deathlibrarian was wrong about it when writing [i]t did not say it was a consensus before. However, the consensus among historians has been that the war ended in a draw was changed to [t]he general consensus among historians has been that the war ended in a draw in this edit by, who did add a ref to verify that. If Moxy's wording is supported by the reference, it should be reinstated and at the very least we should revert to the long-standing version before Moxy's edit which already included it. What are everyone's thoughts?--Davide King (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The longstanding version DOES NOT say anything about a consensus among historians that the war ended in a draw, what are you looking at??? This is the version from the 17 June the word consensus is not in the section at all! - you changed it recently to reflect that without discussion with the editors on here. Yet again, ANOTHER change you have made without asking the editors what they think. If you are going to go through this page making changes everywhere, for the controversial changes at least, please ask what people think. I ask people about relatively minor changes if I think its going to upset people. The post above this one is me asking about making a change because I didn't want to piss people off. Its the polite thing to do! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the longstanding version - its the stable version, has been for years - no mention of consensus:
 * "Historians' views
 * Historians have differing and complex interpretations of the war.[250] In recent decades the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. Insofar as they see the war's resolution as allowing two centuries of ::: ::: peaceful and mutually beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and marked by multiple fiascos and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failures to seize parts of Canada, ::: and the failed British attack on New Orleans and upstate New York.[251][252]
 * However, other scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. They argue that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada) and retaining their Canadian colonies. In contrast, they say, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada. Additionally, they argue the U.S. lost as it failed to stop impressment, which the British ::: ::: refused to repeal until the end of the Napoleonic Wars, arguing that the U.S. actions had no effect on the Orders in Council, which were rescinded before the war started.[253]" Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to read BRD. No one reverted that, so I thought it was fine and only strengthened it by adding a reference. We should verify it and change the wording accordingly.--Davide King (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read this: WP:CON "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals," That was the original version above - and its quite different to what it is now, in meaning and the text. That version has been there for YEARS and we spent a lot of time working on it. If there is a source that says that the consensus of the war that it was a draw, most other sources say "most" or the "majority" - there is a difference between *the majority* and "The consensus". The majority just means 51% and above, whereas a consensus is "a general agreement" - they have completely different meanings. We spent months in a third party mediation trying to get this section balanced and representing all views.,, it was even featured in a journal article. Not good. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed a lot of edits to the article, which I have not had time to review. I just want to say to that if you are going to BRD -- and in my opinion you should not given your faulty understanding of Wikipedia policy -- you need to be sure you are right. And  can revert you. After that neither one of you is supposed to edit the text in question without discussion. It follows that generally this policy should be applied sparingly lest it generate fifteen new discussions. I will also note that I see at least one major new error of fact. Elinruby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, let's also note that I have asked for and still not seen a reference for this "consensus of historians" claim and that even if sourced, this is not how Wikipedia documents controversy. Elinruby (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , consensus does not imply unanimity and most implies some consensus without dismissing the minority views which are always present in academia., see the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812. Please, enlighten me about this one major new error of fact. Davide King (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not mean unanimity. While there is a dispute over whether Jesus actually existed, the info-box for Jesus says that he lived between c. 4 BC and c. AD30. That's because the minority view that he didn't exist is insufficiently significant to challenge the consensus view that he did exist. If standard textbooks typically say without qualification that the war ended in a draw or neither side won or something similar, then that means that is the consensus of academics. We still haven't seen a textbook that says Canada won the war. TFD (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus - (Cambruidge definition) "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people" - we don't have that with Historians and the war of 1812, because some historians think Britain won the war, and some thing the US. Some think both sides lost, some think both sides won. There is no consensus on who won the war of 1812. *Americans* think the war was a draw - but not Canadians, according to "“In a relatively rare admission for an American scholar, a leading U.S. historian who authored a provocative new tome about North American military conflicts states bluntly that Canada won the War of 1812.”" this, and this "“By my count, we lost the War of 1812 and we lost Vietnam. That's not a widely held opinion in the United States about the War of 1812. The common view is that the war ended in a draw. There is a consensus the war was a draw....yes.... but only in America, not amongst all historians...amd even amongst US historians there are a few that don't think it was a draw, like Eliot Cohen, JCA Stagg, and Donald Hickey. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are again pushing your view there there is a national bias among historians on who won the war, but we already had a request for comments about that. Yet, Hickey is unequivocal when writing "Thus, after three years of campaigning, neither the United States nor Great Britain could claim any great advantage in the war, let alone victory. Militarily, the War of 1812 ended in a draw." So there is only one; actually not, because Cohen is not a historian, but a political scientist and his book was published by a partisan publisher, rather than the academic press. already discussed this here. As for your claim,  There is a consensus the war was a draw....yes.... but only in America, not amongst all historians, that is false. The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 says Most historians without any national qualifier; and it is also debunked by none other than... yourself here. You list at least 22 Americans, 2 British and 6 Canadians (!) who say the war was a draw and 4 Americans, 3 British and 10 Canadians who say it was a win for Britain/Canada. By the way, your same argument about Americans being biased apply to the British and Canadians who say their country won. Ironically, it seems the American historians are the least biased as rather then seeing it as their own country's win as Canadians do, they say it was a draw; and yet we still have 6 out of 16 Canadian historians who say it was a draw; only one British more who say it was a British win rather than a draw; and only three American historians who say it was a win versus the four American historians who say it actually was an American loss. That is all according to your own listing and notwithstanding 's comment that a British win is stupid and that the Duke of Wellington and the Edinburgh Review thought it was a British loss. Davide King (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both those references state that the war is only seen as a draw in the Unnited states, and they are both by recognised scholars. (1) The fact you have some other quote there from Hickey doesn't discount the first quote, which says the draw is mostly that was in the United states - the other quote doesn' contradict it, it doesn't say that Canadians also mostly see the war as a draw (2) Cohen is a recognised militiary expert, and a UNiveristy academic in militiary studies. Wikipedia doesn't requre for him to be a historian for his work to be recognised here, it only requires that his work is RS. You are estbalishing your own proof of test to this page, that is no Wikipedia policy. He has written on the area, he obviously knows the field. Yes, there was a previous discussion on national bias, bit NO - those references weren't part of the discussion, they are new (go and check the debate yourself). I don't have the routledge handbook, there's no copy onlne, so I have no idea what it says, or who actually wrote it - and so far, no one has actually quoted the text, so its all a bit of a mystery. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I asked you previously, Davide King if as you say, there is no national bias - Can you give me the name of a non US historian who states the US wasn't trying to annex Canada? Can you give me the name of a British or Canadian historian who follows the viewpoint that the US won the war? If there is no national bias, who do only American Historians support these two pro American viewpoints? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Davide King you are only using *part of the quote* from Hickey (The War of 1812, a Forgotten conflict, p 306, 2012 edition) - this is the full quote, from the more recent edition of the book - while he says the war was militarily a draw, he also says that the Americans failed to achieve what they wanted, and the British DID achiveve what they wanted. Hickey has said in other interviews, in additions to this, that he beilived Britian won. "Although the war ended in a draw on the battlefield, in a larger sense it represented a failure for American policymakers. The nation was unable to conquer Canada or to achieve any of the maritime goals for which it was contending. Indeed, these issues were not even mentioned in the peace treaty, which merely provided for restoring all conquered territory and returning to the status quo ante bellum. The British, on the other hand, had every reason to be satisfied with the outcome. They had held on to Canada and retained all of their maritime rights, and they had done this without short-changing their war effort in Europe. For the British, in other words, the return to the status quo ante bellum was a triumph, for it had demonstrated that they could defeat Napoleonic France in Europe while still fending off U.S. aggression in North America." Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you are conflating the actual, de facto result on the battlefield and the interpretation of it. Donald Hickey may personally believe or interpret it as an American loss, but says Did the cost in blood and treasure justify the U.S. decision to go to war? Most Republicans thought it did. In the beginning they called the contest a 'second war of independence', and while Britain's maritime practices never truly threatened the Republic's independence, the war did in a broad sense vindicate U.S. sovereignty. But it ended in a draw on the battlefield.
 * In other words, even those who may interpret the draw as a win or loss for one side or another do not dispute that on the battlefield it was a draw. They may say it was a British win because they achieved more of their military objectives and vice versa, without disputing that on the battlefield it was a draw. Similarly, Canadians may say they defeated the United States, but Upper and Lower Canada was just a theater of the war; and that, for example, the United States won the Gulf Coast theater as argued in the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 (p. 103). Therefore, my proposal is for us to say that the consensus among historians is that militarily the war ended in a draw, with the indigenous nations as the losers, but that there are several interpretations of it, where there is no explicit consensus. The majority view is that both sides won (except, again, for the indigenous nations) while minority views (some more significant than others) are that one side won and the other lost, or that both sides lost. In this case, there is no consensus on interpretation, hence we say majority view is that both sides won and I agree we should not say consensus. However, we should say that the consensus is that militarly the result of the war was a draw, which is supported by historians no matter their interpretation on whether both sides won or lost, whether there was one side that won over the other because it reached more military objectives, etc. Can we agree this compromise?
 * Note that I wrote this before before your newest comment. However, that just underlines my point; that militarily, the war ended in a draw and is consensus, but that there are different interpretations of it and in this case there is no consensus. I believe this caused many misunderstanding on both sides and we should separate the military result from its interpretations. Davide King (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, and what he is saying does support your point, that mlitarily you can have a draw, but one side can still win based on their objectives and what they achieved - that's the way he expresses. *However* you must admit, his other (CSmonitor) quote contradicts that, it says he doesn't think its a draw, he thinks its a British victory - the implication there they aren't compatable, you can have a British vicotry, or a draw, unless you are further qualifitying them (military draw but diplomatic victory). IN any case, I still stand by my references that say it was seen as a draw in the UNited States only. On top of this, there is a fair body of historians that say "scholars are still debating who won the war" - which in my opinion, directly contradicts the statement "Historians agree the war was a draw". The reality is, the former. Historians are still debating who won the war, some think it was a draw, some think Britian won, some think the US won. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think my view is that they are debating the interpretation of the militarily draw result and I agree there is no consensus (just some majority and minority views; when I was talking about consensus, I was always talking about the military result whereas you were talking about the interpretations, which I believe was causing some misunderstanding when in a way both of us were right); they are not disputing that de facto it ended in a draw or stalemate per the Treaty of Ghent. For example, Andrew Lambert says Americans began to rewrite the war as a victory, exploiting the ambiguity of the diplomatic settlement achieved in the Treaty of Ghent on 24 December 1814, a status quo ante compromise that did not reflect the depth of America's defeat. In my view, he is not disputing that the Treaty of Ghent established that militarily it was a draw or stalemate, but he interprets that to mean as a British win and American loss, without disputing the what he calls status quo ante compromise, essentially a draw. So yeah, I think those who say one side won are essentially saying that militarily it was a draw but that diplomatic, strategic or whatever else was a victory; or as you wrote, that mlitarily you can have a draw, but one side can still win based on their objectives and what they achieved. They are all legitimate points and I do not see them as necessarily mutually exclusive. Davide King (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "satus quo ante" The Treaty of Ghent doesn't say "draw" or "Stalemate" it says to return the land possessed to "status quo ante". That's not a draw - that's just an indication that land possessed needs to be returned and all foreign forces need to return across their borders. From the British point of view - they only ever wanted to force the US to get out of Canada and defend it, so they got their victory. Their objectives were obtained. US objectives were to invade Canada (for the purpose of getting various politics results, and some scholars would say to annex Canada and incorporate it into the US) - they failed. So the Treaty of Ghent, achieving "status quo ante" - isn't simply a draw. It achieves different things, depending on the two sides initial objectives. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I thought we had reached a compromise, so why doing this? You are again conflating the military result with the historians' interpretation of it. There is consensus on the military result that it was a draw, stalemate, whatever; there is not yet a consensus on its interpretation. Again, Hickey states it as fact that militarily it was a draw. If you are right that there is no consensus among historians that militarily it was a draw, we should say Inconclusive rather than Draw in the infobox. But we do say Draw because there is a consensus that was the military result. Well, I do not see how you cannot see that as a draw when it basically returns everything to before the war. You are again assuming that the United States just wanted to conquer and annex Canada, but there is no consensus on this; and the United States did won the Gulf Coast, defeated the British at Baltimore and New Orleans. In other words, both sides achieved some of their aims. Some historians interpret that one side achieve none of its aims while the other did, but that is an interpretation and it does not contradict the military result. You wrote it yourself, that mlitarily you can have a draw, but one side can still win based on their objectives and what they achieved.
 * That is exactly what those who say one side won over the other do; they do not dispute the militarily result, but they interpret it as a win based on their objectives and what they achieved and there is no agreement on this; the majority view is that both sides won and the indigenous nations lost while the minority view is that one side won over the other based on their objectives and what they achieved, not on the de facto militarily result on the battleground that historians like Hickey and others state as fact that it was a draw. The Result in the infobox is about the Military result, hence we say Draw. I was very careful in adding Militarily when writing Militarily, the consensus among historians is that the war ended in a draw or stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. I was also very careful in adding There are differing and complex interpretations of the war, with no clear consensus. A survey of school textbooks found that historians emphasize different aspects of the war according to their national narratives, with some British texts scarcely mentioning the war.
 * So please, let us accept this compromise. Davide King (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you - the majority view is that both sides won and the indigenous nations lost while the minority view is that one side won over the other based on their objectives and what they achieved. However, No, if historians are saying that the British/Canadians had a victory that means they think there WASNT a draw, so no they don't agree. Militarily, for instance, the US were forced out of Canada by the British, so a successful defence of Canada is a win - its not a draw at all, not in a military sense.  Hickey states that in his CSmonitor qoute "By my count, we lost the War of 1812 and we lost Vietnam. That's not a widely held opinion in the United States about the War of 1812. The common view is that the war ended in a draw" The definition of a victory is "an act of defeating an enemy or opponent in a battle, game, or other competition" the definition of a draw is "a game or contest that ends with the score even" - you can't draw AND have a victory, by actual definition of the words, you can only have one or the other. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , please, see also my comment below. The Upper Canadian theater was just that, a theater; the war was not only about that, so saying correctly that the Americans were defeated there does not imply they lost the war, which included other theaters that the Americans won, such as the Guld Coast for example. You are again confusing and conflating military result and interpretations. It is not mutually exclusive or contradictory to have militarily a draw and a diplomatic, strategic, or whatever victory, which is the interpretation. They agree on the military result; they disagree on its interpretation. A draw can be seen or interpreted as win and loss for one side and that is exactly what historians do when they try to interpret it. Davide King (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You wrote So the Treaty of Ghent, achieving "status quo ante" - isn't simply a draw. It achieves different things, depending on the two sides initial objectives. Here, you are doing exactly what I mean by historians interpreting the result. De facto, whether you like it or not, that is a militarily draw or stalemate, like the was never happened; however, depending on its interpretation, it could also be a win or loss for one side, but you are assuming this a priori. The majority view interprets it to mean that both side won; this does not contradict that militarily it was a draw. The minority view interprets it as a win for one side or another simply assume that one side achieved more of its objective or results, but this does not change the result on the battleground. The Americans lost in Upper Canada but they did win in the Gulf Coast, for example.
 * Some may say the latter win does not mean anything because the objective was Canada and they failed; or that impressment stopped only after Napoleon's loss, so this was another objective not reached, but that is just one view and there is no agreement or consensus on this and it does not change the fact that the Americans won that theater. Other historians consider the Americans reached this objective by the mere fact it stopped, no matter how; it did stop. Whether it was because of Napoleon's loss, it stopped and for them it is enough to say the United States achieved this one goal too. Similarly, other historians interprets it as an American win because they list different objectives and they were reached in their view, so it was a win for them; it is all subjective on which objectives one does consider, etc. Most historians do not see it as an American loss and see it as a draw because both sides achieved some of their objectives. Davide King (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words, when historians are saying one side won over the other, they are referring to interpretations. They are not saying that militarily the American, British or whoever won; they are saying they won because they achieved most of their objectives or simply more objectives than the other side. You said it yourself.--Davide King (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out before, Eliot A. Cohen is not an historian, he is a political scientist and his book was published by a controversial publisher rather than an academic one. He's best known as one of the warhawks in the Bush administration. TFD (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD As per usual, any reference or quote I put up here, you have to dissagree with. Cohen doesn't have to be a historian to have his work referenced here, that's your personal viewpoint, its not Wikipedia's - His work only has to be recognised as RS. I'm not concerned with your view on his modern politics, I'm not sure how that is relevant, but he has a PHD, he was an academic at *Harvard*, and at The Naval War College, so I'm pretty sure that qualifies him as a scholar. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD can you show the wikipedia policy that says that textbooks overide scholarly literature written by authorities in their field? - that is the opinions of the historians that say that Canada won the war? I'd like to see a link to it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Textbooks are scholarly literature written by authorities in their field, at least the ones used in accredited post-secondary institutions and particularly beyond first year. Per policy, reliable tertiary sources, such as university textbooks, do not override secondary sources written by authorities but instead summarize them and are helpful in determining due weight when secondary sources disagree. While secondary sources select facts and present the opinions of their writers, textbooks provide an overview of what scholars find important and their conclusions. That's why they are written. They are used to teach students to become experts themselves. TFD (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Although misrepresented above a few times and Canada being dismissed as a nation of people...How Lower Canada Won the War of 1812 - by Desmond Morton.-- Moxy 🍁 23:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you be less crytpic? What's your point? TFD (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * According to that policy link, scholarly articles are secondary sources, and do not overide textooks and the like, because they are only tertiary material. Yes, they "can may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other". Hoewever, no, they can't overide primary sources. So a textbook from America saying that the US won the war, doesn't overide articles written by scholars in acadeamic works saying Britain won the war. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is my view too; that consensus does not imply unanimity or that there can be a few scholars who hold a different position while the consensus remains that it was a draw; indeed, if there is no consensus, we should say the result was Inconclusive but that would not be true because there is a consensus. Most historians, as used in the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 which we should use to establish weight, means consensus that it was a draw. The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 does not seem to support the claim that a British win is a significant minority, so we should simply say that it is a minority view. However, I agree with that we should establish weight and that Deathlibrarian is giving it more weight than it warrants. Deathlibrarian cannot simply list sources that say Britain won; we need books like the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 to see if they are discussed there or are significant to establish weight, otherwise it is original research or synthesis. Davide King (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

By your reasoning, "Contending Liberalisms: Past and Present" (Richardson, James L., European Journal of International Relations, 1997), is an article written by a scholar in an academic work. But the same article published as "Contending Liberalisms" in a textbook (Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power, Lynne Rienner Publishers Richardson, James L., 2001) is not. Why are they different?

I don't think you understand the connection between journal articles and textbooks. Textbooks don't override what is written in reliable sources, they summarize them. In a recent noticeboard discussion, an editor brought up an article that claimed the Indus civilization might have performed astronomical calculations as long ago as 8,000 BC that were not made in Europe until AD 1500. No textbook has taken notice of this claims. Do you think ignoring the paper in an article is overriding scholarship? Why should we give it more attention that it receives in textbooks?

If you don't think we should follow WP:TERTIARY, how do you propose to determine the relative weight of opinion? Will ou poll the tens of thousands of papers that mention the outcome of the war and determine what they say? Why is your judgment better than that of textbook writers?

TFD (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I tell the students "Textbooks, encyclopedias, and books published for commercial audiences often do not count as academic. Textbooks can be good sources of general information, but would not be considered peer reviewed sources" link. -- Moxy 🍁 17:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty much where I am as well, peer reviewed sources are the standard these days, and that's what I tell our students - though I also say that anything coming from a recognised authority in the area may also be acceptable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find that quote in your link. I think anyway it is a reference to introductory textbooks which typically have no footnotes and are rarely cited in the literature as opposed to advanced textbooks. It does say that scholarly books from academic publishers are acceptable sources. These books are typically used as textbooks in advanced studies. The textbook I mentioned for example has 77 cites in google scholar. Also, review studies are tertiary sources that are peer-reviewed and published in academic journals and therefore good sources.
 * However, Wikipedia policy is that tertiary sources, including those prohibited from use by your source are a good way of determining weight, which is the issue here. There is no question that a book that says one side or the other won the war is a reliable source for that opinion. This is not an issue of whether we should use tertiary works as sources, but whether they can assist us in determining weight. But how would you tell your students to determine weight?
 * TFD (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The example you've given is just one textbook that has a peer reviewed journal article in it. We are talking about textbooks generally, which generally don't use journal articles for content. For weight, I would be looking at what the scholarly works themselves say "Most people scholars support this view" "some scholars support this view" - references like that in the secondrry sources. As per wikipedia policy, if you have a body of adherents to a viewpoint, it counts as a significant minority. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The journal article was expanded into a textbook. The topic is disputes within liberalism and the book could provide a guide as to the relative significance of each position. Incidentally, here is more clarification about the use of tertiary sources, from the U of T Library. Perhaps you could answer my question: how do you determine the relative significance of opinions about a topic without consulting tertiary sources? Even the most biased sources have some criteria for determining which views should be stated as fact, as a minority opinion or ignored altogether. TFD (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You consult the secondary sources, as to what they say about weight. Whaty they say about weight can't be overidden by tertiary sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources also say that the consensus view is the war was a draw. Out of curiosity, why do you think that using tertiary sources is a policy, if it is not supposed to be followed? You might want to get it removed. TFD (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They don't. Secondary sources say that *most* historians say it was a draw. *Most* and *consensus* are not the same. Consensus is a "general agreement", most is just "a larger amount". They also say its most *American* historians, not Canadian or British. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When in your opinion does a majority become a consensus? TFD (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well a consensus, by dictionary definition, is a general agreement of scholars about one view - I guess, where the the body agree on something, and there is no serious/mainstream/defendable challenge to that conclusion. A majority, is simply the largest number. So 51% of historians saying The UN won the Korean war, and 49% saying China won.....is not a consensus, its only a Majority, as there is a dispute amongst historians about who won - they *aren't in general agreement*. There is a consensus that the Native Americans were the losing party in the war of 1812, because there is a broad agreement among all historians (including on both sides of "the who won the war?" question") that this was the case, I've only seen one source that said the Indians won the war of 1812. For example, Alexander Graham Bell is commonly said to have invented the telephone, but most Italians (including Italian Historians) would say Antonio Santi Giuseppe Meucci did - so I wouldn't say that the the consensus of historians say it was Bell, though maybe that is the consensus of US historians? (my reading of it that it was actually Meucci, but that's another arguement I probably don't need to start here! :-) ) Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * .-- Moxy 🍁 02:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's what James F. McGrath wrote:
 * "On the academic end of the equation, there are some matters on which there is an overwhelming consensus, and some on which there is essentially none, as well as a full spectrum in between. If scholars almost all agree, one should embrace that consensus if one is an outsider to the conversation. Some academics will try challenging the consensus as part of our academic work, but that’s our role and does not mean the consensus is in fact wrong. It is a testing, not a negation of the consensus.
 * "As for where to look, I think that the best place is a mainstream textbook. In a textbook scholars will almost always present the consensus, even if they try to challenge it even in that context on some points."

In contrast your position is teach the controversy, which is to claim that the existence of alternative views means there is no consensus. That is a popular argument in climate change and creation science.

I am confused why you would use the Korean War as an example. There is no academic argument over the outcome, just a claim by the North that they won because they were not annexed by UN troops. But the info-box doesn't mention that alternative view.

TFD (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "If scholars almost all agree" but clearly that is NOT the case here - its the war of 1812 - its the *Classic example* of a war that people dissagree over who won. Scholars have been arguing about it for 200 years. They still dissagree over it - the article itself even states this, with references to support. The Korean war is just a hypothetical example, I have no idea what the academic ereguments are for each side. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It's just what the passage says. The consensus is that the war ended in a draw, which is shown by textbooks treating it as a fact. A very small number of historians challenge the consensus. It's actually far smaller than you have alleged, because you have included popular historians and misread professional historians through cherry-picked quotes. TFD (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD What rubbish, I have about 40 sources that say it was a draw, and about 16 that say it was a win for Canada - that's not a "very small number". Firstly you should take into account that some of them are noted Historians and some of the main experts on the war, and apart from the number, there are two sources that say it is split on national lines, with most US historians supporting a draw, but Canadians and British historians not. As for my references, - you have *always* rubbished my references. I'll provide 10 historians that state that Canada won the war and you will find some way of dismissing all 10 of them, either the credentials of the scholars for some reason, or some odd way of twisting what they say to mean the opposite. I'm not debating each reference with you again, I've made the mistake of doing it in the past, and its just a rabbit hole of frustration and wasted time. Thank you for the discussion.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's change the bet. You provide ten sources by professional historians that say Canada won the war and if any of them are either not professional historians or you have misrepresented them then move on to arguing there is no consensus on climate change or evolution or whatever other causes you might want to champion. TFD (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Davide KingPlease stop trying to clain there is a consensus of historians that view the war of 1812 was a draw. There is a majority of historians who see the war as a draw, there is still signigicant dissagrement among scholars. The word consensus never appeared in the orginal longstanding section, and you need to reach agreement here with the editors before you change that, as it is a significant change. I ahve told you before about coming on to this page and changing things with out getting input and agreeance from the other editors on this page. If you keep changing it back, I will revert the whole section to the longstanding version and we can have an RFC on whether there actually is a consensus among historians that the war was a draw and it can be discussed properly by all the editors on this page, rather than you decising. YOU CANNOT have a consensus of agreement on a draw, while there is a signigicant body of scholars that believe Britian won, and some other scholars that think the US won as well. THAT IS SCHOLARS IN DISAGREEMENT. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are again conflating the military result with the interpretations! Again, if there is not consensus on the military result, we should not say Draw in the infobox but Inconclusive. Yet we say Draw because that is the consensus among historians. Given refs do support that claim as they cite it as a fact that militarily it ended in a draw. You again conflate historians such as Hickey who state that militarily the war was a draw with their own interpretation of it that it was a win for one side over another, or that both sides won and so on. Here, you are again giving too much view to the British/Canadian view, which is incidentally yours. The first paragraph is only about the military result! The second paragraph is about the interpretations and is where we can cite all viewpoints. As the War of 1812 does not have a clear winner is referring to the military result, that de facto it was a stalemate because the Treaty of Ghent did not establish a clear winner. Davide King (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Draw is not the consensus of historians, and it shouldn't be in the infobox either. I am not conflating them - Historians do not agree the military results was a draw! Yes, my references state it was a win for Britain, which means from their perspective, it was not a draw. The Treaty of Ghent established peace - it didn't have winner or loser on it! The section was fine and balanced until you started re-writing it, trying to insert your own viepoint about consensus in there, and changed the old version. Please leave it be. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your phrasing violates WP:WEASEL: "While some historians say the War of 1812 does not have a clear winner, others say Britain won." It falsely implies that the two views are balanced. It's like saying, "While some scientists say that the earth is warming, others say it isn't." TFD (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you said it yourself, The Treaty of Ghent established peace - it didn't have winner or loser on it! That sounds like a draw! By the way, I already removed consensus and restored majority, so can we please leave it like that? I agree with that your version was WP:WEASEL. By the way, if you say it shouldn't be in the infobox either, you are ruining all our work of compromise we reached and neither Both sides claim victory should be included. Furthermore, you really are conflating the military result and its interpretations by historians; that militarily it ended as a draw, it is stated as fact, there is no mention of minority views that say militarily it was not a draw. Because there is no military interpretations that it was not a draw; the interpretations who say one side won over the other are not mutually exclusive and do not contradict the fact that on the battleground (which Hickey emphasised) it was a draw. So yes, you are conflating the military result with the possible interpretation that it was a diplomatic, strategic, or whatever win for one side over the other. Davide King (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you have a problem with As the War of 1812 does not have a clear winner, that is because you are misrepresenting does not have a clear winner to mean a draw, but it may well mean or referring to that some say it was a draw, others that it was a win over the other, so I really do not understand what is your issue with this wording, which is literally what the given source says, not Some historian says. You are giving too much weight to the British view which is still a minority (interpretation) view. The majority (interpretation) view is that it was a draw, so why should we use your wording that is weasel and gives too much weight to that minority view? That is also not the right place; we should first state the majority view and then all the other views. We already say A significant interpretation is that of a British or Canadian win and an American defeat despite the fact I believe that wording gives it more weight than it warrants and that was clear about what they thought about it, yet I keep it as a compromise. Davide King (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * TFD Davide King I agree with you completely, they are not balanced, more historians say that the war was a draw than the british win. I'm happy to change it to reflect that. My point is, equally NOT all librarians say there was no clear winner, because some say that the British won. Thats not weasel words, that's representing the current views on the who won the war of 1812. The MAJORITY of historians may say its a draw, BUT NOT ALL. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , again, you seem to interpret that wording to mean that it was a draw, but not having a clear winner may well mean that some historians say one side won while others say the other side won, so in this sense it is true that the war does not have a clear winner. Davide King (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Given source actually says
 * We should follow what the source says and I believe the wording I used did exactly that. Davide King (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's just once source that says "there was no clear winner". That source doesn't automatically overide other sources. Troy Bickam thinks the US won "“true primary issue of the War of 1812—whether or not the United States would be respected as a sovereign nation rather than humbled as a quasi-part of the British Empire—was resolved, and Britain had lost,” Ron Daal VERY CLEARLY says that Canada won ""Britain was a winner…. Canada was a winner…" "Final conclusion: the United States was not a winner in the War of 1812. The headlines in a newspaper after the Treaty of Ghent was signed could have read, The War is Over, Canada Won!" Peter McCould also says that Canada won the war ""for canadians, it's self evident - we won the war"" - none of these people are saying there was no clear winner, they are all saying they think someone won the war. Is should be, correctly "historians disagree on who won the war" - not "there was no clear winner". Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , do you not see how that actually supports no clear winner wording? Because Bickam says the United States won, Daal says that Britain won and so on. Hence, no clear winner because they disagree on who actually won! The fact you do not see this is beyond me and I do not know what more to tell you. Davide King (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've modified the wording to make it more neutral, so wikipedia is not taking a stance, stating that Historians disagree on who won - I hope that is a good compromise. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I for one would like that and  verify the above sources you mentioned here, whether they are historians and are really saying what you interpret them to say. Here, you say that Its not appropriate for wikipedia to make statements and interpretation. Wikipedia must be neutral, it can't state "There was no winner" - Some historians say there was no clear winner, others say there was. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the balance but the given source actually says The War of 1812 does not have a clear winner and you are acting that is just a view of a historian when it in a Handbook of the War of 1812 and establishes weight. You are again giving way too much weight to a few historians who say Britain won and again conflating the military result, which is stated as fact that it was a draw; and the interpretative result, on which there is no clear consensus and the majority view is that both sides won while the indigenous nations lost. All those ones you listed above are interpreting the result, they are not disputing that militarily it ended in a draw, just that one side scored more points and so in their view they were the real winners. If the British win viewpoint is not mentioned in sources such as a Handbook of the War of 1812 or other secondary and tertiary sources, that means they do not hold the weight you want us to attribute them. Davide King (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , for example, you quote Peter McCould as saying for canadians, it's self evident - we won the war but that to me sounds like McCould is actually reporting the popular Canadian views, i.e. this would go in #Canadian views, not in #Historians views; and this is not the first time you confuse or conflate the two. Davide King (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , have you not noted how in the two paragraphs starting Historians who believe that both sides won, that American won or that Britain won do not dispute its military result or how they do not say it was a military win for one side over the other? No, they simply claim one side won because it reached more objectives than the other, etc. So the British won because Similarly, they argue the Americans won because  And because they  That to me does not contradict that militarily it ended in a draw. It is all subjective on which actual military objectives there were and who achieved more of them in spite of the stalemate and the return to the status quo ante bellum stipulated by the Treaty of Ghent. Davide King (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - as you say, the "majority view is that both sides won" I AGREE with you. The MAJORITY is not ALL. Miltiarily, if the invading forces are pushed back, then as per the references, Canada/UK won. They didn't push them back with social or economic means, they weren't pushed back because of weather conditions or earthquakes, they were pushed back *militarily*. So obviosuly, that is a military win. Not all historians say that, but some do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are again pushing the view that the invasion of Canada was what the war was all about! The British were defeated at Baltimore, New Orleans and elsewhere and failed in their invasion in New York. In other words, the United States were defeated in Upper Canada, but they won in the Gulf Coast, that sounds like a military draw and stalemate to me.
 * The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 says: The As the War of 1812 does not have a clear winner wording is perfectly fine because there is not a clear winner! Some say Britain won, others say the United States won; hence, there is no clear winner, what is so hard to understand? That wording was perfectly fine. Davide King (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words, you take any instance of Canada won to have won the whole war, perhaps because in Canada the war was all about the American invasions but factually it was not and there were other theaters, when they are merely talking about the Upper Canada theater, one front. You take that to mean Canada won and the United States lost the whole war, when the Americans won the Gulf Coast. So Canadians may not consider all those achievements by the United States listed above because they did not concern them, but I do not see how one can rationally look at it and believe the United States lost; the only reason is to make the claim that the main reason for the war was the annexation of Canada but, whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, it was not that. You are giving too much weight to this minority viewpoints and in many cases misrepresenting or misinterpreting them; and you fail to understand consensus in academia which does not mean unanimity and that when most historians says it was a draw, that is consensus, which does not exclude minority viewpoints. The fact the United States was militarily defeated in Upper Canada does not imply they were militarily defeated elsewhere or lost the whole war. Both sides won and lost on different theaters, so to me that sounds like a draw or stalemate; and that both sides won as they achieved some, if not all, objectives, whether during the war or immediately afterward, like British impressment. Davide King (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I saying that all of the US invasions of Canada failed? Yes I am, because that's what all the sources I have read said. I have never read that the US invasion of Canada was *partially* successful - this is news to me, and the article certainly doesn't say that, and I would like to see your source that makes that claim. If you want to start a debate that the US somehow finished in a superior position at the end of the war (the end of 1814), you would be wrong. The British army held part of Missouri/Illinois, almost half of Maine, some territory in New York around Fort Niagara, and Fort Bowyer. In contrast, the Americans (as far as I am aware) held one piece of Canadian Territory in Upper Canada, around Moraviontown. However, the British still had an army campaigning on US Soil, preparing to attack Mobile (probably to give back to Spain), and because they controlled the water, the RN could land Marines where it wanted to. The Brits also had the Royal Navy blockading all the US ports so that Imports could no longer get in and most ships couldn't get out, - Britain had a stranglehold on the US economy. As far as why the US lost, they failed in all their objectives, (including..and especially their objective to annex Canada) except for the Indians, whereas the one main objective of Britain/Canada was to defend Canada, which they obviously did. So clearly, yes the US failed in 3 out of 4 of their objectives, whereas Britain/Canada achieved their one objective. So based on objectives, yes it was a British win. If a country decides to invade you, and you defeat them, and boot them all their forces out, - any sane person would call that a win for the defender. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please lets not start the debate about consensus again. I've got other things to do in my life than type into this talk page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am replying to you back because you did not actually reply to my point; you simply reiterated the British/Canadian viewpoint interpretation of the war. I never argued that the US invasion of Canada was *partially* successful or that the US somehow finished in a superior position at the end of the war nor that the Americans won the war (I think militarily it was a draw and that interpreted it was a de facto draw too as both sides, except the indigenous nations, won), I simply quoted to you what the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 actually said. You did not reply to any of that. We should follow sources, not our own interpretations as you are doing.
 * By the way, I find it curious you wrote the US somehow finished in a superior position at the end of the war (the end of 1814) as the war actually ended in 1815 and saw American victories such as New Orleans. What you just did is simply reiterating the British/Canadian interpretation, you are not being objective. You wrote This is exactly the British/Canadian viewpoint. which you are acting like it is the impartial/neutral viewpoint. says; it is not. That is exactly what historians who hold this view say; they say Britain/Canada won because the United States failed in most, if not all, of their objectives, but this is just a view, a minority view which  and  believe you are giving more weight than it warrants. You have yet to reply to the point that the Americans did win the Gulf Coast theater, like it did not matter because to you the war was all about Canada. Militarily, there is consensus the whole war, not just the Upper Canada theater, was a draw.
 * Donald Hickey said In my view, Hickey is referring to the historians because the popular American view would be that they won and is merely expressing his interpretation. Yet, Hickey is also clear that militarily it ended in a draw; he states it as fact and so should we. That is consensus. The various national interpretations are another thing, which you do continue to conflate, and we do not say there is consensus on that. Davide King (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Elliot Cohen is not a historian, don't quote him at us again as proof. Makes it look like you are reaching. I could do a bit of research and find hack historians that say the British lost, it doesn't lend credibility to MS Historian who hold contrary views.Tirronan (talk) 08:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I have been told he is not a historian. (1) He does get referred to as an historian, even though he hasn't got history quals (2) He does have Quals in Military strategic studies, including a PHD, so arguably, he can comment on the war from that academic viewpoint (3) wikipedia doesn't stipulate that you ahve to be a historian to have your work references on a wikipedia page, and we shouldn't be applying our own personal rules to a page (4) He was an academic at Harvard, and he is notable enough to have his own wikipedia page (5) You calling him a hack, and TFD talkign about his personal politics doesn't really tell me why he shouldn't be referred to here. You know, I'm not 100% for using Cohen, if there is some evidence that he is controversial, I'm happy to stop referring to him, but I haven't seen that - if you guys want to show it to me, please do. People on wikipedia (and certainly on this page) will attack historians with viewpoints they don't like, so I don't dismiss a source simply because someone with an opinion opposing that source sasy doesn't like the historian. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , we do not say that he is a historian, we say that he is a political scientist; and the section is titled Historians' views because only historians should be there. These writers and all your POV can go in Popular views, which you do not seem to distinguish. Furthermore, you are probably misunderstanding those same sources. You interpret them saying Canada won as implying they won the whole war (but they cannot possibly have won because there was the Goal Coast theaters and others which the Americans won or were not defeated) when they are merely saying they won the war in Upper Canada. I believe said it best when writing "Canada won" is not shorthand. It means that the two provinces benefited independent of the actual outcome of the war, just as Louisiana benefited from its victory. Deathlibrarian is misinterpreting it to fit their POV. By the way, I would really appreciate if those historians mentioned, namely J. C. Stagg, Pierre Berton (a popular historian), Elliot Cohen (not a historian) and Donald R. Hickey (a historian who states it as fact that militarily it was a draw); and well, just Stagg. Does Stagg actually support what Deathlibrarian is implying? Does he actually say that militarily it was not a draw or stalemate? Does he say Canada won as shorthand as Deathlibrarian implies or as not a shorthand for that as The Four Deuces explained? Davide King (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is called a reach, you have been told Cohen isn't a historian, knock off the blogging the answer is no.Tirronan (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

"Battle of 1812" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Battle of 1812. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 16:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)