Talk:Treaty of Ghent
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on December 24, 2007, December 24, 2008, and December 24, 2009.|
- For an international treaty, it is undoubtedly the one in Belgium rather than any of the U.S. places. older ≠ wiser 11:09, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There are certainly a large number of examples of encyclopedic articles that include original text, and even complete texts, and I'm sure readers would find the actual text of the treaty very useful. I understand though if this is your article. --Atticus 02:10, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- No, it is not my article. It is Wikipedia convention that articles do not contain the entire original text of source documents. That is precisely what Wikisource it for. If you want to add the text there and put a link to it here, that would be just fine. older ≠ wiser 02:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I took the text of the Treaty and added it to WikiSource as Treaty of Ghent. Lvr 10:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree the full text isn't needed, but it would be nice to have a description of the contents. It seems odd to have so much detail about the negotiations, and then almost none about the outcome.2001:470:1F04:3DF:0:0:0:2 (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
................................ The negotiators of this treaty included Jonathan Russell and not John Holmes as listed.
In the revision of 22:45, 10 January 2007, user Rjensen added the statement "The U.S. never wanted to annex Canada, only to seize parts for bargaining over other issues." and deleted text from previous revisions that conveyed the opposite view. Rjensen's assertion regarding U.S. intentions towards Canada certainly appear to be at odds with statements made by U.S. "war hawks" preceding the war. In order for Rjensen's change to stand, Rjensen must provide specific references to support his/her assertion about U.S. intentions towards Canada.
R. A. Hicks 07:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Britain had not made any significant gains, except for the burning of Washington D.C.
wtf? Burning down the WHITEHOUSE is insignificant? Sure, according to U.S. textbooks perhaps... which don't even mention the war surprisingly ;)
Annex, no; conquer, yes.
There is something weird going on here. Rjensen's statement in the section above appears unattributed, but he did sign it. And some minor vandal has a comment that doesn't show on the page. Can anyone clear this up?
- To the main point. It is noteworthy that Rjensen's last cite (Burke, 1940, I believe) was at the heighth of the lend-lease program, when the UK was desperately trying to enlist US involvement in the war against Nazi Germany. Wouldn't do to accuse the US of territorial aggression then, would it? However, the official history of the US Army states that the conquest of Canada and Florida were definite goals of a Congress dominated by war hawks. I have added the appropriate ref to the article. A
fuller (brush?)more complete discussion can be seen on Talk:War of 1812 Now, I hope this shows up. - Esseh
The "war hawks" did not dominate congress. There were only twelve (12)of them for Christ sake. You people have to resort to lies to make your points. No permanent conquest of Canada intended. The British burned Washington, NOT the Canadians as taught in their schools. They deliberately lie to their own kids. And where in the hell did a British army roaming around the interior of the US come from? The Canadians seem to think it was the same army that burned the Capitol. That army was repulsed at Baltimore. They went back to their ships and set sail for Bermuda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What were the sites of the negotiation and signing? Have they been preserved as historical landmarks? Dynzmoar 11:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I am currently in Ghent, at a hotel on VeldStraat. So far, no one here has heard ´of our own history`. Perhaps a bit of research between beers is in order? We found it, the plaque designating the site. It is on a post on an Esprit retail store on the east side of VeldStraat, about three blocks south of the McDonalds near Kleine Turkije. Jeb hhoh (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Jeb hhoh (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
very poorly written page
This page needs an unbais approach, as when reading it, it leaves the reader with nothing, but POV.
- The article is very short but I don't see the bias. It's easy for people to make that claim but it would be more constructive and responsible if they actually gave an example of what they are alleging. Dwalrus (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Signed in the Netherlands?
The War of 1812 was between America and Britain, why was it signed in Netherlands? Was it so it would be on "neutral ground" where one side wouldn't have an advantage over the other? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
On the neutrality of historical articles
After reading several pages related to the War of 1812, I began to question the neutrality. Then I realized several things:
1. Neutrality on Wikipedia is theoretical 2. Neutrality in historical accounts is nonexistent
Seriously. There is no such thing as an unbiased historical accounts. Every American editing this page will cite American historians, who will favor painting America in a more noble light. Every Briton editing this page will cite British historians, who will paint Britain in a more noble light.
Ultimately, none of us were THERE, so there's no way to know for sure what happened. Any source that might be cited will have SOME bias. Instead, I propose that edits to the articles relating to the War of 1812 focus less on who attacked who and who "won", and more on the solid details of what happened; in this case, the actual text of the document might be good to include. Any objections? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)