Talk:War of 1812

Template:WikiEd banner shell

WP: MOSFLAG

Apparently MoS frowns on flags in Infoboxes. Removing the ones that are there would also improve the NPOV issue of treating indigenous nations differently in the layout because we don’t have flags for them.

Does anyone object to implementing this? Elinruby (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not all that keen on following the Manual of Style (or uniformity) myself, except where it performs essential functions such as those related to ambiguity, confusion, clarity, needless offence, or accessibility. If you waste a year or two (as I did, together with the long-suffering @Pmanderson:) on the Manual of Style's manifold talk pages (or try to read the whole damned thing), you'll understand why. ¶ However, I think the flags do more than decorate or clutter the infobox; they improve clarity where clarity is very much needed: which leaders in which armies or navies? which contesting powers? On the other hand some of the repetition of tiny little flags does look fussy; maybe there's a way to group several items under one flag. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

On reading the specific Wikipedia:MOSFLAG, it does make exceptions for military matters and infoboxes. But, of course, that doesn't mean we should be afraid of exercising such discretion in the most fitting way. —— Shakescene (talk)

welp, I don’t personally object to them really, but I do see an issue with only some of the combatants having flags. If the goal is to have indigenous nations on the same hierarchical level, we aren’t quite there. But I am not really pushing this change, at least not at the moment; for that matter. Do we know that the template does not include a flag or other icon for the Iroquois or the Shawnee? I don’t. I am not hearing a lot of enthusiasm, so let’s this just simmer on the back burner for a while as something I was wondering about Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As Shakescene says, the MOS endorses the use of flags in infoboxes for military conflicts. Note that there were only two parties to the war, the UK and the U.S. We might want to consider removing the Canadas, which was not a party or even a state. Could remove their flag too since they didn't have one. TFD (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

[For context, Elinruby wrote] You are just trolling. Elinruby (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces used the template RPA to strike the above comment at 22:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hard revert, TFD was just whining about his comments being moved, yet feels entitled to say it's a personal attack when I agree that there are ownership issues on the page. If the shoe fits, dude, but that is not what I said. Your bad behaviour is escalating. It must be sad to be stuck on one topic like this, I feel for you, really. But uh no, we not be deleting random parties to this war to please you. Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is so much owned by The Four Deuces and I that we do not even make the top 10 by edits. Yet you and Deathlibrarian are fourth and eight by number of edits while I am not going all the way down to see how far away from the top 20 The Four Deuces and I are.--Davide King (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, you are ninth on authorship. The Four Deuces and I are nowhere to be found.--Davide King (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: you seem to believe that WP:OWN is about the number of edits. It is about chiding other people for not discussing, then refusing to discuss. It is about resisting any and all changes to the article. I am indeed making many edits to the article, which needs work desperately. In fact, as far as I can tell, nobody but you and I is editing the article. There are many small edits, yes, the better to revert me, and because these are copy edits done on a phone and it works better that way. Feel free to escalate if you disagree but I think the misspellings and other problems speak for themselves. Everybody has been too busy arguing about the article to actually edit it.Elinruby (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, what are you referring to when writing about me resisting any and all changes to the article? The only change I resist is removing military stalemate, Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante and defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy from the infobox; and I am not the only who support retaining those in the infobox. Also, where and when did I chid[e] other people for not discussing, then refusing to discuss? I am discussing and the reason this talk page grew so large in the first place is probably because I kept replying back and discussing in the first place, so I guess I should apologise for that. I agree that there are much bigger problems, so why not just drop the result issue in the infobox, leave it as it is and concentrate on the main body?--Davide King (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If the shoe doesn't fit then don't wear it? Can you please start a separate section if you want to talk about how you don't think you own the article? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You are the one who went off topic by falsely accusing The Four Deuces and I of "owing" the article in the first place, what was I supposed to do? As for the flags, do you think it is better as it is now?--Davide King (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS also says "Do not use flags in genocide-related lists and articles". In case you guys missed it, this is what we have here. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the flag standards, and I'm certainly no expert on Canadian flags, but according to this, the flag at the time for Canada was the union flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_flags. As a separate colony, with its own militia and Governer, they should have their own flag. All the parties in military conflicts commonly have flags (eg even small non state actors in the Syrian civil war for eg), not just actual countries.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know the flag for Canada is correct. I put a little effort into getting the right flag for the Spain of the period, also. However, if you put "Iroquois" into the flagicon template, you get a grey box. So it may not be that simple. There might be something we could use instead, but that would take research. A lot probably, with a high risk of being wrong, and I don't want to be wrong about somebody's symbol if identity. This is far from the article's biggest problem, of course, but symbolically I am not sure what is right. Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

They flew the flag of the United Kingdom and the Governor General of British North America as Commander-in-Chief was in charge of all British and colonial soldiers. Presenting them as a separate party would be like showing Hawaii as a separate party in the Attack on Pearl Harbor. (Hawaii had its own governor, militia and flag.) TFD (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Um. Upper and Lower Canada are definitely distinct from each other and from Britain. As you keep saying, Canada was not a country at the time; this is merely shorthand. Not only that, but you have left some participants off Elinruby (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD, professor sir, put on your teaching hat then and explain to me what the proper terminology is for someone who repeatedly interrupts reasonable conversations with accusations and proposes changes that he knows have no hope of consensus? You misrepresent what happens on this page and refuse to provide any evidence for what you say about the article's content. I don't understand why you are this way about this article, but I know contentious editing when I see it. Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: based on that article you appear to be right. The other flag looked familiar but I guess that was because some of the provinces use something similar? In any case, huh, I'd like to see a better reference that Wikipedia if we are going to change it, but I guess if it was the Union Jack it was the Union Jack. Someone should tell whoever is maintaining the template. Meanwhile, here's my concern: on the list of combattants, the European nations are treated as individual entities but the indigenous ones are not. Also, now that I look, Tecumseh is listed as British, which I am sure he would hate. He was a Shawnee who was an *ally*, and I could be wrong, but I believe that even in European terms of reference he wasn't a subject of either US or Britain, wasn't his whole thing that he was trying to avoid having it taken over? Elinruby (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I know we are all really tired, but on this issue of flags: Gordon Drummond was born in Canada but served in the British Army. Just noting the issue, doing nothing about the info box pending more comment Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

BRD: I deleted the flagicon template in front of the name of Tecumseh. He was not a citizen of UC nor was he in its military. A question remains about Drummond and about whether flagicon even has the right flag for The Canadas in the first place Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

¶ I bit the bullet and took a stab at reducing the number of flag icons in the Infobox by grouping all of each country's commanders under a single flag. But there might be better solutions to the which-Canada-when? conundrum and a better substitute for my non-symbolic icons for Tecumseh's Confederacy. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

on this change, I like the idea. I did wonder where the flag came from but if in fact the Confederacy used it, then yay. Good change. Elinruby (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the exact flag for Canada matters. The red ensign with the union jack in the corner is probably less confusing that using the union flag for both the UK and Canada (even if that is technically correct)Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, @Elinruby:, although I wish it were true, those symbols are just arbitrary placeholders taken from Windows' Character Map. I did look (on Bing rather than Google) for symbols of Tecumseh and the Shawnee, but found little that seemed to fit; and anyway I wouldn't know how to convert a greatly-reduced image into a Flag Icon (or regular icon). So to fill a space roughly as wide as a flagicon, and not easily finding a wide-enough black square or blob, I first tried 1 pilcrow [¶] and then 2 before fishing for something that would work. ¶ Speaking of fitting the space, I'll probably replace the "and" in your revision of the Canadas with an ampersand [&].—— Shakescene (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I tweaked the Infobox a little more with boldface and a few added flags for each side's component of the balance of forces —— Shakescene (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I will look shortly. On the design issues, I agree that deleting Tecumseh's flag is a problem visually, but I am not sure what we can put there and I am pretty sure inventing a flag could also be an issue.

Grouping the commanders the way you did gets rid of the problem with Drummond, for a start. I like that Tecumseh is a separate entity. Not sure what to do about his flag since apparently people really want to have flags in the infobox. On the ampersand,I dislike them, but ok, it's shorter. Is there some reason you don't want to use The Canadas? There is a whole separate issue about Lower Canada that I haven't even started on here, but for purposes of your grouping title, it should be included but doesn't need specific mention. (American troops never actually entered Lower Canada, and while Canadian and British troops from Lower Canada as well as the Voltigeurs were involved in the fighting, and possibly some of the Iroquois were from Oka or another reserve in Lower Canada, all the fighting against US invaders was in Upper Canada.) Elinruby (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to using "The Canadas", but I'm not sure that it would mean much to those who didn't learn Canadian history in school (cf. First Nations to non-Canadians). I think it might be wrong to imply that Charles de Salaberry came from Upper Canada, but whose troops did he command? I'm not keen to invent symbols for anyone, but is there some other way to indicate the Indians' parallel status? —— Shakescene (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: I am not pushing to replace it with the Union Jack. Accuracy would seem to require that but yes, it would be confusing. All the more reason to just not have flags, maybe. I am sure there was a long serious discussion somewhere about using that flag in flagicon. Sometimes the answer is an empty set, just saying. Meantime, I don't have strong feelings either way about that Canadian flag. It's an issue, but I don't have a better idea right now. Elinruby (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

In any case, there is no evidence that the Canadas ever used the red ensign, except like the UK for naval vessels. The flag was added by a now permanently blocked editor who claimed without sources it was the flag of the Family Compact. Note also that there was no Canadian nationality at the time and both British and colonial troops reported to the same Commander-in-Chief of British North America. It might make more sense to divide troops between regular forces and militia. TFD (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the Provincial Marine already has its complement listed in the Infobox, perhaps it would make sense to group that with the miiitia, while leaving the regular imperial Army, Royal Marines and Royal Marines in a separate regular group. On the other hand, it also makes sense to match opposing land forces with land, water with water and Marines with Marines. —— Shakescene (talk)

I was thinking about the section in the info-box that that lists military leaders. Drummond and De Salaberry are listed as Canadian leaders. Drummond was born in Canada, moved to England and became a general and returned as a colonial official. We create an artificial problem of whether he was a Canadian citizen, since Canadian nationality did not exist at the time. TFD (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think grouping is the way to go, but my mind is open on criteria. The flags seem to lead us into deep waters though; there is also some stuff about the flag of Lower Canada. On Salaberry, he commanded (based on his bio) the Voltigeurs, which "was officially part of the militia, and its enlisted personnel were subject to the Militia laws and ordinances, but for all practical purposes, it was administered on the same basis as the Fencible units, also raised in Canada as regular soldiers but liable for service in North America only," Elinruby (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've done some work on French colonial armies but I don't remember how they handle this in the infobox. This probably also comes up in articles about British forces in Kenya, India or South Africa, though, if anyone is moved to go look at comparables.Elinruby (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Troupes de Marine has a picture of its logo but Troupes coloniales and Voltigeur have paintings. No infoboxes, and by the way the latter article deals with the type of unit, not the one in Canada specifically. If someone can think of a campaign primarily fought by colonial troops in the British Empire, that might be a better guide. TFD, yes, the artificial problem you mention is the same one that is fixed by the way Shakescene grouped the commanders; it doesn't matter where he was born because he fought for the British Army. I am not sure if we can finesse like that all the way down the infobox however.Elinruby (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Yes, @Elinruby:, Voltigeurs is just a general article focussed on the French Empire, but it also links to a specific article about the Canadian Voltigeurs with much discussion of Charles de Salaberry and service in the War of 1812. Needless to say, as with specialised articles about many other subjects, I learned a lot (never having even known of Voltigeurs before) but also became rather more confused and perplexed. That article drew me to the more general Canadian units of the War of 1812, which complicates some of our choices even more, since it distinguishes units from The Canadas with Fencibles from the Atlantic provinces — is The Canadas or else "Lower & Upper Canada" even the best term? "British North America" (i.e. what was left of it north of the Bahamas after 1783) is an accurate term but may be anachronistic. As a side question was there one Governor-General for all the provinces or was there, for example, a Governor-General of Lower Canada and other ones for Upper Canada and for Newfoundland? ¶ Sadly, neither the English nor the (rather-different) French Wikipedia article about the Canadian Voltigeurs has usable symbols or standards for the force. However it's conceivable that should we decide to break up units by province, we could use one of these outline map-icons of Lower Canada https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag-map_of_Lower_Canada.svg , https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portail:Bas-Canada#/media/Fichier:Map_of_Lower_Canada.svg —— Shakescene (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Prevost was Governor General of British North America, which included the Canadas and the Maritime provinces. But the position was essentially military - he was Commander-in-Chief over all UK and colonial forces. TFD (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The French and Indian Wars were fought primarily by colonial militia on the British side. There were also Loyalist militia who fought for the British during the American Revolutionary War. In both cases, the union jack is used. Since all these wars are part of the Sixty Years War, we should have consistency. TFD (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shakescene: check out what I found: https://blog.nmai.si.edu/main/2012/11/a-flag-of-the-fathers.html Elinruby (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Elinruby:, that's fascinating. The Blue Ensign has been used for many purposes over the centuries. The Red, White and Blue Ensigns were originally hoisted to distinguish different squadrons of the English or British navy. In plain form, today, without any other symbols, the White Ensign is used by the Royal Navy, the Red by the Merchant Navy, and the Blue for ships of the Royal Naval Reserve. But those ensigns (especially the red and the blue) have been used for many other purposes in the intervening centuries. ¶ As for Tecumseh, the commentary muddies the question even further, since it says that the British commander gave Tecumseh not only the flag, but also a Brigadier-Generalship in the British Army. Should we therefore move Tecumseh under the Union Jack? Should we do the same for his warriors? — Perplexedly yours, —— Shakescene (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Tecumseh was never informed of his appointment and never swore allegiance to the Crown, in fact did not want to. I don't see any relevance to the blue ensign in this case. TFD (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shakescene: I don't know. But it what you say is true then this flag is not specific to Tecumseh, right? So I am really not sure. This is the first result you get when you plug "Tecumseh's flag" into Google, is what I know, and it's a pretty damn good source. But then, we don't know if he actually used it, or just accepted it as a gift, politely. I am think it may be most useful as an indication of how the British saw him. Maybe we can get somebody at the Indigenous history project interested in this question. Or just delete the flag? I got the impression that you and Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) really don't like that idea, though (?) Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

a couple of thoughts: I found this link which talks about a flag that seems to have a claim to being Tecumseh's flag, but it doesn't have a picture so I don't know if it is the same one the Smithsonian is talking about; I think not. But it's a lead. As for shrinking an image to an icon, I could conceivably do that if that is needed. I have image editing software on my laptop, and journeyman level skills. I still think omitting the flag is best. Should I start a separate discussion about that? The question about the governor-general is a bit technical. I was taught that he represents the queen but his role is largely ceremonial. In a time of war when these were separate colonies, I suspect that this may not have been true. Let's start with MOSFLAG. Can we determine what it thinks about colonial military units? Just as a starting point for discussion? It says that Oscar Wilde, who was born in Ireland when Ireland was British, should not get either an Irish or a British flag, because that would be confusing. But ok, he was a writer not a soldier, and one thing that doing articles about French regiment s has taught me is that they really really care about being allowed to fly a certain flag or wear yellow epaulettes rather than red, or whatever. Elinruby (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I was going to propose a theory that we should go by the unit and whether it was not part of the British Army. Under that theory. Drummond was regular British Army. Prevost was born in the US when it was British, btw, and Ross likewise in Ireland, so that is another good reason to go that route. But I came in here to ask about Jenkinson. Was he actually even a soldier?

Another random thought about flagicon: there may be copyright concerns about shrinking an image. Probably better to re-create it, if we can find out what it looked like.Elinruby (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Other infobox thoughts: it says "Indian allies" again in casualties. I'd make this "Allies" as I did above, but we don't report casualty figures for the Spanish. We also should probably be able to get better numbers for indigenous casualties. If anyone has good ideas and/or strong feelings about this maybe should start a separate section since we are still working on format and participants, but just saying. It's something to think about Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I made changes to the infobox. Basically: the Six Nations does have a flag, and were not part of the Confederacy so I moved them out of that list. They were important militarily. I added two commanders also. Elinruby (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality in question, uncited text

Review pls: "The American warships were well-built and equal to British ships of a similar class, as British shipbuilding emphasized quantity over quality."

This was under Forces#Amerucan Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Nor my area of specialty, I would have thought British and US ships were of a similar level of quality, I don't recall anything about US ships being less quality. I don't know that British shipbuilding was emphasizing quantity over quality, and also, are they talking about general British shipbuilding, or just the shipbuilding taking place in North America in the context of the war? I think if there is no citation for it, it should come out, it seems a big call to omply UK ships were bad quality, which seems the implication. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Check for neutrality

"The British Royal Navy was a well-led, professional force, considered the world's most powerful navy." --- from Forces#British Elinruby (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC) It was the most powerful navy in the world at the time. Still, has to be counter-balanced, to some degree.Tirronan (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I am under the impression that this is objectively true. But it's adjectives. But I didn't want to delete it because this might in fact be information Elinruby (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, so it was THE naval power in the world. But, to be absolutely honest? It wasn't the best anymore. A lot of those single ship battles were lost because of shitty shooting. It is dressed up in the article due to opposition. The ships were just large enough to do the job counting on numbers to make up the difference. Too many landsmen not properly trained. All the stuff that you expect to see when a service, any service by any country btw, is stretched beyond what it can reasonably staff. So you will see complaints that American ships were larger, better manned, etc. All true, but they often, but not always, were better trained as well. Shannon vs. Cheaspieak being an example where the American captain got stupid. One of the hallmarks of this war naval was was that the better-trained ship almost always won. We have cases were squadrons chased down single ships where numbers mattered more.Tirronan (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

More to the point, numbers won the Atlantic theater, not that the Royal Navy was better ship to ship, in this case the opposite could be argued.Tirronan (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

So as far as you are concerned this is beside the point? And yeah, it often does sound like excuses. But you say better-trained matters? Because I think there was one of those too. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Nationality aside, and you are talking to a US Navy guy, There are lots of battles where American and British ships squared off against each other one on one. Often the American ship was better trained at least in gunnery. So there are many examples where the RN ship's rate of fire was spectacular, while the aiming of said naval gun was frankly horrible. Teddy Rosevelt's book is pretty brutal to both sides on this issue. He noted examples where high moral was supposed to allow a ship to overcome a lack of training, it almost never did. So to be fair, HMS Shannon handed USS Chesapeake a loss, albeit in the most bloody 10 minutes in age of sail. The normal course of events was usually the reverse.

Now let us talk about the effects on the course of the Atlantic war. Up to the point that they started facing USN warships, the RN could count on winning just by showing up. The French Navy for the most part wasn't up to the previous standard. So, if the RN has ships that were not quite as big, or didn't outnumber the other side. Frankly, it didn't matter, they sailed in and won anyway. You see that in their deployments. Ugly shock, the USN came from the same traditions, and they didn't have to man a hugely expanded navy. The British public did not receive the losses well. A lot of ugly questions were being asked. So a USN heavy frigate might be more than a match for a 38 gun frigate, but it wasn't to 4 of them. A change to deployments of the fleet and the number of ships assigned was the answer. Also, there was no reason an RN ship couldn't be trained to the same standard. The sharply worded letter to British captains "in early 18th prose" spoke to that. In 21st century American dialect, it would read as such. We don't give a damn about how nice your decks are or how fucking bright your brass is. We are getting our asses handed to us because you are not training your crews to an accurate gunnery standard. Fix this now! To that extent, the single ship battles did matter, mostly to the long term detriment of the USN.Tirronan (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok that helps thanks. Elinruby (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I know Tirronan obviously knows his stuff, but I just want to add, its my understanding that in terms of size and being able to exert power, not only was the British Navy the most powerful at this time, but it was the most powerful for the next 100 years at least as well. I think, up until ww2? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The real shift didn't happen until 1943, from that point on the USN was and still is the largest navy. Nothing in my comments should be misconstrued as to which navy was larger or more powerful in 1812. Despite being stretched beyond what it could reasonably sustain in crewing, the RN solved the problem simply by shifting resources. Ship for ship, the USN was probably superior, that doesn't mean much when the other side has you by seven or eight to one. It did present problems that were shown during the war. It was pretty obvious that training of the crews wasn't what it should have been. Some of their captains were making decisions that had the Admiralty shaking their heads in dismay prior to the war. When you have to man 600 ships, quality has to decline no matter who you are. Still looking back the RN made the right call.Tirronan (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Cited, but neutrality questioned anyway

"They were brave, but their tactics favored defense rather than offense. -- from Forces#Indigenous Fighters Elinruby (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"I would need more context than that.Tirronan (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That's close to all there was, but let me see what I can do. I am questioning it because a) I am not sure it's true. I would have said untraditional warfare, personally, but the bigger issue is that it's pretty meaningless and it's a generalization about an ethnic group, which one s dangerous. He says all three forces were brave btw, which is polite but doesn't convey much real information imhoElinruby (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tirronan: the text was in this paragraph: "The Indigenous allies of the British avoided pitched battles and relied on irregular warfare, including raids and ambushes which took advantage of their knowledge of terrain. Their leaders sought to fight only under favorable conditions and would avoid any battle that promised heavy losses. Their main weapons were a mixture of muskets, rifles, bows, tomahawks, knives, swords, and clubs." Elinruby (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that is absolutely correct. They got crushed in the one battle they attempted to fright and, they went away.Tirronan (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh, think I disagree with you on that, but you do seem more famiar with events than I am. Which battle are you talking about. Thames I guess? The part I was questioning was "defence" -- standing in line and waiting to get shot was not their preferred tactic, but there are a lot of mentions of ambush, right?Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, got it in one. Confederation fighting methods were more modern than the line up and fight methods. Huge losses to a Nation's forces tended to end fighting for that nation over a long term.Tirronan (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Questioned text

This one remains in the article, might be needed: "However, the state militias were poorly trained, armed, and led. The failed invasion of Canadian Lake Champlain led by General Dearborn illustrates this.[73]"

We keep saying the US militias were poorly trained, but never give examples (?) Also, Lake Champlain is in Vermont, no? Probably a copy edit error, maybe even mine, but can somebody confirm? Elinruby (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Depends on if a US General wanted to train them or not. For the most part no they were poorly trained. However, the Baltimore campaign where a general said, you are either building fortifications or training showed just how fast that militia could be trained up. Winfield Scott also did this. Militia behind fortifications was always tougher.Tirronan (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So, bottom line, we say this in several places. Where is/are the best places to make this point? Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The best place would be the burning of Washington. The current Sec of War decided there wasn't any real threat and squashed any attempt to prepared for it. He didn't get to keep the job.Tirronan (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

BRD: nationality of commanders in infobox

Since "" will not accept either "indigenous leader" or "Shawnee" to replace the incorrect "The Canadas" flag in front of Tecumseh. To the best of my knowledge he was not a citizen of Upper Canada, and considered himself an ally of the British. On another somewhat technical point, Drummond was born in Upper Canada but served in the British Army. Does this go by birth or affiliation? He currently is labeled as The Canadas. Better suggestions? Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Creek War and Pensacola

The article for this topic says it is part of the war of 1812. Is this wholly or in part? I am wondering whether we can use the casualty numbers. Similarly, there are some casualty figures in Battle of Pensacola Elinruby (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Article has collected a flag for this. Since I have been adding wikilinks, it's probably something I did. But the tool that makes it easy to solve these hangs forever on Android, or at least this Android. If someone is moved to fix this, fine, otherwise my primary point is that I will break out the laptop in a day or so, so not to worry, this is a known issue and I will fix it if someone else doesn't break out Dabsolver first Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a laptop which I use as if it were a desktop and a wi-fi connection (via Dish) that is unfortunately not reliable 100% of the time. If you can give me details of and a link to this tool for redirecting wikilinks, I might take a stab. Have a good weekend (only 4 more days until Bastiille Day) —— Shakescene (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It is called Dabsolver . It highlights links to disambiguation pages and lets you select the correct link. It may be down; I just got a server stopped responding message on iOS as well. But. The link should be something like https://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Charles_Henry_Juliá_Barreras, though Barreras is irrelevant, just the page I was trying to disambiguate. Otherwise it would mean clicking through all the links. You might try Charleston and Grand River; I got notifications about those, but I think I fixed them. If not, perhaps somebody else? Anyway. The tool is a satisfying pastime for when you want to be productive on Wikipedia without too much effort. But I will be breaking the laptop out today one way or the other, so don’t sweat this unless you want to. If you do then by all means. As I recall it may live at wikimedia. Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

that tool appears to be disabled at the moment, if anyone was following this. I guess that means clicking through all the links

Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

somebody helpfully listed them at the top of the page. Thank you, whoever that was. Elinruby (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Deep dive into flags

I have added some flags to the combatants section. This comes with major caveats, and I am still not sure this is the way to go. Let’s start with the Shawnee, as an example of some of the problems with this. Apparently they were relocated to Oklahoma from where they were in this conflict. There are three modern Shawnee flags. The key word here is “modern”. I am not sure this can be done at all without introducing anachronisms. The Sauk and the Fox seem to have become the Sac and Fox, at some point since this conflict. This is the flag I used, but I am not sure whether it is based on something these warriors would have carried. The Anishnaabe flag does seem to be based on an indigenous emblem, so I am ok with that. The Mascouten were pretty much exterminated as far as I can tell and those that remain have joined the Kickapoo. I will put a little more effort into this since I find joy in obscure topics, but there are big pitfalls all over this design choice, without even getting into the issue of the Canadian flag. I am still in favor of eliminating all flags. I urge the people who oppose this to help with the flag effort if they really feel we must have them. My knowledge of Plains and Oklahoma tribes is limited; the little I know I mostly know about the Pueblo and the Navajo. Elinruby (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know where the list of members of the Confederacy came from? I was skimming at the time but I think I read that the Mascouten were wiped out *before* 1812 Elinruby (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, there were several Cherokee flags; I went with the one described as “the original”. Elinruby (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby You mentioned here you are still in favor of eliminating all flags. I can see it is damn tricky trying to get the right ones for the time period, in particular for the native allies. The French and Indian War article deals with this problem by having the flags for the main countries/colonies involved, which it is easy to confirm the correct flag for, but leaves the native allies without flags. I know you've already done some research, but could we do that? I can see you are doing lots of work here, this would make it easier for you. As for the Canadian flag, I'm not Canadian, so its not my call - may be its just better to go with the red ensign as that's what the other articles are using, and it differentiates it from the UK by not using the Union Flag? I think researching all the correct flags for native allies is a huge job!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Its a very elementary school book, but according to this, pre 1867, it would appear the union flag was used in Canada. I personally don't mind if people want to use the red ensign, which may have seen some use on land, but perhaps more use at sea. (Ann-Maureen Owens "Our Flag: The Story of Canada's Maple Leaf" p10-12 2014) Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

For fifty years, I owned a small book called "The Story of Canada's Flag" by George Stanley (who claimed credit for designing the current red-and-white Maple Leaf Flag of 1965), but after my last move, I have it no longer. However, there is (surprise !), a pertinent Wikipedia article, Flag of Canada#Early flags, which indicates that before Confederation in 1867, Canada had no flag of her own. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to match with what I have read, in the book above, and elsewhere. Us colonials are fond of the union Jack, it seems! Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I still remember from my Anglo-American schooldays a comic strip from the old Eagle where the (white) heroes track down and defeat an anti-colonialist pirate radio station run by a (Negro) scoundrel blasting such verse as "Take back the Union Jack !/Give the Governor the sack !/Freedom for the birds and bees,/And also for the West Indies !" —— Shakescene (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Lol, that is a bit bizarre, probably a comment on the times I guess? I think the best thing I got out of British comics was (1)Judge Dredd (2) Tank Girl (3) Viz. First time I saw Viz I was reading it while stopped at the traffic lights and almost crashed the car. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not particularly fussed about the Canadian flag. I guess I am the Canadian sounding board here but I am not very typical and have been an expat most of my life. But I believe in accuracy. So. In 1812, Upper and Lower Canada were British colonies. It strikes me as likely that their flag was the Union Jack. It (or they — possibly the individual colonies should be listed separately...) should definitely be listed under Britain in the list of combatants. It would be confusing perhaps to use the Union Jack. But it’s not accurate to use another flag(?) unless something attests to its use. To me this is an argument against using flags, as the articles about French colonial regiments tend not to use flags or even infoboxes. But this is only one issue and not even one I consider all that important. As I have mentioned before, I have other fish to fry on Wikipedia alone. For now, if that is what “the other articles” do, then perhaps we should be consistent. But what bothers me most about this article is its lack of balance, and it seems to me that if we are going to list combatants, we should list all the combatants, and if we are are going to give the combatants flags, even if inaccurate, then we should give all the combatants flags, even if inaccurate. It’s more troubling to me that I can’t find a cite that says the Mascouten were members of the Confederacy. As for the work, it’s mostly done and was mostly digging in Wikimedia Commons. And you’re talking to someone who once translated an article about a color people were arguing about in the 18th century, and referenced the trial of a dead pope. The issue is not the work. The issue is accuracy. For what it is worth, I found an article about Tecumseh by the Smithsonian’s Museum of Native Americans, or whatever they named it, and it seems to quote one band of Shawnee in particular, so perhaps we should use that flag. But it also says that according to Shawnee belief, since his body was found, his name should not be spoken, and I am not suggesting we go there. But I would like a discussion of balance, which this article still seems to lack. This is going to require work with sources though, which some of you have already done, so let’s discuss. Moxy (talk · contribs) posted a lovely little gem of a website, which I was already examining; I strongly suggest you take a look, as it does a nice job of summarizing the war’s importance for the various groups. We are using this as a reference now, but wrongly, as it references a statement that the British were supplying the tribes with weapons, and it doesn’t say that; it says that the Americans believed that. Possibly they were, and why not? But it is not in the reference cited, and accuracy matters. This makes me wonder about all the other references. Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

on examination, the flag for that band of Shawnee was designed by a descendant of Tecumseh, so is presumably the same bunch that followed him into battle, or a subset thereof. I added it. Of the names that remain, the article for one questions whether it actually exists, and another or possibly the same tribe is apparently named something that translates from Iroquois as “dicks”, so more shades of grey there. I am going to add the Miami flag, since I found one, and the people who are now in Oklahoma are presumably related to the ones who were chased out of Ohio. Still not happy tho. Elinruby (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems the Seneca are one of the Six Nations (?) so if that is right do we put that flag on both sides I guess? Also the Muskogee may or may not have been Creek. Currently confused, taking a break from flags Elinruby (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

In relation to Moxy (talk · contribs)'s exhibition post, Oh yeah, as time has gone by, I have realised that perhaps the truth about "who won the war" just comes down to how people from different sides see it, and there is no right or wrong - there's only truth from your perspective. That's what I'm trying to do here, make sure that both "the truths" are represented here, not just one side, or having one side relegated to "fringe theory". Same with the Korean war, its not cut and dried. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The realization that the question is viewed differently by nationals of different countries, is good for one's empathic understanding of other countries or cultures, but isn't really necessary here, and could lead to a wrong course of action. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to try and provide "equal time" or "make sure that both 'the truths' are represented here"; see WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Our job as Wikipedia editors, is simply stated: we summarize the majority and minority positions of reliable, independent, secondary sources on the topic, in proportion to their presence in the published record in English. We ignore opinions that are represented by only a tiny minority. That's basically it. If those majority/minority sources include "both sides", then we include them; if they don't, then we don't. No attempt should be made to see that each point of view is included, because "they have their own truth", or something. We go by the sources; that's it. The very last thing Wikipedia editors should do, is try and figure out "who's right", when reliable sources disagree. Mathglot (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Well yes I agree with you, our job isn't to simply give "equal time" to all viewpoints - however it is our job to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints" - where those viewpoints are supported in mainstream scholarly works, as per WP:WEIGHT; representing those viewpoints relative to the weight of support they have from scholarly works. But yes, I take your point, if a national viewpoint was fringe theory, its not our job to support it simply because it is a national viewpoint, if there was no scholarly evidence to support it - however, in this case, there is, so both are addressed, I guess!. To add, one viewpoint shouldn't be left out, *simply because it isn't the largest viewpoint*. Obviously fringe theory isn't included as a mainstream opinion and there is no place for it, as per WP:fringe, I could have made my post clearer, it may have implied that, so just wanted to make that clear of courseDeathlibrarian (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. But. It is also not ok to portray a genocide as ok because the dominant culture got some land out of it. I am not certain you have read the entire article, Mathglot (talk · contribs). It's a bit better than it was, because I changed some happy references to "nobody lost any land" and how fortunate it was that Native Americans were no longer impeding settlement. Some of that also disappeared when Dianaa came through here and removed a bunch of copyvio material; part of the problem was somebody copy-pasting from old history books I think. But. The list of combatant should be complete, and accurate, and the European participants should not get more weight than the indigenous ones. I also think we should delete all flags. Maybe even the entire infobox. Elinruby (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right section to drop this in... But I sorta noticed y'all are representing entities using modern flags that were made after the war (i.e. the 20th century Shawnee flag, the Muscogee flag from the 1930s, etc.). Just reminding y'all that the Manual of style (spec. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Entities without flags until after a certain point in time) states that [modern flags] should not be used to represent the country when the context is specifically about a time period predating the flag. Keep in mind, this is a history article, we should not be introducing anachronism within it. Leventio (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a bad place to say that, actually. I personally think we should remove all the flags in the infobox, but this is opposed for reasons that are unclear to me. I *actually* think the entire infobox should probably be deleted. Meanwhile, as a layout issue, if there must be an infobox and it must have flags then balance applies, no? It really would be better to just not have an infobox, because the problems get worse from here. Elinruby (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Should any threads be retrieved from /Archive 23 ?

From my own talk page:

War of 1812 Talkpage

I agree that the talk page was becoming excessively long, but in this edit [1] you archived multiple discussions that were last active less than a week ago, including an active RFC. This kind of indiscriminate archiving is far more disruptive than an overly-long talk page. Please undo your edit. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: @Elinruby: @Davide King: @Deathlibrarian: @Rjensen: Hi, RRC, all of those interminable discussions are not lost but can be found in Talk:War of 1812/Archive 23. I wouldn't be the best person to retrieve the discussions that might in fact still be live to someone (the RFC dates back to the end of June and already has the barely-digestible equivalent of 12 typewritten pages or 14-15 successive screens on my desktop).

However, if you want to retrieve the topics that you think should still stay open, you could easily cut (or just copy them) from /Archive 23 after opening its Edit tab and paste them back either at the bottom of the Talk Page, or into a newly-created page like those for Who won? and Mobile.

In theory this is what User:Miszabot should be doing, but it's currently set to leave open any discussions which have attracted a comment within the last month, so I could easily see (given editors' and intervenors' past behaviour) some ever-longer threads, if left alone, filling up the current Talk Page for years and years to come. With all best wishes for the week. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If the bot archives after 4 weeks then the solution is to reduce that period. It also does not help that one editor has started dozens of discussions threads in the past month, most of which have attracted no response. At this point I don't think it matters what we do because the wall of text is a discouragement to most editors, particularly those new to the discussions. TFD (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Within the limits of my own technical comprehension, the successor to Miszabot, User:Lowercase sigmabot III, seems only to offer a version that forces a 30-day trigger or else one that allows user-setting of triggers but can only be used once until it hits about half the size of Archive 23. I wouldn't be utterly dumbfounded to learn that there is some way to reduce the trigger to one or two weeks, but someone else would probably need to implement it. See the bewildering details at User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III/Archive_HowTo. Any takers? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Try asking at Wikipedia:Help desk. There's information too at Help:Archiving a talk page. TFD (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the people who have issues with the way the talk page was archived should be the ones to figure out how to fix it to their own satisfaction. Shakescene (talk · contribs) is not here to do your bidding. Elinruby (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm.. yes, there were some active threads going there that have been archived - damn - I wanted to get third party input into one of the threads - the infobox neutrality issue there has been a lot of debate over. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

¶ [Edit conflict] If truth be told, I was at first hesitant to do the archiving when urged to do so by a couple of more impatient editors, for reasons parallel to Red Rock's — I didn't want to bury live threads although I didn't know how to begin. But at some point I bit the bullet, forewent all the tedious, frustrating toil that a more-careful archiving would have demanded, and just archived everything before WP:MOSFLAG, which I knew to be still alive. What I left on this page at the time, although a substantial 41 kB or so, was one-tenth of what went into /Archive 23 (419 kB).

Much of the archived material is variants on the decade-old wrangle over Who Won?, questioning (rightly or wrongly) a fairly stable consensus that there was no immediate winner and no immediate loser except the nations who first populated North America. Although there's much more sourcing, all those questions should be really wrenched out of Archive 23 (and earlier archives) and pasted into /Who Won? (which begins in March 2008).

@The Four Deuces: I did consult Help:Archiving a talk page and went for the simplest alternative, creating a new page and then filling it with threads cut away from the then-current Talk Page. But the rest of that help page is pretty bewildering (probably written, amended and corrected by many hands over time), so I'll leave it to you, as the original proposer, or someone else here to determine and choose among the possible ways to adjust our automatic archiving.

[after Edit Conflicts] @Deathlibrarian: I have a feeling that when you talk about the infobox issue, you're referring to the lingering RfC mentioned by User:Red Rock Canyon. As I noted above, this by itself already takes up the equivalent of 12 printed pages or requires someone reading it on a desktop to hit "Page Down" about 15 times (heaven knows how many times on a hand-held). Besides it's really a variant of a position you've been unsuccessfully litigating for a dozen years since 2008. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

there are several infobox neutrality questions, but I guess you mean the one about the outcome? Maybe you could start another section and link to the archive? Just a thought.Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry —— Shakescene the page was getting huge and did need to get archived, I didn't mean to come off attacking you about that, it was massive. In terms of the Infobox issue, there was a discussion on here about changing (discussion we had was here - Archive 20) it to include both points of view, we came to an agreement that everyone (including me) was happy with...then unfortunately, it was changed back without consensus. Then we had another discussion here more recently, which people voted on... and then THAT was changed without consensus. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby Yep good suggestion, I'll start the discussion again, and link to the outcome. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if I was in any of that; I know I commented a few times, but just to restate: I actually think you are essentially correct, but given all the shouting, for the moment I am going to concentrate on the body. This may in fact lead to changes in the infobox at some point, so I think this fixation that everyone has on the outcome is not a good use of time, but I just worked on an article about a village on Indonesia, so who am I to say how people should spend their wikitime? You go. Good on you, mate. I also think it's kinda wrong, and fresh eyes would certainly help Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers mate, you are doing some great work on here. I agree, I see myself concentrating on the outcome perhaps too much, and I'm actually trying to broaden out what I do here, as I have some good resources here (and I have university level access to databases and inter library loans). I would at least like to get a third party opinion on it, I do believe its an NPOV issue, but we shall see. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

An alternative is to collapse the dozens discussion threads that have been created in the last few weeks. Maybe the editors who created these threads could do this. TFD (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Afaik it is accepted practice to offer to discuss a change that someone may object to. Elinruby (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My main concern, and the reason I brought this up with Shakescene was the RFC. In general, active RFCs shouldn't be archived. I think there were problems with that RFC: the question was both too vague and too specific. Different people who requested the same outcome in their comments marked their answers with both "yes" and "no", which I think indicates the magnitude of the issues with the way the question was framed. Because of those issues, and because I think the current text which has existed on the article for years is fine, I don't really care if the RFC is formally closed. But a dozen editors commented, some as recently as July 9th, and it was only a couple weeks old, so I think archiving it was inappropriate. Maybe we should move it to Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?, since apparently that question still has the potential to become a godawful mess and should be cordoned off somewhere it won't interfere with the rest of the talk page. Though honestly, I've gotten kind of sick of this issue, and it seems like everyone else has as well, so maybe I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. My apologies Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Informal Request for Comment: how do you want to reconfigure automatic archiving?

@Shakescene:, regarding your comment about Lowercase sigmabot, the how-to page seems quite clear, so I don't see where the confusion lies. It is fully configurable, up to many millions of bytes, and to any configurable lag time you wish. If you can explain your confusion, or alternatively, just tell me how often you want threads archived, and what the max size archive page you want is, I'll configure it for you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mathglot: User:Lowercase sigmabot III looks like one of those things that seem easy and straightforward once you've done them, but bewildering beforehand. I'm thrown by terms like "parameter" that could mean any number of things — but in fact means something quite specific — so I'd gladly accept your offer to set up archiving. As for frequency, size, dates, etc., it's probably best to ask the other users here with a (gasp!) Request for Comment, which I'm doing below. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

request for comment

User: Mathglot has very kindly offered to readjust the archiving robot's timing and sizing, but asks for guidance about "frequency, size, dates, etc." Can we reach a reasonable consensus in a reasonable length of time and space about such choices? I have a feeling that some here will want fast file & forget, while others will want to sacrifice brevity and compactness to maintain some kind of continuity with a thread's beginning (and not restart some arguments afresh over and over). If someone can reduce all that to a few specific questions, I'd be grateful. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot (talk · contribs) tends to know what he is talking about. I am not going to formally vote, since I really am trying not to get too deeply embroiled in this talk page, but here is my question... Is it possible to archive sections individually? For instance "Creek redirects to Muscogee" is intended to advise other users of a change I made that may not be exactly according to policy. Nobody seems to be objecting and as far as I am concerned at least, we are done. MOSFLAG on the other hand hasn't reached consensus either way, and looks like it may not. Nobody is having a meltdown over it but it is still an open issue, yet if the criteria is age, it will get archived first. That said, I am willing to live with whatever choice. And Shakescene (talk · contribs), a parameter is just information you send a script, for example the one that puts a link around your name in this sentence. In this example the parameter is your name. HTH Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Elinruby: you can definitely archive discussions individually. I have always just done this manually, but I've been aware of One-click archiver for a long time; and I'm going to install it for myself now and check it out; it sounds like it makes it much easier. I'll let you know how I like it, but I know tons of people use it, and I never heard any complaints.

By the way, regarding automatic archiving: even if you set up the bot to archive, say, after 45 days of inactivity, you can always extend that on any individual discussion, by adding {{DNAU}} somewhere in the section.

Finally, just fyi (and this is not a big deal, so no apology needed): not "Mathglot tends to know what he is talking about," but rather, "...what "they are talking about". Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The time period for archiving depends on the amount of discussions one expects to see in the future. Talk:Donald Trump archives every 7 days, since he is perhaps the top newsmaker in the world and highly controversial. But this page has seen dozens of discussions threads set up in the past four weeks or so, which is probably more than the Trump article. The question is whether that will continue. Do any editors intend to set up numerous discussion threads in the near future? If so, then 7 days seems right. If not, then the current time interval that has worked in the past should be fine. TFD (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support TFD in that there just happens to be a lot of threads set up recently. I've been posting a bit on here recently, as have others.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks. I tend to default to he on the grounds of WP demographics, but I probably shouldn’t. So noted. And actually, some set time after the last response might be a good default. Elinruby (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Creek redirects to Muscogee

Which to me that indicates that Muscogee is the preferred term. However, we have Creek War, which is not redirected; I think, to reduce confusion, we should standardize on the appellation "Creek" (?) If nobody objects, I will change references in the body of the text from Muscogee to Creek, and remove Muscogee from the list of combatants in the infobox. Elinruby (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple. I wouldn't use the presence (or absence) of a redirect as evidence of anything. Anybody can create a redirect, no discussion or consensus needed. A more detailed analysis should be done, before deciding which term, if any, is preferred. A first stop might be Google ngrams. You have to be careful in what you're comparing, because just comparing "Muscogee" and "Creek" won't give useful information, because the most popular bigram with "Muscogee" is "Muscogee County" (a county in Georgia), and "Creek" is used in hundreds of place names (or songs!) which throws off the numbers. Using bigrams in the search terms can eliminate some of the false positives, for example, adding "Indians" to the search would get rid of all the counties, songs, towns, etc.; that gives a very different picture: "Muscogee Indians" vs. "Creek Indians". But maybe one of those groups prefers not to use the term "Indians", so maybe we should compare "Muscogee Nation" vs. "Creek Nation" instead. And what about the alternate spelling, "Muskogee"? And what if the terms are not quite equivalents, but one is more a grouping of nations including the other, like the Mohawks being part of the Iroquois? Bt what if, the distinction was observed in the past, but more recently, the divergence in frequency of use has almost disappeared, what does that tell us? Do we give greater weight to the last two decades, or to what seems to be a clear trend in published books?

My point here, is not to try to answer this question, but to point out that there are subtleties of search and analysis involved. Redirects shouldn't be considered. Google ngrams data are a good place to start (they are limited to what is found in Google books, so are likely to be more reliable sources, and web results are excluded), but requires care to generate meaningful data, which then needs to be analyzed carefully. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Forgot ping. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It does, but the problem I am trying to solve here is very specific. In the narrative account of this war, there is mention of Muscogee warriors accompanying Andrew Jackson in some of the battles of the Creek War. So should the Muscogee be listed separately as combatants? I am under the impression that "Muscogee" is a family of related peoples like the Huron or the Iroquois, but I haven't actually studied any of these groups since middle school, so I could be completely wrong about that. But I am determined to by gosh get the list of combatants right, so I am considering all input. There are however some big pitfalls, see the threads about flags. Your input is definitely going to be useful for some of that. Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

We should use the terminology in reliable sources about the War of 1812 and avoid these problems. Over the centuries, Native American tribes have merged and split, moved or been removed, and changed names. It may require a lot of research to identify all the Creek allies, where they came from and what the successor nations of their original nations are called today. It's a bit like rewriting replacing the names of ancient tribes in Roman wars with what they would be called today. TFD (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that accuracy is good and if we are going to include the Creek War as part of the War of 1812 then we should get the facts right. We aren't there. And no, this isn't somehow unknowable; there are detailed accounts of all this in other Wikipedia articles. And the question isnt what's the name of some ally, it is aren't the Creek a subset of the Muscogee and are these Muscogee who were with Andrew Jackson upstream or downstream. I mean, it's a war. The names of the participants is discernable. Elinruby (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The Creek were one of the five "Five Civilized Tribes." They were part of the Muscogee speaking people, but they were also called Miscogee and they have a political district called the Muscogee.[2] Part of the problem is if we look at them from a European perspective, we expect that there are clear cut definitions, which may not be the case. For readers who are interested in this information, I suggest we use the name provided in reliable sources with a hyperlink for readers who are interested in this information. TFD (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

that is not a reliable source. And where is "the Muscogee", please? I believe you are correct about the Five Civilized Tribes, but that doesn't answer my question. Elinruby (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So, getting back to flags, I am finding three flags for the Muskogee, none of which fit the facts as far as I can tell. There is one for the Jefferson Davis army. There is one for the State of Muskogee, which is probably what TFD was trying to remember above, and one for the modern tribal government, which, as far as we can trust Wikipedia, is in fact the same group as the ones in this war, AND btw this group includes the Creek and also the Shawnee. This is from the lead section of Muskogee Elinruby (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

However, it's the current flag. The other two stopped being used in 1803. Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — minor correction, the State of Muskogee flag was not used after 1803. The Confederate flag of course was used in the Confederate Army in the Civil War. Elinruby (talk) 19:37, 15 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)

NPOV Issue - Results in the Infobox only showing one viewpoint (Re posted from the archive as thread was still live)

This is a continuation of NPOV Issue - Results in the Infobox only showing one viewpoint (Archive 23).

This post is currently being discussed as a content dispute issue, with a request for third party comment. Please feel free to contribute. The link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#War_of_1812 Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen and Tirronan, I didn't include you as parties to the third party dispute resolution, as I gathered from your comments, you are probably a bit "over it" (and I wanted to be respectful of your mental health :-) )... but given your commendable longstanding efforts on this page, of course, feel free to add yourself and be involved if you'd like Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous. The talk page was just recently cleaned of 400,000 bytes of arguing on this same topic, and at this rate it's going to fill up again. As far as I can tell, the dispute is very simple and doesn't merit this endless debate. Some editors want one thing in the infobox, others want something else. This is exactly the kind of issue that RFCs were meant to solve. Here's my proposal: bring the RFC out of the archive and request closure. Alternatively, open an RFC with a question like this sample I've mocked up here User:Red Rock Canyon/sandbox and notify editors who participated in the previous RFC. Either way, this issue definitely needs some kind of formal closure, and that will not come from this thread. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Red Rock Canyon I've put this thread here for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#War_of_1812|noticeboard discussion, specifically for the convenience of the third party person, so they can see context. I think the discussion is supposed to take place on the noticeboard from now on, which will save more text filling up the talk page here, stop constant new threads, and also get some closure (hopefully) Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should start with references in the infobox. Well actually. I don't think the article should HAVE an infobox. But if it absolutely must have an infobox, it needs to be accurate. Elinruby (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to the discussion resurrected from the archive, I don't have an opinion about who won, or even what the majority of historians say about it, but I do have an opinion about Wikipedia policy, and this does not align with it:

"And the majority view represents the consensus."

No. That's simply wrong. It's very clear in policy, that Wikipedia represents the majority and minority viewpoints, except when it's an "extremely small minority". There's no support whatever for the idea that the "majority view represents consensus". That isn't even true in Wikipedia arguments on Talk pages, much less in determining what we say in Wikipedia's voice in an article, based on majority/minority views of reliable sources. Wikipedia does not have to specify a single truth about an assertion. When experts disagree, we report that disagreement dispassionately, in proportion to how the reliable sources line up on the question. We don't try to tally them up, pick a "winner" and just report that. That's not how it works, and would be contrary to policy. Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Except the minority view is exactly an extremely small minority and is fringe per The Four Deuces and Rjensen. By the way, even those who say one side won do not dispute that the de facto they fought to a military stalemate, but they make an interpretation that one side won (for example, Canada was not successfully invaded and annexed by the United States, hence they won; similarly, the Americans achieved some of their goals and used that to claim win; both sides have done that, without disputing it was de facto a military stalemate). Hence, the dispute is about draw, not military stalemate; and do note that the infobox does not actually say it was a draw.--Davide King (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

See also this relevant comment by Shakescene.--Davide King (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Any thoughts about Results saying Draw; both sides claim[ed] victory and move Military stalemate in the bullet list as the de facto result of the Treaty of Ghent?--Davide King (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King To settle this once and for all, 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.

To prove that the viewpoint, as seen by some Historians, that Canada won the War of 1812 is a viewpoint held by a significant minority, would you like me to name some prominent adherents? Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not telling me your thoughts about Draw; both sides claim victory? I am not going to waste my time discussing this to you again, especially when the first time you did confuse popular historians for historians, people who were not historians and even had the same historian used to support your claim saying that the war was a draw, etc. For The Four Deuces, Rjensen, others and I, it is clearly the third point. By the way, we already have this discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, so there is no point discussing it here again and recreate the huge pile of comments that caused problems with the Archives. So just discuss why Draw; both sides claim victory would not be fine. It is actually inclusive as it gives the viewpoint of both sides that claim win.--Davide King (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Saying that a theory has prominent adherents is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for it to be mentioned. There are prominent birthers, including Orly Taitz and even Obama's successor as President of the United States, but it doesn't mean that in the Barack Obama info-box we replace Hawaii as his place of birth with "disputed." It doesn't even mean that we necessarily mention the view he was born outside in the U.S. in his article. TFD (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD - the exampel you gave, Orly Taitz, the first line, describes her as "Orly Taitz (born August 30, 1960)[8] is a Moldovan-American political conspiracy theorist" - are you seriously trying to equate her and the "birthing" fringe theory to the range of different academics that support the view that Canada won the war of 1812? All of whom are legitimate and respected historians who have published in mainstream scholarly works? Seriously? TFD I'm not debating that with you, its ridiculous. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I'm certainly happy not to debate your theory about if being fringe theory, as you say its been done to death. Clearly, no matter what I say, you even going so far as to ignore wikipedia policy, so there's little point. As for Historians, I've quoted a range of historians, some are popular historians, some are academic historians. But they are all legit respected historians. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, no I am not seriously trying to equate alternative theories of the outcome with conspiracism, you are. I am pointing out the ludicrous nature of your argument that because a theory has prominent proponents they represent a "significant minority." As I said above, having prominent proponents is a necessary but not sufficient requirement. Your reply btw way is an example of a strawman argument: misrepresenting another editor's position. We'll get through this a lot faster if you stop doing that. It just requires more pointless discussion. TFD (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No mate, you gave an example of Orly Taitz as an example, which completely does not apply. Certainly she is prominent, but she is also a known *conspiracy theorist* so the policy is clearly NOT talking about her. The prominent adherents I can name are not conspiracy theorists, they are respected mainstream scholars. The ruling says for a viewpoint to be significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. I am naming them, they are: Jon Latimer, and Carl Benn, Eliot Cohen, Donald Graves, Donald Hickey, Gilbert Auchinleck, William James, Brian Arthur, Andrew Lambert, Claire Sjolander, Stephen Marche, Ricky D Phillips, Robert Smol, Ron Dale, Pierre Berton (technically not a historian). These are all historians (though Berton is debated). They are all published writers, and many of them are published in scholarly works. THEREFORE according to wikipedia, the view that Canada won the war of 1812 *is the view of a significant minority*, because we can name prominent adherents. End of Story! Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

So your new argument is that we only count prominent proponents if they are experts. While you have listed 15 people who you say are historians and disagree with the majority view, you need to prove that is the number required to say that the consensus view is disputed. Note that if this happens then one would expect other tertiary sources, such as textbooks to routinely say the result of the war is in question, which they don't. [(IF a viewpoint is held by a significant minority THEN it should be easy to name prominent adherents) ≠ (IF it is easy to name prominent adherents THEN a viewpoint is held by a significant minority)]. Incidentally, Eliot A. Cohen is not an historian, but a political scientist, best remembered for his role in promoting the invasion of Iraq. And his book was not published by academic publishers but by a controversial publishing house. We went through an extensive discussions about how Pierre Berton was not an academic historian and whether Desmond Morton had actually claimed Canada won the war. I don't look forward to spending hours dissecting your other examples. What you need is a secondary source that establishes the acceptance of these views in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Its not my new argument, it's the text of Wikipedia's criteria for what counts as a "significant minority"! . Policy says "name prominent adherents". It doesn't say to establish that they are a certain number, or that they are a certain percentage, or that in addition, you need a textbook to back up your argument. It just says that you should be able to name prominent people that support the view. In any case, we aren't talking about one or two....there's 14, and they are all referenced (We can remove Cohen if you like). Will you finally agree on this? Can you agree on one thing at least? It's wikipedia policy, the wording is clear, and I have met the criteria.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, there is no requirement that the sources be historians, as opposed to museums or magazines or writers. The reliable sources standard is that a source must have editorial review and a corrections policy Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you, good point, indeed: its not up to editors to be discounting something, when RS policy says it should be counted. I need to look at RS policy a bit more. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. This is not a medical topic. Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please comment on my Draw; both sides claim victory (maybe also adding (indigenous nations loss)?)? I believe that may be a good compromise. Despite agreeing that the majority of historians say it was a draw, we do not actually say that, but we should; on the other hand, both sides claim victory gives some weight to the viewpoint that one side and is also factually true because both sides thought they won, even if just by avoiding loss, etc. Because if you believe the result is actually disputed, I agree with The Four Deuces that we would need tertiary sources and others clearly discussing about the result and actually saying it is disputed; they do not. Even among those who do claim one side won, they admit that the majority views is that it was a draw, not that it is actually disputed; the military stalemate is not actually disputed, it was the de facto result of the Treaty of Ghent.--Davide King (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, no one claimed that sources must be written by historians. We were discussing what weight we should give to the opinions of people who are not historians. So I would not give any weight to something written by a Bush administration official and published by a controversial publisher. We are interested in what the consensus is in the body of academic literature, not what opinions have been expressed outside it. TFD (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, you should remove Jon Latimer who is first in your list of historians who question the outcome of the war. He wrote, "But in truth it was a ‘war that nobody won’."[3] TFD (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is a poor summary of Latimer's book. When he makes that comment, he is talking in terms of material gain. In terms of the fighting, he clearly holds the opinion that, "... it wasn’t really Canada that ‘stuffed them,’ [the Americans] but the sole oceanic superpower of the day: Britain". and, "[it] wasn’t a 'war that both sides won.' Only Britain achieved her aims as they stood in 1812; the United States achieved none of hers, and on that basis it can only reasonably be accounted a British victory". This would be clearer if you had read the book. Latimer, like most historians, considers the war pointless, avoidable and a senseless waste of blood and treasure, and that is what he means when he says there were no real winners. In any event, he certainly isn't saying it was a stalemate. Perhaps it would be useful if you listed some historians who think it was a stalemate because I think you would be surprised how few there are. Hattendorf is one.--Ykraps (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Alan Taylor (pg.458), "By producing a military stalemate, the war led to a sharper distinction between Upper Canada and the United States."

Willard Randall (pg.405), "the War of 1812 can only be accurately described as a costly stalemate."

Wade Dudley (pg.183), "It is debatable whether anyone won the War of 1812"

There is Albert Merrin (nobody won), Wesley Turner (both sides won), or other authors on the topic. That’s not accounting for DeathLibrarian’s “draw” polling consensus that I read; nor my previous listing of others (Tristan from StepBackHistory) among other online historians that have noted this as a draw or that both sides won. Or even the people who claim victory for one party but list a military stalemate prior that (i.e. Hickey, etc.) whom recognize this.

I will say (at this point) the most thorough author (regarding research) I that I found on the war has been Alan Taylor. His book is something like 458 pages (+600 pages on the topic counting citations) and it very meticulous. And I (initially) planned on keeping any further discussion on the "who won" category" for that talking page as I am trying to avoid walls of text on this page - but we'll see what happens. . . Ironic Luck (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume you are replying to me so I have indented your comment accordingly. As I constantly have to explain to those without a dictionary, a stalemate is a particular kind of a draw. It is not, no side won, nor is it both sides won, nor is it an agreement to a truce. It is a position from which it is impossible for either side to win. With that in mind, only two of those examples back up your position. You are going to have to do a lot better if you are to convince me that "the overwhelming majority of historians think it was a stalemate" and that all the other points of view are such a tiny minority we should discount them as fringe.--Ykraps (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

TFDYou have cherrypicked that quote, the full quote is "So this wasn’t a 'war that both sides won.' Only Britain achieved her aims as they stood in 1812; the United States achieved none of hers, and on that basis it can only reasonably be accounted a British victory. But in truth it was a ‘war that nobody won’; certainly not the dead, or the bereaved, or the maimed, or those rendered homeless." As per Ykraps, he is saying the war was pointless and didn't achieve anything, (many people killed) but he specifically says, *in terms of objectives*, Britain won. This is what he says in his book, and it is the same argument Benn and many others make. Ironic Luck I have been researching this for years, I do have references for 30 scholars who say the war is a draw... but I have about 18 who say Canada/UK won, and 3 who say the US won. There are plenty of historians who say the war was a draw, however, I think in support of what Ykraps's is saying, from what I can see, the ratio of "draw to Canada win" isn't as big as what people would believe, seems to be about 2:1, or may be 3:1. The complicating factor her of course, as Elinruby mentiond, is that there are so many more US historians and universities compared to Canadian ones. In any case, the ratio of Draw to win isn't as large as what people may think (and yes, I know primary research can't be used in articles, I just bring it up because I thought people may be interested) Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the full quote is, "So this wasn’t a 'war that both sides won.' Only Britain achieved her aims as they stood in 1812; the United States achieved none of hers, and on that basis it can only reasonably be accounted a British victory. But in truth it was a ‘war that nobody won’; certainly not the dead, or the bereaved, or the maimed, or those rendered homeless." You are cherry-picking when you choose the first part of the sentence and ignore the rest of the sentence and falsely claim that is the "full quote." I am not cherry-picking because I am not trying to use this source to prove anything, just explaining why we should not cherry pick it to prove something. TFD (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Well firstly, I was following on from a discussion where Ykraps had already mentioned that. My point is you only used part of the quote, and left out the context - the full quote shows what he was trying to say, and that is that there were no winners in the war, in that achieved nothing but death - however, in terms of objectives, the British won. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round. You presented part of the quote that said the UK won, then I presented the other part that said they didn't. Just as you should not use part of the sentence to conclude Latimer claims the outcome was British victory, I would not use part of the sentence to conclude he saw it as a draw. Since the sentence is ambiguous, you need a reliable secondary source to interpret it, not our personal interpretations. TFD (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

sigh, actually, you said Pierre Berton was not a quality source because he was not a historian. But don't mind me. Elinruby (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please stop misrepresenting my statements. TFD (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King You asked for comment on the "draw /both sides claim victory" I'm ok with this, I think it shows both viewpoints, good suggestion. Howver, I dissagree with "military stalemate" being in there, as its subjective, and its just one point of view, so I have removed it. Its says "draw" in there, so hopefully that should cover it anyway? - I hope that's ok, and that's the only changes I have to make, except I have to check on "louisiana invasion repelled", but I can open a separate thread for that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am glad you are okay with that; and yes, I hope you can check about the invasion. The only thing I disagree is about military stalemate which I believe should remain as it is sourced, it was the de facto result as established by the Treaty of Ghent and it does not actually contradict the claim of both sides; it is not unusual to have a military stalemate yet one side claiming win. De facto that is what happened, both sides stopped to fight each other; and even those who may say one side won, they do not disputed they fought to a military stalemate, so I do not see the issue with it, it is referring to what was established by the Treaty of Ghent and it is not really controversial as the actual result.--Davide King (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, lets agree to disagree about the military stalemate. May be it will be discussed in the dispute raised on the noticeboard, but for now, this is a lot better than it was at least. Thanks for all your hard work again. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you too, I really appreciate that. :-)--Davide King (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Re Jon Latimer: the full paragraph from Latimer's article in the History Network (note not his book) is: "So this wasn’t a 'war that both sides won.' Only Britain achieved her aims as they stood in 1812; the United States achieved none of hers, and on that basis it can only reasonably be accounted a British victory. But in truth it was a ‘war that nobody won’; certainly not the dead, or the bereaved, or the maimed, or those rendered homeless."[4] It's cherry-picking to take the first part of the paragraph and ignore the last part. This is one reason why we need secondary sources to interpret what someone actually said. I have raised the issue at RSN. TFD (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

actually eerily similar to my thoughts on one of your sources for "draw": it actually doesn't support it. It says that most people think it was a draw, but he disagrees.Elinruby (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Does that not actually reinforce the draw result? When even those who disagree or are in minority say that?--Davide King (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

re: repelled - if Britsh troops were still on American soil, they weren't "repelled." I think I changed that. Elinruby (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No issue about that. I did use chased out which I believe is exactly the wording you used to describe it when you explained it to me, so I hope you do not mind I used that.--Davide King (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to repelled, just because it’s the article itself vs the talk page. No strong feelings about this wording though if someone objects. Thanks for mentioning; I was a bit confused. It sounded like me but I didn’t remember doing it Elinruby (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Casus belli and territorial changes

Is there some consensus or agreement about what the causus belli was and what territorial changes were? Would status quo ante bellum for Britain and United States; and loss of territories (state which ones) for the indigenous nations and Spain suffice?--Davide King (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about "suffice"...and the wording would take some discussion. But I (personally) would consider some such proposal as a step in the right direction. Elinruby (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say there is general consensus among historians that the only permanent changes of territory as a result of the war were the Spanish possessions that the US got (Mobile and some other nearby areas). There is dispute over *exactly* what started the war, though I think historians would agree on somethings. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually they bought the Florida possessions about three years later. And there's a boatload of tribes that lost territory. Everyone keeps saying that nobody lost any territory, but that is an un-fact. Elinruby (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, they are helpful. However, I am not sure Everyone keeps saying that nobody lost any territory [...]. If you are referring about the use of status quo ante bellum in the infobox, it is not in territorial changes and it merely summarises the results of the Treat of Ghent which established a status quo ante bellum (for Britain and the United States). Hence why my proposal to add something at Territorial changes to clarify that the status quo ante bellum in Results is referring to Britain and United States and not to the indigenous nations and others that did lost territories.--Davide King (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would Results only include Britain and the United States? Elinruby (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And, just to clarify, you’re still talking about the info box, right? Elinruby (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I did not mean Results would only include Britain and the United States; I was referring only to status quo ante bellum (which is one of the things which appear in Results) per the Treaty of Ghent which is referring only to Britain and the United States (because it was the United Kingdom and the United States who did sign the Treaty of Ghent); I think Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy makes it clear it was not status quo ante bellum for the indigenous nations which did lose but this should be reflected in Territorial changes too. And yes, this is only about the infobox because we have a Casus belli and Territorial changes parameter and I wonder if there is some consensus around that.--Davide King (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

With wording changes maybe Elinruby (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

So what do you propose? I believe we should reflect the loss of the indigenous nations in Territorial changes too.--Davide King (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I told you before, there is no point in debating this. The infobox really does not reflect the article, the article is changing rapidly. And I really want a reference on it no matter what. Elinruby (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Here we are talking about territorial changes; these are facts. Since I believe you are more knowledgeable than me on this, I am asking you to write about the losses of indigenous nations' territories; which territories did they exactly loss and how many? Same for Spain; I believe it lost something to the United States, was it the Louisiana or Florida? Or was it something else?--Davide King (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert in this period but I believe the following is correct: Spain shortly afterwards sold its Florida holdings to the US. I believe the colony was called West Florida. Depending on how you measure, the indigenous nations lost most of what is now Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana, ie what was then the Northwest Territory... but that is off the top of my non-expert head.Elinruby (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

there was was probably also displacement in Georgia and Alabama, and I know there was in New York. Actually, there's a definite fact for you: the Mohawk in New York were displaced. The ones in Upper and Lower Canada were not. I believe the Seneca were also displaced from New York, but I think that was prior to this war and they were again displaced after this war, into Oklahoma. That is what happened to most of the indigenous nations, but there will be different dates and treaties related to this. Elinruby (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! One last question about that repelled invasions; was it Britain repelling the invasion in Lower/Upper Cannada and the United States repelling the one in Louisiana?--Davide King (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Northwest Territories were lost to the Nations, though as per the 1783 Paris treaty, Britain ceded those territories. So if the war were looked at strictly from the American/British view, Status Quo Antebellum. Tirronan (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Not quite--the British largely ignored the treaty of 1783 re Northwest Territories and supplied arms and safe harbor to Indians there. That ended in 1814. It had been a major cause of the war of 1812 and was a major result for US for the Indians. Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• I removed the loss of Spanish territories from the infobox. Just because the loss of the territories began during the war does not mean it was part of the war itself. Calidum 20:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the Creek War was a separate war that continued after the treaty. Which only affected some of the nations in this war. It is, to me, a matter of how broadly you interpret consequence and what time frame. The sale of Pensacola/West Florida as I recall was very soon after the end of this war, which probably helped convince the Spanish that it was more trouble than it was worth. So yes that is a consequence if we include the Creek war. The other fighting and treaties in the west are a bit of a blur but, it seems to me, extend over ten or fifteen years. Yet there is no question that this was the tipping point, where it became clear that Indigenous nations were not going to prevent the colonization of North America. It's complicated, but if you go through the links in the list of combatants and the List of Indigenous flags of North America (or whatever the category is at Wikimedia) you will see that almost all of them were displaced to Oklahoma, some from territory to which they had already been displaced once. By the way, feel free to fact-check the flags. They need it. I think we should delete the entire infobox personally.Elinruby (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: we are as it happens discussing related stuff right now. I think the sale was related to this war, but yanno, I am just answering questions here. When I got here Spain was listed as a participant but had no commander or casualty figures. I would be ok with deleting it altogether though, especially if we spin off Creek War. I also say we should delete the entire infobox. But. If we must have an infobox and we must include Creek War and we list Spain as a participant then somewhere in there we need to know HOW. For the record, Spanish casualties were very light, but there are some discrepancies in the numbers. Elinruby (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: on your question of fact, no you are thinking of the Louisiana Purchase, which is similar but afaik unrelated. The argument for repelled goes like this "US invades Upper Canada, burns capital, gets kicked out" is pretty similar to "Canada invades US, burns capital, gets chased out." I just think it's silly to discuss it because the whole infobox needs to be killed with a flame-thrower. But ok. That is where "repelled" came from. Doesn't explain the Creek War. Also omits Lower Canada, but that's ok, for an infobox ....there was only one battle there. The Canadian Voltigeurs should have a men Elinruby (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I knew about that, but I remember seeing Louisiana being mentioned and so I thought it was that or Florida. I believe the Creek War should be included because it was part of it and so this Spanish loss should be reflected in the infobox. As for the invasions, I do remember the discussion now, but I think it was Rjensen or maybe Tirronan who wrote about a decisive American win, I guess it was the battle of New Orleans and so I thought the Lousiana's invasion was also repelled in that sense. Here, Ironic Luck, whom I invite to reply back, wrote that [t]he same defensive argument proclaiming that British territories (Upper/Lower Canada) won the War of 1812 could be flipped with the American state of Louisiana. Louisiana was not considered American territory by the British (as it was sold to the United States by Napoleonic France in the Louisiana Purchase) and probably would have been returned to allied-Spain if their invasion was successful.--Davide King (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The British actually financed the US purchase of Louisiana in 1803 (provided the gold for Napoleon in return for US government bonds) and it's imaginary to suggest London did not recognize it. Rjensen (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello RJensen,

Ronald Drez and Ron Chapman discuss (in their books) how the British army viewed Louisiana as a separate entity from the United States as they tried to divide the public. I have in Archive 23 the quotation from Chapman available (in my first post) in case you would like to read that, but I’ll continue with Ronald Drez and I’ll leave this here:

Ronald Drez writes (pgs.203-204),

“On October 8, in a seemingly deviation from their negotiation talking points, the British minister brought up yet another subject. Having contended that land aggrandizement had always been America’s object of the war – vigorously denied by the Americans – they suddenly called into the question the legality of the Louisiana Purchase, and that it had been done without the consent of the Spanish king, and that the Spanish foreign minister had actually protested against the cession. “Can it be contended,” the British ministers asked, “that the annexation of Louisiana, under such circumstances, did not mark a spirit of territorial aggrandizement?”

It was an odd question, since the British had wholeheartedly approved of that transaction when it occurred because it took possession of the land out of the hands of Napoleon. The ministers now sought to mitigate that approval and conveyed the idea that they had been duped in the whole affair. “But the conditions under which France had acquired Louisiana from Spain were not communicated,” the letter said. “The refusal of Spain to consent to its alienation was not known; the protest of her ambassador had not been made; and many other circumstances attending the transaction were, as there is good reason to believe, industriously concealed.

The rest of this very long October 8 letter contained the usual demands concerns Indian affairs and boundary changes. After this one meeting, the Louisiana Purchase subject was curiously dropped and never came up again.

So what was the purpose of this extraneous presentation in the formal discussions at Ghent? In their constant demand for adjusting boundaries relative to fishing rights, and regarding forts along the Great Lakes, and request for land cessions in the northeast, they never asked for any boundary adjustment for the Louisiana Territory. The great invasion to seize New Orleans was under way, and the British had now placed themselves on record in an official document as having contested the legality of the Louisiana Purchase. After they seized New Orleans, they would have a better legal standing because they had publically stated that they were only acting to protect the interests of Spain – the right owner!

On October 21, the British commissioners introduced yet another wrinkle to the discussions and proposed an end to hostilities. They introduced the idea of uti possidetis as the basis for settling differences. That is, each side would keep whatever land it had seized from the other.”

I don’t know if I can type all of this without violating copyright (or if I have now and you may delete if deemed necessary) but Ronald Drez later discussed in the book that the islands off Passamaquoddy Bay (pg.307-309) and how each of the British demands was discarded (i.e. the indigenous buffer state, renegotiate the Mississippi River, etc.) and the islands were the only tipping point for the British negotiators to end negotiations. The American negotiators agreed to the inclusion of the words possessions in Article 1 of the proposed treaty for the (considered insignificant) islands of the Passamaquoddy Bay. This was a loophole as the desired territory was (as he put it on pg.307),

“New Orleans itself, and the Mississippi River.”

The point that Ronald Drez makes in his book (my paraphrasing now) is that the British negotiators were arguing in bad faith with the American negotiators. I am not trying to be rude here, but can you explain to me (or provide me a source) on how the British Empire was planning to give back stolen land to the United States upon their successful invasion?

Ironic Luck (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Mingo/Mascouten: no evidence of participation

I have removed the Mingo from the list of combatants. The entry is uncited and I am unable to find supporting evidence. Will also remove Mascouten unless I find evidence on this one last try I am about to make. Either or both of these entries can return to this list if accompanied by RS Elinruby (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Captions

Is it ok to un-center the photo captions in the info box? Also, for some reason the bullet is appearing after the caption, not before Elinruby (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you from mobile? Because from desktop it looks fine.--Davide King (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Ok, I will look at it on a laptop before I try to tackle this Elinruby (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Do not remove citation needed templates

There is no scenario in Wikipedia in which it is better not to provide a reference. If something is so clearly self-evident then referencing it should not be difficult. Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The infobox should be about key facts, so there should be no need to use refs there (just like for the lead). Military stalemate was the de facto result of the Treaty of Ghent and has been a constant in the infobox throughout the years along with status quo ante bellum; no one is disputing this. Those who claim one side won are making interpretations and they do not dispute de facto it was a military stalemate; they are disputing draw, not the military stalemate. As noted by Ironic Luck here, they are making a defensive argument such as Canada repulsed the invasion and was not annexed by the United States, hence they say she won (the same defensive argument has been used to support the United States' win claim); this does not change the fact it was a military stalemate, it is an interpretation which is represented in the main body (and I have no problem with this becfore you falsely claim I do) but does not contradict the military stalemate. Hence, why not simply say that it was a draw (the majority view of historians) but that both sides claim[ed] win which is true? If you want us to say it is actually disputed, we need sources that say the result is disputed because even those who say one side won, they still say they fought a military stalemate and admit that draw is the majority view, nor they say the actual result is disputed.--Davide King (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

See "References in infoboxes": "References 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." Readers don't want unnecessary clutter. TFD (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that there is a dedicated talk page archive for this one entry means it isn't obvious. Elinruby (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I am saying that any entry to this field needs a reference. At least one. Preferably about three. No matter what it says. Elinruby (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It says "IF the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere OR if the information is obvious." So as with the lead there is no need to provide footnotes if the information is provided in the article and in fact it is discouraged. TFD (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

please discuss where in the body this is discussed and cited? Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have better things to do than help you navigate the article. You set up a mediation request. Instead of opening up dozens on discussion threads here, why not confine your activities to the mediation request. TFD (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The mediation request has nothing to do with me. I think it is a waste of time no matter what happens, because there should not be an infobox. Some articles just should not. And there should be references, thank you, and not the Encyclopedia Britannica either. But anyway, the can be removed by providing the references. Elinruby (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the contentious nature of the article, and we have people arguing over viewpoints, it makes sense to include references. Also, I started the mediation request, not Elinruby Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Point of policy: at 20:54, 16 July TFD said,

So as with the lead there is no need to provide footnotes if the information is provided in the article and in fact it is discouraged.

Not quite. There is no requirement to provide footnotes, unless consensus is that they should be provided, such as in contentious articles or assertions, or if the material is challenged. This Infobox, and this article, are nothing if not contentious, and if the material is challenged, then per WP:Verifiability, footnotes must be provided, even in the WP:LEAD or in the Infobox, if there is one. Mathglot (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes quite. So long as the material in the LEAD or info-box summarizes information in the article, there is no requirement to provide a cite and in fact it is discouraged. TFD (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Davide King and Elinruby - I think the inclusion of Draw/Both sides claimed victory, and some of the other things here in the infobox makes it less NPOV. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand both sides declared victory. Both sides formally declared war and formally signed a peace treaty. But how and when did they declare victory? TFD (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian and Elinruby, thanks to you too! Again, I really appreciate that. The Four Deuces, I did not change it to that wording to say or imply both declared victory, but that both sides claimed victory which I believe it is true; both British Canada and the United States thought they won, or at least that is the interpretations some historians or other authors give. I am fine with that as long as we keep the majority view which it was a draw, if that is the only way to keep it, then so be it.--Davide King (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I continue to believe that the infobox should be removed. However the citations are a good start* and I think other recent changes have improved the infobox as well. They add to the issue of its length but the improved accuracy is worth it imho. I am going to see if the markup can be improved to compress some of the lists. Maybe
instead of bulleted list; I think that would remove the line of space after each item. Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I think "claimed victory" is probably safer than declared victory. Historians have claimed victory for both sides, and certainly after the war, both the people in both countries claimed victory. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Info-boxes are useful to casual readers who want to know the key points about the war. For example, someone reading about the Star Spangled Banner (which is a current issue) reads that its words were penned during the War of 1812, which they had never heard about. So they come to this article which tells them when and where the war was fought, who were the participants and what the outcome was. They're not interested that the Ontario French separate school system teaches that Canada won or that a sentence in an article Latimer wrote for the History News Network is ambiguous about whether the UK won or it was a draw. TFD (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD Is this your argument for not having references in the infobox? Not sure what you are saying here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll rephrase it. It's redundant clutter and the guidelines recommend against it. If you want to go against the recommendations in guidelines, you need to provide a reason. TFD (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes the infobox, where we now have CANADA WON! With a fucking newspaper article to provide the weighty proof for it in the fucking infobox. I am so proud, really.Tirronan (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

“Triumphantly celebrated the restoration of their national honor”

This should read “The Americans celebrated their perceived restoration of their national honor” - it is misleading to claim in the lede that their honor was “restored” when who decides that? The Americans decide when their own honor gets restored from a victory at the end of the war that wasn’t even the last land battle?

It is their own perceptions of honor restoration that should be highlighted.Hunkydawry (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

absolutely Elinruby (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I said the same thing about 3 weeks ago. It needs the word "percieved" added, to make it NPOV. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Who decides that? The same people who decide that the world is round - writers in reliable sources. Do you have evidence that these sources use that terminology? TFD (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The text accurately says what historians say they did: celebrate the restoration of national honor. "perceived" needs a reliable secondary source. For the evidence historians are using see John Grodzinski, The War of 1812: An Annotated Bibliography (2008) pp 244-250, summarizing numerous speeches in 1815. Take a look at this summary of the central role of national honor in Pennsylvania Rjensen (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The Canadas

There is no evidence that the red ensign was ever used as a flag for Upper or Lower Canada and should be removed.

Also, we should either use the individual names of the colonies involved in the war or the formal term used, British North America, instead of "The Canadas," which referred to Upper and Lower Canada. We should also consider removing the colonies altogether.

TFD (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The other advantage of the term British North America is that term at the time included Bermuda, which was definitely involved in this conflict. That being said, including subdivisions of the national whole doesn't make inherent sense to me. If we were to consistently include political subdivisions of the participating nations it would require us to include subdivisions of the United States such as the flags of Massachusetts and Maryland etc., which were analogously relevant to British North America at the time. Of the two internally consistent options of including both or neither, I would vote to include political subdivisions of neither Great Britain nor of the United States. --Noren (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are good points. The individual states also had their own militias but unlike the colonies of British North America, they elected their own governors and were sovereign within the federation. In fact state militias joined regular forces in the invasion of Canada, while other states did not call up their militias, remaining "neutral" in the war. TFD (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I dislike the probably-wrong flag for Canadas also, actually. I was thinking of listing the colonies individually though, since they are different; Newfoundland apparently sent ships to the Great Lakes, vs Halifax was apparently quite an important port. I believe there was a battle in New Brunswick but *after* this war. I was wondering about PEI. If the term British North America was in use at the time and included the Bahamas, that is an interesting suggestion. What else did it include though? Do you have a reference about this? Elinruby (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, I disagree with eliminating any of the militias. I actually think the militia that refused to leave Vermont was rather notable. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The militias are not in the info-box. I cannot find any source that says British North America was a defined place but Prevost was formally the Governor General of British North America. I think it is misleading to consider Canada or British North America or the individual colonies as combatants since they did not control their own executives and did not have war making powers. We don't for example list Hawaii as one of the warring parties in the attack on Pearl Harbor because although they had a territorial militia, they were a dependent territory. Even World War I lists often omit Canada because although de facto independent, it had no power to declare war or sign treaties and its troops were under the command of Whitehall, just as they were in 1812. The Commander-in-Chief of British North America and Canada has always been the Governor General who first acted on the orders of the King-in-Council and now acts on the advice of the Privy Council of Canada. In other words the role has remained the same but the decisions have moved from Whitehall to Ottawa. TFD (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Militias are commonly listed as combatants in many conflicts, with a lot less claim to being formalised units part of any government than these ones. At least these militias are related to colonial governments, with a Governer General. Look at Lebanese_Civil_War, Spanish_Civil_War Kurdish–Turkish_conflict_(1978–present). If people want to be really strict on the flag for British North America, it seems to have been the UNion flag, not the red ensign... but I'm hardly the person to ask. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

TFD has raised a question about a source at the reliable sources noticeboard. Elinruby (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Territorial Changes

1. The Louisiana Purchase was not from Spain, was it? And was it connected to this war? 2. Given this is an infobox, we probably don't need to list every complicated territory loss, just convey magnitude or "Many Indigenous nations were displaced from their territory, maybe". If you do do a list, it should be complete, and the one in the note omits New York and everything in the south. Elinruby (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I took out the Louisiana Purchase because that was in 1803. I am very willing to believe that these events are related but I have never heard that and the article doesn't mention it at all Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would prefer that the note go away because it's a whole thing of determining who last territory and how much, and somebody will inevitably be omitted, and it sort of trivializes something like that try to itemize it Elinruby (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"British invasion of Washington, D.C. repelled" infobox

I'm a bit confused, what does the ""British invasion of Washington, D.C. repelled" in the infobox, refer to historically? I mean, obviously the attack on the capital, Washington was successful and wasn't repulsed - is it referring to some other attack? Apologies if I have missed something here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The invasion of D.C. was a success, with the British leaving of their own accord after the storm once they had repaired their ships. How was it repulsed? The Infobox should read America’s invasions of Canada Repelled, British Invasion and burning of Washington. There is no equivalent failed invasion of the capital. There is lots of talk of “you must have a historical source” to support claims on this talk page, yet here there is no source to be found. It must say the invasion was successful, or simply state the american invasions were failures.Hunkydawry (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why this information is in the info-box. Both York and Washington were burned, but the respective invading forces were defeated elsewhere. TFD (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

My point was more that the American invading forces were defeated and beaten back every time, the British Invasion forces were not. In fact, at wars end they still occupied various areas in the United States, namely Fort Bowyer with plans to go on to take Mobile. In reality, the British invasion forces weren’t repulsed, albeit defeated at individual battles. If the infobox is to include the invasions, it should be correct. I’d argue it should also mention that British maritime belligerent rights remained unmolested, as that was a key war aim of the British.Hunkydawry (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)