Talk:War of 1812

Template:WikiEd banner shell

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)

I can go with removing it Elinruby (talk) 04:21, 20 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)

The use of flags in general is not the issue I have. The issue I have here is the use of modern flags (i.e. flags that were created after 1815). And regardless of whatever consensus is established on this talk page, this is an issue that conflicts with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which in nearly all cases, would trumps whatever consensus is established on a article's talk page. And while MOS:FLAGS does state that consensus to use anarchronistic flags can be established on a case-by-case basis, it also makes it clear that such consensus could only be established for articles which discusses the entity over a large historical period (which this article does not). And in saying all that, while there is a consensus on this talk page to use appropriate flags in the infobox, I can find no consensus established here over the use of modern flags (post-1815) in the infobox (and even if it was... the MOS begs to differ). Regardless of opinions on balance, they should not have been introduced into the infobox.

And in saying that, I don't really understand the argument that balance necessitates we use flagicons (absolutely nothing in the MOS states that all entities requires a flagicon for balance, and the section I linked earlier implies we don't do that). I mean... is the suggestion of using modern flags based on the perception that readers will arbitrarily place greater worth into entities that have a flagicon? Some entities legitimately didn't use flags in this period, and I'd argue that the forced application of flagicons onto those entities would be a form chronological snobbery on our part (not to mention its an anarchronistic...). Leventio (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Rangers

Listed under United States in the Forces section of the infobox: what units are these? Elinruby (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

These guys - I'll link them Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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’."[1] 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."[2] 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)

Ykraps, you are concerned with the definition which is quite understandable, but to support the change as “British Victory-Stalemate” as DeathLibrarian suggested is not neutral point of view either. Maybe you can clarify your position on this?

As to both DeathLibrarian and Ykraps,

Perhaps I hit every “military stalemate” available in succession (prior readings and post-Wiki discussion) and (with the added “draws” listed from my other books) came to this conclusion. Reliable historians have cited this as a fact, but I find it bizarre that other historians will sometimes leave it at a “draw” or even claim victory for Canada when the nation did not exist. I could make the same argument for Louisiana; I might as well use Ron Chapman (or other authors just talking about Louisiana) as a source for “victory” in the War of 1812 (despite the focus of being on the Louisiana side of the conflict) as the citations for “Canadian Victory” were a limited perspective on the entire war. I only cited Drez (as he looked over the papers) rather than Chapman (who focused strictly on Louisiana) in this war. If you only read Chapman (without any other textbook on the topic) then a reader would come to the conclusion that the United States won the war as there is no other perspective shown.

There is concern with the wording of a “military stalemate” but even Hickey (a “conflicting” source) has acknowledged that it was a “draw” on the battlefield prior to making his opinion of the war.

I am not going to re-read through multiple books right now. I actually remember seeing “stalemate” once in Wesley Turner’s book, but I cannot recollect the page right now and I will have to search for it later. On DeathLibrarian’s suggestion, I actually just bought Carl Benn’s book to read next week.

And there is a higher population density in the United States, but the government spending towards viewing this conflict as a “Canadian victory” is immense and my biggest problem with this article. That creates historians that are directly related to the bicentennial (pushing the Canadian narrative) rather than unbiased sources on the matter.

Stephen Marche is all about defense of Canada. He noted that it was an (embarrassing) military stalemate as well.

Robert Smol's article is primarily about Gordon Drummond rather than the larger focus (i.e. southern, western, naval, or even diplomatic) sides of the conflict.

Gilbert Auchinleck's book (according to the title) only goes up to 1814. If it that true then it is an incomplete history when dealing with the War of 1812. The treaty wasn’t ratified until February 16th, 1815. Keep in mind that the ratification process is important.

Example of ratification: The British failed to ratify an 1815 draft treaty known as the “Treaty of Nicholls’ Outpost.” It was signed by the Red Stick Creeks and other native tribes to defend them from potential invasion (via British protection) of the United States. This treaty made the natives British subjects as they raised the Union Jack under the Florida territory in post-War of 1812. This failed to stop the invasion into Florida which inevitably led to the Seminole Wars.

Ron Dale is a historian and retired 1812 Bicentennial Project Manager – and he states in his article:

“The Americans suffered embarrassing defeats in 1812, 1813 and 1814 and failed to annex Upper and Lower Canada or the Maritimes.”

This is the perfect example of what I was talking about with Canadian history. Ron Dale promotes the annexation theory of Upper and Lower Canada. I previously discussed that the United States voted against the annexation of the British territories prior to the American invasions in Archive 23. The annexation theory is one that even Donald Hickey argued against.

Dale has stated that the war had, “no impact on this sovereignty issue,” but the United States continued to provoke the British Empire and invade their (now former) allies post-War of 1812. Alan Taylor noted that this war led to “continental predominance” by the United States.

Dale ended his article with:

“The headlines in a newspaper after the Treaty of Ghent was signed could have read, The War is Over, Canada Won!”

Historians George Daughan and Ronald Drez have cited newspapers from that era that claim the opposite of Ron Dale’s claim. Drez cited the Dublin Evening Post:

"The American War has closed with unmitigated dishonor for England."

Daughan cited from the Edinburgh Review:

“the British government had embarked on a war of conquest, after the American government had dropped its maritime demands, and the British had lost. It was folly to attempt to invade and conquer the United States. To do so would result in the same tragedy as the first war against them, and with the same result.”

As for the money spent towards War of 1812, I'll leave the news article here:

“A bill to set up a United States commission to mark the bicentennial of the war as well as “The Star-Spangled Banner” died in Congress, although the Navy, Coast Guard and Marines are holding commemorations. Several states that have established War of 1812 commissions that rely mainly on sponsorships, donations and, in Maryland’s case, the sale of commemorative coins.

New York’s governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, vetoed a bill to establish a War of 1812 commission, but he allocated $450,000 for commemorations. By contrast, the government of Canada is spending $6.5 million on television commercials alone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/world/americas/canada-highlights-war-of-1812-casting-us-as-aggressor.html?_r=0

I just watched Drachinifel’s video on the War of 1812 (Freshwater Edition) on YouTube and the United States was still planning to build more ships to continue the War of 1812. And knowing about the U.S. invasions (south and westward) post-War of 1812 actually does make me question the military stalemate.

Historians (by majority and even citing their own books) have labeled this a draw in some fashion. Would you prefer an “inconclusive draw on the battlefield” as it seems as if both sides were willing to fight (if for a limited time) when the Treaty of Ghent was signed? Stagg mentioned in his article that he couldn’t see this war continue for another year for either side. I am fully open to “Both Sides Claim Victory” as it seems that both sides (British and American) have their own case and a "draw" is possibly the best definition here.

Ironic Luck (talk) 07:21, 21 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 rightful 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)

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)

That is not what Mathglot (talk · contribs) said.

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)

It's a reliable source and it's quoting a historian in his own words, no? It also doesn't say Canada won. It says Canada says it won and the US says it won. It is also right next to two sources, one of which supports the "draw" interpretation. I am not sure I understand the issue.Elinruby (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not redundant clutter Elinruby (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And that is crap. Sorry but it is. And it does not belong in an infobox. I'm sorry but we are writing a history article. I've stated this before, it should not state how people feel about the war in an infobox. You might want to put an aftermath section where it would be appropriate. I would also recommend that the Era of Good feelings go in such a section. I do not agree that this belongs in the infobox.Tirronan (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Era of Good Feelings in an Aftermath section is a good idea. I still need to see the RS for the whole “consensus of historians” claim. So far we have one. Elinruby (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

PS we should delete the infobox. There is no requirement to have one. Elinruby (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Collapse discussion thread started by sockpuppet

“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) Note Hunkydawry has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Jack Coppit [3]. --TFD (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC) (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) I rather object to the term being used at all. There is way too much boosterism in this article. I would prefer that the article take a more neutral tone. As it stands it sounds like two sides wrote the article. We are to write the article in a manner that does not take sides. it does not at this point.Tirronan (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Tirronan Do you mean you'd prefer that the term "National honour" isn't used? In that case, I agree, and I would certainly agree with the article taking a more neutral tone, and just stating the facts. This particular sentence has been brought up multiple times by different editors for sounding jingoistic. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC) It totally sounds jingoistic. There may well have been a school of thought that felt that way, but this should not be in the voice of Wikipedia. Especially since only Americans believe it Elinruby (talk) It is. I agree. My thought here is like all such things, this is the aftermath after the war. The problem is that it is a war article period. There were lots of effects from the war that far outweigh the war itself. From the British side only two things went right. The blockade, and if you have a 600 ship navy and can't pull off a blockade, I don't know what to tell you. The other thing was the defense of Canada, and all thoughts to the contrary that was entirely Britain and the Confederation's doing. Canadian militia was hard to find, hard to recruit, and few in number. This applies to the most extreme extent to upper Canada. Almost everything else was pretty ugly. From the American side, all that can be said was that it held off a much larger nation. If you want to get an agreement from the other editors, the way it has to be handled is "just the facts", and put everything mushy in the aftermath section. Even then, I'd keep it to what can be proven with MS historians. Oh, btw, Britain wasn't bragging about winning the war, it was concluded just as the 100 days was beginning. The few articles I've been able to see varied between, "well that is over with", to "we are going to regret that we didn't wreck them".Tirronan (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Britain didn’t care very much, I agree Elinruby (talk) 08:15, 20 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)

Militias are listed as combatants, however, do not attempt to use that to list Canada as a separate nation, we have had that discussion before. I resent the fact that you keep attempting to do this. Tirronan (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It makes sense to list militias if they are autonomous of central power. In Lebanon and Spain, for example, various political parties had militias that worked in loose alliance. In the War of 1812, the various Indian tribes acted in a similar way. But both American and British militias operated under the command of their respective commanders-in-chief, even though some state militia resisted central control but acted as defense forces only. Various Canadian militia regiments have fought overseas, but are not listed as separate parties to the war. And if you are going to list each militia regiment, why not list every regular forces regiment too? The most similar war may be the American Revolutionary War, which featured militia on both sides, yet they are not listed in the info-box. TFD (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

my thought would be to list them separately because 1. Upper Canada was invaded 2. Lower Canada was not, I believe, actually invaded, but did supply militia 3. New Brunswick also supplied militia 4. Nova Scotia: Halifax was important in the naval battles 5. Newfoundland supplied ships. We could balance this out on the American side; for example Andrew Jackson was commanding the Tennessee militia Elinruby (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well in the examples I gave some of those militia are autonomous of central power, and others are proxy forces - but they are all listed in the infobox. It would appear to be that that Militia are listed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

actually the fencibles did not commit to battles outside of North America Elinruby (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I think all the flags should go, Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs), and especially that one since nobody can articulate a good reason for using it Elinruby (talk) 04:47, 20 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)

Correct, for example the Brits were defeated quite soundly at New Orleans, but Jackson declined (possibly wisely) to leave the cities defences after the battle to attack them, as they still had considerable forces. The Brits buried their dead, and left the area unmolested to attack Mobile. So the attacks on some of the cities failed, but the invasion forces themselves weren't defeated or repulsed from US territory.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, since I am probably the most recent person to change this field, I'll speak up. I should mention at the start that I think this field, definitely, should just be deleted, and probably the entire infobox which is just full of this sort of problems. It did say "chased out" which another editor picked up from my comments on the talk page, where I am more colloquial. Encyclopedic language was my rationale for the change. Now, was I wrong to say chased out? Yes, possibly, if it is true that they simply withdrew. I am remembering some sort of fake-out that the National Park Service docents discuss at Fort Washington. The article doesn't really discuss British goals for this campaign, or if so I missed it. If it was a punitive raid for putting York to the torch, then repelled is indeed the wrong word also. That is what I have to say about this. I will try to look up what happened at Fort Washington Elinruby (talk)

Nope, whatever I am trying to remember does not support "repelled". The British captured the fort on their way back down the Potomac from DC. I agree the wording should be changed if we can't bjust delete the field and/or the inbox Elinruby (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

On another, related, note: the US invaded Upper Canada. They tried to invade Lower Canada but never actually entered it. The rest of Canada was affected but not invaded. Elinruby (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I made some changes for discussion purposes. The wording is a bit awkward and this definitely doesn't help the the length of the infobox issue I am complaining about, but do we all agree that this is accurate? Let's start there. We can work on smoothing afterwards Elinruby (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve tried to clear up the wording, “of” instead of “in” and added British maritime rights.Hunkydawry (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What's your objection to "in"? "Of" sounds strange to me, but this may be a dialect issue. What I am trying to get across is that fighting continued in the Creek War, which for some reason we are considering part of the War of 1812, long after the Treaty of Ghent.Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know why it’s included either, but “in” implies the preposition that Britain was a belligerent, because it directly follows the British vs American invasions. But fighting “of” the war is more a statement on its own.Hunkydawry (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok I see. My intended meaning was that fighting continued in the Creek War but not in the other theatres. I don't have a better idea at the moment, but if you think my wording implied that the British were involved, then that's a good reason. I'll come back to this later, need to go somewhere. Elinruby (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The entire term is wrong. It wasn't an invasion it was a raid. So, excuse the sordid facts, the British, note for the particularly dense NOT CANANDIAN, had approx 6,000 troops. They had defeated the militia. Had they intended to stay now that would be an invasion? But, since their commanders were not insane, they properly retreated before the forces in the area reorganized and animated them. The burning of Washtionto, or the raid on Washtington would be the correct terminology. LETS TRY REALLY HARD NOT TO MAKE THIS ARTICLE LOOK LIKE IT WAS WRITTEN BY TWO-YEAR-OLDS WITH NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT!Tirronan (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Tirronan it was a punitive attack, as retribution for the Burning of York, and to send a message to the US... it wasn't meant as invasion of conquest as such, though it does come down to semantics. I have seen it described as a raid, though IMHO the fact it involved a full scale battle at Bladensberg tends to indicate a raid is an understatement. My original point was that, whatever it was, it wasn't repelled. "The Burning of Washington" I guess is what it is generally called, so that seems most appropriate. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I am ok with saying “raid” on DC. I also don’t know why you’re complaining about Canadians. The last time I looked at the infobox it said the British invaded Washington. If you want “raided” Washington, that is fine with me. Elinruby (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what his comment about the Canadians is referring to either - certainly no one said they were at the Burning of Washington - there's seems to be some beef about the Canadian colonies being equated to as a country or something, not sure if he is referring to that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, they were not, however, I am about fed the hell up with the meme with the Canadian colonies being victors, or feeling that they were victors and it finding its way into the infobox. This has been discussed before and I am expecting that to be removed shortly or I am going to remove it. We have not gotten consensus on this addition and I find it very offensive and, disrespectful of the editors that have said no. Tirronan (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan I think the infobox, after a lot of work done by Davide King and Elinruby with a bit of input from myself and others is pretty fair. I don't agree with military stalemate being in there unchallenged, but at least now it is sort of balanced. I'm not sure what you intend to do to change it, but I would seek consensus here before you intend to make any controversial changes, because you are just likely to start an edit war if it doesn't reflect the article and isn't NPOV. In any case, it doesn't say "Canadian colonies being victors" it says "US and UK both claim victory"... possibly it's changed since that comment was made and this has satisfied your concern. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that and I am getting tired of being lectured about something I never freaking said. A) there is nothing sacred about an infobox. We don’t have to have one and I really think this article should not. Two, if you think the infobox says Canada won the war, welp, it has changed since I last saw it. Three, I really don’t want to hear about my alleged lack of respect at this point, especially from editors who don’t trouble to do anything but yell about the outcome. You want to know what I think, ask *me not some dweeb that doesn’t even read the page. Now write me another ALL CAPS RANT about the things you think I want to do with the page and how disrespectful they are Elinruby (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Even the "both claimed victory" doesn't really belong in the infobox. That is just a claim, not a fact. The German population claimed they were stabbed in the back as the reason they lost at the end of WW1. Despite the fact that Gemany couldn't stop the Allied armies advances. Does that belong in the infobox? It does not belong in the infobox. Now take it out.Tirronan (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan, I agree, but that seemed the only way for us to say it was a draw. Do you prefer this?--Davide King (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do like that better. Infobox changes should have a wide discussion before changing them given the history of this article Tirronan (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok some Historians have claimed this as a victory for the UK so it does belong in there. We already agreed that this needed to go into the Results box to make it NPOV. I thought this was settled, do we really have to start this all over again Tirronan ???? Both a draw and a Britsh Vcotry is claimed by Historians, except there is just a majority of Historians claiming it as a draw - but that is only one opinion - history is not simply decided by how many historians say something. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

DB, we have discussed this to death, and you have had the answer from the editors that actually work on the page. No means no. The way you phrase that is not correct. Tirronan (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan We need all viewpoints represented in the infobox, and major changes to this change need to reflect a consensus of the editors on this page. There are historians that say it was a draw, and others that say it was a UK Victory, both those views need to be represented in the Infobox. Please respect NPOV. This is just another example of editors arguing over the infobox, when I thought we had finally come to a solution. At this point, seriously, I am so frustrated with it, I am starting to agree with Elinbruby, and saying it should just be killed. Davide King, Elinruby and I had actually come to an agreement that works, and you have come along and removed that, without asking us, or achieveing any sort of consensus. How long must this go on? Can we please agree on this, some of us have other things to do than continue endless debates on this sort of thing Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reinserted the reference as we agreed on, with the claim for UK victory, as made by some historians with new wording. I hope this suffices.If we can't agree on this, I suggest we remove the results field. I am not going to spend endless hours constantly debating this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you Davide King has reinserted "Both sides claim win" which I think was the agreed compromise, and reflects historians making claims for both viewpoints. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, if the deciding factor is who actually worked on the page, as far as I can tell not one of you people do outside of the ridiculous infobox. I saw Rjensen (talk · contribs) delete some uncited text about sailors who were British nationals the other day, and that's it. Davide King (talk · contribs) watches the page and checks out what I do. Says he doesn't feel qualified to edit. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Elinruby (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You'd be very wrong, there are all sorts of incidental edits but if you go back far enough you'll find us. Don't ever question my work again. Tirronan (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sir. Take a deep breath and process the fact that I don't take orders from you. I have deferred to you in matters of naval strategy because you seem to know more on the topic than I do. And I am very willing to believe that you have been a major contributor to the current article. But here lately, you have been very busy and fine; anyone can understand that. The talk page of this article will become a full-time job if you let it. But please understand that people are working on the article, and it needs a lot of help. You should read through it Elinruby (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S It would be better to just delete the whole thing. The entire infobox is like this. Deleting the results section would however be a good start.Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, in terms of the infobox, I thought we had sorted it out, and it was done and dusted. But yes, I agree, if this continued debate goes on, seriously, I'm going to start an RFC and ask for it to be deleted, and have a link to the relevant section - as per the infobox guidelines. I'm going to commit to putting more time into the page, and less into the infobox, I'll start by looking for references for some of the statements made in the page. I've got plenty of references here, and access to University databases, so hopefully this will help the effort. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Better references would help immensely. And those of us who aren't subject matter experts would deeply appreciate better annotated references, maybe even in cite format with a quote and oh btw one of the references I did have access to did not support the text it followed, so there is room for a healthy critical eye on the referencing of this thing. This is kind of normal in an article like this that's been serially edited. For example somebody may have moved some text without taking the reference with it. This is particularly likely to happen when the references are grouped at the end of a long sentence Elinruby (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if an RfC would be met with stunned silence, but it's worth a shot. Be sure to link to the archive and explain what it is ;) Elinruby (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Getting back to this question of "repelled", I am ok with any other wording that is accurate and can be sourced. I suggest "withdrew" or "defeated" depending on the facts (thus the source request). I hereby voted in favor of anything that can be proven. Balance and weight may be necessary if it really looks like there are two different versions. I need to go work on some other stuff. Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Tirronan is right here - if you want to mention the event in the infobox, you would just say "Burning of Washington". Roughly, the British sailed up, landed troops, won the battle of Bladensberg, marched into nearby Washington unopposed, burnt some of the buildings there, took some supplies, hopped on their ships and left. The Americans were either destroying things (mainly at the naval yard) so the Brits couldn't get them, or were evacuating. The Brits certainly weren't repulsed or chased away from Washington, they weren't even engaged at all, apart from some citizens complaining about looters. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We have a point of agreement here since I loath, dispise, and otherwise hate, infoboxs in general, and in this article in particular. I'e prefer the infobox simply refer the the treaty of Ghent and refer to an aftermath section. I'd also prefer the article get drastically shortened and get much more precise. Tirronan (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably your go to guy on military and naval matters in this period. Be careful on the destruction of trade interestingly the historians get that one wrong. Tirronan (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You need more buy in than just me on infobox changes. You and DL do not rate as a majority consensus. I'd prefer to hear from TFD and RJensen on this as well. Tirronan (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The info box:

- I sort of agree that the defeat of Tecumseh’s Confederacy helps (related to the northwest) as it explains the indigenous struggle within the United States.

- I never perceived either the burning of Washington or York as assisting with the info box. There is a display picture of the British burning Washington. Why was there any need to address a point that is clearly the biggest picture shown?

- The target for the British Empire (on the northeast coast) was Philadelphia; the British failed in Plattsburgh and Baltimore. Plattsburgh resulted in a court martial and Baltimore (North Point) resulted with Ross being killed in action.

- There is no page 329 listed in Brian Arthur’s book. Brian Arthur’s book ends at page 328 – unless you count the Forward, Preface, etc. I presume that whoever cited Brian Arthur (in the info box) did so in jest. Perhaps they can clarify why “p 329” is listed on there or it is somewhere else in the book?

Arthur writes (pg.201),

“During its course the war had sometimes been unjustifiably described, both within Congress and outside, as a second war of independence. However, had the Ghent treaty not been ratified it seems doubtful whether Britain would have been able to sponsor the separation of New England from the Union, beyond the initially selective British blockade, because of further potential British military and financially commitments in Europe in 1815. In America, the apparent possibility of New England’s secession, and a separate treaty with Britain, had prompted discussion of its commercial isolation, and military intervention, by the rest of the Union.”

Arthur claims that the “second war of independence” is unjustifiable in his book yet (in the info box) the wiki-editor claimed that Arthur wrote that the majority see this as a draw? Arthur may have written this somewhere in his book, but I am not going to bother looking for the page right now. Arthur adds to the fact that the Federalists (whom wanted the British to win) were abandoned - which again addresses what I said earlier (Archive 23) of the British Empire abandoning all of their allies.

Taylor’s book writes (pg.439),

“The ultimate legacy of the war was that the empire and the republic would share the continent along a more clearly defined border more generous to the Americans and more confining to the British – but most ominous to the Indians.”

Ironic Luck (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironic Luck yes, good point. I have an e copy of that book, I just ran a search on it and can't see a reference to him saying anything about a draw. I mean, the search may have missed it. I think if no one comments, may be it can come out, as the page number is defintely wrong. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Article should be accurate. Is this in infobox? Good catch, you guys. Just asking, could the issue be a different edition? Elinruby (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I can agree with the infobox as is. Tirronan (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on with the Brian Arthur book, There are listings for it having 352 pages and 328 pages - looks like its only a 2011 edition, but there could be a difference between hardcover and softcoaver. biblio record for it lists it as having 352 page Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

One thought on this is that the Google Books page numbers used in the url often differ from the ones in the corner of the image of the printed page. However, as I recall this is not cited to Google Books. This is why full cites would be nice. Elinruby (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice Boards and Selective Invitations

It has some to my attention that I and several other editors have not been notified of notice boards where we should have been notified. I also note that those boards seem to have editors that I've never seen before showing up at these noticeboards. Would you care to explain what you are doing with these actions Deathlibrarian? Tirronan (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well there are a lot of noticeboard issues flying around at the moment from various people, so I'm not sure why I am getting singled out, but if you are talking about the request for third party comment, I put the notice up, and then mentioned it here on the talk page asking for comments, and added the link, and some people did - I also *specifically* mentioned you by name, inviting you to comment. That was a week ago. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I wrote: "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)"

From this point on make sure you invite all concerned. It could be taken as packing the board with people you want. That would be a rather serious violation, we clear? Tirronan (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I take it you haven’t yet noticed the new issue, which is at Reliable Sources for some reason. And FYI this wasn’t Deathlibrarian. But yes, at notice boards everyone involved is supposed to be notified. And there really should be a post on the article talk page also. Elinruby (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please avoid personal attacks, which detract from constructive use of the talk page. I posted a question at RSN sbout Jon Latimer's article and mentioned it in the discussion of Latimer's article above. It's very hard for anyone reading this page to find anything since there are dozens of discussion threads. There is in fact no requirement or even recommendation at RSN to notify other editors on the talk page. TFD (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan You were making comments implying you didn't want to be in a lengthy discussion, and you were "over it all": You said: "So I am to gather that we are going to blog endlessly and accomplish not one single thing of note. I do not agree with any of these assertions, WHICH ARE NOTHING, BUT REPEATED ARGUMENTS REHASHED ENDLESSLY. You two will continue to blog on hoping to wear the rest of us out. At least if we are consistent with past blog storms. Stop wasting other editor's time with the rehashed shit. I think that 20 years of this is long enough. Make your points in consices terms, and stop wasting our time. Tell you what just put it down to a vote and be done with it. Please do not repeat another argument from the past expecting to get another answer. God, what I waste of good time and brain cycles" - so I didn't include you based on this - this statement implied you didn't want to be involved in a long mediation. Damned if I do, damned if I don't!!. I don't ask you, and you are pissed off for not including you. I do ask you, and you could have been pissed off for being included in another long mediation. In the end, I extended to you a specific invitation to be part of the noticeboard, acknowledging the hard work you and Rjensen have done over the years, and you didn't take up the invitation. In any case, I acknowledge that I should have asked everyone, but I wanted to explain why I didn't ask Tirronan specifically. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

it’s a personal attack to say you opened a discussion at RS? Elinruby (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it is your passive-aggressive wording, "I take it you haven’t yet noticed the new issue, which is at Reliable Sources for some reason." TFD (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well? It is open, right? At RS right? For a reason, right? You just haven't shared the reason with the rest of us. I know Tirronan (talk · contribs) is busy, just trying to keep him caught up. Feel free to take it to a noticeboard, but hehe, that's a statement of fact. It is also a statement of fact that afaik you still haven't answered Ykraps (talk · contribs) Elinruby (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to Ykraps' question at 05:59, 17 July 2020, my reply is at 20:04, 17 July 2020 in the same discussion thread. Note that I was discussing Latimer's article. "A Truly Pointless War ... The War of 1812," not his earlier book. And the reason I asked at RSN whether Latimer claimed in the article that the UK won is that I didn't think he did and wondered whether outside editors agreed or disagreed with me. TFD (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

But in reliable sources context really matters and you failed to provide any. So what were you going to do after the one editor told you that that it seemed out of context? I ask you. Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We were discussing a list of historians that supported the view that the war did not end in a draw. Latimer was one of those historians. You participated in those discussions., TFD (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, you were having previous concerns over my posts related to being in the “wrong section” in Archive 23, but here you are discussing an unrelated section of the wiki article down here. I actually find your behavior concerning as:

- You failed to provide me with citations in Archive 23 (i.e. Canadian annexation without any citation) as you cited your memory from school rather than a textbook.

- You never answered my one question to you. Look it up again.

- You went onto Davide King’s talk page to argue with him and somehow mistook your prior argument with me towards him.

- You have fewer citations yet you’ve made more unnecessary edits (i.e. flags) to the War of 1812 page.

Explain to me what books have you read on this topic? Why are you changing the War of 1812 page so much without proper discussion on the Talk page first?

Ironic Luck (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Elinruby is doing lots of good work here, tidyign up things, and dealing with issues that were long overdue, including pushing for the article to be shorter. I think its good to have a different pair of eyes looking at it. To be fair, a lot of his edits are minor things and not really worthy of discussion, same with Davide King. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironic Luck (talk · contribs), I don't mean to put you down but I have multiple big projects going and all I signed up for here is a couple of hours pro bono; not that the rest of what I do on Wikipedia is not, but this is very far from my actual interests, yet so deeply dysfunctional. If you are a history student with access to some of these texts, that's awesome, and the article could really use your help verifying citations. If you are just a new user who happened to stumble in here, the article currently fails to follow Wikipedia guidelines in a number if ways. What I have been doing is called a copy-edit, which is now past the initial stage of grammar, spelling and wikilinks, and is examining the structure. I normally do several of these a week. You might want to look at Debt-trap diplomacy if you think I am being mean here. I don't remember talking to you about schools, unless you are actually TFD. I literally do not have time for this conversation with you, especially since it interrupts progress being painfully made towards consensus. Elinruby (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Jingoist sentence

Ok, so this one is pretty bad. Yay America! I think this could be reworded in a more neutral fashion.

• (as it is now)"The Treaty of Ghent failed to secure official British acknowledgement of American maritime rights or ending impressment. However, these rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I. The defeat of Napoleon made irrelevant all of the naval issues over which the United States had fought. The Americans had achieved their goal of ending the Indian threat; furthermore the American armies had scored enough victories (especially at New Orleans) to satisfy honour and the sense of becoming fully independent from Britain.[231]" Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• How about something a bit more neutral like:
• (suggested change)The Treaty of Ghent failed to secure the US desire for British acknowledgement of their maritime rights, or the ending of impressment. In any event, US maritime rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until the end of World War 1, and the need for British impressment stopped with the defeat of Napoleon. The Americans had achieved their goal of ending the Indian threat; through some of the major victories achieved, the United states felt their honor had been upheld, were happy their territory was maintained and that peace had been achieved.

References

Better. Fixes some things. More details later if you want Elinruby (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, yeah I thought it was a bit too jingoistic. Overall, it would be good to make the text more fact based. I'll leave it here a while and see what other comments pop up before I change it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no use for the satisfied honor bit at all. Agreed on that point. Ian Toll noted that while impressment was not addressed, the RN went to some pains ensuring American vessels were not stopped. Two reasons behind that being that again unspoken the commerce raiding had never been successfully curtailed, nor did Britain want another flareup with America when the 100 days started. Also, we are going to have to address the point that the relationship between the countries changed pretty radically. Winston Churchill noted it in fact. Both countries got a lot more cautious in their dealings with one another. Two points of note there impressment ceased. The second being when Canada had its issues in the 1830's Irish immigrants began using America as a staging area for revolts. US authorities stamped down on it hard, throwing more than a few in prison for it. When pressing for the Northwest territories, the American negotiators pointed out that the best warrant for Canada was a peaceful neighbor. That was echoed by the RN Admiralty stating that "if another war with America broke out we must lose Canada." The points here that both countries had a lot to lose and little to gain with another war. Tirronan (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the phrase 'failed to' is not neutral, particularly in reference to the ending impressment- that objective de facto happened anyhow so the Treaty didn't fail, rather it simply didn't address something that was no longer needed. How about:

• "The Treaty of Ghent did not include an acknowledgement of American maritime rights or address British impressment. However, these rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I. The defeat of Napoleon made irrelevant all of the naval issues over which the United States had fought. The Americans had achieved their goal of ending the Indian threat; furthermore the American armies had scored enough victories (especially at New Orleans) to satisfy honour and the sense of becoming fully independent from Britain.[231]"

--Noren (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I still feel that is NPOV, and would support the “suggested change” as above by Deathlibrarian and Elinruby. It seems to focus far more on what America achieved without including what Britain achieved. For example, my suggestion would be: The Treaty of Ghent just like that of Vienna completely maintained Britain’s maritime belligerent rights, while failing to acknowledge American maritime rights or the end of impressment. While these rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I, the defeat of Napoleon made the need for impressment irrelevant and the grievances of the US no longer an issue. America achieved their goal of ending the Indian threat, and felt their honour had been upheld with victories throughout the war.

I’d even go further personally and add citations from Madison to congress stating he could not in any way Force the British to concede maritime rights and even went so far as to say he couldn’t dare demand an end to impressment in the treaty, but I feel my paragraph is fair and balanced to BOTH sides.Hunkydawry (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would you change until WWI to until the end of WWI? TFD (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

So...some thoughts, don't hate. I agree that "failed to," implies, well, failure. I dislike "Indian threat". I agree that Americans probably though of it in those terms. Ditto national honour. How about:

the defeat of Napoleon made the need for impressment irrelevant and the grievances of the US no longer an issue. America achieved their goals, and felt their honour had been upheld.

Elinruby (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems like the verb "felt" is less likely to get lost in the shorter text and the sentence is actually stronger and more pro-American if we don't try to shoehorn in a complex summary of the cultural zeitgeist. it sounds like people agree what happened with maritime rights, just not on wording yet; I've been trying not to get involved with this discussion so I am fine with whatever people agree on. I'd rather leave out the stuff about peace at least in the lede, because that wasn't really true if you were Native American. Elinruby (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, good point, Noren about "failure" is a non neutral term. Yes, good point also TFD - it should be until WW1. Ok, combining Hunkydawry, with Elinruby... changing the WW1 reference for TFD and removing the reference to failure for Noren. I agree, I'm not 100% on the national honour thing, but the sources do make reference to it, and as per Elinruby - I think the US peeps saw it that way. How about:

"The Treaty of Ghent, just like that of Vienna, completely maintained Britain’s maritime belligerent rights, while not acknowledging American maritime rights or the end of impressment. While these rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I, the defeat of Napoleon made the need for impressment irrelevant and the grievances of the US no longer an issue. As such, America achieved their goals, and felt their honour had been upheld." Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

should be Americans/their or America/its, one or the other, but yeah. That language makes clear that this is them and Wikipedia is taking no position on the matter ;) Elinruby (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

And I personally would say "...Treaty of Ghent, which like the Treaty of Vienna..." but this what we call a minor edit, no? Elinruby (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes that makes the Treaty of Vienna connection a bit clearer, I agree.

OK, with the grammar changes - "The Treaty of Ghent, which like the Treaty of Vienna, completely maintained Britain’s maritime belligerent rights, while not acknowledging American maritime rights or the end of impressment. While these rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I, the defeat of Napoleon made the need for impressment irrelevant and the grievances of the US no longer an issue. As such, America achieved its goals, and felt its honour had been upheld." Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll update it - note here if you have any issues - thanks for your input everyone. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we agree on the principle of the thing. I have a few additional linguistic quibbles, some of them rooted in translation concerns, since this would be the standard at es.wiki or fr.wiki for the topic so it should if possible be really clear. 1.end of impressment: verb appears to be acknowledged, which is awkward and confusing. Consider “or promising the end...” or “or formalizing the end...’’ or some other verb there. 2. Strike “while” and simplify sentence structure, ie “and the defeat”. Sentence is getting long so break there. Make grievances their own sentence and make clear that this relates to impressment. Strike as such. Change to past perfect (had achieved). I will type the text back out with these changes, but any or all of the above would be good, if you ask me. Elinruby (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"The Treaty of Ghent, like the Treaty of Vienna, completely maintained Britain’s maritime belligerent rights, while not acknowledging American maritime rights or making an end of impressment. These rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I, and the defeat of Napoleon had made the need for impressment . So the US grievances about it were no longer an issue. America had achieved its goals, and felt its honour had been upheld." <= all of this discussable, natch Elinruby (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

one thing is though, “rights” is saying British rights were not violated, is that what we mean to say? I have been trying to stay out of the naval aspects of this war, which look like a huge time suck Elinruby (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Rights in the second sentence is referring to American maritime rights not being violated by the Uk. Yes you're right, the fact rights is used twice in the first sentence is probably confusing - I'll change it to make it clearer. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I dont like this

10,000 lol [4]

Not true. But an indian victory is labelled a massacre and thus so for your troops today, my friend. 24.235.46.183 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem. You do know you can edit the page, right? Well, I guess you need an account with a little experience under its belt, but if you can articulate what change you think should be made and why, it could possibly happen. Or it may get argued about for the next fifteen years. Depends what it is. I think you are talking about the casualties and the references to atrocities in Indiana or somewhere? If so, I agree, those are both problems. Elinruby (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please post some examples of this? I must have missed them and I would like to analyse that.--Davide King (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not the IP whisperer but I believe someone is complaining about "10,000" indigenous casualties in the infobox yet the article talks about "Indian atrocities" and says they massacred people. That is how I read it anyway. Elinruby (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know and I agree that should be changed or removed, but I was asking if you please link or direct me to some of this wording so I can try to fix it. In which section, etc. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Didn't I ask you to stop editing the indent on my comments???? It's a really bad practice to play with other people's comments. Elinruby (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not editing other people's comments; I am not changing any word. Is it so hard for you to correctly identicise to make clear who you are responding to? Now could you please link me to the section about "Indian atrocities" so I can remove/reword that?--Davide King (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification

• Arthur - may be edition issue? Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) and Ironic Luck (talk · contribs) cannot find that page.
• Hickey - does not support claim it references.

• On replacing the Toronto Star reference with the two books now there, I have no objection in principle but the cite must be verifiable. I am currently having a little trouble with that, but the fact that I am having trouble doing it on my smartphone doesn't mean it can't be done and if DL or IL want to knock that out it would simplify *my* life. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It is verified in the main body. I did put those two sources just to show that even those who claim one side won over the other still acknowledge the result was a draw.--Davide King (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

C'mon now, we had finally reached a compromise.--Davide King (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The reference citations everywhere in the article MUST be verifiable. This is the overwhelming consensus of all reputable historians you say. It shouldn't be hard to find two references for the statement then, right? Hickey does not support you and neither Deathlibrarian nor Ironic Luck can find the Arthur reference, and they have the book. This may be an edition issue but forensic research methods should not be necessary; just fix the freaking citation. I can't believe I am getting an argument about whether it's ok to have an imaginary page number on a citation. No. It is not, and double plus not on an infobox. Go ask anyone you like. Fix it or it's gone. Elinruby (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

In The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict, Bicentennial Edition (2012), Donald Hickey does write Thus, after three years of campaigning, neither the United States nor Great Britain could claim any great advantage in the war, let alone victory. Militarily, the War of 1812 ended in a draw. By the way, the onus is on you and Deathlibrarian to show this is actually disputed; and to do this, you cannot merely search any historian who claim one side over another, we need secondary and tertiary sources talking about the result and writing that it is disputed.--Davide King (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As for Arthur, that wording actually comes from here.--Davide King (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As for the Toronto Star reference, I did move it here.--Davide King (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Then use those as a reference omg. And no the onus is on you if you don't want a tag there. A verifiable reference is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia. This is not something I am *supposed* to have a sense of humor about. The Toronto Star thing, I just wanted to say I wasn't ignoring it but I haven't gotten to it yet. If somebody wants to be snobby about books vs newspapers, that's an eyeroll, unnecessary but not wrong. I am going to want to verify those references though. So far they all fail verification. Elinruby (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Calm down, please. I already did. As for this, I thought that ref was fine? There was consensus that there is no national bias and your claim that there are more historians in the United States does not hold up; as noted and pointed out by Ironic Luck here, I agree that there are more United States historians than Canadians historians. It makes it just as plausible to have a wider divide in those opinions as well. In other words, the fact there are more American historians means that there are more possibilities to held more viewpoints as well, yet as noted by the ref they agree the result was a draw. So I do not think you can exclude that ref because it is talking about American historians. If the other two refs are fine, it is not a big deal and this third one is probably unnecessary, but your reason for it failing verification is flawed in my view.--Davide King (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a big deal. It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that references must be verifiable. There are issues about what that means exactly, but someone with a copy of the reference is supposed to be able to find something that supports the statement in front of the reference. Please don't tell me to calm down and PLEASE don't quote a month-old SPA like I am supposed to take its word on Wikipedia policy. It is also a very big deal that you took off the failed verification tag AGAIN after I warned you about this Elinruby (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Dude. First of all, the quote says nothing about historians. The source itself appears to be quite reputable. But a reference is supposed to have a relationship to the text it is referencing. Elinruby (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

For one, you really need to calm down and correctly indent your replies to make clear who you are responding too; it is basic common sense. You are not assuming good faith and it looks like you have something against me when I do not have anything personal against you. I took it off by mistake because I thought it was referring to historians and that the verification failed because of some national bias as you claimed it was only about Americans which I thought was wrong but I did remove the ref itself already even before you wrote this rant.--Davide King (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to file a complaint about my outdenting habits. The point is, while we were discussing Things We Don't Do on Wikipedia on your talk page, ie take off tags without resolving them, I explained that it is not good practice to edit other editors' comments, as it raises issues of accountability and authenticity, and you blithely ignored that whole discussion. And stop telling me to calm down. I am very calm. References must be verifiable. Elinruby (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that applies to changing words and actual meaning and context of the comments, not fixing indents; I thought I was dong everyone a favour by making clear who we are responding to. I have seen other users doing that and no one complained; here no one else complained but you, so I simply thought it was fine as long as I do not actually touch words, etc. Again, is it so hard for you to correctly identicise? References are now verifiable and the infobox is pretty fine now, so I hope we are done with it and we can finally move on to fix the damn article as you correctly lamented many times. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you or ever had been stopping you from fixing the article. Please feel free to tackle any of the many tagged problems. And as for verifiable, we'll see; I don't think a book cover is a reliable source, for a start, not for something you claim is so obvious that it doesn't need a reference. Elinruby (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to do that and I asked you twice to help me find the section about "Indian atrocities" so I could fix that by either reword it or removing it. So I ask you for the third time, could you please link me the paragraph or section where this discussed? Working together will make it faster and easier to improve the article and solve its issues.--Davide King (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you should put your big boy pants on and read the article instead of wikilawyering over policies you do not understand. WP:FRINGE does not apply here. Period. It is ridiculous that I had to take this question to a noticeboard, but I did, and that is what they said. Therefore we will not be conforming to your wishes to "show" whatever it is you are trying to "show". We are going to look at the references and we will discuss them like grownups without taking a freaking poll of historians and we will follow Wikipedia's policies. There is a dedicated archive where you can make speeches and grandstand all you want. Now. Unless you have something you want to say about these references, buzz off. By the way, I am deleting the one from the book cover. Be serious. Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh and -- I have asked you four or five times now not to edit my comments. Last warning. Elinruby (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you to read this statement by Robert McClenon. I am not sure which article they are referring to exactly, but could it be the Toronto Star article? I gave you references and they say it was a draw; I already removed myself the backcover ones from the infobox. By the way, was not Deathlibrarian exactly taking a freaking poll of historians here? I just hope you do not hold a double standard against me. Or did I misunderstand your freaking poll of historians wording? If I misunderstood, then I apologise, but I assumed by that you mean giving a list of sources with historians, etc. You are the one who argued the article is too long (I agree), so forgive me if I am having trouble reading it. I also suggest you to stop writing me back if you are so annoyed by me and my "essays". Davide King (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Result in infobox debate

IMO a result statement is like any other statement in an article and requires sourcing. In this case, an extraordinary claim in view of it being unclear / disputed. IMO such a statement needs particularly strong sourcing to stay in Wikipedia. Being disputed, such strong sourcing probably does not exist. IMO that means completely remove the "result" entry. The desire to include the entry and fill in the blank does not override the wp:verifiability policy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As noted by The Four Deuces here, [s]ee "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." It is discussed as the majority view in Historians' views.--Davide King (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

IMO a mere majority/plurality view is not enough to state it as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Further, IMO, in such situations trying to create one-word characterizations in an area where opinions are divided is not an encyclopedic quest. North8000 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed here.--Davide King (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Was. Didn't Fiveby (talk · contribs) say it was a misapplication of WP: FRINGE? Did something else come up over there? Elinruby (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Is. It is not closed yet. WP:FRINGE guideline does have the language you refer to about departing significantly from the prevailing views. I don't like it and think the guideline should be more objective—stick to UfOs and such and avoid issues that are better handled by the core policies. I thought here Fiveby said that I was right about WP: FRINGE but that they disagree with the current wording, so we would need to first change that. There is no mention of misapplication and they also wrote Deathlibrarian and Elinruby with their "Canada Won!" arguments are really fringe, using poor sources and often misrepresenting what good sources they do mention. So you cannot cherry pick the parts you like, but let us leave to them to clarify what they meant.--Davide King (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

1. I do not claim that Canada won. I keep saying this. You keep not listening. I said that this is not a FRINGE theory. 2. Yes, Fiveby (talk · contribs) repeated your mischaracterization of my position. This is why I would like you to stop misquoting me. 3. Speaking of misquoting, what wording do you think Fiveby was talking about? He says FRINGE is about UFOs and this discussion is "better handled by the core policies." This is why people stop talking to you, Davide. Also, FYI, noticeboard posts don't usually "close" Elinruby (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

So what is your problem or issue again? Draw and military stalemate are referenced. No, I do not believe Fiveby repeated that, they were agreeing with me on this, although they are free to correct me, if this was not true. My point is that The Four Deuces, Rjensen and others' interpretation is correct, but maybe that wording should be changed so that fringe theories should be only about pseudoscience and not any view that departs from the prevailing views. Until we do that, WP:Fringe theory is clear about that. By the way, this applies only to the infobox which should just say it was a draw; the Canadian et al. views ought to be in the main body and are not fringe.--Davide King (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

North8000(talk) This has been a huge discussion here, ongoing in fact for many years. The present results section reflects a compromise that shows the differing viewpoints. We have sources that say (1) The majority see it as a draw (2) We have individual Historians who see it as a win for the UK (3) We have some sources that say it breaks down on national lines, "Canadian Historian see it this way, US historians see it that way, etc. Overall, the position is that the majority see it as a draw, but a significant minority see it as a win for the UK. A very small number see the war as a win for the US. As per Davide King a discusison on this topic is currently waiting for a Third party commenter to be appointed. 03:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe North8000 (talk · contribs) is somewhat familiar with this from the recent noticeboard activity. But for the record, I would like to mention that the argument dates back -- how many years is it, somebody? Elinruby (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it probably dates back to about 1815.... :-) North8000 But yes, the references say "mainly" seen as a draw, not everyone agrees on it - as there are some historians that don't see it that way. But I'm not saying much new here, its been said many times. If you want to be part of the noticeboard discussion its here - still no one assigned as yet. There are a number of people that agree with you and also think the result field should be removed... I believe the phrase "burn it with fire" was used on one occassion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm just trying to be helpful. While I indicated what I think the outcome should be, I don't have any advocacy type feeling for any particular outcome. In general, my advocacy is for including encyclopedic information, not arguable characterizations assigned by Wikipedia editors. When there is a debate / dispute (= it is unclear) on picking words to characterize something, the result is not information, it is an editor-assigned characterization) in which case, IMO leave it out. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The actual, de facto result is not actually disputed; its interpretation, which has nothing to do with the infobox and should be discussed in the main body, is.--Davide King (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

you keep saying that like you think it makes it so Elinruby (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Here, you wrote Nobody is suggesting that the article say in Wikipedia’s voice that Britain/Canada won, only that respected writers do exist who say this, because Canada is not currently a US colony. So what is your issue exactly? You wanted the infobox to be referenced and now it is; both Draw and Military stalemate are referenced and I did remove myself the third ref which failed verification, although I think it was fine.--Davide King (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't "fine". It would have been "fine" if it supported the text it supposedly supported. And I don't know how to explain to someone who isn't listening that not wanting to say in Wikipedia's voice that Canada won is not the same as not disputing the outcome. I told you before, this isn't the debate team and you don't get bonus points for extra red herrings. Elinruby (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Was the source referring to the view of American historians or the popular view of American? If is the latter I agree; if it is the former, I believe it is fine.

By the way, as I was reading Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?, I found those sources by Dwalrus, who wrote:

Here are some British and Canadian writers who do not view the war as a British victory.

British writer Paul Johnson in A History of the American People stated that as a result of the treaty neither side could declare "a success or a defeat."

Canadian Duncan Andrew Campbell in Unlikely Allies: Britain, America and The Victorian Origins of The Special Relationship writes that the war was a stalemate.

Briton Kenneth Bourne in Britain and The Balance of Power in North America, 1815-1908 stated that as a result of the war "neither side could claim substantial victory."

British scholar H. C. Allen in Great Britain and The United States: A History of Anglo-American Relations (1783-1952) argues that it was a stalemate.

Canadian historian Reginald C. Stuart in United States Expansionism and British North America, 1775-1871 does not declare a victor and leaves the clear impression it was a draw.

[...]

I should have added Christopher T. George who is from Britain, now living in the US, who wrote Terror of the Chesapeake: The War of 1812 on the Bay. He also believes it was a stalemate. By the way, James Hannay was Canadian not British.

Could you please verify those ones?--Davide King (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would I verify them and for what? What do I look like? Please don't start writing me long reproachful essays again. Yes, we are going to examine the sourcing. You seem to be off trying to prove some sort of mad point. If you want to improve the article, pick one of those references and work from it on the article. Elinruby (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, because maybe we should work and improve the article together? Because you do not seem to trust me to verify them, so I asked you to do just to because I want to be sure? Like I may think they do verify that, but maybe you disagree? So just let me know, not trying to prove some sort of mad point or anything. I am still waiting for you to link me the section about "Indian atrocities" as that would be important thing to fix first and I would be very thankful to you. Davide King (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right I don't trust you. You don't seem to be here to write an encyclopedia. But go look at the stuff about the Northwest Territory or Prairie du Chien if you really need a suggestion, and maybe figure out what exactly these atrocities are. I got some of the low-hanging fruit, but there is probably more. Go make friends with that IP who was mad about this. He was also working on Seminole Wars. Anything along those lines would probably do more good than harm even if you make a mistake or two Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a big accusation. I am still assuming good faith, I believe you should do the same. Davide King (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not examined all seven years of your edit history but in the month I have been observing this article I have seen you write long impassioned essays on the talk page, and apply SEO techniques to the Infobox results field. That's it. Oh and once you quoted another (month-old) SPA about wikipedia policy. Forgive my cynicism; I just spent most of the day coaxing you to read the article, so explain to me again how you're here to improve it? Elinruby (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What SEO techinques are you even talking about? I do not know how to do that and what do you mean by SPA? Are you referring to the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard? If that is what you are referring to, I did ask the user in question to clarify their wording. Because they did write If WP:FRINGE is applied for such as Don Hickey saying United States lost the war then there is something very wrong with the guideline. But Donald Hickey actually say it was a draw. Davide King (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Article just says massacres or whatever but gives no details, see? So were these attacks on army units, or homesteads, or what? The newspapers of the time may well have used language like that, but it's like the national honor thing, that needs to not be Wikipedia saying this. Elinruby (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, thanks. Could you please tell me the title section? I believe I found one which read Indian atrocities along the Wabash River in Indiana were enabled by supplies from Canada and were proof that "the war has already commenced". But I believe this has already been changed to Indian ambushes along the Wabash River in Indiana were enabled by supplies from Canada and were proof that "the war has already commenced". So one is gone, which ones are left? Davide King (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

right. I did that. And have since realized that "ambush" implies they were travelling, and we do not know if the were, because we don't know what they are talking about. And we don't know who is saying the words in quotes. We could use some sourcing there. As for others, read the article. They may not all say atrocity. That IP was complaining about "massacres" Try that if you are doing a find on this stuff. Elinruby (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As you noted, the article is really big and hard to navigate, so I would really appreciate if you could name the section where this discussed; I could find only one and that one was changed. However, I did notice that p. 262 of given source does say Indian atrocities and there is no mention of ambush so I agree we need better sources as you wrote. Davide King (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

North8000, we should follow reliable sources such as textbooks that routinely report the outcome of the war as a draw as a fact. In every field there are some scholars who will disagree with academic consensus. It seems that the degree of dissent among scholars is largely exaggerated. A lot of the sources cited on closer inspection do not actually challenge consensus, while others are from popular rather than academic books. But as editors we cannot read through the thousands of books and articles written about the war, but need to rely on experts who have already done this for us. TFD (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

And yet we are using the back cover of a book as a reference for the word draw. But your actual point, which you keep repeating, is contradicted by Wikipedia policy on balance and weight. We aren't supposed to spend years distilling the wisdom of the authorities. That's Dark Ages thinking. Elinruby (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

DO NOT REMOVE FAILED VERIFICATION TAGS

Unless you deal with the stated issue. The first two citations for "draw" look ok if they can be verified. The third still does not support "draw". The easiest way to fix this is to remove the third reference, upon which it will be fine to take off the tag that applies to it. If you really want three references there, you should be able to find another one easily, right? Elinruby (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what the issue is much less have a position on it. But a quick structural note. WP:V places restriction on / requirements for the presence of material, not on the presence of sources. Those WP:V requirements are basically for sourcing, including the specific source requirements to consider the material to be sourced. If the sourcing does not meet those requirements, that means that the WP:V requirements for the presence of the material have not been met, not that the source is not allowed to be in Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I was unclear. The issue is that I am finding that many referenced statements in this article contain references with zero relationship to the content of the sentence. For example I found one last night on a quote about Indian loss of territory that pointed to a page about the congressional foreign relations committee. A very fine reference mind you, reputable historian, RS as can be but not the source of that quote. The tags I am talking about here were getting removed I guess on the basis of the author's reputation, but the reference did not support the accuracy of the material; it said that many Americans believe this but I think they are wrong. There are about eight of these tags in the article right now and these issues need to be resolved before the tags are removed. Elinruby (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: some of these problems may be typos in page numbers or differing editions, or caused by incomplete edits, tough to say. But references are there to reference and if they don't do that they need to be fixed or replaced. Elinruby (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

My previous post provided the info I intended to provide. It appears that you are ignoring it. Since I just wanted to provide the info, I'm not overly concerned beyond that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything. I am not sure why you are talking about the Wikipedia policy. Maybe it is the word verification that is confusing. The copy edit tag says I made a good-faith effort to substantiate that the reference at the end of a sentence in fact supports the sentence. Most are failing on page number, even though I am checking both the page numbers of the scanned pages of the book and the url pagination. A few do not say what the sentence says, although they are related, for certain meanings of "related". If you want to tell me about MoS or any other Wikipedia policy that is very fine, but still doesn't change the fact the the footnotes are mostly irrelevant. Elinruby (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned policy because you were implying (via command type language) that yours was a policy-based argument. Also, I thought it useful since it's a common misunderstanding that wp:verfiability restricts presence of references. My 11:21, 23 July 2020 describes what it actually does in this respect. North8000 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Casualties

Both the British and their indigenous allies apparently lost 10,000? That is quite a coincidence, and a suspiciously round number Elinruby (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it's related, but not very long ago I removed another instance of an unsourced 10,000. I haven't looked into these other 10,000s, but it's odd how that number keeps popping up. --Noren (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Draw vs stalemate

@Ykraps: said a while back that a draw is not the same thing as a stalemate, and a stalemate means that neither side can win. I believe he also said that he did not think this was the case in this war. The infobox currently says both, with references, assuming the references are verified. If they are different things, should the wording be adjusted to show this as a range of opinions rather than as two separate outcomes? Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

*Very* subtle difference - from looking at the cambridge definitions, a stalemate is where both parties are blocked from winning (so neither can win). A draw is where both teams in a game get the same score (1-1). The sources, when talking about The war, tend to say draw, I guess implying that both sides got what they wanted, or got some things they wanted. Subtle difference. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so... We have references for both, assuming they verify. So is this a difference of opinion? Elinruby (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: There is no need for teams to have the same score. One side might be winning but because they are tired, they offer the other side a draw to bring the game to a quick conclusion.--Ykraps (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, true but in that case, its like both sides agreeing to finish on the same score - but yes, one side can "offer" a draw... where that game of chess is taking 6 hours!Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn’t giving my opinion. There is a school of thought that Britain was in a very strong position at the time of Napoleon’s abdication but that wasn’t really my point. I was mainly objecting to editors pointing to sources that say it was a draw, to bolster their claim that the vast majority of historians see it as a stalemate. It’s also worth noting, for those reading snippets on Google books, that some of the sources that use the term “military stalemate” are referring specifically to operations along the US/Canadian border, and not the war as a whole. I am still of the opinion that by far the simplest solution is to redirect the result section as discussed here [[5]].--Ykraps (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The military stalemate was the de facto result for the Treaty of Ghent and is referenced by the two refs which describe this in the first paragraph of the historians' views stating the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive.--Davide King (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether the British were in a position to win the war is beside the point as both sides de facto agreed to the draw result as outlined in the Treaty of Ghent. As I wrote here, there seems to be a confusion and conflation between the de facto result (draw) and the few interpretations who claim one side won, without disputing the de facto military stalemate. There was not a de jure winner or a treaty that established a winner, etc. While I am fine with the current compromise, I believe the solution is simple; we say it was a draw in the infobox while linking to the interpretations in the main body, which are already in. Because I believe both sides claim win is an interpretation (in my view correct, but that is besides the point), not an actual result, so it does not fit the parameter and should be linked to the section in the main body. We simply cannot say the result is disputed either, because it actually is not, nor can we leave it blank when the war is usually seen as a draw and de facto that is what it was. I liked Deathlibrarian's wording that [t]he sources [...] tend to say draw, I guess implying that both sides got what they wanted, or got some things they wanted. Subtle difference. [...] [It is] like both sides agreeing to finish on the same score - but yes, one side can "offer" a draw... where that game of chess is taking 6 hours!--Davide King (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We cannot assume that sources using the terms draw and stalemate mean different things. Obviously both sides had the resources to continue the war but lacked the will to do so, so it wasn't a literal stalemate. TFD (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

yes yes, but we say it was a stalemate. Words matter. The infobox is supposed to be factual and facts are facts, not something you vote about. Elinruby (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Context matters too. Words take on different shades of meaning according to context. When no context is provided they (as in the info-box) they may become misleading. If a source for example says that the Republicans will be slaughtered in November, it doesn't mean that 10s of millions of people will be killed, although that is the literal meaning of slaughter. So even though a source might use the term we would not put the exact word in the info-box of the outcome of the election. TFD (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Whereas, assuming they mean the same thing, is far more sensible, is it?--Ykraps (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it sensible to claim that no matter what resources either side applied that they could not have gained any concessions? Isn't it more likely the cost of further conflict and lack of popular support outweighed any possible concessions? Or that the problems that gave rise to U.S. grievances had lessened to the extent concessions were no longer as important? TFD (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok look. If draw=stalemate then why say it twice? If they are not synonymous then shouldn't this be phrased as a difference of opinion? Also you are doing it again. He said the point of view exists, not that he endorses it. He specifically said this is not necessarily his own opinion. Meanwhile, another thing you are doing again is interpreting, then trying to prove that your opinion is the most correct. This is Wikipedia and we don't do that here. Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Elinruby - draw and Stalemate are both referring to the same thing. We don't need them both. The sources normally say draw. Also TFD both sides, arguably did not have the means to continue. They had the troops, but they had run out of money - they were both shockingly in debt.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King could we please have the "Both sides claim win" back at the top level with "draw" please? Where it was yesterday? That was what we had agreed on, and we hadn't discussed moving it - thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

mutual lack of interest, lol Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, it's all relative. At the end of the war, U.S. debt was 10% of GDP. At the end of the Civil War it was 30%. (See History of the United States public debt). The Revolution was expensive too. It comes down to priorities. The U.S. was not willing to pay the same price they were in the other two wars. TFD (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, the only agreement was adding both side claim win and that is still in; I simply moved as the very first thing of the bullet list because it looks better and some users expressed concerns, so rather than remove it, I did put it first in the bullet list; it really does not change anything.--Davide King (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ykraps, we say both Draw and Military stalemate because we base the first one on the result according to historians and other sources; and the military stalemate, along with the status quo ante bellum, is based on the Treaty of Ghent which established both.--Davide King (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King The treaty of Ghent didn't establish a military stalemate. That would have been established by the military situation. The Treaty of Ghent established official *peace*. I think probably Ykraps Elinruby and I all agree it's the same thing and just mentioned twice. May be as a compromise, you could put military stalemate/draw together? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, we do write in the main body [it] has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. I do not see the issue, they are not mutually exclusive; what am I missing? Another thing is that both military stalemate and status quo ante bellum may well be seen as results too, but it would be weird for us to say Draw/Military stalemate/Status quo ante bellum so they are simply put in the bullet list; and they are fine because they are referenced and those are all terms used to describe the result, so they should be listed; Draw is the top one because that is the position where we put Win/Draw/Loss. Davide King (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I think the three of us have issue with it, unless Elinruby and Ykraps have changed their mind. As the three of us have shown our feelings on it, could you please remove draw or stalemate, or combine them? Otherwise, if you think it's that important, we can put it to the vote all the users to vote on.... though if we are going to vote on the infobox again, we probably should vote as to whether we keep the results section or not, as so many people just want it to go. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, actually it is said Ykraps wrote draw is not the same thing as a stalemate, then both should be in the infobox; while they may believe or did not think this was the case in this war, that is their opinion. Furthermore, they are not mutually exclusive and it is really petty to hold a vote when the whole infobox is sourced and we reached this compromise. Again, draw, military stalemate and status quo ante bellum are all used and we cannot tell for sure whether they mean the same thing or not, so we list all viewpoints, just like we list that both sides have claimed victory, etc. Did you not want us to give more weight to other viewpoints? Why not apply the same standard to those three various terms that have been described as results of the war? Draw is the main result (hence at the top) but (military) stalemate and status quo ante bellum have been used too, are key facts and so are in the bullet list. Davide King (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Kill it with fire. Elinruby (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: (trying again) why would draw be the main result? Elinruby (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Because the main result should be Win, Draw, Loss, or Inconclusive. The consensus among sources is that it was a draw and the disagreement or dissent is largely exaggerated as argued by The Four Deuces here. Further, as pointed out by The Four Deuces and by Robert McClenon here, [a] lot of the sources cited on closer inspection do not actually challenge consensus and I have read the article that states that Canada won the war. That statement is meant somewhat humorously, and is not meant to imply a British victory. [...] The statement was never meant to imply a British victory. In other words, you are misreading them like they are dissenting the consensus it was a draw when they are not and this has been discussed for year; I did read the Who Wan the War of 1812? and the same arguments were already used and rejected there. Rjensen, Tirronan and others have been pretty clear about this too and I am merely agreeing. I believe they gave the better and stronger arguments there.

If you want sources, we have Hickey 2012, p. 228: "Thus, after three years of campaigning, neither the United States nor Great Britain could claim any great advantage in the war, let alone victory. Militarily, the War of 1812 ended in a draw." and Coles 2018, p. 255: "Militarily the War of 1812 was a draw." And that is not considering all the other sources which same the same thing with different words. The USS Constitution Museum says Both sides could claim victory, the British because they held on to Canada and their maritime rights, and the United States because just fighting the 'Conqueror of Napoleon' and the 'Mistress of the Seas' to a draw vindicated its sovereignty and earned the respect of Europe. As British diplomat Augustus J. Foster acknowledged at war's end, 'The Americans [...] have brought us to speak of them with respect.' And yet it also unequivocally say Ultimately, the War of 1812 ended in a draw on the battlefield, and the peace treaty reflected this.

Then we have British and Canadian writers who do not view the war as a British victory and do not dispute the consensus.

British writer Paul Johnson in A History of the American People stated that as a result of the treaty neither side could declare "a success or a defeat."

Canadian Duncan Andrew Campbell in Unlikely Allies: Britain, America and The Victorian Origins of The Special Relationship writes that the war was a stalemate.

Briton Kenneth Bourne in Britain and The Balance of Power in North America, 1815-1908 stated that as a result of the war "neither side could claim substantial victory."

British scholar H. C. Allen in Great Britain and The United States: A History of Anglo-American Relations (1783-1952) argues that it was a stalemate.

Canadian historian Reginald C. Stuart in United States Expansionism and British North America, 1775-1871 does not declare a victor and leaves the clear impression it was a draw.

British Christopher T. George who wrote Terror of the Chesapeake: The War of 1812 on the Bay and also believes it was a stalemate. Davide King (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Draw and Stalemate

The term stalemate is from chess. In chess, a stalemate is one of the ways that a game can be a draw. There are also other ways in chess that a game can be a draw (and stalemate is rare in expert play), such as by repetition or by fifty moves, but a stalemate is a draw. A stalemate is a position in which the player whose turn it is cannot move because any move would result in check.

I see no reason to make any military distinction between a draw and a stalemate either. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

ok so. It's not encyclopedic, so we would have to reword it, but is it reasonable to say that the outcome was mutual exhaustion? I think I may know a precedent for that, hmm. Elinruby (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of Cham–Vietnamese War (1471), but apparently now that I look there was a decisive victory in that case however. But the economic aspects of it are interesting and perhaps parallel.

The Cham and the Đại Việt had a long history of conflict. In the course of their wars, peace often paired with economic exhaustion, recovering their economies just to go to war again.[2]

Those two kingdoms apparently would beat each other bloody every so often for decades (? I did not fact check article). Elinruby (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Ykraps:Can you confirm your position here, do you think draw and Stalemate are the same thing and shouldn't be in the infobox twice, or do you see them as separate and the two distinct mentions are justified?Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the three (British English) dictionaries I own, a stalemate is a position from which it is impossible for either side to win. So yes, a stalemate is a draw but a draw is not necessarily a stalemate. In the same way that a square is a rectangle but a rectangle doesn't have to be square. Using the term draw covers both meanings but using the term stalemate does not.--Ykraps (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Sorry to ping you again, but are you saying that draw should be used here to cover both? In terms of getting a consensus on this issue, do you think they should both be in there, or are they similiar enough that either draw or Stalemate should be used and not both.Thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

British maritime belligerent rights maintained in Infobox

Does British maritime belligerent rights maintained warrant being in the infobox? I thought we were basing the result on the Treaty of Ghent, hence military stalemate and status quo ante bellum, but I believe British maritime belligerent rights were not mentioned in it. I just would like to hear your thoughts.--Davide King (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thats exactly the reason it belongs in the infobox. A key reason for going to war, and a key goal for the British was to not have them impeded in any way. This was a very important result of the war, the fact it wasn’t mentioned in the treaty is why it needs to be mentioned in the infobox, otherwise you wouldn’t be aware that The British goal was achieved/maintained. If it was mentioned in the treaty, you wouldn’t need it in the infobox as it would already be covered by “Treaty of Ghent”.Hunkydawry (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wish there was a way to say that in shorter words so as to not split it in the infobox. As Tirronan wrote I'm probably your go to guy on military and naval matters in this period, I would like to hear from them too.--Davide King (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually the first time I saw it I had my doubts, but Hunkydawry is right, it was one of the key reasons going to war, so it is probably justified Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment.--Davide King (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hunkydawry was a sockpuppet of Jack Coppit. Here, The Four Deuces wrote Americatcp [another sockpuppeter] also said the British "maintained their belligerent maritime rights." (23:20, 15 January 2018)[5] (These rights were the right to intercept ships and pressgang sailors.) In the huge discussion talk pages, no other editors said that the UK maintained belligerent maritime rights after the war, probably because the UK no longer exercised these rights against the U.S. and the U.S. never recognized them. In fact very few editors used the term belligerent rights at all as it is a fairly uncommon term. The Four Deuces, I assume you are against that being in the infobox? Because it is still in the infobox, so please share your thoughts and if my summary is correct.--Davide King (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that reliable sources give much attention to it. After the war it was no longer an issue. I think the point was that if the U.S. objective of the war was to end impressment they lost because the UK never agreed to renounce the right. But that's just one editor's opinion and doesn't belong in the article. TFD (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppets have been known to be right. What do the sources say? I support whatever DeathLibrarian and Tirronan can agree on. Peace out Elinruby (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Impressment and maritime trade were two major issues that started the war, so the fact they weren't dealt with is worth mentioning, IMHO. But Its nothing major for me... They were obviously a major thing for the US at the beginning, but then as the war dragged on, and it was clear conquering Canada wasn't happenning, the US may have considered it wasn't worth starting a war over and it seems to have been less spoken of (also the Brits stopped doing it). I would be interested to see what Tirronan thinks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That's an accurate summary of what sources say. Sources don't treat it as a major issue. TFD (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Back cover as reference

This strikes me as odd. Covers may or may not be written by the author. The reference covers something that is so obvious, and so clearly the consensus of historians, I am told, that there is no reason to even reference it. Surely a reference can be found that isn't part of the packaging? Elinruby (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Weird combined reference after "both sides"

These should be separated. Benn needs a page number. I found the Latimer reference; I am still thinking about that. He does talk about claims of winning there, but also disagrees with them. For now can we have a page on Benn please? Elinruby (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I just checked, its page 83. Yeah, it was combined some time ago, I don't know why. I'll change it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've separated those now Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Draw is a list item not the list title

I thought this had happened by accident, but I see it has moved back, as if the items underneath support it. Whoever keeps doing this needs to enunciate why they are doing it, or stop. I believe that Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) has already asked nicely for the previously agreed format Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

yes, it should be a list item, its a result the same as the rest of them. They are all results, right? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Apart from my questions about synonyms, that is what I think, yes. But making "Draw" the title seems to imply a causal relationship. I actually, I repeat, suggest a flame-thrower. But if someone must have an outcome, then what goes in there needs to reflect balance and due weight. And that means discussion. I could see making a change and asking for opinions. I think I have done that myself. But for something this contentious there definitely should be discussion. But the article itself is supposed to be the basis for the infobox, not the other way around. Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the actual issue here? Are you saying Draw should be in the bullet list? Why? The parameter for Results is for Win, Draw, Loss and/or Inconclusive (while we use the bullet list to list other important things like a treaty, or in this case the defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy) and the consensus among sources is that of a draw, hence we say Draw. Davide King (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Draw should be combined with stalemate in the results list. Its referring to the same thing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, I did add Draw because one user, I guess Ykraps or you (maybe both?), lamented Military stalemate, especially as the first thing and no longer as part of the bullet list, that the parameter did not support that, etc. So I did add Draw because it is more in line with the parameter, where we should use Win/Draw/Inconclusive. Davide King (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the parameters were only three options (1) A Victory (2) B Victory (3) Inconclusive. I don't think there was a draw option. So in fact, for this, to follow wikipedia suggested guidelines, it would be *inconclusive*... not draw. But yes, I can see people would attack "military stalemate" because it's not clear what it means. You see people use terms like "German Tactical Victory" which I'm personally not a fan of, because the average punter probably has no idea what it's saying. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, Draw is just another way to say Inconclusive, so I do not really see the issue. That is why I added Draw in the first place, to make more clear that military stalemate comes from that or what it means and entails. Now can we please drop this and leave it like it is and work on the article instead? Davide King (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Pacific Coast

Was this in fact ever a theatre in this war? I thought this was a reference to the Pig War but apart from the fact that it was ridiculous, it was also twenty years or so later. Elinruby (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A quick word search for "Pacific" in this article came up with the Battle of Valparaíso, which is in 1814 and part of the War of 1812 proper. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Our template of naval battles during the War of 1812 also lists a lot more battles in the Pacific Ocean. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't been through the naval section very thoroughly, but I do remember seeing that now.Elinruby (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra: the way the infobox entry is written implies Pacific coast of North America; going to change "coast" to "Ocean". Note to you since you commented and anyone else who may have an opinion. Elinruby (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'm not seeing anything indicating west coast battles, not Mexico or Canada, let alone California (which wasn't even US territory, yet of course). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Attempts to smother American maritime trade failed"

"The British then increased the strength of their blockade of the United States coast. Attempts to smother American maritime trade failed and soon both sides began to desire peace.[29]" - This statement, from the lead seciton would appear to be innacurate, from my interpretation. The text of the article says that the blockade *was* effective. I checked the reference, and it says nothing about the attempts to smother American maritime trade failing. Any comments? "Numerous historians have pointed to the damaging effects of the British blockade of the American coast during the War of 1812. Donald Hickey argues ‘the British blockade had a deadly effect on the United States. Foreign trade dropped sharply and government revenue dried up ... the coasting trade became perilous, too, forcing American merchants to resort to overland transportation’.(1)" https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1215 Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Was Britain trying to smother the American maritime trade? I am asking. What would the British say they were doing with their embargo? Trying to mess with Napoleon's supply chain maybe? That's my first reaction. Then what is the definition of fail? I don't claim any kind of expertise on Napoleonic trade routes, but isn't it the case that the leaders of both countries were being told in no uncertain terms that all this was bad for bidness? BTW please tag that reference if it fails verification. Elinruby (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Britain was using an economic blockade to stymy US efforts at progressing the war against Canada. The US economy took major damage as there was no foreign trade and the Govt ran out of money. So the economic blockade was a success. At the later stage of the war, Napoleon was defeated and Wellington was out of Spain and back in the UK, so it wasn't so much about his supply chain, at that point, methinks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

ok. There is a long discussion somewhere in the article about shipping to the French, is why I asked. So the first part of the statement is true but the second is not? If it's plain wrong, it should be removed. I would call "smother" and "fail" emotional language, also Elinruby (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

so if you want, since you already have another source, you can just write an accurate sentence, delete that one rather than tag it, and reference it with your quote above. Nobody seems to be arguing that you are wrong about this. Elinruby (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, will do, - I mainly wanted to put it up here for comment, and see if there are any strong feelings - but it just seems to be wrong. Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You notified. Might not even have been required to actually, but apparently nobody thinks it should stay that way Elinruby (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's delete the outcome field

It is not required and if we just do that we can all do something meaningful with our lives rather than attempt to get certain editors to read. This should be an RFC but I need to go adult. Let's just have a show of hands instead for now. As nominator, I support deleting the entire infobox, but the outcome is one of its many problems and solving that would be a start. Elinruby (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It may not be required, but the result is not actually disputed among sources and now it is sourced too. You are clearly exaggerating the dissent among them and in some cases even misrepresent their views as has been argued at length by The Four Deuces, Rjensen, Tirronan and others. So we should delete it only if there is an actual dispute, but there is not. You are also never happy; I did compromise so we say that both sides claim win, let us not throw it out of the window now.--Davide King (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It is better not to have it than do this for ten more years. I for one, think it is ridiculous to argue about that one box when the article is in the shape it is in. It MUST be rewritten at this point, and I really want to know about the nature of the assignments that students are getting when they work on the article. I am seeing a whole bunch of random references that relate to nothing in particular. I can't believe you can't find something wrong with the article, and there is some helpful tagging I left when I went through as well. And in the example above, no it is not fixed, even though I am the one who fixed it. It is better in that it doesn't say "atrocities" in Wikipedia voice, but on reflection I do not know what the settlers or soldiers or whatever were doing when they were supposedly attacked, and I asked you to find out. You say you found the source. So who is saying the words between the quotes? It sounds like someone from the period. Sigh Elinruby (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe you, Deathlibrarian et al. may stop trying to change it when, as reported by Tirronan, your views about the infobox have been rejected for a decade now? By the way, I never said I did not find anything wrong with the article, so do not put me words I never wrote. I always said the sooner we end this thing about the infobox, the sooner we will be able to concentrate only on the actual article. I also find it quite ironic you write I really want to know about the nature of the assignments that students are getting when they work on the article, when you and Deathlibrarian have misrepresented sources about the actual result, when they either did not support your claims about British victory nor disputed the consensus of a draw. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit; if you have problem with this, maybe it is not me who is not here to build an encyclopedia. "Indian atrocities" seems to be a wording that used. Just like was the case of "Indian", we should report what sources say. If they say "Indians" or "Indian atrocities", we say so; if they do not, we do not either. Just like many reliable sources have a bourgeois bias, so they have a colonialist-imperialist bias; and there is not much we can do about it. By the way, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.--Davide King (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't re-direct this argument against me. The notion that the infobox would be completely stable, excpet for me trying to change it, is ridiculous. I have always been concerned about NPOV and who won the war being represented, but people are changing it all the time, or other issues. I'm just going to ignore your comments on me misrepresenting sources - I don't know what you are on about. If you ahve an issue with me doing something wrong, please take it up on my talk page, not in the middle of a discussion about changing ar article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I was merely reporting what several users have lamented about you and others, i.e. that sources used to claim British victory or that disagree with the draw result have been misinterpreted; I just happen to agree with them; and I believe it is especially relevant because Wikipedia bases itself on reliable sources and verifiability, it cannot be dismissed. I also have to disagree with you on your claim that people are changing it all the time for the infobox has been pretty stable for the last couple of years... until a few months ago when everything was removed from the Result and added a link to a section. I thought we had reached a compromise about it, so can we please leave it like it is and concentrate on the article first? You were the one who wanted us to have all viewpoints in the infobox and Draw, Military stalemate and Status quo ante bellum are all terms used and sourced to describe the result and are rightful listed. Davide King (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

And golly gee here I am trying to verify. So whose words are between the quotes, Davide? You asked me for a place to start. Who got attacked? By whom? Why? And it's fine to say that the settlers were mad about it as long as it is clear that this is not what Wikipedia itself thinks of this, do you see now? Now please. Go find something to do. /me scrolls up ... Let's see. For the record there is nothing wrong with students editing Wikipedia, but instructors should be responsible for minimal quality control. But the very widespread problem of unverifiable references indicates to me that there was probably an assignment like "make an edit to the text and provide a reference". I did not have you in mind specifically. This is a follow-up to the comment on the article quality. /me scrolls up ...I have no idea what conspiracy nonsense babble thing you are saying about Deathlibrarian. Ten years, what? How does one single person argue about this for ten years? I am starting to think we should delete the entire article for the mental health of all concerned :( Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That is no conspiracy nonsense babble thing [...] about Deathlibrarian. I was referencing those two comments by Tirronan here and here, where they wrote That has been the non-stop object of DL's desire for 2 decades. And, no there is no consensus for it. [...] I believe that Davide is correct in this and it has been argued endlessly. We are just beating dead ground again, and again, and again. This can be easily confirmed by the Who Won the War of 1812? thread going back to the 2009 and 2010 years.--Davide King (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Note how just a comment above one of Tirronan's comments I literally wrote The article is currently a mess [...]. So much for you claiming I can't believe you can't find something wrong with the article!--Davide King (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Lets look at it this way. There is so much work involved in it, its better to get rid of it and link to the section, as per the guidelines. There is currently two debates going on associated with it (1) whether draw and stalemate are the same (2) whether impressment/Maritime rights should be in there. It should also have in there that the US invasions of Canada were repulsed, and that shouldn't of been removed, because its obviously very important to the canadian point of view. I DO appreciate all the very hard work Davide King has done... but the results/outcome field is just so problematical, and involves so much work, its better to just follow guidelines and get rid of it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The conspiracy nonsense babble thing [...] about Deathlibrarian.That's Tirronan having a rant about me coming on here for a long period of time, making changes to the page. It annoys him, I see it as me trying to make the changes to the page to make it less US centric and more NPOV. I'm not going to engage with him with that, I have better things to do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I know but Davide has no business spewing that kind of ad hominem as if it proved something. You made him mad so he said nobody likes you. Boohoo. Elinruby (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop implying things I never wrote or mean, stop misinterpreting me as if that was an ad hominem. I am not mad, I simply believe that misrepresenting sources is an issue, perhaps that we are all guilty for, but the use of sources used to imply it was a British victory, or that they dispute the consensus by making the dissent look bigger than it actually is, has come from you. Davide King (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean by US centric? Are you referring to the infobox or the main body as being US centric? Please, give some examples; maybe we can try to fix that together. Davide King (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree about getting rid of it just because we disagree; while we may disagree, sources do not and to me it is pretty clear that the ones we currently list are generally key and uncontroversial facts. You said it yourself, we are now discussing whether draw and stalemate are the same, not which side won. I believe the maritime rights and the invasions are more controversial and are better to be discussed in the main body; the infobox should be for key, short and concise facts, something that may not be done with those; and second, it would start to be way too big. I mean, why then not also add that the Americans won at New Orleans? I believe Rjensen has emphasised this as important and Ironic Luck has made the point how the same defensive argument could be flipped with Louisiana. We will just keep adding more and more things. I believe those are better discussed in the main body and the current infobox is better than it was before; it is sourced and it does say that both sides claim victory. Davide King (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

US centric - more the article generally, than the infobox, the infobox is better now..I mean for example the sentence I noted a couple of days ago as being pro US jingoistic - which everyone agreed it was and we changed. Also the last two paras of the lede section are a bit pro US as well... in that the talk all about the US, but only mention the UK in a negative sense, and don't mention Canada at all! I'll raise that as a thread and ask people's opimions. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Then can we please concentrate on this rather than on the infobox? Because I agree with you on this and I believe this is something that we can work and fix together without too much issues.--Davide King (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: I don't know how to break this to you my man but the Americans did win in New Orleans and the article does say so at some length. Elinruby (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think otherwise it might be because I took the Louisiana Purchase out of the results box, because it happened before this war. My mind is open on the subject but...Elinruby (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I was simply arguing that if we add more things to the infobox Result (such as the invasions and British maritime rights), we may end up adding more things too which other users find important and so I gave the example of New Orleans which has been described as an important event by several users; it was just an example and I do not want us to add the American victory at New Orleans in the infobox. I believe the bullet list is fine as it is and anything else that may be added there, it is better to be discussed in the main body. Davide King (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Usually when editors suggest a change to the text, they provide a reason, which was not done in this case. It seems to me that the most important thing about any war is who won. TFD (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You're beside the point again. A change was made with consensus. It was then changed without consensus. Elinruby (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Peacemaker67's proposal, but a vote is not consensus and that did unreasonably change an infobox that was pretty stable for the last couple of years. Consensus should have been based on the request for comments, not on that proposal. Davide King (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Of course you're talking about the inbox. No Davide King (talk · contribs) the bulleted list is not fine the way it is because you've changed it since Tirronan (talk · contribs) said they could live with it, without talking to anyone about it, and you've been asked twice now, politely, to put it the way it was. Also, the layout you have changed it to implies that everything else is a consequence of draw, whereas, as we are currently discussing, draw and stalemate are pretty much the same thing. On a related note, treaty of Ghent and status antebellum should be on the same line, but we aren't ready for that conversation yet. Elinruby (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That was discussed for a month, AND voted on (twice), with four people supporting, and only one person dissenting. How is that not consensus? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because it was just four people, it was not advertised (again, can we agree that was a drastic change? Surely we would need as many users who did contribute to the article as possible to express their thoughts) and neither Rjensen, Tirronan and perhaps others expressed their views? Davide King (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised I found that discussion myself. In any case there was an RfC on what the info-box should say: 6 said draw, 2 said status quo ante and 4 wanted to say the outcome is disputed. (E&OE) TFD (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you expect me to talk about? This discussion, literally titled "Let's delete the outcome field", is about the infobox and the infobox is what we have discussed the most, so what is your point? Anyway, I never thought that way; I simply thought that was the way is done, with Win/Draw/Loss and then a bullet list with other important results of the war; it does not have to imply everything else is a consequence of draw. I always thought the bullet list does not mean that it was a consequence of a draw, just that it was a result and aftermath of the war, without implying that everything was a consequence of the draw itself. It is more clear now? Finally, I thought we did reach a compromise? Treaty of Ghent, military stalemate and status quo ante bellum have always been recently in the infobox. We have added to that draw and the Tecumseh's Confederacy. I assume you are fine with the latter addition and you have issues with draw. It is sourced (I removed the backcover ref from there) and several users have argued that that the degree of dissent among scholars is largely exaggerated and that a lot of the sources cited on closer inspection do not actually challenge consensus. So the issue is whether we should say only draw or military stalemate, or if both are warranted; and if they mean the same thing or not. Davide King (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy, which I absolutely support in the bullet list, makes clear the bullet list is not about as a result or consequence of a draw but as a result and consequence of the war which is different. Indeed, it was not a draw or a status quo ante bellum for the indigenous nations; it was a loss. Hence, it is clear to me the bullet list is about the aftermath and consequences of the war, not that it was a draw. The draw simply is the main result which is where we put whether Win/Draw/Inconclusive; and the bullet list, where we put important aftermath and results of the war itself. Davide King (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(trying again) Why is draw the "main result"? Elinruby (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Because whatever other results there were depended on the outcome. The Treaty of Ghent for example might not have restored the status quo ante had one side or the other won. Otherwise what was the point of the war in the first place? TFD (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

But they did not. Stalemate is close to a synonym and the defeat of Tecumseh did not stem from a stalemate or a draw, and actually led to treaty contraventions. It also wasn't status quo ante bellum for him, was it? So he needs to be a separate item. But here we are at the heart of the matter: the layout implies a causal relationship that is not there. It also is not what was agreed, so given that it also reduces the field to gibberish, the change should be rolled back. Elinruby (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That gets into synthesis, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Although your conclusions about who won the war may be better than that of most experts, we are forced to accept their findings. It really doesn't help readers to see articles reflect our conclusions rather than those they would typically find in textbooks. Like you, I don't personally agree with every view that the is considered consensus. But I either ensure that i edit those articles from a consensus point of view or avoid them. TFD (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Just no. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says we need to use two synonyms, and make untrue statements in the infobox of a vital article. Just stop. We should delete the entire field but pending that it should be the consensus version. Elinruby (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require that information be true, but that it be verifiable. The reasoning is that the body of expert writing is more likely to be accurate than what individual editors believe. And policy says that we should give the same prominence to facts as do reliable sources. We shouldn't hide the outcome of the war because with very little knowledge of the war we long ago formed the conclusion that Canada won. Also, let's not set a precedent. I don't want to encourage editors who think the wrong side won the U.S. Civil War and WW2. TFD (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Please verify that Tecumseh's death is a consequence of a military stalemate then. The layout implies that it is. The disputed "stalemate" is then repeated again as a synonym which is somehow a consequence of itself, just in case we missed it, along with the treaty, which, possibly, could be a consequence of a stalemate, I suppose, and then the terms of the treaty are mentioned again as if they were a separate thing. How about if we use our words in a sentence? Just saying, this is currently word salad Elinruby (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd delete the field. In this case it would be a characterization derived by Wikipedia editors (via maneuvers with sources) rather than information. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: thank you Elinruby (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts here. The defeat of the Confederation was a major even of the War of 1812. The Treaty of Ghent sealed the outcome. It should be in the infobox. I to this day am not at all sure that there were any real losers in the War of 1812 with the singular exception of the Confederation. They lost every single thing they fought for.Tirronan (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

support Deleting outcome field and linking to the Memory and historiagrphy section (This was voted on before and carried), and unfortunately reverted. As mentioned before numerous times, this is inline with wikipedia policy on infoboxes for miltiary articles. However, I do acknonwledge the infobox is now better than it was before. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Voting is not consensus. For something as controversial to remove the outcome from the infobox, a request for comments should have been opened instead. The infobox was also pretty stable for years with Treaty of Ghent, Military stalemate and Status quo ante bellum, so I believe it was probably unwarranted. Neither Rjensen nor Tirronan, two users who worked hard on the article, were notified of the discussion for their inputs and thoughts; and their silence should not be assumed to imply consensus on that vote. Here, Tirronan expressed preference for this infobox over this one (see diff). The only difference with the current one is that the former, which Tirronan favoured over the other, did not include both sides claims victory while the current one does as compromise on my part. Davide King (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion on the matter - with voting. People indicate their thoughts by stating a vote. I agree, the infobox was stable, for at least three years, however the logic that "its always been like that" is not an argument for not changing things. In my opinion, the infobox has been NPOV for years and *should* have been changed. Even now, there should be a statement in there that the US invasion of Canada was unsuccessful. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia nor consensus are about voting; and since you agree that the infobox was stable for the last couple of years, can you at least also agree that was a drastic change (the whole removal of it) that would require a request for comments? I believe the current bullet list is full already and if we add one more, we will have to add another more and so on. For example, if we add that the invasion of Canada was unsuccessful, we may have to add about the British invasion of Louisiana and the infobox will soon grow up way too big. Davide King (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: what if I told you that one way to deal with this problem is to just not try to synth the one perfect distillation of the lore of the Ancients as if we were monks in the Dark Ages? Elinruby (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The whole war was about the invasion of Canada!The war was not about the British invasion of Louisiana. How can they be equated? This is what I mean about US focus on this page. Clearly the invasion of Canada, with the threat of the country beeing annexed and added to the US is a pivotal event, and the main theme of the war. No one ever says the British Invasion of Louisiana is a core component of the war. This is trying to equate a Major Canadian event with some minor US event and is a disparity of focus. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be more of your personal view, especially the part about [t]he whole war [being] about the invasion of Canada; the war was more complex than be reduced about that. For Canadians, it may well be about that, but that is their view, which should be in the main body. We cannot say the war was all about that. Davide King (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide KingLOL My personal view!!!! Are you trying to tell me the fact that Canada not being successfully invaded and made part of the United States wasn't a pivotal result of the war? Seriously? If Canada had been made part of the United States, don't you think that would of been a fairly important historical event? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that did not happen and I would prefer other users such as The Four Deuces, Ironic Luck, Rjensen, Shakescene and Tirronan would reply you back about this. I am really tired of being the only one to reply you back. Davide King (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Another issue is that there is disagreement about it, for example that the annexation of Canada was not an objective of the United States. I believe and remember one comment saying this already but I could not remember where. Again, the Canadian viewpoint may well say or believe that annexation was an objective of the United States, but we need to say the historians and reliable sources' viewpoint, not nations involved's. I believe that is also why it was not mentioned either in previous versions. Davide King (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

OK I accept that, the article does dispute the annexation. However it doesn't dispute the fact the US army did invade Canada and the invasion failed. That fact is easily verifiable and should be included. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So did the British. Whether you may think they would have been successful if the war continued is beside the point. De facto both invasions failed and the British were defeated at Baltimore and New Orleans, so we should say both invasions failed or were repelled, etc. But the failure of those invasions was one of the reasons the war ended in a draw, not a result of the war. Davide King (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not the one who is doing synthesis. And what does that even mean? Davide King (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to keep this short for obvious reasons. I've noted various Canadian historians, usually of dubious quality, wanting to make the whole cause of the war the Annexation of Canada. The War Hawk faction was all for kicking the British out of Canada. Historical examination of the records in both the House of Representatives and the Senate show huge confusion over the issue. Note that the American south didn't want new northern states voting against slavery. So the issue was kicked up to the Executive branch where President Madison said no. DL, this is a rehash and would be seen by most of us as tilting the article in a pro-Canandian way. It is not supported in main stream modern histories. Tirronan (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan, I've admitted (above) that I was wrong to sugggest to include *annexation* of Canada in there, as the article debates it, with arguments for both sides. However, it is a fact that the US invaded Canada. Its a fact the invasion failed. These are core facts of the war, and should be included in the results field. But yes, annexation can go, but the fact the US invaded another country, and that invasion was unsucessful is an important Historical/geopolitical event, Its probably the most important conclusions of the war. For it not to be in there is US bias. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me know when you want to start on the actual war sections and I'll help.Tirronan (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright so let's talk sensibly. If annexation doesn't belong in the infobox because it's for sputed, then neither does half the stuff that's in there. It seems like people are trying to call balls and strikes. If there are multiple national narratives we should not be trying to decide which one is right. If the article must have an infobox then everything in it needs to be verifiable. Those casualties numbers are not in the article as best I can see. Nor are they cited. It is also strange that both the tribes and the British had 10,000 casualties. I have yet to find a source for the members of the Confederation. All those flags need to go. The only ones we are sure about are the imperial powers. If the country went broke this should be in the article. Elinruby (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

For the national narratives, i.e. both claims they won, I thought that was already taken care off with Both sides claim win? The infobox is for key facts about the battleground and military results; the main body is for all the national narratives you want. By the way, the flags were already removed here. As for the casualities, they are actually referenced in the infobox? The 10,000 number is sourced to Clodfelter 2017, p. 245, so maybe that needs to be verified. In the main body, we use Tucker 2012, p. 113 for casualities. Davide King (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Lede section: 4 failed verif, 1 each cn, how

These tags refer to the reference number right in front of them. Specific issues in edit summaries. Most failed verification tags in this section are because there is nothing on the topic at that page, whether you use the pagination of the book or of online host images. Elinruby (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

PS I have not checked many references yet; it is a lot of screen-swapping on a phone. Of those I have checked, 80-90% are like this. I notably have not checked the new references in the outcome box yet. Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyway to get an effort to find sources? These are all very easily verifiable to anyone with knowledge of the topic.--Moxy 🍁 20:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

These can be remedied either by finding a correct page number, or replacing with a correct source. Either one is good. The other references should be checked also since so many of them are like this. It would also be good to find out where these came from; I don't actually know that is was students but it's an educated guess that I think is pretty plausible. If this turns out to be the class, perhaps classes should be more closely monitored.Elinruby (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Limited Further Imput

I am under considerable pressure to get my 3rd book out. As such, and given my audience's expectations any input from me on this article will be very limited. As an editor, I've been known to play rough and occasionally lose my temper. Be aware however that I am not the only one with that issue. As a favor, I'm going to ask all of you to turn it down a couple of notches. I've received emails complaining of aggressive actions towards other editors. Take it from someone who knows, that can come back and bite you. It is OK to attack an idea, but never OK to attack an editor. I've been seen more than a few editors receiving bans or topic bans in my 15 years here. Taking up a cause is always a mistake. Tirronan (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting us know Tirronan . Good luck with the book. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox results need to indicate the annexation of Canada was unsuccessful

This is probably another good example of how US centric this page is. Out of all the various things listed in the results box, the one main obvious result, that the attempt to annex/invade Canada, was not successful.... is not mentioned. I suggest a non controversial item like "US annexation of Canada unsuccessful" or if that's too controversial, "US Invasion of Canada Unsuccessful". Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Elinruby (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

As argued here by Robert McClenon, I believe the unsuccessful American invasion of Canada has more to do with advanc[ing] the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation than with the result, hence it is better discussed, perhaps with better sources and other improvements, in the main body. As argued here by Ironic Luck, whom I wish would comment again because they may express my same or very similar points with better and clearer words and sources, the same could be said about the British invasion of Louisiana. Davide King (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Its a results field in the infobox. The war was about the US invading Canada. People want to look in the results box and see if the invasion was successful or not... if someone can't use the results box to see the result of the main event of the war, what is the point of it being there? Its as simple as that. Of course all the items can be read about in detail in the main page of the article (the same as the Treaty of Ghent) but that's not an arguement for having the main event of the war not in the results box - that's what the results field/infobox is for. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are assuming the war was all bout the United States invading Canada, but the war was more complex than that and did not start merely because the Americans wanted to annex Canada. I agree with The Four Deuces that it is who won the war that people look for in the infobox, not whether the invasion of Canada was successful or not. Davide King (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: who won the war then? Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No one, because it was a draw. My view is that no one but the indigenous nations lost; and everyone but the indigenous nations won. It is not my fault sources are colonialist-imperialist biased and say the war was a draw, not giving enough space and weight to the indigenous nations which did lose. Until recently, Tecumseh's defeat was not even in the infobox. What is your view? Davide King (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

In terms of military activity, yes, the war was about the US invading Canada, and the British pushed them back out, and then raided various cities, to get the US to stop. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If we delete the results field then we don't have to worry about the list getting too long. If we don't say four times that nobody won then we will have room to state this other important consequence once. Elinruby (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We should delete it only when historians and reliable sources actually disagree, not when a few users disagree. Draw, military stalemate and status quo ante bellum are all terms used to describe the outcome of the war and it is not up to us whether they mean the same thing or not. We report what reliable sources say. Military stalemate and Status quo ante bellum have been both used in previous versions and there was no issue with it. I added Draw because that is the main result and does not contradict the other two, nor are they mutually exclusive that we have to choose only one. Davide King (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Since annexation of Canada was not an objective of the U.S., their failure to do so is not an outcome. Elinruby, your argument supports saying the war was a draw and omitting the 1,284 consequences of the war being a draw. TFD (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD - The US invaded Canada and was unsuccessful, so that should be included as a result though, shouldn't it? Isn't that a pivotal result? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, lets drop the annexation part. Does anyone have an issue with including "US Invasion of Canada Unsuccessful" at least? If you do, please speak up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably not. They would have used the occupation of Canada as a bargaining chip. Canada would not have been a viable territory without access to the Atlantic, which was controlled by the British Navy in Halifax. Although the UK invaded the U.S. and tried to invade Louisiana, a British victory would not have meant all those territories became incorporated into the British Empire. You should really read The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784-1850 (McGill–Queen's University Press, 1988), which explains how the myth of Canadian victory in the war was created by the reactionary elites of Upper Canada long after the war ended. The reality was that most people in Upper Canada were late loyalists, i.e., economic migrants from the U.S., the United Empire Loyalists were not a distinct group, most residents did not care who won the war and did not participate in it, and the Family Compact disenfranchised most residents of Upper Canada after the war. About 10% of the "loyalists" were slaves. The myth was invented for immigrants who arrived after the end of the Napoleonic wars. Did you know that the St. Patrick's Day parade was illegal in Ontario until the 1980s? You're repeating views that the Family Compact invented 200 years ago and congratulations to Bishop Strachan that he has adherents today. I think that Canadian patriotism or whatever you call it should be based on what really happened, not on mythology. TFD (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, this was really interesting. Why is this not really discussed or mentioned in the article, perhaps in Memory and historiography? Do you believe that meets weight or other guidelines to be added there? Davide King (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD Putting aside a big historical debate, can we at least include "US Invasion of Canada Unsuccessful" in the infobox? If you have a problem with that speak up. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The American Civil War of 1812 also brings up those points. The average Upper Canadian was noted as not having any great loyalty to Britain. Nor, for that matter were their American neighbors nearby. Again this was argued at length and beaten to death. Why do we have to go over the same thing this many times?Tirronan (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is "American honor was restored" a fact whereas the general consensus of Canadians is not? You persist in not seeing the disparity here. Write this up and source it and put it in the article. As matters stand this us just some sort of filter of interpretation which is completely opaque because it's in your head. I have no objection to a discussion of nationalist propaganda. On all sides.Elinruby (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite over the bias in this article. "US Invasion of Canada Unsuccessful" is a simple basic fact that should be included, but I have to come here and debate with people about it. Its just such a huge waste of time. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Because that is the consenus of historians per Rjensen here and here. We go by reliable sources and consensus among historians, not by the editors or nations' POVs. Ever thought that maybe you are the ones who are... gasp... biased, too? We have a Canadian views section, which you are free to improve and where you can add their viewpoints. Here, The Four Deuces also did say the Americans repelled the British at Baltimore and New Orleans, so either both should be mentioned in the infobox or neither should be. I am for neither; they are better described and discussed in the main body. Davide King (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

you're still treating it as a fringe theory. We're past that, and I had to file a ridiculous question about it to get past that too. You do not understand Wikipedia policy, seriously. And you keep quoting other editors. Stop that. 1) they can/should speak for themselves and 2) I know you misquote me, so why should I trust you quoting them? I mean, I ask you. And is all this bargaining just for attention or what?A semi-compromise was negotiated and you got bold, ok fine, but then you should have said so and you do not have consensus for your change, yet you refuse to change it back. I keep saying that. Elinruby (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not and I did not mention fringe in my response, so why did you bring that up? This is not about the result, but about "American honor" and the invasion of Canada, whether it should be added to the infobox. Also, stop telling me what to do and making accuses like that. Also apologies if I did misquoted you, but could you please give me a link for that? You did misquote me now that I did not even mentioned fringe, so we are even. I am quoting them because I believe they express themselves better than I do and because you continue to misinterpret my words, as shown by you bringing up fringe when I believe that applies only to American/Canadian win, not to this. I am quoting them also because I hope and wish they would actually reply you back. Davide King (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to stop bringing that up and using it against me. It was not even me to bring that up or who made the fringe claim first; The Four Deuces and Rjensen did; and I believe Tirronan mentioned it too. I am merely agreeing with them. Davide King (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not "using it against you", I am trying very hard to explain to you that whether you know it or not you are quoting TFD from his fringe theory period. And not even in a way that makes any sense. It's increasingly clear to me that you will continue to post long sad essays in this thread as long as somebody answers you, so bye. You're against it. I get that.Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe Rjensen was pretty clear here. I am not quoting him again, check the link to see yourself his own words. So no, I am not quoting The Four Deuces from his fringe theory period or whatever you mean by it; and it was not just The Four Deuces and I, but you do seem to hold something against us. Again, Rjensen and Tirronan used fringe too, so why are you blaming only us two and complaining about The Four Deuces and I? Davide King (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King and The Four Deuces Can we agree on a compromise, re-word this as "US Invasion of Canada Unsuccessful" and insert that? Or does this need an RFC to look at it, which I think would be ridiculous, but if that's what it takes to get the obvious done, then so be it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Just delete it. Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Info-boxes are not the place to list every battle. The British invasion ot the U.S. was also unsuccessful. TFD (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: Just delete it, DL. You cannot negotiate with denialism. Elinruby (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You might want to use rational argument rather than ad hominem attacks. No one objects to including information about the failed U.S. invasion in the article. My objection is to incorporating detailed information into the info-box which exists in order to provide a summary. The failure of the invasion was one of the reasons the war ended in a draw, not a result of the war. TFD (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

My objection is to editors who won't follow consensus or Wikipedia policy, but here we are. If you think it's an ad hominem you should ask yourself whether the shoe fits. I am merely advising Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) that they are wasting their carpals typing words that literally make no difference because the people they are talking to don't care what they say.Elinruby (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironic you say that. Again, ever thought you and Deathlibrarian may hold a Canadian POV? No, it must be people that are denialis[ts] and that don't care care what they say [sic]! You also do seem to conflate the consensus of historians with an American POV. That may well be true, but we report what sources say and their consensus; and if they are pushing an American POV, whether because there are more American historians and you believe there is a national bias in this (although this is not supported), there is not much we can do. You and Deathlibrarian seem here to right great wrongs. Davide King (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Not support as I'm in agreement with TFD and Davide King.

My compromise is "Both sides invasions unsuccessful" or leave it alone. I thought we were in agreement to the previous info box, but clearly not. On the image header (on the main article) you have a representation of the defense of Canada with Issac Brock at Queenston Heights. The same can be said for the representation with the defense of Louisiana with Andrew Jackson at New Orleans.

I was about to make a long response (adding authors, etc.), but in respect to Shakescene's latest post, I'll leave this as my last post for this archive.

Ironic Luck (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironic Luck, I agree, but honestly I find it unnecessary to add it since both invasions was unsuccessful and those failures were one of the reasons the war ended in a draw, not a result of the war. That is better discussed in the main body. I thought too the current version is a good compromise, with Draw and Both sides claim win, which are both true. Davide King (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironic Luck The US invasions into Canada were ALL repelled. The British Raids on the US were a mix (Washington? was successfull). The Brits were still campaigning at the end of the war on US territory. So summing up the British raids as all unscuccessful is incorrect and re-writing history. The other point is, the British weren't invading to take land, they were raids to force the US to back off its attacks on canada. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I'm sure I do hold a Pro Canadian point of view, as you hold a pro US point of view. The problem however, isn't that the article is pro Canadian, is it? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote below, I do not think I hold an American point of view, I am trying to follow the consensus among sources and historians; however, I do believe you and Elinruby do hold a Canadian POV and this has caused some issues, including a few misunderstanding that did hold back us reaching consensus and end the diatribe. For example, you seem to believe that Draw is an American POV, but it is not; the Draw view is supported by the majority of sources and historians, no matter their nationality. I thought we had reached a compromise (Draw and Both sides claim win, with a link to sections at the end), therefore I would really appreciate and be thankful if we could all just accept the current one and avoid yet another request for comments, so that we can improve and work on the main body to make sure both the American and Canadian views are addressed and represented fairly. Davide King (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

My perception of your viewpoint is that your viewpoint is Pro US (for example, you you did support for the Canadian viewpoint to be categorised as *fringe theory* ), but yes, I wouldn't say you were as fanatical about it as some of the other Pro US editors on here (which is most of them). *However* I'm actually not Canadian or British or American, so I see myself as being objective... so when I see two viewpoints, I believe they should both be included. But if you had to describe me as one or the other, yes you could say I was pro Canadian. However, if you talk to any Australians about the war of 1812 (that are aware of it), and everyone I have spoken to see it as a war where the US tried to invade Canada while Britain was fighting Napolgoeon, the US got booted out, their capital got toasted and they lost - the main bright point for the US being US navy did ok. Personally, I just want both viewpoints expressed, and the use of neutral language and the removal of jingoist language in a wikipdia article. For example, I personally believe that the US was aiming to annex Canada, but the article doesn't declare to that outright, so I admitted on that basis, it shouldn't be included in the infobox. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am not pro-United States and I believe your Canadian bias comes from the fact Australia is part of the British Commonwealth like Canada, so I am not surprised they hold that viewpoint. Again, it is not a fact the United States tried to annex Canada; it is something that is still debated among historians. You are taking the Canadian views that the United States tried to annex it as fact when sources and historians are still debating this. By the way, I did add things like those to the lead While the war ended in a draw, both sides were happy with the outcome that saw the war ending and indigenous nations are generally seen among historians as the real losers. Both the restoration of honour and the "Second War of Independence" are important themes in American historiography and are considered important results according to the consensus of historians. The failure of the American invasions of British Canada advanced the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation. And I did add While acknowledging that the war is "usually seen as a draw", Brian Arthur argues that "it was in fact a British victory". According to Andrew Lambert, "Americans began to rewrite the war as a victory, exploiting the ambiguity of the diplomatic settlement achieved in the Treaty of Ghent on 24 December 1814, a status quo ante compromise that did not reflect the depth of America's defeat". to the Historians' view. Davide King (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, well that is a bit balanced that you did that, so thank you. I wouldn't say Commonwealth countries apart from the US think the War of 1812 is about the US invading Canada to take control of it, and then they lost. I'd say *ALL* countries apart from the US think the US tried to annex and lost. The only people that think the US wasn't trying to annex Canada are Americans. US had a general policy of annexing land on its borders and adding it to the country, they did it to the south of the border, taking over spanish possessions, and land from Mexico. They got Alaska from Russia. Why wouldn't they want to do it in Canada, when the British were occupied dealing with Napoleon?... particularly considering their enmity with the British. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe Rjensen and Tirronan already addressed all your points, but let me tell you again that there is no agreement on whether the United States tried to annex Canada, yet you take it as a given fact. No one is denying that the United States invaded Canada and was repelled; just that this does not change the fact the result was a draw and de facto military stalemate because it was more than Canada. Both the Canadian won and American won viewponts are myths supported by both countries and is not surprising; however, draw or military stalemate is not a myth but is what I have read most historians and sources report. Davide King (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It still doesn't change the fact that over a decade, despite being shown all the evidence to the contrary, not a single position that you have shown has changed. Not a single one. In example, the invasion of Washington, was a raid, not an invasion. An invasion would detail intending to stay and expand the land that you took. Had the forces involved stayed, all flag-waving to the contrary, there would have only been a single outcome. There was never any chance that America was going to annex Canada. You have been told over and over and over, that many of us were exhausted by the continuing cycle of the same issues, with the same arguments, being repeated. You need help, I'm not an expert but I suspect that you suffer from the obsessive-compulsive syndrome. You either can't let go or this idea, or you enjoy this. Most of us do not. Bring something new to the discussion or leave it alone. Tirronan (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tirronan: Interestingly I have had those thoughts also, but not about Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs). 1. I have only been working on the article for about a month, but they have changed their mind several times about this or that in response to the discussion. 2. There is indeed something monomaniacal about the page, and imho it isn'to due to the person arguing from sources, it's due to the person who WON'T. Elinruby (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You are coming into this about a decade late. So I suspect that you don't have the context that we do. So let's take the annexation issue to start with. If you go back and look in the archives you will find dozens of sources quoted. Then there are the US archives that you have access to as well as I do. I would hesitate to call the American government of 1812-1814 a failed state, but dysfunctional might well cover it. America was on a direct march to the American Civil War in 47 years. It literally couldn't get its act together enough to fight a war that it might very well lose. It shows up throughout the war. It couldn't agree on a taxation scheme that would pay for the war. And, America couldn't agree on annexing Canada. Finally, President Madison said and unequivocal NO. So, let us talk about the evolution of views. I didn't know that about annexation, I had to research it. I thought I knew better, I was wrong. I changed my stance. But, I see lots and I mean lots of the same repeated annexation arguments. I do not and will not resurrect all the sources that have already been discussed. I was of the opinion that America lost the war when I began working on this article, the naval sections btw. To my thinking, when America asked for terms GAME OVER. You usually are admitting defeat when you do that. I changed my view when I did my research. I've read the letter from Wellington to the Prime Minister, I've read the instructions from the PM to the negotiators at Ghent. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that Britain wanted out of the war period. I can quote the burthen mass of a Wasp Class ship sloop, I can quote the BM of a cruiser class brig. From the discussions here I have serious doubts that some of the folks arguing have done the work to have a serious discussion. But, repeating arguments that have been already dealt with over, and over, and over, it gets wearing. The fact that annexation, the single most argued point, and one that should have been laid to rest long ago, is back in the serious discussion is beyond infuriating. It has been dismissed by the mainstream histography long ago. Tirronan (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI the article currently says that annexing Canada was just a matter of marching. And you're right, I am not here because of the War of 1812. I don't claim special knowledge of the topic and think that the infobox should reflect the article. So perhaps while we are fixing the references someone who DOES have topic knowledge can work on the focus. By the way, I did not mean you; while you've had some outbursts here so have we all, and I find it possible to talk facts with you, which is really all I fucking ask. Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe it was Jefferson that first said that. Of course of anyone involved before the War he was the one that most set up the country for failure. It was a commonly held belief. It was also dead wrong. It takes serious levels of investment and training in logistics to run a successful campaign. Neither side did that very well. Let us get to the heart of the matter. This was a minor war in the grand scheme of things. It was also a complex war on multiple levels. I would prefer that all parties that haven't got a solid background on the war carefully read Stag, Toll, and Taylor, for a start. The bane of this article isn't the lack of goodwill, We are battling "what everyone knows." I honestly thought I had a good handle on this war until I really got to reading, and did a personal dive into the congressional archives. Afterward, I came to the reluctant conclusion that I'd been a fucking idiot. I didn't like that conclusion but it was a good lesson. Some things that are driving me insane are related to conflation. Modern Canada, and Modern America, have almost nothing in common with the time period discussed here. But those views are dragged into this discussion. Upper Canada, wanted nothing to do with the war, and they hated the Confederation. They came to hate Americans for the same reason. Pillaging and killing farmers in the region. Alan Taylors' book on that covers it well. It would lead directly into the Canadian semi-revolution of the 1830's. I came to the conclusion, regardless of feelings on the matter, that Upper Canada contributed nothing not mandated and enforced bu the authorities, to the war. Mark my words, the American settlers were not one bit better. We are trying to fix modern labels to a very different situation that existed at the time. I am proposing we all take 30 days, study up and then return to discussions. Tirronan (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The people who need to do it won't, is the problem with that. I personally don't care who won this war, and I have Nazis still to write about. I fundamentally want some very simple things: I want the references to work, for a start. Somebody spun some articles off the sections and left the sections intact, which is silly, and should be fixed by summarizing the sections, which will also help with the length section. ETC. Elinruby (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan Please don't talk to me about the US not annexing Canada. No one outside the US believes the US wouldn't of annexed Canadian territory given the chance on the North border, the same as they annexed Mexican/Spanish territory on the south border. To quote the president of the United States, just before the war - “The *acquisition* of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching” -Thomas Jefferson, 1812. I suggest you get a dictionary and look up the word *acquisition*. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The US goal was to grab parts of Canada as a bargaining chip and return it in a peace treaty. Historians who have studied the American documents (like New Zealander Stagg) are well agreed. Canadians (like Benn) who have never studied the American documents repeat the claims invented after the war by pro-British elites (in what is now Ontario) designed to squelch democracy in Canada. Jefferson made a private comment to Madison regarding tactics but Jefferson never planned to seize Canada while he was president for 8 years. Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Rjensen Stagg is not a NZ Historian. He is a US historian, he has lived and worked in the US for decades, and refers to himself as being an American in this article. So that gives us a US historian who says the US wasn't going to annex Canada and a British historian who say they were.... which just seems to reaffirm that only Americans believe they weren't trying to annex Canada...... At face value, its hard for anyone to believe they wouldn't try to keep it, but I will read up on moresources. I do note, Madison himself seemed dubious about giving it back he said, which seems to indicate that while some may have had certain intentions, the reality on the ground was different "the effect of (military) success on the public mind may make it 'difficult to relinguish territory that which had been conquered'" Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, why do you keep emphasising historians' nationality? This was already discussed here and you were the only one to support the alleged national bias of historians on who won the war. You do seem to conflate the views of American historians as representing the American viewpoint rather than a consensus among historians that the war was a stalemate which transcends nationalities. As you noted in your own list there, there are a decent numbers of British and Canadian historians who agree with the consensus. The infobox is about the battleground, military result which was a draw or stalemate whereas the main body is the interpretation of them, where we include all views. Davide King (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Please read the actual posts - we aren't talking about *who won the war*, we are talking about *whether the US intention was to annex Canada*. They are separate things, with different historians writing on them. My suspicion is, that only US Historians support the viewpoint that the US had no intention of annexing Canada - and arguably that fact would make that viewpoint less credible, because it only has support in one country. In any case, it was Rjensen that raised the fact he was a new Zealender, you need to ask him why he raised it, not me - I just corrected him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, you are again assuming that there is a national bias among historians. The consensus is there is not, there are simply different national narratives. I think Rjensen highlighted that for the simple fact you assume there is a national bias among historians. Davide King (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure Davide King if as you say, there is no national bias - Can you give me the name of a non US historian who states the US wasn't trying to annex Canada? Can you give me the name of a British or Canadian historian who follows the viewpoint that the US won the war? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

How wonderfully vague. I think I know which documents you are referring to and their purpose was not to state aims and objectives but to blame Britain for forcing a war and it would be stupid therefore to include one's own imperial ambitions. Other American documents, such as the private letters of some very influential people, make it abundantly clear that they desired, "...the final expulsion of England from the American continent", "...to drive the British from our continent", "...to strip her [Britain] of her colonial possessions", "[To] never die content until I see her expulsion from the American continent and her territories incorporated into the United States". The acquisition of Canada had been an objective of the US since 1775 and it would be rather odd if, when given an excuse to, they didn't seize the opportunity. Jefferson wanted the annexation of Canada to be "...a sine qua non at a treaty of peace" and Monroe was of the opinion that it would be "...difficult to relinquish territory that had been conquered".--Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard M. Pious (2001). The Presidency of the United States: A Student Companion. Oxford University Press. p. 166. ISBN 978-0-19-515006-3..--Moxy 🍁 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Delete the outcome field RFC

I count Deathlibrarian as a reluctant yes, and North8000 as a yes, which he may intend to be purely advisory, not a vote, but still a solid yes. TFD and Davide King are naturally against and Tirronan is a wild card who despises infoboxes and is still talking about what should go in the field. This was not a vote, just a straw poll, but given the results I suggest an RfC, which is as easy to ignore as anything on this talk page, but still would bring in people with some experience of Wikipedia policy. I don't have time to write one right now, but this is notification that I currently intend to write a formal one with all due notifications etc. Something along the lines of "should this article follow Wikipedia guidelines" Elinruby (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We just had an RfC on the content June 18 at Talk:War of 1812/Archive 23#Rfc about the outcome of the War of 1812, which was archived by July 10. If you want to have another RfC, you must use neutral writing, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment. So you cannot say should we follow guidelines because it implies that your only your proposal follows guidelines. TFD (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't recall asking permission Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Asking permission for what? TFD (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't open an RFC with the question "Should this article follow Wikipedia guidelines?" RFCs should be "brief, neutral statements". Your proposed question is not neutral, and worse, it's very unlikely to actually settle the issue. Obviously the answer to the question "should the article follow guidelines" is "yes", but what does that mean specifically for the text of article? It doesn't actually address the dispute and the close will give zero forward guidance on how the article should look. If you want an RFC to determine whether the infobox should have an outcome field, then the RFC question should be "Should the article infobox outcome field be deleted?" Earlier, when the dispute seemed to be over whose proposed wording to include in the RFC, I made a template User:Red Rock Canyon/sandbox#Proposed War of 1812 infobox RFC, but the discussion moved on from that before I could open it. I agree that the best way to settle this would be to open an RFC, and the best kind of RFC is one that gives respondents a clear choice between a few proposed outcomes.The time for an RFC on this issue was months ago, but the previous RFC was deficient and was also archived too early. If you're serious about starting an RFC, we should hash out the wording and then get it started, making sure to advertise it at the appropriate noticeboards and wiki projects, and to contact every who commented at the previous RFC. Here's my proposed wording based on my current understanding of the various opinions on the issue:

What should be in the "Result" section of the infobox?

A: (as in this version) [6]

Military stalemate

• Treaty of Ghent
• Status quo ante bellum
• Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy

B: (as in this version) [7]

See Memory and historiography section

C: the "result" section should be left out.

Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon, thanks for your comment. Any thoughts about the current version? This is a bit of a compromise and I thought the issue was finally done, but they do not seem happy until they get exactly what they want; and if they cannot get want they want, they would rather want us to delete it. Davide King (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If people want to include the current version instead of my choice A, then that's fine with me. I think the fewer options we have, the better, since it's harder to judge a consensus when opinions are split between many options. I would recommend people read WP:WRFC since it has some good pointers on how to frame an RFC to maximize the chance of successfully resolving the issue. Basically: be brief, be specific, and be neutral. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer to use the current version than version A. It at least included both viewpoint on who won the war, so its NPOV - and Davide King has done a pretty good job of getting it to that point. If you don't include both views, the Canadian view that the Uk/Canda won the war, as well as the US view it was a draw, you are going to have people continuing to come here and argue that it needs to be included, as its NPOV (which is what it will be!). Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, I think that is one of the issues. The draw view is not an American view, it is the consensus among sources and most historians, no matter their nation; the American view includes both American win (minority), American loss (minority) and that it was draw (majority) while the Canadian view is probably that it was a win (majority) or a draw (minority). But the consensus among sources and historians, no matter their nationality, is that it was a draw (majority), a British win (minority) or an American win (minority). I do not hold an American view, I simply believe we should follow whatever reliable sources say. I believe the same applies to the others. I do not think or believe The Four Deuces, Rjensen and Tirronan have an American POV, they are simply following what reliable sources say, so the issue may well be that reliable sources hold an American POV, that it was a draw, but there is not much we can do about it; Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, so we have to report what we say, they say it was a draw and I believe the current infobox reports that more neutrally. I thought we had reached a compromise, so I would really appreciate and be thankful if we could all accept the current one and avoid yet another request for comments. I do prefer too the current version which add both Draw and Both sides claim victory; and it also does include links to the section. Davide King (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's not litigate the whole issue now and just try to settle on the wording for the RFC. How about we just include the current text as the only option, since it's a combination of the previous A and B text, and both of you seem to support it? Elinruby and some other editors clearly want the results section removed, so that has to be an option in the RFC as well.

What should be in the "Result" section of the infobox?

A: (as in this version) [8]

Draw

• Both sides claim victory
• Treaty of Ghent
• Military stalemate
• Status quo ante bellum
• Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy

For its aftermath, see Memory and historiography of the War of 1812 and Results of the War of 1812

B: the "result" section should be left out

Would that be okay? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good option for leaving as is, thanks Red Rock Canyon. Elinruby - I'd like to clarify, is there any reason why you would prefer to have no results sectin there, as opposed to a link to the memory and histo section? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer the link, a blank outcome field is an invitation to drive by editors.--Ykraps (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Elinruby (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This Talk Page is even longer than the one I partly archived

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

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

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

With all the deepest of respects, —— Shakescene (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiousity was this before or after I accidentally included the entire talk page in one of my comments? I think I have fixed that, but check again would you, in case you just happened to look at the size while that was true? If not, so noted, will start thinking about how to do this. Elinruby (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the Talk Page history, it appears that you (@Elinruby:) doubled the talk page from roughly 280 kB to 560 kB, and then were only successful in reverting 5 kB of that addition. Unfortunately, you can no longer just Undo that original addition without undoing everything that came afterwards.

cur|prev 12:45, 25 July 2020‎ Elinruby talk contribs‎ 558,138 bytes -5,002‎ →‎Delete the outcome field RFC: delete accidental recursion undo|thank

cur|prev 12:33, 25 July 2020‎ Elinruby talk contribs‎ 563,140 bytes +281,570‎ undo|thank

280 or 300 is beginning to push or pass the limit, but it's not quite so impossible as 560. Lowercase sigmabot III is working, but so far it's only archived 6 threads totalling about 30 kB. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a lot of editing of the article and legitimate discussion going on, *some* (!) of which is helping the article to be improved, so there is good reason for some of the activity on the talk page. There's been some improvements on the article, with some things fixed up that have been dubious for some time. I would ask people NOT to debate the war. Its something we all like to do, but some people will come on here and start talking all about it, and I'm not sure it helps. The article says what it say. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I am happy for it to say what it says if what it says is true. Meanwhile, the reason the archive is currently so large is that I accidentally selected all before the last time I pasted something. I guess. I see it in the history but it's not there when I edit the article, so it isn't as simple as me missing some text. I might need to get somebody in admin to empty a recycle bin or something. Not up for that conversation just now, but I will figure this out shortly. Meanwhile yes. I believe we should delete the infobox entry for outcome or we'll be here another decade or two scrolling through same speech over and over again. But even if the situation is only half as bad as it seems it is still time to archive again. Shakescene (talk · contribs), are you saying you don't want to do it again? Elinruby (talk)`

PS I tried deleting and re-creating the section in edit mode; this did not help. I guess I need to open in IT ticket Elinruby (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, the reason I can't find it is that Davide was being "helpful" again; no telling what he did, but at this point it's his edit not mine. Elinruby (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, c'mon say it. I simply fixed the mess you created here by removing all the duplicated discussions. You can try to do again whatever you were trying to do (what section did you try to delete and re-create?), just please do not duplicate them. Davide King (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

removed duplicated discussions It's a good thing I know you were trying to fix an accidental cut and paste. And that I fundamentally don't care. This is a prime example of what I have tried to talk to you about before. When you do something like that, especially off the page, it increases the general paranoia of the page, especially since you keep making important changes without discussion. But as it happens I am mostly annoyed that I spent several hours tracking it down, because it was my mistake to fix. Since you took it upon yourself to "help" the responsibility is yours, that's all. I hope you fixed it right. Next time SAY SOMETHING. Above all, it's the courteous thing to do. Everyone on the talk page has now had their comments edited by you. Elinruby (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This is absurd. You were the one to create this mess (it is not clear what you were trying to do or if it was a mistake) which I have fixed and re-added all successive comments, so yeah I fixed it, but I guess a "Thank you" from you would be too much to ask. I also suggest you to change has now had their comments edited by you to has now had their indents edited by you because the first one implies I did change the words and their meaning, when I merely indented them correctly; again, you are the only one who complained about it and I thought I did a favour by making clear who we are responding to; I also did see other users did the same thing and I thought it was fine as long as I did not change wording, which I did not. Again, is it so hard for you to indent correctly? I did stop doing that, by the way. Yet you do continue to indent wrongly. Try to fix that, it is your responsability now. Davide King (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously archiving every discussion from the talk page didn't solve the problem, as the debate only exploded again anew immediately after. In fact, it may have made the situation worse by removing any chance of the issue being settled by the then active RFC. I recommend against repeating the experiment. Here's my proposal: we start an RFC on the wording for the outcome of the war. All discussion on the subject is to be contained within the "discussion" section of the RFC. Any other comments on the subject shall be moved immediately. Once the RFC is over, an uninvolved editor closes it, and everyone agrees to abide by the close and never again bring up the issue. Or at least wait another decade. I have proposed the wording for such an RFC above. Please comment there with any suggestions you have for alternations in the proposal. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Most of the discussions on the talk page have nothing to do with the outcome section. Frankly I think the whole discussion of who won the war needs to be deferred until the article itself is under control, I am seeing this at 2AM when my bathroom just flooded. So I am grumpy and if I say what I am thinking I will have another long reproachful essay in my inbox by morning. But. I DO NOT CARE WHO WON THIS RIDICULOUS WAR. Neither does anyone else. I want the article to be accurate. So does everyone else. I want the article to follow Wikipedia policy. The whole idea of never changing anything for another ten years is ridiculous. Some of the editors here can't leave references alone for a week. The article needs to change, and the outcome should come after that. Elinruby (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

From my perspective, the infobox has drawn the most acrimonious debate over the past few months, with that one issue spawning threads at a half dozen noticeboards and soaking up much of the talk page. It's also the simplest and clearest issue to resolve, since it can basically be summed up in a single question, which can easily be put to an RFC. I didn't mean that the article itself shouldn't be changed for another decade, just that perhaps we can settle this single issue so it doesn't have to be debated again for a while. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I did say I was grumpy. Part of the reason, imho, that there has been so much acrimony, is that editor are looking at a balloon and voting on whether it's a banana or a horse. Removing the field removes inaccuracy and strife. People who are interested in the topic can work on the article's many problems. Those who want to write essays can write them elsewhere. After six months or so it may be possible to summarize the article. Elinruby (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I've see a lot of infobox debates, even when there was no disagreement but the editors were just trying to figure out what to do. When the info is clear cut, they work well. Otherwise, due to what they fundamentally are, the are nothing but trouble. Each line of them is a simple, categorical statement in the voice of Wikipedia. Unless the item is clear-cut, trying to put in a "simple, categorical statement in the voice of Wikipedia." is a fundamentally flawed endeavor. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to unwatch this. If anybody wants my 2 cents please ping me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

references in the infobox - Please revert

Davide King - can you please put the references back into the infobox? I have entered a few of those. Please ask here and discuss it before you go and make a decision like that to remove them please - that's an important decision to make. I see you are doing some good work on here, but some things need to be consulted. Can you please ask the editors here what they think before going an makieng changes like that? Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

He took the references out of the infobox again? They need to go back. It's one thing to say see, doesn't this look better and another to just unilaterally change something; for a start he needs to say something. Elinruby (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

See below. I did not take them out. Again, [r]eferences are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in info-boxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. I did move that to the main body, so the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere. I could have easily took them out but I did not do that and I simply hidden them, so that when one edits, they are reminded that information is already cited and discussed in the main body. Davide King (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, I did not took them out! I simply used <-- --> to hide them because the infobox should only use references that are not in the main body already such as the ones about causalities. But they are still there, so that when one goes to edit, one see them and so avoid adding a template like citation needed. I may add a further hidden note to clarify this. Davide King (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a discussion, and we agreed to have them in there, can you not hide them without having a discussion here please? That would be great if you could put them back in. Obviously some of us want them in there, as already discussed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

All good, I've put some new ones in (most of which aren't in the main body) Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure about that, I believe The Four Deuces disagreed, pointing out the guideline which state references should not be in the infobox when they are already in the main body or the information is obvious, so we should simply add them to the main body. We should only leave refs for the casualities which are not in the main body. My compromise was to keep them there, but to hide them. Also, I would really appreciate if we could work to turn the remaining refs into sfns and if you could add year, publisher and isbn to refs which do not include them so that we can verify them. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well you and Elinruby discussed it, I think you dissagreed. References were put in there. I then started adding some. Then you hid them. There was no discussion for them to be hidden. I'm happy to have that discussion if you want, but my personal opinion, given the controversial nature of the page, is that they should be referenced. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

We should follow guidelines. They tell us that refs should not be used in the infobox when they are already in the main body. Technically, they should have been simply removed from there since they are in the main body, but I did compromise to leave them there, just hiding them to comply with guidelines. This page needs work, but it is controversial because a few users hold a Canadian POV and believe in the myth created by pro-British elites in Ontario designed to squelch democracy in Canada. The Canadian win viewpoint is that the United States failed to annex them, so they won, but that is not true according to historians and when looking at American documents; it is moot. What we need to work on is the main body, to verify refs, add pages, improve wording, etc. Maybe the main body will look so different and we will have to change the infobox anyway, but for now can we please move on from this and work on the main body first? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That's funny, my expereicne had been that the Pro Canadian editors were willing to have both viewpoints, while other perhaps Pro US editors were manourvering to relegate a mainstream viewpoint, that Britain had won, to fringe theory. The view that Canada won the war is not true to *some* historians, however others, quite notable historians, support it. Two views. Can we please stop debating this and just leave be? Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King (talk · contribs) you seem to really enjoy copy editing. My suggestion to you, made in all helpfulness and with a total lack of sarcasm, is that you explore the tasks at the Community Portal. The reason people keep yelling at you is that you really don't seem to understand some policies, and you keep working on big contentious articles where they really matter. I suggest spending some time at articles needing wikilinks, and maybe observing for a while at the NPOV or RS noticeboards. I am letting the commenting out of references go, even though TFD is wrong about that, because yes, I can still see them. But it makes my work harder for no good reason.

Yes we should follow guidelines, and verifiability trumps all of them. There is an unsubstantiated claim being made about preponderance of the evidence, which you have simply accepted and I am trying to substantiate. I am being hampered by the current format of the references and the fact that for whatever reason many of them have incorrect page numbers, so I am chipping away at that. But you are not really helping here when you run behind people changing hyphens to 1-em dashes. There is a lot to do here but if you don't want to do it, wiki needs copy-editors pretty badly all over wikipedia. That said I do give you credit for at least reading the damn article. Elinruby (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Moxy did add refs, including one for the consensus among historians, so which ones do fail in the infobox? Draw? Military stalemate? Again, they are all cited in the main body, so we should not repeat them there and Moxy did add one ref in place of the unverified ones regarding draw. My compromise would be to hide them, but leave them there so that one can see which sources are used for each claim and verify that. Davide King (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

None of the pro-American writers ever used the term fringe theory. They were basically a mirror image of the pro-Canadian and pro-British editors, rejecting the view that the info-box should say the war ended in a draw. TFD (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

None of the pro-US editors on here ever used the term fringe theory? Really?, because I have quotes of you, RJenssen and Davide King all referring to it:

• (1) "We should mention that dissenting views exists provided we have reliable secondary sources that discuss the dissent. per Wikipedia:Fringe theories. (Note that although the term is generally derogatory, this guideline merely refers to views that have little or no acceptance in reliable sources.) TFD (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)"
• (2) "Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century. Old notions become fringe when the RS drop them. A main flaw from Canadian perspective is it ignores the massive losses suffered by Canadian First Nations, who are now considered full :::::::::partners in Canadian history. Rjensen"
• (3) "This is nonsense. This section is titled The Viewpoint that Britain won the war is Fringe Theory [sic] and it starts by saying TFD has made the claim that the viewpoint held by a number of historians that the war of 1812 was a victory for Canada is Fringe Theory. So how is it not about that? The bottom line is that the majority of historians say the war is a draw and you two want to give more weight to the minority views than is warranted. They are indeed fringe as argued :::::::::by The Four Deuces in the sense that they go against the established consensus (no pejorative here). Stalemate vs. not stalemate is still majority view vs. minority view. We should report the majority view in the infobox and discuss the minority view in the main body, simple as that. Furthermore, I agree with The Four Deuces that some sources used to support your point do not actually do that and there was a bit of synthesis and original research in doing it. For example, one source :::::::::used to support your claim still says By my count, we lost the War of 1812 and we lost Vietnam. That's not a widely held opinion in the United States about the War of 1812. The common view is that the war ended in a draw. Even Deathlibrarian admits Yes it is a minority viewpoint, because yes, more historians support the viewpoint that the war was a draw. But a minority viewpoint is not the same as fringe theory - they are different. Except that is exactly what it is. Fringe is not :::::::::used as a pejorative as Deathlibrarian seems to believe (showing a clear not understanding of WP:Fringe) but that it diverges from the mainstream view that war was a draw which is true.--Davide King (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)" Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we stop saying Canada won or Canadian win? Canada was not a country, so that was what I was referring to when saying fringe; both American win and British win are minority viewpoints that are already represented in the infobox with Both sides claim win, so what is your point exactly? However, you do not seem aware of the "milita myth" and you seem to show no concern for the Conservative Party's Harper's government's spending in how that affected the perception of the war. Again, you seem to use this alleged national bias so that all American historians must inevitably represents the American views rather than the consensus that it was a draw. We should move on from this and concentrate where there really is American bias; the military result is not that. Davide King (talk) 09:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course Canada wasn't a country - that's obvious. "Canada won" is shorthand ...it's what we use, because everyone knows what we are talking about. Technically, its "Britain, with their Canadian colonial allies supported by Bermudan troops and with assistance by various privateers" you can type all that out if you want. As for my point, I was responding to TFDs claims that no one uses the term fringe theory, when clearly they did. As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm not really sure why you are bringing all this up, but fine. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, by "pro-American editors" I thought that you were referring to the editors who thought the info-box should shouldn't say the outcome of the war was a draw because some sources say the U.S. won. See for example Talk:War of 1812/Mobile. They are a mirror image of the pro-British/Canadian editors. They didn't argue that the Canadian/British victory theory was fringe. TFD (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm outdenting here, OK, I don't know but to my taste when you have military stalemate and status quo anti-Bellum, Draw just seems redundant. As for a British Victory, no that is crap. You don't sign that treaty if you wanted to win. The hard evidence is not refutable. It sounds as idiotic as Americans who go to the Vietnam War and claim we didn't lose. It is just dumb. It isn't a fringe theory, it is just out and out stupid. Tirronan (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree.about draw. And in fact, status quo ante bellum is just a description of the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, no? If it is a single entry (ie Treaty of Ghent: status quo ante bellum then this takes care of.my objection that it wasn't status quo ante bellum for the tribes. Just saying. That wording implies that the term applies to the signatories, which is true, without getting into the question of why the tribes were excluded.Elinruby (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It may be redundant, but it is widely used, so why not use it? And I thought military stalemate was more related to and the result of the treaty itself, hence why it is in the bullet list. We do say that it was not status quo ante bellum for the indigenous nations in Territorial changes.--Davide King (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree about draw being in there twice as redundant. Tirronan as for British victory, that may be your personal opinion (which I personally think is completely wrong) but it's not the articles opinion, which talks about the various viewpoints. We are here as wikipedia editors, not writing our own articles. I'm not arguing this with you, as a huge debate about who won the war is the last thing we need on the talk page, seeing as its constantly getting too big and needing to be archived every three days! I'm happy to have a discussion with you about it elsewhere if you like. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I'm pretty sure enough editors here support the view that in in the infobox, draw and stalemate are the same thing( and don't need to be listed twice).... that there is a consensus to change it. Tirronan, Elinruby and I do, there was one other editor that did. I've asked Yrkps to verify where he stands, he hasn't responded. But really mate, I know you don't see it that way, but I think that's the consensus and it should be changed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yet, the same thing apply to Both sides claim victory which has been criticised by The Four Deuces and Tirronan so by your logic we should remove that too, but we return to the starting point. Here, I did change * to ** so that both Military stalemate and Status quo ante bellum are the results of the Treaty of Ghent which established them. I think it is fine because, as noted by Tirronan, You don't sign that treaty if you wanted to win and this is consistent with your definition of stalemate [as] where both parties are blocked from winning (so neither can win). A draw is where both teams in a game get the same score. The Treaty of Ghent effectively blocked either side from winning, hence military stalemate is appropriate as ** in the bullet list as a result of the Treaty of Ghent. Davide King (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide KingI know you want it in there, and I've read your arguments, and I respect that. But this is a simple case of, it appears all the editors want something, so it appears to me to have consensus, and consensus should be respected. If someone wants to start an RFC for The British victory aspect coming and get consensus for that, they can go ahead, but that's a separate conversation. At the moment, we are talking about draw and stalemate both in there as duplicative, and it seems most of us think that, even people on both sides of the "Who won the war" debate agree on it. If you really feel that strongly about it, do you think it should be an RFC and a vote? I mean, draw can still be in there, just be combined with stalemate, its not coming out or anything. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, now I did use ** to make clear both military stalemate and status quo ante bellum are the result of the Treaty of Ghent, so maybe that is better? You write draw can still be in there, just be combined with stalemate, so what is the issue? I did not make it Draw/Military stalemate because it would look awkward, so I did put it under Treaty of Ghent and now I made it even more clear that it is referring to the result of the Treaty of Ghent, so it is indeed different in this sense and not a duplication. One concern was that status quo ante bellum is just a description of the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, no? If it is a single entry (ie Treaty of Ghent: status quo ante bellum then this takes care of.my objection that it wasn't status quo ante bellum for the tribes. I believe my change to ** addressed this point and is no longer a duplication because it is now explicity referring to the the Treaty of Ghent which established both.

You and others were the ones to claim there was a difference between both terms, so I simply acted accordingly. Why not make clear that military stalemate and status quo ante bellum were established by the Treaty of Ghent, which indigenous nations did not take part of? Whereas draw was the result on the battlefield as all sides achieved some of their military goals and simply agreed to a draw. By the way, this discussion should be about the references in the infobox; since they are already in the main body and verified, they should be removed per guidelines.--Davide King (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Ok, once again you have removed the references from the infobox! can you stop going off on your own and making changes without consulting the editors on the page? I've already raised this with you. Removing references from the infobox is a major change, not a minor edit, a number of us think they are important. Its not your decision they come out. Please revert it and discuss it here before you do it again, or I will. If the editors here want them to come out, well then good, but that's not your call. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not tag it as a minor edit and I linked to WP:INFOBOXREF which is pretty clear. Do not make me quote it again for you. We should follow guidelines, not our own personal views. If you have a problem, you need to change the main body. They are already cited and verified in the main body. There was even a ref for Treaty of Ghent. Do we really need one to verify the Treaty of Ghent in the infobox? Please, check pretty much all other war-related conflicts. No refs in the infobox is the rule, not the exception, when they are already cited in the main body.--Davide King (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, the wording about the general consensus of historians which you wrongly accused me of changing was first added days ago not by me but by Moxy here. If the source confirms and verifies Moxy's wording, it should be reinstated.--Davide King (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes sorry, you are correct it was Moxy, not you. As for referencing in the infobox, there are a lot of articles that do it, in particular war of 1812. All these have references in the infobox, that are also referenced in the body - all casualty figures Battle_of_Ogdensburg, Battle of Maguaga Battle of the Mississinewa and Siege_of_Fort_MeigsDeathlibrarian (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, again, if they are referenced it is only because they are not in the main body. Here, all those things in the Results are already verified and uncontroversial facts, so there is no need to repeat or add more refs there; can we agree to a compromise and only leave the refs for the casualties?--Davide King (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Check again - all those links I posted, with reference in the inforbox ARE also refrencesd in the main body. For me, the casulaties aren't so important, its more the controversial facts - the references support them so people will think twice about changing the inbox. In the context of the arguments over the inbox, having to put refrences there means at least the statements are soucrced. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I do admit though, I've only been able to find exampese where people have referencd casutalty figures. Let me see if I can see other examples. Clearly if this article is the only one not following the wikipedia policy, then we can't do that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, the guidelines are clear. The fact some articles may have references in the infobox when they are already in the main body simply shows that they should be fixed too; or perhaps they are there because it is not discussed in the main body, so it is following the policy, but maybe those refs should be moved to the main body and removed from the infobox. Please, check World War I and World War II or other war-related good articles. They do not have refs for results and at best only for casualties. My compromise is to remove the refs from Results but leave the others about Strength and Casualties.--Davide King (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Ok, I agree with you, I'll remove them. I in fact can't see any other pages that duplicate the references, except in the case of casualties - so obviously there is no precedent for the guidelines being disobeyed that I can see, as I added them in, I'll take them out. I guess if anyone else has an issue, they can raise it, but so it just seems to be me and you talking about it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed house rule

I propose that unless mutually agreed, for example in a discussion about references, that we agree to limit comments to five sentences or less, with no quotes.Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

In 34 days, you have posted 454,738 bytes, which makes you the major contributor to the talk page over the last 14 years. Deathlibrarian is second, having posted 403,404 bytes over the last 14 years. Only two other editors have posted over 200,00 bytes.[9] Instead of recommending restraints for other editors, you might want to set an example. TFD (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been working hard to AGF, this is true...but the walls of text do seriously impede readability; I definitely don't read them and I don't think anyone else does either. Which is fine, because they are generally off-topic anyway. Don't worry, as you've just demonstrated, a five-sentence limit won't prevent you from exercising your core competencies Elinruby (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

In reply to TFD..... Elinruby is posting stuff on here because he is actually doing work, the same as Davide King. In my view, the problem is people putting up biq quotes from books, and arguing about who won the war/Annexation. We don't need to continue arguing that, unless you actually want to implement changes to the content about that particualr issue. Otherwise, its just chatter and can be done elsewhere. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Occupation of Maine

HI all - I've been researching a bit about this, to see if I can add anything to this section, and I have seen mention of the British occupying "some offshore Islands" off Passamaquoddy bay. I assume one of these is Machias Seal Island. Does anyone know about this particular bit of the war, or this part of the US/Canada? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Not, really, but I think you are right about that. There may be more at the Canadian militias article. I seem to remember some stuff about a border war with New Brunswick. It was a little after this war but you might find some search terms there. That's all I got. Elinruby (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Elinruby - I'll tkae a look, its not a major part of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Including something about Britain's reaction in the lede?

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

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

Peace negotiations began in August 1814 and the Treaty of Ghent was signed on 24 December 1814. News of the peace finally reached the United States in February 1815, about the same time as news of the victory at New Orleans. The Americans triumphantly celebrated the restoration of their national honour, leading to the collapse of anti-war sentiment and the beginning of the Era of Good Feelings, a period of national unity.[24] Both the restoration of honour and the "Second War of Independence" are important themes in American historiography and are considered important results by historians.[25][26][27] The failure of the American invasion of British Canada advanced the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation.[28] The treaty was unanimously ratified by the United States Senate on 17 February 1815, ending the war with no boundary changes,[29] except for the issue of some islands in Passamaquoddy Bay which were resolved after the war.[30]" Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought you just complained about long quotes. Unlike in the U.S. and Upper Canada, the War of 1812 had little significance and was overshadowed by the Napoleonic Wars. And the British government did not use it to create a nationalistic mythology as happened in the U.S. and Upper Canada - they had Waterloo. So if you want, just say the war was quickly forgotten in the UK. TFD (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

We do say in the first paragraph that Historians in Britain often see it as a minor theatre of the Napoleonic Wars while historians in Canada and the United States see it as a war in its own right. We may had something in the final paragraph as suggested by The Four Deuces that In Britain, the war was quickly forgotten. Davide King (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD I'm complaining about people putitng long quotes from books in here. Well you guys are right, it was - but there would have been a reaction in the public and the government *at the time* where they were happy about it. There would be newspaper articles and it should be in hansard presumably. Shouldn't that be included? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead of the American Civil War merely says the South developed a "persisting myth of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy." It doesn't mention Northern public reaction. The Lost Cause myth persists in a huge way today with a depth of feeling about Confederate flags and monuments to Confederate generals. TFD (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that;s cool - I'll just insert something like you two have suggested. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus among historians

Deathlibrarian made this edit, changing general consensus to major [sic] view, but the long-standing version already included the consensus among historians has been that the war ended in a draw and Deathlibrarian was wrong about it when writing [i]t did not say it was a consensus before. However, the consensus among historians has been that the war ended in a draw was changed to [t]he general consensus among historians has been that the war ended in a draw in this edit by Moxy, who did add a ref to verify that. If Moxy's wording is supported by the reference, it should be reinstated and at the very least we should revert to the long-standing version before Moxy's edit which already included it. What are everyone's thoughts?--Davide King (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The longstanding version DOES NOT say anything about a consensus among historians that the war ended in a draw, what are you looking at??? This is the version from the 17 June the word consensus is not in the section at all! - you changed it recently to reflect that without discussion with the editors on here. Yet again, ANOTHER change you have made without asking the editors what they think. If you are going to go through this page making changes everywhere, for the controversial changes at least, please ask what people think. I ask people about relatively minor changes if I think its going to upset people. The post above this one is me asking about making a change because I didn't want to piss people off. Its the polite thing to do! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the longstanding version - its the stable version, has been for years - no mention of consensus:

"Historians' views

Historians have differing and complex interpretations of the war.[250] In recent decades the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Neither side wanted to continue fighting since the main causes had disappeared and since there were no large lost territories for one side or the other to reclaim by force. Insofar as they see the war's resolution as allowing two centuries of ::: ::: peaceful and mutually beneficial intercourse between the U.S., Britain and Canada, these historians often conclude that all three nations were the "real winners" of the War of 1812. These writers often add that the war could have been avoided in the first place by better diplomacy. It is seen as a mistake for everyone concerned because it was badly planned and marked by multiple fiascos and failures on both sides, as shown especially by the repeated American failures to seize parts of Canada, ::: and the failed British attack on New Orleans and upstate New York.[251][252]

However, other scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. They argue that the British achieved their military objectives in 1812 (by stopping the repeated American invasions of Canada) and retaining their Canadian colonies. In contrast, they say, the Americans suffered a defeat when their armies failed to achieve their war goal of seizing part or all of Canada. Additionally, they argue the U.S. lost as it failed to stop impressment, which the British ::: ::: refused to repeal until the end of the Napoleonic Wars, arguing that the U.S. actions had no effect on the Orders in Council, which were rescinded before the war started.[253]" Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you to read Wikipedia:BRD. No one reverted that, so I thought it was fine and Moxy only strengthened it by adding a reference. We should verify it and change the wording accordingly.--Davide King (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read this: WP:CON "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals," That was the original version above - and its quite different to what it is now, in meaning and the text. That version has been there for YEARS and we spent a lot of time working on it. If there is a source that says that the consensus of the war that it was a draw, most other sources say "most" or the "majority" - there is a difference between *the majority* and "The consensus". The majority just means 51% and above, whereas a consensus is "a general agreement" - they have completely different meanings. We spent months in a third party mediation trying to get this section balanced and representing all views.,, it was even featured in a journal article. Not good. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I noticed a lot of edits to the article, which I have not had time to review. I just want to say to Davide King (talk · contribs) that if you are going to BRD -- and in my opinion you should not given your faulty understanding of Wikipedia policy -- you need to be sure you are right. And Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) can revert you. After that neither one of you is supposed to edit the text in question without discussion. It follows that generally this policy should be applied sparingly lest it generate fifteen new discussions. I will also note that I see at least one major new error of fact. Elinruby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's also note that I have asked for and still not seen a reference for this "consensus of historians" claim and that even if sourced, this is not how Wikipedia documents controversy. Elinruby (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, consensus does not imply unanimity and most implies some consensus without dismissing the minority views which are always present in academia. Elinruby, see the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812. Please, enlighten me about this one major new error of fact. Davide King (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean unanimity. While there is a dispute over whether Jesus actually existed, the info-box for Jesus says that he lived between c. 4 BC and c. AD30. That's because the minority view that he didn't exist is insufficiently significant to challenge the consensus view that he did exist. If standard textbooks typically say without qualification that the war ended in a draw or neither side won or something similar, then that means that is the consensus of academics. We still haven't seen a textbook that says Canada won the war. TFD (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus - (Cambruidge definition) "a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people" - we don't have that with Historians and the war of 1812, because some historians think Britain won the war, and some thing the US. Some think both sides lost, some think both sides won. There is no consensus on who won the war of 1812. *Americans* think the war was a draw - but not Canadians, according to "“In a relatively rare admission for an American scholar, a leading U.S. historian who authored a provocative new tome about North American military conflicts states bluntly that Canada won the War of 1812.”" this , and this "“By my count, we lost the War of 1812 and we lost Vietnam. That's not a widely held opinion in the United States about the War of 1812. The common view is that the war ended in a draw. There is a consensus the war was a draw....yes.... but only in America, not amongst all historians...amd even amongst US historians there are a few that don't think it was a draw, like Eliot Cohen, JCA Stagg, and Donald Hickey. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, you are again pushing your view there there is a national bias among historians on who won the war, but we already had a request for comments about that. Yet, Hickey is unequivocal when writing "Thus, after three years of campaigning, neither the United States nor Great Britain could claim any great advantage in the war, let alone victory. Militarily, the War of 1812 ended in a draw." So there is only one; actually not, because Cohen is not a historian, but a political scientist and his book was published by a partisan publisher, rather than the academic press. The Four Deuces already discussed this here. As for your claim, There is a consensus the war was a draw....yes.... but only in America, not amongst all historians, that is false. The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 says Most historians without any national qualifier; and it is also debunked by none other than... yourself here. You list at least 22 Americans, 2 British and 6 Canadians (!) who say the war was a draw and 4 Americans, 3 British and 10 Canadians who say it was a win for Britain/Canada. By the way, your same argument about Americans being biased apply to the British and Canadians who say their country won. Ironically, it seems the American historians are the least biased as rather then seeing it as their own country's win as Canadians do, they say it was a draw; and yet we still have 6 out of 16 Canadian historians who say it was a draw; only one British more who say it was a British win rather than a draw; and only three American historians who say it was a win versus the four American historians who say it actually was an American loss. That is all according to your own listing and notwithstanding Tirronan's comment that a British win is stupid and that the Duke of Wellington and the Edinburgh Review thought it was a British loss. Davide King (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Both those references state that the war is only seen as a draw in the Unnited states, and they are both by recognised scholars. (1) The fact you have some other quote there from Hickey doesn't discount the first quote, which says the draw is mostly that was in the United states - the other quote doesn' contradict it, it doesn't say that Canadians also mostly see the war as a draw (2) Cohen is a recognised militiary expert, and a UNiveristy academic in militiary studies. Wikipedia doesn't requre for him to be a historian for his work to be recognised here, it only requires that his work is RS. You are estbalishing your own proof of test to this page, that is no Wikipedia policy. He has written on the area, he obviously knows the field. Yes, there was a previous discussion on national bias, bit NO - those references weren't part of the discussion, they are new (go and check the debate yourself). I don't have the routledge handbook, there's no copy onlne, so I have no idea what it says, or who actually wrote it - and so far, no one has actually quoted the text, so its all a bit of a mystery. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

As I asked you previously, Davide King if as you say, there is no national bias - Can you give me the name of a non US historian who states the US wasn't trying to annex Canada? Can you give me the name of a British or Canadian historian who follows the viewpoint that the US won the war? If there is no national bias, who do only American Historians support these two pro American viewpoints? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, Davide King you are only using *part of the quote* from Hickey (The War of 1812, a Forgotten conflict, p 306, 2012 edition) - this is the full quote, from the more recent edition of the book - while he says the war was militarily a draw, he also says that the Americans failed to achieve what they wanted, and the British DID achiveve what they wanted. Hickey has said in other interviews, in additions to this, that he beilived Britian won. "Although the war ended in a draw on the battlefield, in a larger sense it represented a failure for American policymakers. The nation was unable to conquer Canada or to achieve any of the maritime goals for which it was contending. Indeed, these issues were not even mentioned in the peace treaty, which merely provided for restoring all conquered territory and returning to the status quo ante bellum. The British, on the other hand, had every reason to be satisfied with the outcome. They had held on to Canada and retained all of their maritime rights, and they had done this without short-changing their war effort in Europe. For the British, in other words, the return to the status quo ante bellum was a triumph, for it had demonstrated that they could defeat Napoleonic France in Europe while still fending off U.S. aggression in North America." Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, I think you are conflating the actual, de facto result on the battlefield and the interpretation of it. Donald Hickey may personally believe or interpret it as an American loss, but says Did the cost in blood and treasure justify the U.S. decision to go to war? Most Republicans thought it did. In the beginning they called the contest a 'second war of independence', and while Britain's maritime practices never truly threatened the Republic's independence, the war did in a broad sense vindicate U.S. sovereignty. But it ended in a draw on the battlefield. In other words, even those who may interpret the draw as a win or loss for one side or another do not dispute that on the battlefield it was a draw. They may say it was a British win because they achieved more of their military objectives and vice versa, without disputing that on the battlefield it was a draw. Similarly, Canadians may say they defeated the United States, but Upper and Lower Canada was just a theater of the war; and that, for example, the United States won the Gulf Coast theater as argued in the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 (p. 103). Therefore, my proposal is for us to say that the consensus among historians is that militarily the war ended in a draw, with the indigenous nations as the losers, but that there are several interpretations of it, where there is no explicit consensus. The majority view is that both sides won (except, again, for the indigenous nations) while minority views (some more significant than others) are that one side won and the other lost, or that both sides lost. In this case, there is no consensus on interpretation, hence we say majority view is that both sides won and I agree we should not say consensus. However, we should say that the consensus is that militarly the result of the war was a draw, which is supported by historians no matter their interpretation on whether both sides won or lost, whether there was one side that won over the other because it reached more military objectives, etc. Can we agree this compromise?

Note that I wrote this before before your newest comment. However, that just underlines my point; that militarily, the war ended in a draw and is consensus, but that there are different interpretations of it and in this case there is no consensus. I believe this caused many misunderstanding on both sides and we should separate the military result from its interpretations. Davide King (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, Eliot A. Cohen is not an historian, he is a political scientist and his book was published by a controversial publisher rather than an academic one. He's best known as one of the warhawks in the Bush administration. TFD (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD As per usual, any reference or quote I put up here, you have to dissagree with. Cohen doesn't have to be a historian to have his work referenced here, that's your personal viewpoint, its not Wikipedia's - His work only has to be recognised as RS. I'm not concerned with your view on his modern politics, I'm not sure how that is relevant, but he has a PHD, he was an academic at *Harvard*, and at The Naval War College, so I'm pretty sure that qualifies him as a scholar. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

TFD can you show the wikipedia policy that says that textbooks overide scholarly literature written by authorities in their field? - that is the opinions of the historians that say that Canada won the war? I'd like to see a link to it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Textbooks are scholarly literature written by authorities in their field, at least the ones used in accredited post-secondary institutions and particularly beyond first year. Per policy, reliable tertiary sources, such as university textbooks, do not override secondary sources written by authorities but instead summarize them and are helpful in determining due weight when secondary sources disagree. While secondary sources select facts and present the opinions of their writers, textbooks provide an overview of what scholars find important and their conclusions. That's why they are written. They are used to teach students to become experts themselves. TFD (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Although misrepresented above a few times and Canada being dismissed as a nation of people...How Lower Canada Won the War of 1812 - by Desmond Morton.--Moxy 🍁 23:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you be less crytpic? What's your point? TFD (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

According to that policy link, scholarly articles are secondary sources, and do not overide textooks and the like, because they are only tertiary material. Yes, they "can may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other". Hoewever, no, they can't overide primary sources. So a textbook from America saying that the US won the war, doesn't overide articles written by scholars in acadeamic works saying Britain won the war. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That is my view too; that consensus does not imply unanimity or that there can be a few scholars who hold a different position while the consensus remains that it was a draw; indeed, if there is no consensus, we should say the result was Inconclusive but that would not be true because there is a consensus. Most historians, as used in the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 which we should use to establish weight, means consensus that it was a draw. The Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 does not seem to support the claim that a British win is a significant minority, so we should simply say that it is a minority view. However, I agree with The Four Deuces that we should establish weight and that Deathlibrarian is giving it more weight than it warrants. Deathlibrarian cannot simply list sources that say Britain won; we need books like the Routledge Handbook of the War of 1812 to see if they are discussed there or are significant to establish weight, otherwise it is original research or synthesis. Davide King (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I tell the students "Textbooks, encyclopedias, and books published for commercial audiences often do not count as academic. Textbooks can be good sources of general information, but would not be considered peer reviewed sources" link. --Moxy 🍁 17:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much where I am as well, peer reviewed sources are the standard these days, and that's what I tell our students - though I also say that anything coming from a recognised authority in the area may also be acceptable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find that quote in your link. I think anyway it is a reference to introductory textbooks which typically have no footnotes and are rarely cited in the literature as opposed to advanced textbooks. It does say that scholarly books from academic publishers are acceptable sources. These books are typically used as textbooks in advanced studies. The textbook I mentioned for example has 77 cites in google scholar.[10] Also, review studies are tertiary sources that are peer-reviewed and published in academic journals and therefore good sources.

However, Wikipedia policy is that tertiary sources, including those prohibited from use by your source are a good way of determining weight, which is the issue here. There is no question that a book that says one side or the other won the war is a reliable source for that opinion. This is not an issue of whether we should use tertiary works as sources, but whether they can assist us in determining weight. But how would you tell your students to determine weight?

TFD (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The example you've given is just one textbook that has a peer reviewed journal article in it. We are talking about textbooks generally, which generally don't use journal articles for content. For weight, I would be looking at what the scholarly works themselves say "Most people scholars support this view" "some scholars support this view" - references like that in the secondrry sources. As per wikipedia policy, if you have a body of adherents to a viewpoint, it counts as a significant minority. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The journal article was expanded into a textbook. The topic is disputes within liberalism and the book could provide a guide as to the relative significance of each position. Incidentally, here is more clarification about the use of tertiary sources, from the U of T Library. Perhaps you could answer my question: how do you determine the relative significance of opinions about a topic without consulting tertiary sources? Even the most biased sources have some criteria for determining which views should be stated as fact, as a minority opinion or ignored altogether. TFD (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You consult the secondary sources, as to what they say about weight. Whaty they say about weight can't be overidden by tertiary sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources also say that the consensus view is the war was a draw. Out of curiosity, why do you think that using tertiary sources is a policy, if it is not supposed to be followed? You might want to get it removed. TFD (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

They don't. Secondary sources say that *most* historians say it was a draw. *Most* and *consensus* are not the same. Consensus is a "general agreement", most is just "a larger amount". They also say its most *American* historians, not Canadian or British. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)