Talk:War of 1812

Template:Talkheaderlong

Who won the war

This page is for discussions about changes to the article. There has been considerable debate over "who won the war" (please refer to Archives 8 and 9 for the most recent discussions). In addition to the position that one, or the other, side "won," there is broad agreement among editors (as among historians) that both sides benefited from the war, or, as one editor put it: "both sides won." However, the consensus, based on historical documentation, is that the result of the war was per the Treaty of Ghent, i.e., status quo ante bellum, which, in plain English means "as things were before the war."

Please do not use these pages to continue the argument that one or the other side "won" unless you are able to present citations from reliable and verifiable sources to support your claims. Sunray (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I Concur Contributing editor Tirronan (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Straight Dope

I urge editors of this article to read The Straight Dope about the War of 1812 (which I've added to it as an external link, besides giving the link here). It addresses some issues of bias in the article, particularly about the war's winners and losers, and gives some excellent references. The neutrality of the WP article would be improved by taking a lead from what this impartial (and American) source says. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for losing my temper, look how about just for once please reading the pages above? I can find as many historians that think the US fought it to a draw as thought it lost. I am one of the Americans that does think we lost however just exactly what are you claiming a bias about? Tirronan (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The 'straight dope' indeed. Lines like 'I asked my Canadian friend, Straight Dope Message Board member Northern Piper, about Canadian attitudes on the War of 1812. He echoed the point about Canadians viewing the thwarted invasion as a victory, noting that many Americans describe an equally complicated conflict, the Vietnam War, as having ended in defeat.' and the fact that it is written by a chap called 'Gfactor' means this is likely not going to pass reliable source. It looks like he took a few sources and synthesised his own conclusion. Narson (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The following points can not be ignored:

• The United States clearly established herself as an independent nation amongst its people
• By not being defeated, it led to the impetus of broadening the borders of the United States and an idea of destiny
• The weakness of not having a trained, quality standing army and navy was shored up by vastly improving both

No matter what had happened before the Treaty of Ghent, it was clear that after the War of 1812 the United States was not defeated and it was not Vietnam- how irresponsible. It had the opposite effect, and spurred tremendous growth. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

13:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Straight Dope is not a reliable source for the War of 1812, in that it is not a peer-reviewed historical source. Not to say that it isn't interesting, or that we cannot use it. Just that we cannot use it to determine who "won" the war. It is interesting reading and may be illuminating for many who were taught the myth. Sunray (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing about that article was that it goes out of its way to say taking Canada never was the primary reason for the war... The real problem is that you can find someone to support any side of any argument you care to make where this war was concerned. I'm reading an American author that thinks taking Canada was one of the primary reasons. Tirronan (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The best way to deal with this is to focus on the primary evidence — what people actually said and did — without worrying too much about interpretations from secondary sources. The article does not have to try to guess what people were secretly thinking. For example, Thomas Jefferson did say that capturing Canada would be simply a matter of marching, and the declaration of war did not mention acquiring more territory in Canada. If there are some writers, etc. who did mention that at the time, then we can quote them without trying to impose a conclusive interpretation. David (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Who were the four?

Question: "Meanwhile, following the abdication of Napoleon, 15,000 British troops were sent to North America under four of Wellington’s most able brigade commanders."

Who were the 4 brigade commanders to come from the Peninsular? Just curious, really. Carre (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that Pakenham was one of them. I am not sure but I think Ross was another. These four had extensive combat experience in the Peninsular War, and thus were competent to fight Brother Jonathan. Of course, both Pakenham and Ross were KIA, one at New Orleans and one at North Point.GABaker 14:32, 24 Jan 2008 UTC

American vs United States

Can we substitute some "US" and "American" to break up all of the instances of "United States" that have replaced every instance of "American" in the article? It's a much less comfortable read now.Zebulin (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it read better /before/. The whole United States thing is just weird. The adjective is Americans, no? Narson (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I am the guilty party here, someone objected to the term American, trust me we call ourselves American and are more than comfortable being named such. Feel free to change it. Tirronan (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbols?

What do the symbols next to Tecumseh and Issac Brock mean? And what significance did Brock have in the war? Das.avatar (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The symbols mean that each was killed in battle during the war. Brock's leadership of the British army and Canadian militia led to the British capture of Forts Mackinac and Detroit and played a key role in repulsing American attacks on Upper Canada during the first year of the war (see Isaac Brock#War of 1812). Sunray (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fort Amanda, Ohio

Is there a way information about Ft. Amanda could be added to the Northwest US section?

"Fort Amanda was one of a series of forts extending north from Piqua to Ft. Meigs (present day Perrysburg), built by order of General William Henry Harrison. These forts helped supply the army protecting the Northwest from British invasion during the war of 1812. Ft. Amanda's construction began in the fall of 1812 under the directorn of Lt. Col. Robert Poague who named in Amanda in honor of his daughter. The original fort is believed to have measured 160 feet by 160 feet. Located at the head of navigation of the Auglaize River, it had a small landing with a boat yard and served as a supply post and hosptial. Soldiers built riverboats or pirogues to transport soldiers and supplies. Approximately 75 peiorgues were built during the winter of 1812-1813.

Although Ft. Amanda saw no fighting during the war, it served as an important link in this supply line. On Decwember 24, 1814, the United States and Britian signed the treaty of Ghent, which ended the war. By early 1815 the fort was abandoned and eventually taken over by local settlers. In the cemetery near the fort are 75 headstones dedicated to the memory of unknown American soldiers of the war of 1812. Some speculate these mark the graves of soldiers who were casualties of wounds or disease. The original fort is no longer standing but a granite monument was built in 1915 at the site of the original fort. The monument as well as the cemetery can be view during daylight hours."

I visited the area and would be more than happy to contribute an image of what the fort looked like, or the obliske there now.

Stepshep (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Article protection

Why is this article locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.13.95 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was protected on January 25. The reason was "Heavy IP vandalism." The protection level was changed to semi-protected on January 28. Given the revision history and patterns of vandalism, that seems appropriate to me. Sunray (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Another question as to who won the war...

I have a riddle for you all. What do the Sino-Indian War, the First Italo-Ethiopian War, the Falklands War, the Gulf War and the War of 1812 all have in common? They all have a clear military victor. Don't get it? Let me explain to all those who cannot (or will not) wrap their minds around that fact.

The Sino-Indian War. China attacked and advanced, then a cease fire was called by both sides. End result, things returned to normal. China gained no land and are still considered the victors. The First Italo-Ethiopian War. Italy attacked Ethiopia, Ethiopia stops them. Ethiopia asserts its independence from Italian colonialism. Ethiopian victory. Falklands War. Argintina attacks Britain. Bitain retaliates and takes back its land. Quote "Decisive British military victory (status quo ante bellum)" (which is what I think war of 1812 page should say). Gulf war. Iraq takes land. Iraq pushed back. Kuwait liberaited, Saddam stays in power. Obvious coalition victory. War of 1812...blah blah blah...Obvious (to most) British military victory. I can run more precise parallels if someone wishes to challenge the similarites of these. I'm also not saying the US didn't gain but I'm saying, militarily, that the British won. Most other war pages have simply "X military victory", no political or diplomatic victory, just military, which I hope we can agree that the British did achieve.

I realize that these wars are not identical to the War of 1812 but they posses striking similarities in at least one aspect. It is because of those historic precidents that I say that the result section be replaced to say either what I suggested above or something along the lines of "(disputed) British military victory". I welcome discussion but saying any of those are "flawed comparisons" is irrelivant. There is no war identical to the War of 1812 but there are those that are similar, of which these are some. This is not a democracy, this is history. The majority opinion about something does not make it so. That is how injustices are created, when a majority oppresses a minority, and even more so when a minority are 100% right...Ok that s kinda silly but it still remains valid. I await your responses and if no one can convince me that the page should remain as-is, it will be changed (I am a resonable person).70.54.17.167 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the heading section and understand that no contributing editor will bother responding to this sort of thing again. --Tirronan (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the heading section and I feel I have presented new evidence. My source? Wikipedia. I have read no mention of these wars in archive 8 or 9 (I read someone said the falkland war comparison was flawed but that was it). I have read no suggestion to put disputed in front. I have heard no one ask why we are talking about other factors when the military aspect of the result should be British military victory. I also see no NPOV tag or disputed tag above this article when there have been enough people complain that there should be. If all of these have been addressed then please point me to them as I have looked and obviously have failed to see all of these points because you are more knowlegable of the discussion page. While your at it I would like to take a look at the definitave source that trumps all other sources that says that this was not a British military victory.70.54.17.167 (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. The Falkland War example is flawed....I don't recall us launching a counter invasion of Buenos Aires. In this article the result is far more complex, as the constant arguments indicate, so rather than present people with a flawed two or three word result, we instead state the unquestionable result (That the treaty returned everything to the status quo) and encourage people to read the article and make their own mind up as to who really won. Narson (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No they didn't launch a counter offensive against Buenos Aires..... and they still are considered the victors. Seems you are hurting yourself with that one. The result needn't be complex. It was a military victory for Britain, do you agree or disagree. I am not saying the US didn't gain some stuff, but militarily they lost, that is what should be reflected. In the falklands war you could say the Argintine people won the war because they overthrew a dictaorship three days later. That's great but they still lost militarily as is reflected by the article. Thank you for speaking to me properly and trying to answer one point of my many point argument btw. And wikipedia is a source on how to present information and facts in wikipedia.70.54.17.167 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood. The War of 1812 /started/ as a defensive war, then it manifested into something else unlike the Falklands, which was purely a defensive war. That was my point about invading Buenos Aires. If we had done so, the very nature of the war would have shifted. As it is, we launched an invasion of the United States and thus the goalposts shift somewhat. The result of a war is also not necessarily military in nature, certainly not in that period. The idea of 'Total War' as we have now (Where total destruction of the enemy is the only acceptable result) was not prevailant at the time. Britain won a majority of the military battles and ended the fighting of the war in possesion of American land. Yet we ended the war with no gains. The phrase 'Winning the war but losing the peace' comes to mind (though not quite accurate). As for sources, as many sources say it is a draw or even hint at American victory as say the British one, probably less sources say it was a British victory infact, as it is a fairly forgotten war in the UK so most of the writing is done by American historians. So we have what we have now, where we state the result and let people make up their own mind as to 'Who won'. It is an infobox, not an encyclopedia. Don't like the answer in the infobox? Read the article, make up your own mind. Narson (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a British submarine torpedoed an Argintine ship outside the 200 mile radius and the British did consider launching an attack on Argintine soil "in defence", although they didn't. I am sorry to say but any historian who says that the US won a military victory in the war of 1812 is the most biased unprofessional in the field, although I would still like to see definative sources that say the US won for some laughs. Again, the British won militarily, the US won "in spirit", which is something a soccer team tells themselves when they hold the other team to a goal or two victory. More writing is done by American historians furthur skewing the truth which is why it must be corrected here. "Britain won a majority of the military battles and ended the fighting of the war in possesion of American land." That means it was a British military victory from your own mouth. Winning the war but losing the peace = British military victory(status quo anti bellum). And also no doubt American readers will consider they won, Canadian readers will be outraged that its not a British victory and still consider they won, and British readers will not know the sacrifices that their fore fathers made to achieve a clear military victory. And I have made other arguments about this that don't seem to be getting addressed either.70.54.17.167 (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, if Britain had launched an invasion of Buenos Aires and it succeded, as the invasion of Washington did, and burnt it to the ground then I think it would still be a British victory, even if they didn't take land. Also there is such a thing as scorched earth warfare. It was a strategy of many powers, not to conquer but just attack and do as much damage as possible and then retreat. This war seems to be the one exception to universal measurements as to who wins a war. Now that I think about it even more you guys really don't have a leg to stand on with this, but I look forward to your counter argument.70.54.17.167 (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already said it. Both sides achieved their war aims, so both sides won.GABaker (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

...You all seem to be sidestepping the issue of a MILITARY VICTORY. I cannot recall any page that does not list who won militarily. There are other pages that indicate what each side gained and lost but in the box it must say that Britain beat the US militarily.70.54.17.167 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And if you read the bit right next to your selection quoting, Anon, you will notice the bit about how wars arn't just about the military results. The war was a wash. We signed a treaty to that effect with the yanks almost 200 years ago, the Treaty of Ghent, which was the end result of the war. In the result we could put 'Treaty of Ghent' and then people can go to that article and read 'Status Quo Ante Bellum'. If a select group of canadian readers will be outraged, as you put it, I suggest they might consider that their country didn't exist and that the two Colonies of Canada were controlled by the UK, their beef over the inability of the UK to gain concessions should be addressed to the long dead Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, not on this page. Believe me, I would be more than happy if we had won the war and had taken Vermont and New Hampshire and maine, securing control of extra lobsters and maple syrup, but we didn't. The result of the war was a wash. Both sides got some of what they wanted. Both sides didn't get all of what they wanted. As for failing to recall any other war page that doesn't list military result? American Revolutionary War would be a good contemporary example. The result is not simple so we don't have a result. As I said before, that is an infobox. This is an encyclopedia, not a reference card system, so, read the whole article rather than just the infobox. Narson (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

May I tell you about the Sino-Indian war. They fought, China advanced then peace was called and they returned to their previous lines....and China won even though it gained nothing. Exact same thing happened here. I have read countless other articles that indicate who won militarily, why not this one? It more about article composition and layout than anything else now. It is irrelivent whether Canadians were a country or not (that is the last thing I want to start). I fight solely for history. The ARW page is pretty clear to me. Britain lost because America is indepedent. The reason there is no result like that is because two nation states were not fighting eachother. You are citing a non traditional war not between two powers but internal rebellions. Please cite a proper war. Many people don't have the time to read the article. They want a concise summary of the event. AND you are still sidestepping....70.54.17.167 (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I would like to know if someone amongst you disagrees with the following statements. 1)The US were the agressors in the war. 2)The US were pushed back from their conquests. 3) Britain and her colonies won more battles than the US. 4)Britain took land from the US in their counter offensives. 5)Britain were very inefficent at the negociating table. If those statements are true then that means that 1) Britain won a military victory over the US and 2) that they lost the negociation war. That translates to British military victory with status quo ante bellum (sorry for my previous spelling) I don't see what is so hard about that. They lost militarily, they gained diplomatically hence, british military victory with status quo ante bellum and a link to results of the war of 1812... please tell me where I am wrong.70.54.17.167 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"military victory" is meaningless. The US won the military victory in Vietnam. so what? The soviets won the military victory in afghanistan. again, so what? military victory in the context of an entire war doesn't really tell the reader anything nor does it even really mean anything.Zebulin (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is infact so meanless I'm sure you will not object to it being put in the result section...lol. OK, Firstly you are again quoting non tradional wars. I would agree with you that if the US government was beaten and dissolved and there were no more official US armies just gurrilla forces scattered across the country side and the world recognized that Britain was the only occupier with no official opposition and then were forced to be driven out because of said gurrilla forces (takes breath), then the US rebels would be considered the victors (unless Britain set up a govenment of loyalists who managed to keep the country together and at Britain's side)...... but that was not even close to the case so why are we talking about it. As for Vietnam that is like comparing apples to a chesterfield. I am also not very familiar with that war but I think it is arguable they actually did win militarily. True they beat the Viet Cong (usually) when they emerged to fight but they really didn't win. They never took Hanoi and I don't think they ever breached the 17 parallel. Their air campaigns were not perticularly effective and they did not manage to stop NV from supporting the NLF. They could not train SV troops well enough and they lost moral and support because of all of those reasons. That is not the sign of a desicive military victory as the British achieved. You people are really not supporting your side as to why not put British military victory in the Result section. Arguments like "so what" are very childish. If no one can state why the Result section should not be changed other than "that's the way it's always been and there are more of us than you" then I am afraid I will seek out some sort of an arbitration. Consider what I ask, I ask only that British military victory be written. Not any other kind of victory. I am not being unreasonable and I am not seeking to rewrite history. I am not being childish and changing the result myself because I believe in diplomacy but you guys are not presenting a good case and answering my questions. You are infact tiptoeing around the issues and changing the subject. And thank you Narson for correcting the formatting earlier btw70.54.17.167 (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not gotten any serious responses to my last couple of comments so that leads me to believe that one of two things are happening. 1) Everyone is doing reasearch in some form or another to counter my logic or 2) you are incapable of objecting to my logic because it is so air tight. I think I will go with the latter until I am told otherwise. Jks, but come on, we had a huge back and forth and then a tenth of that... Anyway lets sum up what has been discussed. I will admit who won the war is a complex issue and I am not claiming that anyside won. I may even go so far as to say that overall, the US did win. Maybe. That is for the people to decide on their own and we have a whole page explaining that. As for militarily, there can be no question the British and their colonies won. I believe if it says British Military Victory it will appease everyone. Links should be provided to results of the war of 1812, the treaty of ghent and status quo ante bellum as well, that way, all bases are covered and complexity of the result is not an issue. Unless someone objects and furthurs our discussion I will change it in a couple of days. I figure that will start a dialog again :-)70.54.17.167 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No-one is arguing the US solely won the war, I don't think. We have a result, one that doesn't tell half truths or give a short answer to a complex question. The only other option, IMO, is putting:

See this section or this section for details

Similar to the solution used in the Bismarck article due to the controversy over her sinking. The reason debate curtailed was the selective quoting and the fact we /have/ been over this god knows how many times and you arn't bringing anything new to the debate. Narson (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I still think you are purposely expanding this one issue to a large one, that of who actually won versus my smaller issue of a military victory, I commend you for proposing a change from the status quo (not the status quo in the result section, the status quo of how the article has always been). This also leads me to believe that a mere proposition of change of the article indicates that I /have/ brought something new to the table, whether it be arguments or simply the fact that I have a clear concise argument. At any rate this is progress and this is a possible solution, although I still don't think it is the best one for me or potential readers. I will give other people time to comment. Also, do you alone, Narson, have the ability to implement such a change, or must you confer with your clique or have you already? I must say though I don't understand the reluctance to put military victory when we seem to have established this. Is it because you think it is misleading or the Americans out there don't want to say they lost militarily anyway? I am quite confused about this one issue.70.54.17.167 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Acctually, my dislike of stupid one line answers to complex issues in infoboxes is a long term thing, not your influence I'm afraid...and there is no 'little clique', I have very little to no dealings with Tir or the others outside of this page (And it is generally considered bad form to accuse others of engaging in them). Why must we pick one or the other. Not only is it misleading to put a British military victory (As people may make the same mistake you seem to believe in, that the military outcome is the result of a war) but also it will raise ire in the American editors. We clearly document in the article the various campaigns and their military result, there is no need to duplicate the info in the campaign box where it could be misleading. This is a long standing consensus so, really, more than 'I think so' is required (And honestly, thats all you have provided other than other wikipedia articles....no MOS or other guidelines that encourage it etc). If someone is willing to go through and provide overwhelming sources claiming that the result was a British Military Victory, rather than drawing the conclusion of a status quo or various similar results....then they should provide it. N.B. I said that my suggestion was the only other alternative I considered vaguely acceptable now, not a preferred alternative. It is a long long way in second place at the moment. You could try and get Tir or one of the others to back you up, you don't need my approvel or consent or assent or any such. Narson (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fat chance of that happening, hell I am an American and I think America lost that one but if asked to prove it, sheesh... The problem is reading the British side THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY COULD WIN IT EITHER. Which makes the argument rather mute. Argue till the pits of hell come but both sides sat down and signed because by their own evaluations this was a war with no end in sight with nothing to gain by continued fighting. Then there is that irritating fact that neither side every really had a complete military defeat of the other in mind in the 1st place but were playing for chits in a forseen negoiated settlement. --Tirronan (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen any of you even suggest a possible change to the way the article is now which is what lead me believe that I had presented a better case than the others in the first place but I guess I was wrong so I apologize. Now, I by no means called it a "little" clique. It is by all logic a moderatly sized clique, and I do not subscribe to that school of thought, that of "that it is bad form to accuse" I maintain it is a clique by definition whether you acknowledge it or not. Now let me try and clear some things up. Firstly I do not believe that the military outcome /is/ the result of the war (if anything it should be the other way around IMO). I have been preaching from the beginning that they are independent of one another. Have you read all my posts? That is why I proposed a military only victory and not simply "victory" or "decisive victory". I have searched the MoS but, to my knowledge, they don't have a specific guideline for this, so I am simply presenting evidence that the rest of wikipedia goes by these "unofficial" guidelines so we should too.

No need to duplicate the info?!:?!?!?! That is the only reason the box exists, to sum up and duplicate the info..... you will have to explain that one to me. It is misleading now to non-American editors and it would not be misleading to indicate who won militarily because it is the accepted truth. We have already come to a concensus for that, havn't we. It also may "raise ire" amongst the American editors... so they come before all other editors?!?!?! And I have indicated guidelines for the box where they indicate who won militarily. I submit to you, sir, that the wording now raises ire amongst everyone else. I just re-re-read the article from top to bottom and I also submit to you sir, that the mere fact the British did ask for land (coupled with the fact that the US did not ask for land [because they controlled none]) indicates the British did see themselves as the victors (be it an ever so slight victory) and the Americans the losers. They couldn't follow through at the table but that is independent of the field of battle. Narson you, in a previous post, said that "the goal posts shifted" because the British went on the offense. I submit to you that they did not, not entirely that is. They counter attacked and did some stratigic attacks and raids (Washington), but they did not go on any sort of large-scale offensive per-se. But that is irrelevent. Narson, you are the only person who is being polite about this. Everyone else is either saying "so what", "fat chance" or downright refusing to answer my guideline centered questions. Again I have browsed the archives and I don't recall anyone speaking about guidelines. Your other proposed solution is not what I had in mind either but I say it is a start that we are talking. I doubt I will ever get the consent of another editor. I am increasingly thinking that if all other editors refuse to give even an inch I will have to be forced to find other alternatives for a solution. Lastly @ Tirronan. See this para as to how the British felt they were doing in this war (demanding land and such). I will admit that Britain absolutly didn't want to continue the war because there were a gazillion more pressing matters at hand, making them hurry to get a peace, but that in no way diminishes their military victory.70.54.16.238 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are misunderstanding wikiterms again :) By guidelines I am referring to wiki style etc. guidelines, rather than other articles (Which form a precedent but, wikipedia articles are not precedents for the others....it is a weird bureaucratic wiki-world). If you cede that the military result is not the result of the war, why have it in the result box of a war? Now, for the campaigns and battles? Most should indeed read as British victories in the result box (Not sure if they do, I havn't looked /that/ far into the other articles). As for raising ire, well, this compromise reduces disruption on the page itself (By not raising the ire of the Americans just to make a point), sticks to what most sources we currently use indicate....the compromise that you see in the infobox (The treaty) has the benefit of being accurate, not /overly/ disruption baiting and true to sources. I can understand the frustration in not seeing something you think should be there in the page, and believe me, many things would be different if I got to write wiki the way I wanted, however, we all have to work within guidelines and policies for the well being of the project. I'd suggesting trying a few content edits, creating an account and getting involved in less...contentious...discussions. THen you'll quickly learn about the wiki guidelines and policies...not to mention likely find sources to back you up. Narson (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I already mentioned I checked wiki manual of style and its specific extensions (namely infoboxes). I was looking solely for what information to put in info boxes. The info box page was not helpful because it didn't say specifically what to put in the Result section of a war template. It gave general guidelines but not specifics for Results. Maybe I missed it somewhere and if a specific guideline for this particluar debate exists I would adhere to it (how I interpreted it that is :) ). But as far as I can tell it dosen't so I am simply citing the tradition already established by countless other wiki pages. Why have it in the result box you ask? Good question. Because it makes up a part of the war and the result. It is informing you of key aspects of this conflict. It indicates how the peace process was won by American negociators. Those are the principal things people want to see. The military aspect and the gains and losses aspect. There are no set number of things that can be included in the result section. In the ACW there are lots of diffrent results. Abolisment of slavery, reconstruction and Union victory. I do see where you are coming from but some things to note. No one, at least not me, is trying to anger American readers. Although I know full well that such a change would solicit negative reactions from some of the more vocal Americans. I see this compromise as still being overly generous to the American side though. It is just kinda wrong to not say something because it will anger people. It not like a giant injustice is going on but bowing down to appease the majority shouldn't happen. I also don't think it is particularly accurate to completely ingnore the military aspect. It's like a half truth or something I can't quite put my finger on it. And yes, it is frustrating. I read sportic posts by people from the past who want to have the result changed, then 3-4 users come down on them and tell them that it is not going to be changed and they fade away, not to say they don't deserve it (total British military victory isn't right either), but I feel if I had a team behind me I would be getting furthur. It's just that the infobox is clearly important thats why so many people complain. It should be irrelevent if Americans complain and change it though. I'm sure the holocaust page gets vandilised all the time but there is no way that page is going to be changed to appease the holocaust-never-existed minority. I'm not trying to equate this to the holocaust or say this is more important in any way btw, just using an example. And I have been a long time reader of wiki and I often read the discussions (because I find sometimes they say things more clearly than in the page itself) so I like to think I have an understanding of policies. As far as involving myself in other topics I'm afraid I would have nothing to contribute..... so I can devote all my time to this page :)70.54.16.238 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Even trying to argue that this was a pure military victory would be open to lots of argument, for ever victory there was a defeat with the only resounding success being the blockade and even that ended only so so. Anytime you try to say one side or the other was winning you have a battle of platsburg ect where the other side retreated for no apparent reason. I have litterally had to force myself to read the Canadian campaigns as the are the most half assed sorry excuses for logistics planning or operations to the extent that they read like a banana republic war. Sorry I just can't support that argument. --Tirronan (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you interpreted the information the way you did. That kind of thought is why it should say to people "Britain won militarily", for the people who are biased and refuse to acknowledge that. They literally have to be told that they lost and smack them in the face with it. I find it particularly interesting you thought the Canadian campaigns were the worst of the British Empire's battles. They were the battles where they were out numbered by the yanks without experience or training and they still managed to push them back to American soil. Too bad the US got beaten by some of "the most half assed sorry excuses for logistics planning or operations". If you think that those were the campaigns where the Brits preformed worst you should seriously re-read the article. The point of military victory is only open to argument from the American side, where the US military can always win militarily but loses the peace. This is the exact opposite scenario and I think some people will try to evade the truth. Just randomly this http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/19thcentury/articles/militaryhistoryofwarof1812.aspx [43] source agrees with me as well as thestraightdope of the top of my head. I will find other sources to confirm a military only victory if need be but I'd rather not have to because anyone who reads the article (and dosen't have a pre-existing bias) would come to that conclusion so it's just easier to sum it up for people in the box. There were more American deaths and there were more battles won by GB, as well as land held by GB. Those are basically the only things that determine the victor militarily and they literally define who wins militarily so there can be no serious question about it, unless someone would like to prove me wrong (which I have a feeling a "half-assed" attempt will be made at it). I have re thought about my demands and now maintain that I will accept nothing less than "British Military Victory" being included in the results section no matter what else is put there. There is not a single valid or logical reason why it shouldn't be like that. FYI at " The Battle of Plattsburgh" they had to retreat because they lost the naval engagement (a rare occurance late in the war).70.54.16.238 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't even have a source that says that the war of 1812 was a "military victory" for one and now you're going to demand the article describe it as such? You opened this troll/rant whatever it is with reference only to other wikipedia articles. Have you looked at the Korean War infobox?Zebulin (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I just mentioned two sources that claim military victory (well one claims overall victory, but that's not what I'm pushing), in addition to the logics that I previously stated (more battles won, enemies killed, and land held for the British). It is a widly accepted fact to all but the most patriotic and/or ill-informed Americans. The Korean war??????? I hadn't realised that one side had beaten the other..... oh wait that war is still on-going. The award for worst reference goes to.......I can't read it........Zebulin. Congrats man. Anyway no one has proved any points as to why it shouldn't be that way. I said it before, no wiki guideline exists for this type of thing so I am using the only other references I have, other wiki pages. You guys (generally) are being pretty think headed about this. Just levying counter claims of non-sense against me when the only half logical answers you've given are that it would offend Americans to put British military victory and it may be a little misleading. Both of which are steeped in the utmost of irrelevance. I'll give more time for counter-arguments however please inform yourself of the recent conversations before making claims of lack of sources and citations....gute Nacht70.54.16.238 (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

new discussion subpage?

Is it possible to divert who won the war discussion to a discussion sub page? Perhaps that would reduce the frequency of the same arguments being rehashed over and over.Zebulin (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I am in favor of buying them all tickets to a major sporting arena and giving them all stone clubs to beat each other to death with. --Tirronan (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea, either. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt it would move the discussion there, the anons would still post here, we'd just have to move the comments over...then they'd post here again asking why their comments got deleted. Narson (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea; there's something similar here.It's worth a try, and previous spats on the subject can be archived there. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Narson. There is likely no way we can absolutely prevent folks from posting their unresolved issues about the war (jingoism, patriotism, national angst, or whatever), here. Sunray (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You know as a American we go through this on the Civil War as well, everyone with an opinion just insists on blogging it to death regardless of actual fact. I had more of the same on the battle of waterloo with folks very upset that I began to put in sections with the Prussians in the battle. It doesn't matter the historic facts its their opinion that matters. --Tirronan (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a "Do Not Feed The Troll" label? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a good strategy. Also, simply removing text that doesn't meet the talk page guidelines, in some cases. Sunray (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I have set up a link for a page of discussions about "who won" for when you guys are done. Sunray (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)