Talk:War of 1812

Hartford Convention

I purchased a new book, just to have an additional source. So for your consideration:

15. Twenty-six delegates attended. They had been chosen by the legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island; by the New Hampshire counties of Grafton and Cheshire; and by the county of Windham in Vermont. George Cabot of Massachusetts was chosen president and Theodore Dwight of Connecticut secretary. Leaders like Otis and Cabot excluded Federalist firebrands from the meeting. Otis and Cabot did not want to secede from the Union, nor did any other delegate. They wanted to express grievances and threaten future, more radical conventions, but they also wanted to preserve the Union. The convention lasted three weeks, from December 15 to January 5. As befitted a group who fancied that because of their wealth, education, and virtue, they were wiser than other citizens, their meetings were held in secret. On January 6 the convention issued a report for the public. It announced that

Daughan, George C. 1812 (pp. 368-369). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

the delegates were commissioned to devise means for defense against “dangers” and to obtain relief from “oppressions proceeding from acts of their own government, without violating constitutional principles or disappointing the hopes of a suffering and injured people.” Theodore Dwight wrote many years later that “the expectation of those who apprehended the report would contain sentiments of a seditious, if not a treasonable character, were entirely disappointed.... Equally free was it from advancing doctrines which had a tendency to destroy the union of the states. On the contrary, it breathed an ardent attachment to the integrity of the republic. Its temper was mild, its tone moderate, and its sentiments were liberal and patriotic.” Looking at the report, it was hard to disagree with Dwight.

Daughan, George C. 1812 (p. 369). Basic Books. Kindle Edition. [-- Tirronan]

Unintended Marginalisation of First Nations

I was quite surprised to reread this article since I last glanced at it about a year ago, as a great deal of content has been removed or minimised.

While I understand the need for concision, edits in the past year have attempted to pare down content to such a degree that the perspective of native populations is not nearly as well represented as it was before, and presented seemingly from a colonial perspective.

I'm not much a of a wikipedian and I'm not sure how best to address this, but I feel it's necessary to raise that brevity has seemed to be gained at the expense of less significant content and - due to colonial bias in available sources - erasure of the indigenous perspective.

As a potential improvement, I believe the summary-by-viewpoint dispensed with in this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_1812&diff=1014019219&oldid=1014012589) was a useful tool for attaining an appropriately neutral POV and may be useful if reintroduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3840:4130:B099:9C85:64F4:4036 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

An other title, please

1812 and war is immediately associated with Napoleon's Grande Armée invading Russia. 600 000 French and allied went for Moscow (but the Tsar lived in Saint Petersburg). The march back became a horrible disaster for Napoleon, and in 1813-14 all was over. But the new French King (whatever Louis) thought the time was set back to early 1789. Napoleon could come back ! But only for 100 days. But this war in USA have I never even heard about. "Amarican 1812 War" or something similar would be a better name. 83.250.71.64 (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

We use the title that is normally used in reliable sources, per WP:COMMONNAME. While some writers refer to the French invasion of Russia as the War of 1812, it is not the common name. We even have a hatnote that directs readers to a disambiguation page listing other uses of the expression. TFD (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Style

The writing style is kind of weird, making it hard for someone not steeped in 19th century naval warfare to understand. "... naval ships do not fight as individuals by the code of the duel, they are national instruments of war, and are used as such." I would have no idea what this means, although the sentence following this sort of explains it (at least I'm guessing it does). "Java had fought hard and had the butcher's bill to show for it." What the heck is a "butcher's bill"? "Despite her unlucky reputation Captain James Lawrence took the command of the USS Chesapeake...": He had a choice? I would have thought some naval officer above him assigned him this command. "Lawrence held the weather gauge but refused to use it": I picture him holding a barometer or something, and ignoring the fact that a storm was coming. "Of interest, Chesapeake was holding her own with the great guns": ok, but why is this sentence more interesting than the other sentences? And so forth. Mcswell (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)