Talk:War of 1812

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 this page 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.

If you wish to make a case for who won the war, but do not yet have citations, feel free to do so here: Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?

Your attention is requested

Folks familiar with the far western front of the War of 1812 are invited to take a look at the article Peoria War. I've pointed out on the talk page that the article needs renaming and refocusing. I have too much on my plate to fix this myself, so hopefully you might want to fix it, or at least comment on it. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Source?

Just this bit: "By the 21st century it was a forgotten war in the U.S., Britain and Quebec." That's a pretty big sweeping statement, considering that the one citation goes to a poll that doesn't even exist anymore. I don't know what it means by 'forgotten'. That it isn't taught in history courses anymore or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.231.69 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of "forgotten" in this context is that people have little knowledge or remembrance of the war. Britons will almost universally tell you that there is little knowledge of this war since the much more important war against Napoleon overshadows it. In the US most will say that there is little knowledge or interest in the War of 1812 compared to the US Civil War. The poll that is referred to in Canada was conducted for the Association for Canadian Studies located in Montreal. I expected the newspaper link to eventually become dead. However, the poll result is available on their website. Click on the War of 1812 to get the report (.doc). Someone will update the source for this. Dwalrus (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Except for a few of us that have an interest in history, what most people know is what they were "told" by someone else. The #1 response from Canadians was "I don't know". Much of the Canadian population cares more about it than the average American, as it was the 1st stirrings of Nationalism in Canada. For American's its a weird little war between the Revolution and Civil wars, both of which are seen as much more important.Tirronan (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"Canadian population cares more about it" - Hit the nail on the head there - see History of Canada - note how the war has its own sub section - WWI and WWII dont even have this.Moxy (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Moral Hi tones and occasional low brows

Every few weeks we get someone that wants to throw what I like to call Morality issues at us, mostly as a justification for tilting the article. As someone that studied the period pretty closely I would suggest that anyone wishing to ascribe bad morals and intentions to the United States at that time should be aware of some of the other things going on.

• The 1st Nations be they on either the northern or southern side of the US/Canadian boarder didn't fair well.
• The Cree Nation didn't boarder US territories, they were raiding across Cherokee lands into American Territory for fun and profit, mostly in the hope that the Cherokee would be left holding the bag when and if retaliation took place. For some silly reason the Cherokee Nation objected and started killing ever raiding party it could get its hands on.
• It was common practice to hang starving women and children in London for the high crime of stealing food.
• Low pay, starvation rations, and horrible treatment led to massive desertion from British ships and troop formations. So popular was service in the Royal Navy that Jack Tars would drown trying to swim to American shores. Marching a British Troop formation in American Territory meant losing between 5% and 20% to desertion.
• Land grabbing, often brought up as an American avarice, often overlooks British refusal to abandon the NW territories, ceded by treaty, plans to take New Orleans, and the entire Mississippi river valley from America, as well as attempts to annex Maine.
• And we have the American murder of Indians, true enough, while ignoring the uncomfortable fact that any native population unfortunate enough to have suffered colonization by the British Empire, will not sing its praises to this day.
• Slavery ended in the United States as of 1865, and was abolished in the British Empire in 1831.

Before we sing of our ancestors high morals we'd better all realize they were as human then as we are today and often had less compunction about humanitarian violations.Tirronan (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ask people in Hong Kong and Burma whether they would rather still be part of the British Commonwealth. I agree with Shimon Peres, without Britain's influence India would not be a democracy today. (92.7.13.187 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

I'm sure that the Zulus just love your empire, and I know 1st hand the loveliness of the Indian subcontinent colonization. I'm also aware of the term Wog, and how it was applied. Sing your praises somewhere else where people are not aware of the "kindness" bestowed upon them. Its just more hypocritical tripe slung about by boosters and nothing but justification for greedy British land grabbing we so abhor America for on these pages. There are no good guys in national politics, countries do what is in their best interests every time, and always will. Any good of it was a unforseen by product, not benevolence.Tirronan (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about the Panama Canal, the invasion of Mexico, and the Phillipines. (92.7.1.246 (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC))

Spelling & usage rules: honor vs. honour, abbreviation of months vs. not, and so on

Generally when an article is established, the spelling and usage rules it originally had is kept in the article. Per the Wikipedia guideline of retaining the existing variety, the original spelling used by the first major contributor to the article is what should be kept. I would suggest that all interested parties read and study up on: National varieties of English. A Wikipedia-style discussion of which English-spelling to use is in order here. Thank you. --Shearonink (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For most of the page's history, American spelling has been the norm; there is absolutely no justified reason to use British spelling. In addition, the abbreviation of months goes against the rules, as specified in WP:Date. Pyro721 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of what I thought (re: American spelling/usage), but I haven't had a chance to look through the edit history/past versions yet. Thanks, I'll take a look at WP:Date too - sometimes I just don't quite know where to find things around here. --Shearonink (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Pyro's interpretation is exactly opposite to what I've understood to be the consensus on this page for several years. Since the War involved not only the U.S., but Britain, Canada and other parts of the British Empire, while editors and sources come from all those countries, there's no clear rule available under WP:ENGVAR other than to follow the style of the first major contributor, who apparently used British spelling. I've truncated the title of this subsection for various technical reasons (readability for screen readers; allowing direct links to this section, etc.) As for abbreviating months (but not converting them to numbers), that's permissible but hardly mandatory where space is limited, as in Information Boxes, tables, etc. The Manual of Style does not favour abbreviating months in body text, and has not yet reached a decisive consensus (so far as I can tell) about abbreviated months in footnotes/references. If fully-displayed months are not squeezing a table, box, or reference section, I don't think it's wise to start abbreviating them. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

See, for example, Talk:War of 1812/Archive 12#Spelling. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

But if Pyro is correct that for most of the article's history American spelling is used, it should be retained because engvar states "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety of English it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." It also should be noted that "harbor" should be spelled the American way when it refers to places such as Boston Harbor. Hot Stop (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Honour, for instance, originally started with American spelling, but evolved into a now unimpeachable British spelling (ironic given that the article's only picture is of two Americans). Hot Stop (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to add that point (local spelling for places), which you can see elaborated in the archived talk section above, where one question was whether New Yorkers ever used a U in New York Harbour, and whether modern U.S. spelling should be used if they did. (I think I had been wondering whether to change it back to New York Harbor.) Looking through some old versions from 2004 and 2005, it's hard to see at a glance if any particular style was in use, but so long as I've dabbled fitfully here (since 2008), my understanding was that the article had been using British spelling which current editors were following. And as I noted above, almost everyone agrees that there's no single "strong national tie" in this transcontinental topic that would override the original editors' style. (added after edit conflict) I hunted for "hono.." and "cent.." (for center/centre) without success in the earliest versions, but could only find "harb...", which with the exception of "Sackett's Habour" seemed to follow modern local spelling. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd that Drunkest1 isn't participating in the very discussion he/she/it requested. But anyways, many of the battle pages (with the exception of York) use American spelling; for consistency, American spelling should be used on this page. Pyro721 (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

i think American usage works best. regarding the "first editor" rule--the first editor did not write a word; he merely copies the entire text of the Encyclopedia Britannica 1910 article, paying no attention to spelling issues or the changes in style over the last 100 years.Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly no opposition to changing it back to American spelling. Pyro721 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Au contraire, while I'm certainly open to being persuaded that U.S. spelling was in fact the default here, I'd have to see far more evidence (not that I'm eager to) before agreeing to a wholesale switch of the spelling, since I've been labouring under exactly the opposite impression for the several years I've watched and worked on this article. I'd also like to see comments from some of the recent major editors besides Rjensen. But perhaps the huge size of this article and the exhausting debates on the talk pages have persuaded them to work elsewhere. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that I have never looked at the origin of this article and was not aware that it started with U.S. spelling. It should have remained with U.S. spelling, but apparently editors were not alert to the change and allowed it to happen. Now some are going to be less than happy given that British spelling had been the norm for some time. Dwalrus (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Show me a single example where I have used anything but American spelling here. For that matter show me one example where I have ever objected to someone changing it to British usage. Its just not that major an issue to me one way or the other. Leave the date with the full month name it looks better. Tirronan (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Revisions dated between September 2010 and February 2011 used a combination of American and British spelling (e.g. "defense" next to "defences"). There really is no reason to use British spelling here; this historical event, although obscure to many on both sides of the pond (not including some historically challenged Canadians who falsely believe that their ancestors deserve credit for torching Washington D.C.), had severe implications for the Americans if they had lost. Pyro721 (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Canadian, but I'm sure that Canadians feel (in fact it's part of their traditional national myth) that if they had "lost", there would have been severe implications for Canada (perhaps no confederation; perhaps a much faster consolidation; perhaps eventual disintegration; perhaps even gradual absorption into the American Union). And had the British "lost" what's been considered a sideshow while engaged in a struggle for national independence against the armies of Napoleon's empire, the ultimate consequences might have even graver for Britain and Ireland. I'm surprised at the implied importation of the "Strong National Ties" argument into this discussion: from what I've learned in these discussions and elsewhere, many of the campaigns were outside U.S. territory. It's not so clearly an American topic that the strong national ties argument can be applied. —— Shakescene (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I took a second look at the original article and it has both British spelling - favour and paralysed - as well as U.S. spelling - criticized, so I'm not sure it can be used as a precedent. I really don't care what spelling is used. Dwalrus (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I also found "harbor" (not as a proper noun) and "mobilize". Pyro721 (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The above comments about Canada are curious. Between the US, Britain, and Canada today, the war is clearly, from all I've read, most meaningful to Canadians and Canadian history. I don't know if that should or ought to be a factor in what spelling norm to use, but if it does, I'd suggest a "Canadian English" spelling, which differs from both US and British in various ways. Pfly (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's equally important to both Americans and Canadians; Canada could've been seized by the US and the US could've been retaken by Great Britain. Pyro721 (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

the hypotheticals are pretty serious indeed. For example (a) if the British had succeeded in capturing and holding New Orleans, or (b) in creating a neutral Indian state in the middle West, in my opinion there would have been additional large scale warfare between the United States and Britain. The United States wanted to seize Canada to give it a bargaining chip in case the British succeeded, but we could also speculate (c) what if United States has seized Canada, and Britain failed to take the Mississippi River-- would that have led to additional wars between the United States and Britain? Who knows -- but I strongly suspect that the southern states would vehemently reject the idea of acquiring more free territory in, say, Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or even PEI because it would upset the balance of power in the United States Congress. The balance of power issue did explode in the United States in 1820 on the Missouri compromise issue. Rjensen (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It was initially written- based on the first revision from 2001- in British English. see? The word "favour". Since then, it has basically always incorporated both variations. If this is a serious issue to some people, I suggest they get started converting it to British English- but they should know that this "issue" has existed in this article for nearly a decade. Swarm ^X 02:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)