Talk:War of 1812/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Chronological Order

If I may ask, why is this article completely out of chronological order?-Kieran4 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Were President Madison and War Secretary Dearborn really "Commanders"?

The article lists President James Madison and War Secretary Henry Dearborn as "commanders" on the American side. In other Wikipedia articles, this section is reserved for military commanders -- generals and such. Is this appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.190.221 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dearborn really was on the field, and a damned shame for the American cause. The President is the Commander in Chief so he also counts. Tirronan (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment

This is really the first time I've taken the dedicated effort to read the entirety of the article. For me despite the effort given to portray the war as a "draw" the actual body of the article and the supplied illustrations almost inevitably refer to American victories or achievements. I am aware that there is great bad feeling over this article and I'm sorry to have to perpetuate it but as a Brit reading this really for the first time, I believe that it would in fact be easier to change the outcome to "Minor American victory" than to actually change the body of the article to reflect the agreed outcome.

Kaenei (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not feel that you need to apologize, since you are entitled to raise the type of points you have. There has been a great deal of debate on this talk page over what the article should say regarding who won, and the consensus has been that the article should state the war was a draw. I hope I do not sound like I am dismissing your points; I feel they are reasonable, but as I said a lot of debate has taken place. If I may say, just because the article may overly focus on American victories, doesn't mean that the article is inferring that America won, or that America did win in actuality. It could be that there is am imbalance in the article that needs to be addressed. Thanks for reading, and I hope I have addressed what you have said. Terrakyte (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the outcome should be listed as "indecisive", "debated" or something that indicates that, even 195 years later, while there's some agreement about the magnitude of the outcome (significant but not huge), there's not a general agreement about the nature of that result. This won't be the first nor the last war whose result is still debated. However, "status quo ante bellum" does accurately and precisely reflect (I think) the formal results of the Treaty of Ghent. Apart from swapping some land in Maine (then a District of Massachusetts) and the Maritimes, there are few material changes to mark (as opposed to the moral significance of Canada resisting absorption in the U.S., and the U.S. resisting re-absorption into the British Empire, which are anticipated things that might have happened but so far haven't.) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

there is very little debate among historians, who all agree the war was pretty much a draw, and that the major causes had faded or disappeared by late 1814. Rjensen (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And the issue with indecisive is that in some areas it was decisive, removing many of the reasons. Though there would again be border skirmishes and high tensions over westward expansion, the Pig War for example, it wasn't like there were isues so pressing that the two countries felt the need to war again. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article and I have to disagree that it almost inevitably refers to US victories. The few images do seem to favor the US, but there are only a few images and they merely supplement the more important text. In the text the article does a good job of presenting the many US defeats. However, to be fair and neutral it must also present the US victories and it does that in a fair manner. Dwalrus (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of images in this article, I feel I must point out that the single most prominent one- the one in at the top of the article in the infobox- is "Push on, brave York Volunteers" illustrating a British victory. --Noren (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there seem to be roughly an equal number of American/British victories and the most prominent is a British/Canadian victory. Overall the article could so with a few more images, but I don't think you could make a case it isn't balanced on that score.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Overview" section redundant?

I think that the "Overview" section should be removed. I believe this because WP:LEAD says "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." I believe the "Overview" section is redundant, because I feel it is trying to perform the purpose of the lead. What does everyone else think of my proposal? Terrakyte (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As an observation, there is very little 'concise' about our lede on this article. I don't think anything that would force more information into that lede is a good idea at the moment. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to move the info in the "Overview" section to the lead. We can just remove it completely. Having said, I think there is good info in that section. Maybe we should think about posting up a hybrid of the current lead, and the overview section, that does meet WP:LEAD. I still stand by my assertion that per WP:LEAD the overview section should go (hope I didn't come across as combative there). Terrakyte (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As a layman who's done some technical editing in the article's beginning but has never read the whole article all the way through, I think that maybe the reverse should be done: compress the lede (introductory paragraphs) slightly and expand the Overview. I may never read about every campaign, but I would read an Overview of reasonable length, and I think that might be true of many semi-serious readers. It could be structured as a guide to the contents below, so that people interested in, for example, Fort McHenry or the Battle of New Orleans could jump to that section in the main text. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Different views from either side is logically possible

I think that we should recognise that there are at least four participants in the "War of 1812". Native Indians, British, United States American and Canadian. It is possible that of these, some would, while some would not, have put the war into the broader context of the war in Europe.

As a point of interest regarding any desire at the time to fold in Upper and Lower Canada into the United States during the War of 1812, am I wrong in my belief that the Declaration of Independence still allows any Province of Canada to petition for inclusion into the United States of America?

Also, regarding the impressment by Britain of sailors formerly British citizens, I personally think that such action was deplorable. However, under present U.S. law, a citizen who seeks to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations.

124.170.29.156 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Marc_in_Oz

Well to be specific, there were 3, Britain, the United States, and the Tribal confederation. Part of what gets confused here is the war didn't start on a "We want Canada" it started over trade restrictions and impressments of American sailors. It is not a war that lends itself to black and white statements but rather one of all sorts of shades of gray. Heck one of the American generals was a paid Spanish spy for crying out loud. On the issue of impressment, again it isn't a black/white issue many of the sailors in American service were in fact British deserters from British warships, and still many impressed had never seen England. American's have watched Canada go through a few modern crisis where we wondered if they would break up and what would happen if they did. I think it was Quebec, though I am not certain, last time. If there was such a split I would have assumed that Quebec would be a stand alone nation and the rest of Canada would go on as before. You are correct however that if a Province, for whatever reason, said no we are leaving and applying for statehood with America, there is nothing in the US Consititution that forbids any land mass from applying. Puetro Rico has been trying to decide for a century I believe. Basicly the US Congress would have to approve it though. Tirronan (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong about the Declaration of Independence, but the document that you probably intended to refer to is the Articles of Confederation written in 1777 and put into force in 1781. Article 11 of that document states, "Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States." The Articles of Confederation is, of course, no longer in force. Dwalrus (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence is not the governing law of the land here, and as you mentioned, neither is the Articles of Confederation, However the Consitituion of the United States is, there is however a proceedure to bring new states into the Union and since there are now fifty states and not nine... Be careful about calling folks wrong, heck we have all been caught on the wrong foot. Tirronan (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment does not make any sense to me. It should be obvious to you that I was referring to the person who posted from the IP address in Australia. That person said, "...am I wrong in my belief that the Declaration of Independence still allows any Province of Canada to petition for inclusion into the United States of America?" My response was perfectly reasonable and legitimate. Unfortunately, your response seems highly emotional. You need to relax a little. I am impressed that you realize that the Declaration of Independence is not the governing law of the land. Dwalrus (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence is still in effect. It comes first in the THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (click the right arrow on that page) Rjensen (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So if we held Britain to the same standard as the U.S rule that a citizen who renounces citizenship is still liable for impressment (military service), (whether born in Britain or not), at what time would a sailor's birth have been considered as an American versus a British citizen? 124.170.99.24 (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Marc_in_Oz

If we engage in this litte sojourn, then it is whenever the British acknowledged US independence. So I'd guess 1783? Though you never know, it might only have been legally recognised in 1791 when the dilomat was sent, English law can be quirky. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The British definetly recognised the US in 1783 the same time it was "Internationally recognised" by most states. They had in a tacit sense even recognised the principle of independence much earlier - offering a kind of dominion status that would have recognised American independence but with George III as King in 1778. After the Revolutionary War, the British recognised the United States and shifted their interest out of the American theatre and back to Europe. Many felt the very reason they had lost the Revolutionary War was becuase they had neglected Europe, and had not recruited any allies as they had done in previous wars to battle the French and Spanish. The recognition of American Independence in particular was driven by William Pitt who became Prime Minister in 1783 and had opposed the war and adopted a general pro-American attitutde.15:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the treaty of paris would serve that function quite well and you are correct it was signed in 1783, by signing the treaty with the United States of America it is full recognition I believe. Tirronan (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unstated goal?

Why is breaking of the Indian alliance referred to as an "unstated goal" of the American side? If it's a goal, it had to be stated by someone.TheJazzFan (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

good point and I will fix it now. It was a main American goal.Rjensen (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Three theatres

The intro states “ the war was fought in three major theatres,” but only two are clearly identified. Perhaps there is a third hidden in the somewhat run-on sentence which follows. —Michael Z. 2009-02-14 18:42 z

The statement is: "on the oceans, blah, blah; along the American coast, blah, blah; and the long frontier between the United States and Upper Canada blah, blah." This clearly indicates three theatres. I agree, it is a long sentence, and might be rendered better as bullet points, provided people don't start writing long personal essays about each theatre. HLGallon (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried a partial fix by italicising the opening phrases (...oceans,, ...coast and ...frontier...) and tightening the phrase about the frontier. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good changes! I made sure we use "Great Britain" and "Britain", which are strongly preferred by the historians, who rarely use the variations on "UK" (as the bibliography demonstrates). Larimer's 2007 book for example is the #1 British history and avoids using UK (likewise all the other historians).Rjensen (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How do we handle anachronistic First Nations?

If we're reducing the use of United Kingdom (which is not completely anachronistic since it was used in at least a minority of contemporary documents, commentaries and titles) in favour of simple Great Britain (which, offensively to Irish readers, presumes that Ireland is automatically assumed into GB and needs no separate acknowledgement), then what do we do with Isaac Brock's

force of 350 regular British troops he commanded (supported in turn by local militias and First Nations' warriors).

in the second paragraph of War of 1812#Overview?

I have no idea how the pre-European inhabitants of North America referred to themselves and to each other in their own languages, but I doubt that anyone used the phrase First Nations in English much before 1965-1970 A.D./C.E. While most Canadians now know what the term means, it's still a term that's unfamiliar to, and would thus perplex, most non-Canadian readers.

My interim fix was to replace the language with

force of 350 regular British troops he commanded (supported in turn by local militias and warriors from native tribes of Canada's First Nations).

But this doesn't really resolve the tensions involved. On the one hand one wants to avoid political correctness-for-its-own-sake, historical anachronism and neologisms that would confuse a fair number of readers. On the other hand, I understand how repetitive use of terms that were once very contemporary but could also have had (or now have) negative connotations (such as "native", "Indian", "tribal", "Brit", "Canuck", "colonial", "Hebrew", "fellah[in]", "colored", "Negro" or "Oriental") might give needless offence. Does anyone have a better idea of how to steer between these difficulties in this particular article? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Donald Hickey in his book Don't Give Up the Ship: Myths of The War of 1812 comments on terminology used in the book. He decided to use "Indian" or "native," since "Native American" did not seem appropriate for those Indians in Canada and "aboriginal," "First People," and "First Nation" are not used in the US. There were several choices that he needed to make on various subjects and you may find it useful to read. It is likely that whatever your choice is someone else will object. Dwalrus (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the view that "using the term 'Native American' does not seem appropriate to Indians in Canada", I believe that they remain citizens of North America, rather than of either Canada or the United States. As evidence of this, there has been a long tradition of the tribes just on the Canadian side of the border to become Marines in the U.S Armed Forces. 124.170.14.160 (talk)Marc_in_Oz —Preceding undated comment was added on 12:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC).

At least some of the natives with Brock were "Western Indians" who came from what are now the states of Michigan and Wisconsin, having journeyed via Fort Mackinac. First Nations would be an inappropriate term for them, as it would be for Wyandots, Sauk and other tribes allied to the British who nevertheless dwelt, in part at least, on U.S. territory. For whatever term I use (usually "native" where there are several tribes or nations involved, or where any one particular body of people cannot be identified) I go with American historian John R. Elting, who wrote (in the preface to Amateurs to Arms): "...it is necessary to deal bluntly with two of present-day America's favorite figures, the American Indian and Thomas Jefferson and his disciples, by presenting them as many of their contemporaries saw them. Americans of 1812-15 lived and died by what they knew: the gentler, reasoned visions that many of this generation cherish would have been meaningless in those desperate years when the war whoop rang at your cabin door ..." HLGallon (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As with the escaped/liberated slave issue below, I'm not opposed to showing the situation as contemporaries saw them, rather than with the superior perspective but diminished detail of the disinterested but politically-correct Omniscient Observer two centuries later, so long as we impartially show the war from the viewpoints of all the contemporaries. It would be nice to have something that showed how all these fights between Europeans and Euro-Americans affected and were seen (at the time or later) by the descendants of earlier inhabitants. Did it look like a war about Western expansion? How did the European threat to the Indians compare with the Indian threat to the settlers? This doesn't mean we have to accept or advocate one particular interpretation, just let the reader see them all. There was an earlier brief touching of this question at Talk:Results of the War of 1812, but I can't easily tell if anything resulted from that exchange. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is enough passion about this often forgotten and silly little war as is. We have some Canadians that seem to wish war was reopened and American's that have to see that the US won to be happy. My personal opinion is and remains that the US lost that one, however trying to grab onto what was lost is like trying to grab smoke. It is a multiple goal variable outcome that left the British and the US frustrated as hell that no victory survived, both sides lost vital trade, and had nothing to show for considerable effort. The entire focus of what happened is almost immaterial and it keeps escaping the article in all the fusing. We have an Empire, a nation, and a colony, fighting and all three forever changed in spite of gaining nothing, monumental, peaceful, and lasting, change and we talk about who one or lost... its a damn pity.--Tirronan (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I was being too circumlocutory; what I was asking is how did (and does) this war look to members of the North American Indian tribes? Should we add a paragraph or two from their viewpoint, in addition to the existing paragraphs which approach the "Indian problem" from outside (i.e. as seen by contemporary white settlers, commanders and governments)? —— Shakescene (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This would be an interesting idea - it probably related to who the Natives' allies were. After the American Revolution, the Iroquois Native Americans were quite affected by having allied with the British. Most nations were forced to cede their lands in New York and relocate to Canada. The War of 1812 certainly interrupted what had been a fluid fur trade along and across the border of Michigan, US and Canada, for instance. For years after the war, the US prevented Canadian and British traders from operating in the US, although earlier they had allowed it. This also affected the money which First Nations could earn from their furs.--Parkwells (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How many players?

The opening sentence, as I've slightly rewritten it, of the Overview says the war was between the U.S. and the "British Empire, particularly the [U.K.] and its North American colonies of..." then listing no fewer than eight (8) of the colonies of British [North] America, including Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton Island and Bermuda. (The others listed are Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland.)

No one wants to belittle the memory of someone's ancestor who participated or died in some battle or massacre on a remote field, but were all eight colonies "particular" contributors to the British Imperial war effort?

I don't know (in fact I haven't read the whole article, let alone all the sub-articles), but perhaps someone who does know can offer a judgement as to who were the principal participants on the Anglo-Canadian side.

—— Shakescene (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Should escaped slaves be 'losses?'

The article references the number of American slaves who escaped either due to the promise of freedom from the British forces or because of the chaos of the war. While that certainly seems noteworthy, and I would in fact be interested in reading about it in more detail, its inclusion under losses showing deaths and casualty seems problematic to me. While slaveholders at the time no doubt saw it as a loss of property, I don’t think it would be anachronistic use to see the slaves as individuals with the same importance to history as the slaveholders, and acknowledge the escapes would be celebrated as much as mourned. On a side note, I’m honestly surprised to find out this war is such a controversial topic. -- Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.191.153 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to have a section on how the war affected slaves and their role in the war. Donald Hickey wrote about this in his most recent book, Don't Give Up the Ship!: Myths of The War of 1812. Hickey has a much different figure on the number of slaves who escaped to freedom during the war. He points out that in 1825 an Anglo-American commission came to the figure of 3,601 escaped slaves. He believes that if those slaves who escaped to Spanish Florida and unreported escapees are included the total was probably about 4,000. That's considerably lower than the "tens of thousands" that Simon Schama claims as the estimate. Dwalrus (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hickey is very reliable. Schamma does not provide a footnote for his estimate and does not explain where all those slaves came from or where they escaped to. Rjensen (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with treating the issue of slaves and outcomes as different than losses related to deaths and casualties. You might note how slaveholders viewed property losses, but focus on what it meant to enslaved peoples themselves.--Parkwells (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for the war

It seems to me that Tecumseh was not simply bought off by the British as a mercenary for hire but had his own goals for attacks. If counter-attacking him and his followers (who were being supported by the British) was a main goal for Americans in the War of 1812, then to some degree the war was an expansion of the conflict between Tecumseh et al, and the Americans. In precisely the same way that the war of 1812 was an expansion of, or at least deeply related to, the Napoleonic wars. Yet this prior conflict gets short shrift... treated almost as incidental. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that Tecumseh was bought off but rather he was using an alliance to defend his confederation's territory from the threat of take over by the American interests. In fact I don't think that I've ever read a book supporting any other view. Tirronan (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Canadian/British Victory

Ahhh, is it about time we grew up and admitted that the result listing should say "British Victory"?. I think some us are finally admitting that Vietnam was a war we lost as well.

Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting thought, but sure to be frowned on. I Like that you have brought up Vietnam though, and it made me think about this situation differently, as earlier I certainly thought of this as a draw. Perhaps the invasion of Canada should be seen as a separate conflict? Vietnam is an excellent comparison, as similar to this event, it is only a part of a much wider and far more complicated conflict, rather then a simple expansion of territory. Vietnam was part of the Cold War, but by extension, one would have a very hard time arguing that Vietnam was a victory (for America) or even a draw simply because the aims of the Cold War were achieved. Similarly, will the occupation in Iraq be considered a loss if terrorists mount another attack within the United States? Certainly not, the occupation needs to be viewed individually on its merits and drawbacks, ie, the effect on the populace being occupied. In Vietnam, they fought a great patriotic war and expelled an invader. In Iraq, it can be argued that life is improving there because of the Invaders(no controversy intended with that comment) Similarly, in Canada it is viewed as a conflict where an invader attempted to seize control of it's territory by a foreign military force. The larger world-wide goals of two very large countries are sort of irrelevant when your farmhouse gets burned down. I can see why American wiki users would want to downplay the importance of this theatre of the conflict, but could you honestly see anyone trying to list the Vietnam war as just a minor regional conflict that had no victor? This aspect of the conflict deserves it's own page or it's own separate conclusion. Entirely because, and for no other reason, in Canada it had the effect of a separate conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.11.237 (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Indians

I revised the lede slightly to make more explicit the war goals of the US and Britain, and added a needed section toward the end regarding the impact of the war on the Indians--all with citations. Rjensen (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

Since one of our editors seems to be wanting to change the spelling to all American...personally it isn't a huge issue to me that it be homogenised, but if it is then we look to the first edit of the page, which uses British spelling. Unless anyone complains bitterly, and to satisfy our American spelling friend, I'll homogenise it as much as possibly tomorrow morning. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's mainly or originally British spelling, leave it that way. My Atlantic-crossing school days left me with a slight irrational bias in favour of British spelling, but when I'm editing New York and baseball articles, I stick to U.S. spelling. Since this is a trans-Atlantic article that started with British spelling, that should be the bias here. The one possible exception I can see is "New York Harbour" ("Pearl Harbour" is in my eyes, just wrong, as is "British Labor Party"; but in 1812, before Noah Webster's triumph, most New Yorkers might have spelt it "Harbour".) —— Shakescene (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Harbor" is spelled without a "U" throughout the article in regard to American locations, (Boston, Sacket's), with the exception of one instance where a "U" is included in regard to New York. I can't comment one way or the other about how people spelled it in 1812 as I was born slightly after that date - spellings do change over time. But the US spelling is currently without "U". My suggestion would be to spell the name of the place as it would be spelled by the local inhabitants today - so "New York Harbor", and if it were to appear in the article, "London Harbour", without concern to harmonization of the spelling of the word - just to correct spelling in context. Similarly, I suggest other words with differential spelling in this article be based on the nation they refer to. If they are general terms and not biased to either nation, then the Wikipedia servers are based in the US, so if there are no other deciding factors, I suggest that this should be the tie breaker, and we use American spelling for these words. Radtek67 (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR suggests that consistent spelling is used throughout an article, following the dialect of the first edit, unless there are strong national ties to a topic. As the war involved the UK, US and Canada fairly equally National Ties can be ruled out. As Narson points out the first edit was made in British English, therefore following WP:RETAIN British spelling should be used throughout.

The exception in the case of a proper name so New York Harbor should be spelled without a 'u' but if we were using the expression "the ships reached harbour", it should be spelt with a 'u'. If that makes sense. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I was going to homogenise to UK spelling in places where it wasn't, not change to US (as the chap who had been editing had been doing). Personally, I didn't have a huge problem with how it was, it has never leapt out at me when I've read it but, if we are going to homogenise we should do so in accordance with ENGVAR (For should ENGVAR cease to exist, we would have Holy Spelling Wars Batman!). I'll see what I can do now to find any issues and fix them. Poke me if I make mistakes. Narson'sPetFerret (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction too long?

I have just added a tag to the article, stating that the introduction of the article may be too long. To explain, I did this because, according to Wikipedia:Lead section#Length, as "a general guideline, the lead [of an article] should be no longer than four paragraphs". Atm, the introduction is 8 paragraphs long. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead section is too long but I hope there will be some discussion about how to trim it before everyone starts to edit it on their own. Dwalrus (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you cut a lot of info. I went ahead and reverted, as some of that info should be included. Wikipedia:Lead section#Length says that as a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. This means that it can be longer than four paragraphs, as long as the info is relevant. I do agree that 8 paragraphs are too long, so let's discuss how to cut it here first. Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't a lot of the info that is in the lede simply moved there a while ago by someone? Just move it back to its own setion. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Yeah, you cut a lot of info. I went ahead and reverted, as some of that info should be included." Under the worry you may have mistaken me for someone else (presuming the quoted comment was directed at me), I wasn't the user who was behind the recent removal of info from the lead. I agree that Wikipedia:Lead section#Length, since it is a guideline, should not be treated as gospel. My concern is that I can't see why this article warrants an 8 paragraph introduction. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "intro too long" tag beacause, if you look, it makes the infobox disappear (at least it does for me and I am assuming most other readers). We have this discussion going, so the editors are aware of the dispute over the length of the intro. That is why I removed the tag. If you have a better solution as to not confuse the reader when they open this page to no info box, I would like to hear it. Thanks, Ono (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The infobox did appear for me, and I suspect if most people experienced the same problem you did, Onopearls, the tag would have been removed sometime before your own action. I will try and find a way to resolve the problem, as the tag is useful for directing people to this discussion. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with tag now resolved. :) JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

"Some members of the British Parliament at the time[8] and dissident American politicians such as John Randolph of Roanoke[9] also claimed that land hunger rather than maritime disputes were the main motivation for the American declaration. "

Should be "was the main motivation" (subject/verb agreement--land hunger is the subject). Someone please change this; I am not allowed to. If that sounds awkward then improve the sentence. 160.39.159.146 (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Boilerplates

Currently this article has the "Major Armed Conflicts Involving the United States Armed Forces" boilerplate, while I have no objection to it being at the end of the article, I feel that either Canadian and or UK boilerplates should be added or the American one should be removed. Otonabee (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 sections on who won the war

These have been moved to Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?, in accordance with the comments in the section immediately below.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakescene (talk • contribs) 06:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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 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. Sunray (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

If you wish to make a case for who won the war, but do not yet have citations, feel free to do so here: Who Won the War? 16:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tribal/National flags in Infobox

I should look this up myself (especially since I know a little bit of vexillology), but does anyone know how contemporary the tribal flags in the Information Box are?

The general rule is that the flag icons should match the era to which they refer (e.g. no swastikas for the Kaiser's armies nor hammers-and-sickles for the Czar's) and I'm sure that the standardization, codification and specification of the flags are relatively recent. On the other hand, there were distinct flags borne by the Indian allies of the Confederate States, and the actual symbols could quite easily have stretched back further than that as distinct marks of particular Indian nations. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Carleton Island

Does this need to be mentioned in the results section? 79.71.176.4 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No it belonged to the US according to the Jay treaty of 1794, but was uninhabited and nobody paid attention. The agreement that it belonged to US came in 1817 and was not part of the war settlement. Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon's Final Defeat

Napoleon's final defeat was at Waterloo on June 18, 1815. Article Overview cites 1814 as the year of his 'final' defeat. This should be either corrected to 1815 if it is actually correct, or else cited as his first abdication in 1814, as would be applicable to the context of the article. In 1814, the French emperor had been sent into exile on Elba, but escaped and returned to Paris for another 100 days until his final defeat at the hands of the British and Prussian forces in 1815. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.194.152 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A proposal (FA)

I imagine this had been suggested before, but I would like to raise the idea of an FA drive. I think for an individual the size of the task would put most off, including me, but I thought such an enterprise could be split between different people to lower the individual workload. I thought maybe such a drive could start off by first agreeing upon a structure for a new version of the article (say, how the prosecution of the war is split up; land, sea, years, phases, theaters?), and then individuals could agree to handle one part of an article. When that individual is done, all other editors involved in the drive could adjust, and then eventually combine the different pieces. A single editor could then comb through to ensure clarity in tone and prose, and then we can submit for GA and beyond. Of course, it sounds more simple than it probably would be, but I truly think a collaborative enterprise can work. Is anyone interested? If so, we can begin looking more in depth as to how we can achieve it. It would be great to have this an FA before the anniversary is close, when activity and interest will probably increase. Cheers. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All I would say (not having any of the requisite expertise in any aspect of this particular topic) is that GA/FA requires untold amounts of concentrated drudgery to source almost every sentence and to meet the often-obscure and picayune requirements of the WP:Manual of Style and its two-dozen spinoffs (such as WP:MOSNUM and WP:MOSICON). Not to say that some of this work wouldn't be useful, nor that some of it is not in fact very necessary, but anyone undertaking this should be aware of how much work is involved, and make a balanced judgement about the ways he or she most wants to improve this article—some might think their efforts better-concentrated on researching or substantiating a particular aspect of the War. On the other hand, this is after all, despite its length, basically an overview or narrative of the whole conflict with the more-specialised details covered in separate articles, so others might think that the best thing we can do to improve the article is to adjust its balance, style and documentation.

What gives me a little pause is knowing how much work that Alansohn put into cleaning up the article on New York City before it was accepted for Good Article/Featured Article status. For example, the number of footnotes ballooned to over 200. (See, for example, Talk:New York City/Archive 10) —— Shakescene (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the reply. I do agree getting this article to FA will involve a lot of effort, and I did not consider my proposal lightly as a result. Involved in that effort is a lot of reading of Wikipedia guidelines. However, there are currently 2,537 featured articles, a figure I hope will make the task less daunting in view of the large number of FAs achieved by people. With regards to "some might think their efforts better-concentrated on researching or substantiating a particular aspect of the War", it's a suggestion which I agree with and which formed part of my thinking for suggesting a collaborative enterprise; one person can work on a small part along with other people working on small parts, instead of an individual working on all, whilst all can act as oversight for the rest to ensure improvement and clarity. I know I sound idealistic, but collaborative enterprises have worked, and I am sure the same can be achieved here. You could work on many parts of the article, or just one. Every little helps, as they say. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

External link

{{editsemiprotected}}Change of URL for the Archives of Ontario exhibit in external links: should now be: http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/1812/index.aspx

I made the correction you suggested. Thanks Dwalrus (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are these bogus British casualty stats from?

In New Orleans alone they lost over 2000 men and yet this does not record that many KIA's in the entirety of the war. Completely bogus.66.190.29.150 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be misunderstanding the figures. Over 2000 wounded, killed and captured. Not over 2000 /dead/. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For info, this guy is a troll. He stalks talk pages, especially controversial topics seeking to spark conflict. He would appear to be a sock puppet of a banned user, see here [1]. Justin talk 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. The book I have says "lost over 2000 men". It doesn't specifically say they died, however.66.190.29.150 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lost generally includes wounded and captured in the napoleonic period (As anything that got you onto the wounded lists usually meant you weren't going back to the army any time soon. Medical care was pretty bad and musket balls were real pains). Glad that is sorted. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the losses were in fact wounded and all of them were taken to the fleet and sailed off, I have no figures on the final outcome for the wounded. Tirronan (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

I've just been tidying up a bit on "who won..." and here. Any objection if I archive July to December 08? Xyl 54 (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Xyl 54 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the Article

The lead section differs from the main part of the article regarding the three areas in which the war took place. The lead says Canada/US border, Atlantic Ocean and Atlantic coast while the latter part of the article says Great Lakes/Canada/US border, Atlantic Ocean and Southeast States. Also, many of the references in the section on US expansion are incomplete, just giving an authors (?) name and little else. Silverchemist (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Another issue with the lead are the sentences:

"Several tribes were cut off from British support and signed treaties with the United States. While Natives continued to fight alongside British troops, they subsequently did so only as individual tribes or groups of warriors and where they received direct payment in the form of arms, gifts and rations." This implies that the Natives were essentially mercenaries, fighting only for material payment. This is far from the truth. They had as much, if not more, reason to fight than the other combatants since their territory or even their existance was at stake. They were allies of the British, and in fact those Natives who remained in Canada after the war ended were paid a pension if they were wounded, or if their husbands were killed while fighting with the British. (See p.177 of Allen's His Majesty's Indian Allies). I suggest removing "and where they received direct payment in the form of arms, gifts and rations". Silverchemist (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"Direct payment" is indeed probably the wrong phrase to use. I meant to say something like, "and where they directly supplied and armed by the British". HLGallon (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather than debating the exact wording, finding an inline citation for the section might be more helpful (And may even give you some wording suggestions) --Narson ~ Talk • 22:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(I got reverted) - the article still disagrees internally about how many theatres the war took place in, the US east coast being a seperate area in the overview but not the main body. Grible (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Name of the war.

Just a small point but in Britain the war is generally known as the American War of 1812 since we were fighting Napoleon as well. I thought it might be worth mentioning that name for it as well as the American one (much like that has been done on the American War of Independence page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.218.176 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

White House in lead?

As arguably the most (in)famous single event of the war (if only symbolically), should not the burning of the White House be mentioned in the lead? Catiline63 (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just checked a half dozen US college textbooks. They all mention the raid on DC in one sentence or less. Far more famous was the Battle of New Orleans, the Battle of Lake Erie, and the victory at Ft McHenry (where the national anthem was written). The building was called "White House" only AFTER the British left and it got rebuilt and painted white.Rjensen (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, New Orleans is mentioned (twice). Good point regarding the anthem, I'll modify my stance and suggest that's included in the lead too. That the war saw the creation of two of the most famous symbols of the US, the anthem and the White House (or "the building that later became the White House"; the point is largely semantic), is still, I feel, deserving of promotion to the lead. Anyway, we can await the results. Catiline63 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The burning of the White House, and Dolly Madison rescuing its artifacts, is one of Americans' few lasting popular images of the war, even among those who can't identify the circumstances with this particular conflict. I'm almost certain the burning of York (Toronto) by the Americans has a similar if not greater place in Canadian popular consciousness. The simple fact that this was the last time, or nearly the last time, that either country faced not only a threat but a direct foreign attack on one of her leading cities is, I think, probably significant enough to warrant working into the lead section. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Purely by way of an aside, the White House became an official name only relatively recently. I think even Theodore Roosevelt's letterhead (and probably that of several successors) was from the "Executive Mansion, Washington". —— Shakescene (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In light of 2:1 in favour, done. Anthem and White House stories (the latter apocyphal) added to lead.Catiline63 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I wrote in favour of including the burning of the Executive Mansion, I hadn't heard the apocryphal (or at least disputed) story about its burning and rebuilding leading to it becoming the White House (which didn't become part of its official title until the 20th century). That part of the story isn't strictly necessary for the lead, although I think perhaps the lead might mention:

1. What I've read in popular secondary and tertiary accounts, and what I think is more widely "remembered", of Dolley Madison (in her husband's absence) rescuing (and being allowed to rescue) some artifacts before the British began the ritually-required burning of the Enemy's headquarters, and
   
2. For a proper balance, the attack on York (Toronto), which must have as much resonance in Canadian popular consciousness.

But others' mileage may vary. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly in Britian, false though it is, the fable of "how the White House got it's name" (sorry, Kipling) is one of the few "facts" that anyone knows about the war. Conversely, I'd say that the Dolly Madison anecdote is remembered only by Americans. Just goes to show what each side chooses to remember! Considering the partisan way people choose to remember certain events, probably best to limit things to matters military: burning of York, burning of DC, and destruction of the WH/EM. Catiline63 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Catiline63, is this where the 'consensus' is that you use to justify taking out my small additions regarding what is 'generally known' about the war? If so, I don't see it. I didn't even remove anything, just added comments that I thought helped gently make the article a bit less obviously American. First, I added "(in the US)" after the word "remembered" to the questionable sentence "Today, the war is arguably best remembered for two events which have particular resonance in the modern world." While the events mentioned are part of American lore, I don't see why they have "particular resonance in the modern world". Second, I added the line "Canadians probably think of Laura Secord walking across fields at night to warn the British." What possible harm could a line like that cause? I assure you, as a Canadian who forgot most of the Canadian history he learned in school, that is the one fact I and my peers remember. ps I am not from Ontario: perhaps there the burning of York is remembered, but not by me. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Britain's Orders in Council and Impressment policy had been in effect for years yet had not caused war. The true cause of the war was the Americans insatiable desire for land, Indian land. Their claims of the British arming the Indians were lies. The muskets the Americans claim the British were supplying the Indians did not exist. They were the WMD's of the early 19th century. And Canadians don't really care what America's reasons were for invading us, the fact that they did invade was proof enough of what kind of neighbours they were. Before invading Canadian soil American commanders issued proclamations about how they should be welcomed as liberators. When this did not happen, the American army stole the crops and livestock of Canadian farmers and burnt their farms. Hardly the actions of a liberator. The burning of Washington was in direct retailiation for the burning of York, the capital of Upper Canada, in 1813. The reason Americans focus on such isolated things such as Dolly Madison or the Star Spangled Banner is that militarily the American conduct of the war was a fiasco. The first invasion of Canada was to happen at Detroit where an American army was going to sweep into Canada. Instead, the American General Hull surrendered Fort Detroit and his entire army to an inferior force led by the only true military genius of the war, General Issac Brock. The next invasion attempt was at Queenston and a superior American force was again forced to surrender. Chrysler's Farm and the Battle of Chateaugay were two more decisive battles that threw back American invasion attempts. If the War of 1812 was America's 2nd War of Independence (a concept I don't accept), then it must be seen as Canada's 2nd War of Independence as well. A war of Independence from American conquest, the first being the American attempt to conquer Canada during the American Revolution. Who won the war? Canadians obviously, as we still have our country. Who lost? The Indians, as always. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.171.74 (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I've reverted a change from the high def White House pic to Lake Erie (So my edit put the White House pic back in). I have explained why in the edit summary but I shall do so again here. The White House picture is clear, its colours are bold and crisp. All the battle paintings are by their nature muddled an just don't look as good at the top of the page. We'd also get into the scrap over showing a US or a British victory. Showing a rather pleasing to the eye image of the results of war seems like a good image for a summation of the war. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have always liked this picture and believe it symbolizes the incompetence of the Madison administration. Great choice. Dwalrus (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Narson, I should have mentioned that the picture is not of the White House. It is the building where the Senate and the House of Representatives were located. Dwalrus (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, my apologies. Still, it is a pleasant picture and one that is far more suitable. I enjoy a battle painting as much as the next chap, but they are very cluttered to have as a lead piece. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Some important details are missing

Was it intentional to leave out things like the first all black unit to fight for the British or the first fully trained american regiment which one it's first engagement on Canadian soil? Or the battle where one american unit fought with another american unit for an entire night before the British forces showed up and cleaned up what was left of the other two units? I mean, one is a pretty significant social advancement and the other, while pretty embarassing, demonstrates just how under trained militia men were for the first half of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.149.175 (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. It's written by those who read it (called "editors"; if you write anything, then, bingo!, you're an editor with equal status to 90% of the contributors to this article.) In general no one person, or even group of people, decides what to include or exclude from an article. Usually editors add what they think most important, or what they know best, and sometimes others will remove, truncate, expand, rewrite or merge that contribution according to their own lights and knowledge. Then there's often back-and-forth in the edit summaries and on this talk page until some kind of consensus, or at least stasis, is reached.

So.... if you have information about the two topics you mention, backed up by references from WP:reliable sources, please go ahead and add it to fill out what you see as deficiencies in the article as it stands now. If you first want to see how other editors will react before taking the trouble of writing something finished, you can also bring your ideas (with more detail than above) to this talk page. See WP:Be bold —— Shakescene (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said Shake, don't complain add to the article... Tirronan (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of fact, I am unaware that any editor on this page claimed any superior training for the American Militia, and in fact I know that some of us at least are very aware and have listed the faults of some of the formation, this editor for one. So before sweeping with a wide brush, understand that you are in fact looking at a 3 year war and keeping the article within any sort of scope isn't going to allow for micro accounts of individual units and their histories.Tirronan (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Name of the war.

Just a small point but in Britain the war is generally known as the American War of 1812 since we were fighting Napoleon as well. I thought it might be worth mentioning that name for it as well as the American one (much like that has been done on the American War of Independence page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.218.176 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Most vs Some

Early in the 20th century there were Canadian historians that held the view that acquisition of Canada was the true source and prime reason for the war of 1812. Unfortunately for that view we have the US Congress minutes of meetings and letters of the Presidents that just don't support that view very well, and as the century progressed that view had less and less support. Unfortunately this view is a Canadian founding myth and you would think it was the America VS. Canada given some of the takes I get from supporters that have listed here. However at this time the majority of historians have the view that the Maritime/trade issues were the major contributors to the war and since the 26 ship strong American Navy wasn't going to carry the war to Britain, that war was going to be fought in Canada.Tirronan (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the underlying substance or historiography and was just trying to adjust the grammar and punctuation, e.g. an order of phrases which literally read suggested that the U.S. was seeking to seize Canadian territory in the early 20th century. In the process I unconsciously changed "many" Canadians to "most", which is just an editing-in-the-box error like the grammatical oversights I was trying to fix. I changed the "most" back to "many" in my most recent edit.

Where I'm still a little foggy is who exactly are the "others" who argue that the threat of seizing land was just a bargaining chip. I presume it's other Canadian historians: did they make this argument in the early 20th century or later? Or are the "others" some other set of people, e.g. American or British historians, or Canadian politicians, diplomats, journalists or citizens? Once I know what to convey, I could make my own language clearer. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be historians, the President himself talked about it, like everything else about this war, nothing is clear. Madison was warned by his own staff that if Canada was taken *ie perfect world where Canadians wanted us there and were indeed looking for a chance to revolt* how exactly did he intend to give it back? But aside from the War Hawks most of the administration saw the invasion as a way to make the Empire back off and give up. Nor was all this wishful thinking, the British Admiralty thought that another war with America would see the loss of Canada and in part the attempt to have an Indian state was to have a buffer between America and Canada and was stated as such by British negotiators. To wit: What protection would Canada have then without a buffer state? Answer; The good will of the United States of America will serve as Canada's best protection. Further there is some evidence, IE the Admiral's statement that *if there is another war with America we must lose Canada*, shows that fear of the loss served as a moderator between the states in the future. In any case regardless if the US wanted to make war on the Empire it was going to have to go to Canada to do so. However any attempt to put the *Grab for Canada* as being a prime cause hasn't got much traction anymore as stated and cited later in the article. --Tirronan (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Revenue Cutter Service in Information Box

Someone recently added the United States Revenue Cutter Service (the predecessor of today's U.S. Coast Guard) to the U.S. forces in the Info box. I fiddled slightly to restore some of the previous parallelism in the box, but if it's possible to keep the same accuracy and precision, it would be nice to align the Revenue Cutter Service with the Provincial Marine, some of whose duties (I read at its article) were roughly parallel. Would this both be justified and make sense? (For example, according to their respective articles, the Revenue Cutters fell under the U.S. Department of the Navy in wartime, as the USCG does today; while the Provincial Marine came under closer Royal Navy control in 1813 after faring poorly in battle.) If the equivalence is justified, is it possible to disaggregate the Revenue Cutter ships from the USN/USMC strength (and then match the Revenue Cutter ships against the Provincial Marine's) without leaps of logic or guesswork? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The dates are all screwed up

At the top of the article it says from 1969 to 1812 ???

On the right side it says from 1869 - 1812.....

Explain how thats possible ?

How could anyone lock the article for editing with such outlandish dates on it ?

Please fix.

IT also says the war of 2515 on the picture....... can somebody clean up this vandalism ?

24.38.156.102 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What is it this?

This article is really screwed up. Shouldn't articles of low quality like this be deleted? 75.97.199.249 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Whao, never mind. Looks like I found it at the exact moment it was vandalized. 75.97.199.249 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Renew semiprotection?

The last semiprotection expired on August 2, and I'm not aware of any good-faith contributions by IPs since that date. (When this article appears on my watchlist it's usually vandalism). Are people OK with reinstating another semiprotection? EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do, it happens to be one of the most regularly vandalised pages on my watch list. Justin talk 16:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This page doesn't have the problems that Michael Bloomberg has had when it's not semi-protected, but I wouldn't be upset if semi-protection is restored. We might lose something useful from a passing unregistered IP reader, but most of the IP edits that aren't pure-&-simple vandalism are trying to "correct" the outcome of the war one way or the other without looking at, or trying to shift the balance of, the long discussions that led to the page's present statement (Treaty of Ghent and status quo ante). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates for Canadian and Imperial wars

Currently at the foot of this article there is a boilerplate for major conflicts that the US has taken part in. While it is true that they were in this war, I feel that this should be removed as leaving it in as the only national boilerplate on this page, if we were to leave it then similar boilerplates for the British Empire, and possibly Canada, should be placed at the end of this as well. Otonabee (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(I think that might be because while the War was very important for both the U.S. and Canada, its importance to the U.K. or the British Empire as a whole probably rates at about the level of the Peninsular Campaigns, or perhaps below them since their failure could have affected Britain's independence more directly and immediately than the outcome of the Anglo-American War of 1812. That's a possible explanation or rationale, not necessarily a justification.)

¶ But I tend to agree with your major point, especially from Canada's point of view, so if you can find the templates for Canada's Wars and Wars of the British Empire, I personally would be glad to see them added. The worst that can happen if you just go ahead and be bold is that someone may remove one or both of them but then have to justify the differential treatment of American and Imperial history. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What About Harrison?

While reading this article, I couldn't help but notice that William Henry Harrison isn't listed on the U.S. Commanders list. Harrison was the commander of the Army of the Northwest for most of the war and, like Jackson, his service in 1812 helped elect him to the presidency. Shouldn't he be on the list? I'd willingly add him myself, but I think I should see what other people think first. So how about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1812Soldier (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just go ahead and add Harrison since he should be there. I cannot see why anyone would object. Dwalrus (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Save for a few die-hard true Democratic supporters of Old Kinderhook. "Rumpsey Dumpsey, Rumpsey Dumpsey, Colonel Johnson killed Tecumseh!" (Free Soil in 'Forty-eight!) —— Shakescene (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Militia

Below the campaign box it says very few militiamen were involved in this war, this maybe true for Canada but there were thousands of American militia involved in the battles. I could name several engagements in which U.S. militia was a large force of the U.S. army fighting on whatever date. If the note was meant to show that Canadian militias did not fight much in the war, it should read so.--Az81964444 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is an asterisk note to the strength listing over 400,000 militiamen, so I think it is clear in the article that the militia were involved. I'm guessing this is a misunderstanding of meaning, the note doesn't say very few were involved, it says very few left their homes to fight in campaigns. My guess is that this is supposed to mean that few militiamen left their local communities or states to fight in extended campaigns, as opposed to battles near their locations. So while militia made up the primary American fighting force in the Battle of Bladensburg, for example, these same militiamen are being described as unlikely to leave their local area ("homes") to fight in New Orleans or Niagara. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen that dozens of times in the process of formatting the Info Box to align like with like, and that's definitely news to me (having almost no detailed knowledge of the underlying subject). So there's certainly a problem of clarity. It reads as if almost all the militia were an inactive or nominal reserve. Question is how to phrase that tersely enough for the Info Box. I presume a similar distinction can be made about the Indian allies of the two sides: that some tribes or war parties would have ventured far afield on military expeditions, raids or reconnaissance in force, while others, like the American and Canadian militias, would have stayed closer to home to protect their homes, lands and families. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the wording is pretty bad - it does indeed sound like most of the militia's did not want to leave their houses! :-) It should be something more like "Most militias fought in their local areas" or "Militias mainly operated in their own states".Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, like everything else about this war, you can find both examples. A major part of the failures of the American campaigns in Canada can be traced to Militia formations refusing to cross US borders taking the view that the Militia existed to defend national or in some cases state borders. This can be observed during the 1st 2 years of the war and lead to some of the humiliating defeats thereby. During the Plattsburg campaign the opposite occurred when British forces invaded and the Militia saw it as a vital need to respond and proceeded to violently respond. Now all this sounds logical but there isn't a formation in any US battle that you can't find Militia units participating.Tirronan (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Militia were very prominent on the US side. So its a matter of how much? What about a statement like "Some militia only operated in their own states". ?Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change this to "Some militia only operated in their own regions" rather than the present comment about the militia not leaving their own homes, which is confusing and ambigious (as discussed it sounds like they did not leave their own houses!). Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in article under "Question of US Expansionism"

At the end it says, "He issued a repeal of the impressment orders..." But these were the Orders in Council of 1807, which according to Wikipedia itself were not about impressment but forbidding trade with French and blockading Frace. So that's an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varny6 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I made the correction to Orders in Council from impressment. Thanks for finding the error. Ian Toll's book Six Frigates that is used as the reference does correctly mention that it was the Orders in Council. Dwalrus (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars

American historians may not consider the War of 1812 part of the Napoleonic Wars but the British do. Wikipedia represents all mainstream opinion, not just the American POV. That needs to be restored to this article. Justin talk 21:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Most Americans do not consider the Napoleonic Wars part of the War of 1812, not may not, do not. You say the Napoleonic Wars should remain because the British believe it is part of the Napoleonic conflicts. Basically what you are saying contradicts other articles, specifically the Napoleonic Wars page and American opinion about the "part of" issue does not matter.

Do you not think that that is unfair in anyway?

Wikipedia is not a British encyclopedia either, therefore your response is contradicting aswell and should have no role in wiki affairs anyway. This comes down to a wiki commons issue. Only the British, Canadians and Americans, as I am, should be the ones to decide this. The Americans, which is a population number that far surpasses that of the UK and Canada combined, should hold the sway do to the simple fact that a larger number of Americans believe the war was not part of the Napoleonic Wars compared to the British with a far smaller number of people who think the war was part of the Napoleonic Wars. Its simple, more people believe the War of 1812 should not be included as a Napoleonic conflict so this is how it should be writ.

I'm sorry, but I oppose the idea that the War of 1812 is a part of the Napoleonic Wars. This is not merely an American POV, but a matter of fact that it is not a part. The Napoleonic Wars were wars with European opponents in its true definition here as well as British sources, and the War of 1812 could never be considered a part. I would have thought this was an obvious decision, but alas I was wrong. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 21:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From the Canadian Encyclopedia here, which puts it best: The Napoleonic Wars, during which both sides infringed the rights of neutrals, also produced a secondary struggle called the WAR OF 1812 between the US and Britain.

[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] There are plenty of mainstream historians who do classify it as part of the Napoleonic Wars. Wikipedia reports mainstream opinion, what you're suggesting is to exclude an opinion on the basis of original research. Justin talk 21:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Monsieurdl, thank you for agreeing, I thought this issue had been solved long ago. Alas I was wrong aswell. --Az81964444 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Az81964444 has asserted that wikipedia should only reflect an American opinion on this article, as there are more Americans than there are British people and, hence, the American opinion should prevail. Such an argument obviously fails WP:NPOV, which requires all mainstream opinions to be represented. User:Az81964444 also asserts the fallacious argument that because two viewpoints are diametrically opposed it is unfair to the American opinion to also represent the British opinion. Justin talk 21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I only agree because it is obvious... the source that you provided in the Canadian Encyclopedia merely refers it to Napoleonic Wars, where it says it produced a secondary struggle, not WAS a part of the struggle. There is either an INCLUDED or NOT INCLUDED answer, which is done by consensus, to be perfectly accurate. So far you have not proven that there is a British consensus opinion that is was a PART of the Napoleonic Wars, and not merely an offshoot, which is correct. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 21:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin, Sorry I was not more specific, it seems you deleted my first reply. I personally think the "parts of" section should not read Napoleonic Wars or should read "part of the Napoleonic Wars" with the word "disputed" after it to symbolize the different opinion. I do not think it is fair to list only the American opinion as you have tried to slander. What you have done Mr. Justin is list only the British opinion which is why we are having this argument. Yes, thinking internationally of Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, I do believe because more people believe the War of 1812 was not a Napoleonic conflict that the War of 1812 should not be listed as a Napoleonic War in the "part of" section. This is where wiki commons comes in, the majority gets to decide. In this case, the majority of people who are interested in reading about this war, do not think the War of 1812 is a Napoleonic War, this is my reason for bringing up wiki commons. Do not play with my words an attempt to express I only think American opinion should be regarded. It is simply a coincidence that falls in my favor that more people of the three said countries agree with me. Majority rules, that is how wiki commons works. If we cant have it one way, it should be listed as I have written above.--Az81964444 (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No I said all mainstream opinion should be mentioned, I did not just insist upon the British opinion. I am not playing with words, you have clearly argued on that basis. That is way out of order. If instead you'd proposed an alternative to include what you feel is necessary to represent an American opinion I'd have listened. Justin talk 22:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From The Age of Aristocracy: A History of England from William B. Willcox and Walter J. Arnstein: "The British were embroiled in a second Anglo-American conflict, which from their viewpoint was merely a regrettable and minor by-product of the great struggle in Europe but from the viewpoint of the United States was momentous." Again, the idea of a byproduct, not a product. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 21:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Look I'm not disputing that some historians classify it differently but that isn't how wikipedia works. We are required to represent all mainstream opinions. And by representing those mainstream opinions, we do not have to neglect others. Justin talk 21:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

One again Justin, Listing that the War of 1812 is a Napoleonic War does not, in any way represent both British and American opinion. Do you not think listing it is a little one sided? It is as simple as this. --Az81964444 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Be careful how you state things, though... there are historians out there that deny the Holocaust ever happened for Jews, which is not mainstream- are we to include that? This is why consensus should solve this matter once and for all. The Napoleonic Wars: The Rise and Fall of an Empire by Gregory Fremont-Barnes and Todd Fisher doesn't even include the War of 1812 at all. I am providing non-internet sources to defend my position, that British historians do not consider it to be a part of the Napoleonic Wars, merely a war that was affected by it... Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 22:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Monsieurdl, bad comparison, American belief that the war of 1812 is not a Napoleonic Conflict is mainstream. The neo-Nazi denial issue represents a non-mainstream view. No I do not think the Holocaust denier's opinion should be listed in the Holocaust article, because it is not the opinion of the majority and my personal opinion, not true, the Jewish holocaust obviously occurred. Why are we writing about the holocaust?--Az81964444 (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, holocaust denial falls foul of WP:FRINGE and where have I said dissenting opinion shouldn't be mentioned? You two are claiming that to represent one opinion another must be excluded. Justin talk 22:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just checking. You misrepresented the problem in the RFC request, which isn't right... so far, you have not presented much in the way of proof that the mainstream British opinion that you say is truth is valid. This is not an example of an "American" opinion being the only one, BUT an example of British mainstream opinions in the majority that would validate your statements. I don't care if it is American, British, Indonesian, whatever- I care about the MAJORITY of historians and what they agree on so we can have a good consensus. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 22:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

---You two are claiming that to represent one opinion another must be excluded.

This is not what I was suggesting, I am sure by now you have read of my alternative, being that you replied to it in a positive nature.--Az81964444 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No I did not, the argument is clearly there, moving the goalposts afterwards doesn't change that. I'm still suggesting ALL mainstream opinions are mentioned. This isn't a fringe opinion. Justin talk 22:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE MY DISCUSSION PAGE FOR FURTHER ELEMENTS OF THIS CONVERSATION.--Az81964444 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I have just written a small paragraph in the "Aftermath" section of this article, briefly expressing the differing American and British opinion, as you implied. Of course, you are free to add to it as long as it is relevant to the issue of seperate British and American opinion. --Az81964444 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The United States was a Cobelligerant of France during the Napoleanic Wars, similar to the situation of how Finland was a Cobelligerant of Italy and Romainia during the Continuation War.XavierGreen (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to quote from the Society of American Historians' 1956 book 'American Heritage': The War of 1812 was merely an episode in the Napoleonic Wars, and the Napoleonic Wars themselves were the culmination of a century-old conflict between the British and the French...

There are others and there is historic debate with some as to whether they are part of it. Enough historians link or include the two together to justify the category (And I would emphasise at this point that it was the Napoleonic Wars, not War. A series of various conflicts) --Narson ~ Talk • 23:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't going to help, but I think there are grounds for both. The US's reasons for attacking Canada were related to the conflict (impressment, resulting from British wartime need for sailors). Arguably, the US could only attack Canada because Britain's army and Navy were largely engaged with France. On the other hand, conflict between Britain and the US had other reasons that were separate to the Napoleonic Wars, leftover feelings from war of independance, and by some parties, the desire to annex Canadian land. Also, French military assistance was neither sought by the US (as far as I have read), nor involved (though they had provided assistance in previous wars). There were those in the US that genuinely saw Napoleon as a dictator. Someone compared it to the continuation war between Finland and Russia - the comparison there is different because the Germans not only supplied the Finns with weapons, but also supplied troops and air forces. Basically, I agree with Az81964444, I think it should be reflected here that some see it as part of the Napoleonic Wars and others do not.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Donald Hickey, one of the better US historians on the War of 1812 gave his view on the importance of the War of 1812's connection to the war between Britain and France in his book Don't Give Up the Ship! Myths of The War of 1812. He stated on page 6:

"The War of 1812 may seem in retrospect like a simple Anglo-American conflict that resulted from a failure of bilateral diplomacy, but the war cannot be divorced from its larger context. The War of 1812 was a direct outgrowth of th Napoleonic Wars. If there had been no war in Europe, there would have been no war in North America. Indeed, for the British the war with the United States was just another dimension of a larger world war. Neither the outbreak of the War of 1812, nor its course once it had begun, can be understood outside that larger context." Dwalrus (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would never say that the War of 1812 was not connected to the Napoleonic Wars. However, the whole debate is a simple matter of was a part of the Napoleonic Wars versus was a separate war caused in part by the Napoleonic Wars. Of course I understand the impressment issue and the timing for an invasion of Canada while British might was 'detained'. I still contend it was the latter- a separate war, an offshoot, a byproduct, however you call it. I do not object to a section regarding the controversy, but I would like it to be sourced to the hilt to prove this controversy.

Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 14:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I come to this discussion as an English historian. The War of 1812 was clearly an outcome of the situation that Britain found itself in due to the Napoleonic wars. In a sense it arose from the same causes as Armed Neutrality within Europe in two earlier wars. It is certainly contrary to WP principles that WP should reflect the WP:POV of any one country. I would also suggest that the issue of who "won" is a non-issue: like several other wars, it came to an end becasue both sides were tired of fighting and realised that there was little to be gained by continuing it. Indeed, if communications had been quicker, I suspect that the war might never have broken out. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

¶ I changed "Part of Napoleonic Wars (disputed)" in the Information Box to "Part of Napoleonic Wars (indirect association)". While there's always been a lot of back and forth over keeping or removing the "Part of Nap'c Wars" tag in the Information Box and elsewhere, I think most of the editors here would put the association somewhere in between. It wasn't independent of Napoleon's struggle, but then it wasn't organically connected to it, either, in the way that the Peninsular Campaign or the other War of 1812 were. It's the emphasis that varies, and whether to use a tag that's "disputed", while I see (perhaps quite wrongly) a fairly broad range of agreement. Others should certainly feel free to suggest wording that they feel better reflects the area of consensus. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Peterkingiron, I think saying that the war came to an end simply because both sides were tired of fighting is a simplification. From the British point of view, the war did not need to be pursued because the threat to Canada, which is why the British had been fighting, had been removed. Britain had never wanted the dispute in the first place, there was no will to carry it on. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the nation was indeed as you say "tired of fighting" after fightig in Spain and the rest of Europe, but the main reason the British signed the peace declaration was that the US had been defeated militarily, no longer posed a threat, and the US negotiators were offering to return the situation to the status Quo at the peace talks at Ghent. My point here is that the war didn't simply end because "both sides grew tired of fighting", my point is the British achieved their goals, repelled the invasion, *AND* were tired of fighting (and the associated economic situation in Britain). So in this sense, who achieved their objectives in the war is completely relevant. If the US had achieved their objectives, and were still actively campaigning in Canada, I doubt very much Britain would have sued for peace at that point. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should include all mainstream perspectives. This is centuries old historical event and it is best understood by including all of the perspectives within the article. If you extend the logic of only including the American perspective that their should be a WP:Winning_Side_Writes_the_Aricles. If it was something that had occured in living memory, then it might warrant an additional article, but in this case there is no reason. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the fact is "who won the war" is a major aspect of the war of 1812..and probably has been since 1815. It is *continuously discussed here* possibly more so than any other war? The various sides should be shown here - to only show one perspective really seems to be covering up the issues. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor here, but I saw the request for comment tag. If you want my two cents, I'd say that the Canadian Encyclopedia's characterization is accurate: while not a part of the Napoleonic Wars, the War of 1812 certainly arose because of the conditions created by those European wars, and should be understood within that context. As to who won: in any war that doesn't have a completely one-sided result, there's no easy way to say who "won" without crossing over the line to POV. Who won often depends on war aims: if the U.S. wanted only to stop the U.K. from impressing their sailors, they won; if the U.S. wanted to annex Canada, they lost. Who can say? This is the problem with infoboxes generally: they try to boil down complex historical events into a thumbs-up/thumbs-down data point. Why not leave it blank and explain the results in the article text alone? --Coemgenus 13:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On who "won" and Infoboxes, I think Infoboxes can be ok where the result is clear - I mean they are just supposed to be a snapshot of what happenned. But yes, where the result is not clear, they can be misleading. Where they try to sum up a complex situation with a couple of words, as is the case here, they can definitley be misleading. Oh, and the US did not stop the UK from Impressing sailors. The UK had largely stopped impressing sailors before the war began, because the need was no longer The UK refused to stop impressment at the Treaty of Ghent, and the US had to drop it from their demands.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. You are arguing that the war was not effectivly status quo ante bellum? That the Treaty of Ghent didn't end the war? I fear we are projecting modern warfare (which is far more unlimited) back to the pre-20th/19th century way of war. This outcome is not unusual for limited wars and the infobox describes it concisely and accurately. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On impressment the deal at Ghent was that in fact Britain stopped impressing sailors BUT it refused to promise it would never do so in the future. That was all the Americans wanted in 1812. (In the event the Royal Navy never resumed impressment after 1814.) Rjensen (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Narson - the results in info boxes in Wikipedia pages that deal with wars/battles reflect which sides achieved their goals, not simply details of the peace treaty. They state which side won the war or battle. It could appear that in this war, where the US did not achieve their goals, is treated differently. Have a look at other wars on Wikipedia for comparison, in particular Korean War. It needs more detail in there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Rjensen, I think you are mistaken here. largely because it was no longer needed as the British Naval activity against France was less.As far as I’ve read, The US had little to do with the British stopping impressment. There were no “secret deals” about impressment at Ghent – the Brits saw impressment as essential for their navy and refused to give it up.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Americans wanted the British to stop impressing American sailors. The British stopped impressing American sailors--and NEVER resumed. Therefore that specific American war goal was achieved. QED. "British Naval activity against France was less" is nonsense. By mid 1814 the British and French under King Louis XVIII were friends and allies. The main British war goal of hurting Napoleon had been achieved. Thus BOTH American and Britain won a war goal. Too often here people assume zero sum, but this example proves otherwise.Rjensen (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Britain did not end impressment because of the US, in fact they stopped boarding US vessels before the war started. Britain stopped impressment because they was no longer any reason for it. France's navy was defeated at Trafalgar, and after the defeat of Napoleon, Britain was not involved in any major naval engagements until WW1. Britain did not give up the right to impressment after the war of 1812, and may well have done it had the need arisen.... but it didn't. The fact is, Britain was way more concerned about Napoleon than they ever were about the United States (and with good reason!) Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The War of 1812 was driven by the Napoleonic conflict as trade issues and maritime right issues drove America to war. Both France and Britain put neutral trade in a vise and this war was one of the results. Death you are wrong, impressment was not repealed it was simply not practiced where American ships were concerned and this in spite of the fact that the 100 days began shortly after the ratification of the Treaty of Ghent. I would have to assume that the pressures to begin impressment was no less than the pressure that existed before, yet no American ships were stopped and impressed again. To loosely quote Churchhill, the lessons were learned and America was never treated as less than a nation.Tirronan (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Tirronan, I didn't say that impressment was repealed, I said it was stopped. I believe the last US ship boarded was the Chesapeake in 1807, before the war. If you can find any ships boarded after that, I would be interested to know, I can't see anything. The Brits changed their interpretation of the law at this point so that they saw neutral vessels as an extension of the neutral countries territory, and under this interpretation of the law, they should not have even boarded the Chesapeake. As for the laws of impressment being repealed, AFAIK it seems that they have never been repealed, so it could still be legal to do so...though I'm sure the Uk Human Rights Act may complicate things!. You could assume that the pressures to begin impressment after 1812 were no less than before, but you would be wrong I think. The pressures before the war for the need to Impress related to Britain Fighting the French, Spanish and Danish fleets. Britain defeated the combined Franco Spanish fleet at Trafalgar and enjoyed Naval Superiority after that for some time. After defeating the Danish fleet, she had no real major naval threats until WW1 and therefore no need to impress. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the (apparently somehow frequently overlooked) fact that the infobox does not describe the outcome of the war as a "stalemate". A stalemate metaphor for the outcome of the war would say quite a few things that the infobox pointedly does not say. The entire argument that the infobox must change because not all qualified historians agree the war was a stalemate is therefore complete rubbish. No historian that I am aware of would disagree with the infobox in it's present form...Result Treaty of Ghent, Status quo ante bellum, it simply can't get more impartial than that, certainly not in the murky field of historical analysis.Zebulin (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree strongly with Zebulin. Result Treaty of Ghent, Status quo ante bellum is admirable for an infobox comment, and the results for everyone concerned are already described in a fairly long and high-quality section. As for "part" of the Napoleonic wars, that question goes even further into the wilder flights of philosophical essentialism. An encyclopaedia should probably avoid commenting, unless the issue is itself notable and describable from secondary sources, and I suggest that it isn't. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)