Talk:War of 1812/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Canadian English?

The War of 1812 involved the United States and Great Britain, even though Canada, which was in possession of G.B., was attacked at one point. How did it come to pass that this account should be written in Canadian English? Are most accounts of this war written by Canadians? Moreover, why should this article be written in Canadian English, here at English Wikipedia where 'plain ole English' is used? If a source uses the spelling of e.g. honor, rather than honour we should also. Where is the "broad consensus" that this article be so edited, per the Canadian English banner at the top of this page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Raised and discussed to a stalemate here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply and reference, Laszio'. I searched the archives here for "Canadian English", and dozens of results came up. If the debate ended in a stalemate, how is it that we're supposed to use Canadian English, with the Canadia English banner here in Talk, and present at the top of the markup page, and esp since this war was fought by 'English speaking' people, and overwhelmingly covered by sources who use regular English? Did they do a survey and discover that most of the readers of this page are from Canada? (My questions are rhetorical and not directed at you specifically.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

What variant do you contend to be "regular English"? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep, no such thing. — Jon C.^ॐ 12:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There are a good many dictionaries of this supposedly non-existent language. Even Tolkien's Elvish or Star Trek's Klingon don't have so many. Dabbler (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant there's no such thing as the mythical "regular English" mentioned by @Gwillhickers: above. Canadian English, on the other hand, is a fine and honourable tongue. ;-) — Jon C.^ॐ 17:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy WP:ENGVAR states that once a variant is established, for whatever reason, then it should only be changed if a consensus of editors agree that it should be changed. So far no consensus has been established. Given that the article is of interest to British, Americans and Canadians and that Canadian English allows for the use of both British and American spelling and usages, it seems to me to be a very reasonable compromise. Dabbler (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no regular form of English, yet we have the definitive "Canadian English"? That's interesting. I suppose there is no regular French, yet we have American French? In any case, I've no intention of going against consensus, if there really is one -- at least not intentionally. I've been using regular English spelling all my life. The debate that was pointed out to me is said to have been a stalemate, and there must be a basis for the consensus. A group of editors can simply say 'I agree' unless there is a basis to their agreement, and I don't see one anywhere. In any case, the points I've raised above seem to have been ignored. Again, why is the article being written in "Canadian English". Again, the war was fought by the Americans and the British, almost all the sources, are written in regular English, or if you prefer, not "Canadian English". Have you looked at how the sources are written? Once again, this is 'English Wikipedia' and unless we can show that most of the readers of this page are from Canada, or speak "Canadian English", we should treat this article no differently than the rest of the articles on American and British history. The so called consensus was established more than four years ago. I believe it's time to put an end to this oddity. Several good reasons have been put forward to use regular English spelling. What are your reasons not to? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, what do you mean by "regular English"? American English, British English, and Canadian English are all recognized variants of "English", each with different conventions. There are sources on the topic written in each of those variants, and "English" Wikipedia accepts the use of all three. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

American and British spellings are virtually all the same. The so called "Canadian English" is something of an invention, combining French spelling into English, which is why that article is tagged for original research and other issues. Again you can't demand that editors change their reading and writing habits because a handful of editors are claiming consensus. Again, the War of 1812 was fought between the United States and Britain, while almost all the sources are not written in "Canadian English". Why are some editors trying to force everyone to used "Canadian English"? This is a fair question that continues to be ignored for some reason. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been "forced" to use spelling forms etc. which are foreign to my native English spelling because some articles are deemed to be in American English. The reason is to establish a common style in the article and to prevent long and pointless edit wars over humor vs. humour or traveller vs. traveler. By some shance this one article was effectively mostly written in or changed to Canadian English, probably because writers from Britain and the US also contributed. Eventually it was decided that Canadian English was a suitable compromise. As for Canadian English including French spelling, I really would like you to give a single example of an English word spelled in the French manner rather than the English way (either American or British).Dabbler (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This topic is of disproportionate interest to Canadians, there have always been a large number of Canadian editors here. I don't think it was a compromise; I think a better way to explain it was that actual Canadian editors did a lot of the early work and had a first mover advantage in establishing a Canadian status quo. Thereafter, that status quo has been maintained as no subsequent discussion achieved consensus to change it one way or the other- and it seems to me unlikely such a consensus will develop. (Not that it should matter, but FYI I prefer US spellings.)--Noren (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources out there that can clarify the origins of Canadian English and the differences between American and British conventions. As to "demand[ing] that editors change their reading and writing habits", see WP:ENGVAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Dabbler, You're saying "Canadian English" is used to establish a "common style" and to prevent edit wars?? The article already had a common sstyle, English, just like the other history articles that cover American and British history -- and edit wars can occur even if the article is written in Chinese. Was there a long history of edit wars over using American v British English, so much so that this is what resulted?
• Nikkimaria, yes I'm sure "Canadian English" has its origins, as does street talk and other forms of thrown together dialect. I could understand using Canadian English if most of the readers and editors and sources used it, but they do not. And your reference to National varieties of English doesn't say anything about "Canadian English" and says nothing about how using it will remedy issues concerning the differences between American and British English. It's a little strange to see a Canadian flag at the top of the markup editor in an article covering American and British history. How did this happen? I was told the debate was a stalemate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: Actually I linked to that discussion so you could review it and avoid rehashing the same arguments again. I regret characterizing it at all, since you keep bringing up my assessment instead of going to see for yourself. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Any of American English and British English and Canadian English could reasonably be used for this article under MOS:TIES, and therefore we follow MOS:RETAIN. That is your answer. Given the rest of your commentary, I don't think it would be productive to continue the discussion, to say the least. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2018

Gwillhickers - Generally on wikipedia, articles retain what type of English the article was initially written in, unless some major consensus decides there is some particular reason for why it should be changed. It's necessary so as to stop articles constantly being re-written in various forms of english by Brits, Americans, Australians and Canadians - as per WP:ENGVAR. Canadian English is in fact pretty close to British English and Australian and NZ English, so it covers quite a few nationalities of wikipedians here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Social Studies or a War article?

Looking at the article it is becoming more of a new age "How do you feel about it" than a serious article on a war. Perhaps we could hive off the last two sections to something more relavent?.Tirronan (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

For readers who like their history 1918 style, they can simply stop when it gets too modern for them. Rjensen (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a specific military analytical tool, so as a general encyclopedic volume, so IMHO there is nothing wrong with having material relevant to the social effects of the war. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Student course

We are going to have to make sure the upcoming edits that may be large are carefully reviewed. see 2018 course. We may get a SLU of opinionated essay writing.--Moxy (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Rjensen can you review what is bellow see if there is anything we can keep that does not already repeat what we already say.--Moxy (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

it seems to miss all the First Nations--perhaps they assume those folks aren't really canadians, or perhaps because they were clearly losers and would complicate the victory parade. Rjensen (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Rjensen, Moxy - I was a little confused at first as to what happened to my post below, as it initially gave off the impression that my post had been completely removed. I now see that it was added to the end of the content that you removed. I'm not objecting to keeping this all in one section per se, but please make sure that moved comments are easy to see and that you let the person in question know that you are moving them. I've also collapsed the content since there's so much of it and because it made the move that much harder to detect. (Sorry, it's the admin in me talking!)

In any case, can you give a clearer explanation as to why the content was removed and why it should not be re-added? The class's professor is still curious as to the content's removal, as he and the students believed that the material they wanted to add, specifically on the British memory and the experience of French Canadians as far as the war is concerned, wasn't already in the article (or at least wasn't visible). Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm going to move my original comment to this portion rather than moved to the end of the additions section, where it isn't easily found (especially as it's now collapsed by me).

Hi Moxy, I wanted to start up a conversation between you and the students Emilioluna and Aashna18 on the talk page. A few days ago you reverted their additions to the article here, with the summary "Best student additions are reviewed on the talk page before being published". We encourage students to post to article talk pages first, but it's not something that is absolutely required of them since it's generally not a requirement on Wikipedia. Could you provide more clarity as to what was wrong with the content that would require its removal? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Something I do kind of want to caution about is automatically assuming (and posting about it on the notice board) that the student content will be persuasive opinion essays. I know that there have been some issues with this with other classes, but I don't want student work to be automatically considered unusable. Basically I don't want student work to get special treatment, but neither do I want them to be treated differently from other editors or automatically be assumed that their work will be bad from the get-go. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Additions

Extended content

The War of 1812 does not feature prominently in contemporary British memory. The attitude held by Britons during 1812 – that the war existed on the periphery of their ongoing battles against Napoleon – has translated to modern memory of the conflict. Whereas the war facilitated the growth and consolidation of a national identity for Americans, British identity was more heavily forged during war against Napoleonic France. During his 2012 visit to the White House, then-British Prime Minister David Cameron joked that: "We so much more prefer talking about defeating the French.". In the 19th century, William Kingsford posited that: "The events of the War of 1812 have not been forgotten in England, for they have never been known there." Following the War of 1812, Britain focused more upon Europe, believing that it would play a more significant role in shaping its future than North America This contributed to the absence of the war within British memory. Although the War of 1812 plays a significant role in American and Canadian public history, there is only one British monument commemorating the conflict. The Ross Monument in County Down, Northern Ireland memorialises British Major-General Robert Ross who fought in the Napoleonic Wars and perished at the Battle of Baltimore in September 1812. [File:A_new_map_of_Upper_and_Lower_Canada_from_the_latest_authorities.jpg|link=undefined|right|461x461px|An 1807 Map of Upper and Lower Canada ]] In the decades before the onset of the War of 1812, attitudes between the French Canadiens, primarily in Lower Canada, and the British Canadians, primarily in Upper Canada, ranged from a heavy indifference, to a mutually mild distaste, to suspicions of colluding with external powers. Canadien opinions from all classes essentially agreed that, while not ideal, British dominion was favorable to any French and American alternatives. The elite seigneurs of Lower Canada had a particular disdain for the French Revolution because they had seen it attack both aristocracy and their Catholic Church. The common habitant, though opposed to British rule, did not see the value in risking their lives and livelihoods by fighting. However, having both traded with and been frequently cheated by Americans, many in Québec were wrought with distaste for their neighbors to the south. Meanwhile, the British-Canadian opinion of their French-speaking counterparts was one of distrust stemming from a widespread belief that the Québécois would revolt against the British or fight alongside potential French invaders. And yet, despite the general British distrust, the Canadian Constitution treated the Québécois with more dignity than had the trammels of Bourbon French rule. Furthermore, the British Governor Prevost felt that Lower Canada could only be held with the support of its Francophone population. Therefore, the Canadian Government began to use the press in a calculated way to disparage the French Canadiens, particularly their lack of honor, suspect military capabilities, and supposed sloth. Such attacks moved the population of Lower Canada; the impending war thus became an opportunity for the Québécois to refute such allegations from the British Canadian government. Though Governor Prevost attempted to claim credit for the victory of Charles de Salaberry and his voltigeurs at the October 1813 Battle of Châteauguay, the successful repulsion of American troops was conducive to a surge in both the pride and nationalist sentiments of French Canada. The much-propagated tale of de Salaberry’s victory not only bolstered nationalist sentiment in Québec, it also satiated the fears of British authorities that Lower Canada was a traitorous province, unwilling to defend Canada as their Anglophone counterparts would. The French Canadiens, however, felt that their allegiance was to themselves and their own best interests, not to the idea of a Canada unified against foreign threats. Not only did the war not solidify allegiance to the British Empire, the Canadian Legislative Assembly became gridlocked, strife-laden grounds for infighting between Catholic Lower Canadian and Protestant Upper Canadian partisans. Hi Moxy, I wanted to start up a conversation between you and the students Emilioluna and Aashna18 on the talk page. A few days ago you reverted their additions to the article here, with the summary "Best student additions are reviewed on the talk page before being published". We encourage students to post to article talk pages first, but it's not something that is absolutely required of them since it's generally not a requirement on Wikipedia. Could you provide more clarity as to what was wrong with the content that would require its removal? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC) References

date of war declaration

The interoduction contains the sentence

On June 18, 1812, United States President James Madison, after receiving heavy pressure from the War Hawks in Congress, signed the American declaration of war into law.[13] Footnote 13 (archive.org) [https://archive.org/stream/warv1n2wood#page/1/mode/1up contains the date 19 (not 18) june

millercenter.org delivers the full text ... saying June 19 ; www.presidency.ucsb.edu ... the same.

here is a photo of the document: nineteenth .

The mistake is there since 29 Dec. 2001 (the date @The Epopt: started the article. --Neun-x (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC) --Neun-x (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Declaration Act signed by Madison on June 18

I am not a US Constitutional expert, but my understanding is that Congress is the one to declare war, as they did on June 18th and that declaration was signed by Madison on June 18th (see lower left of the image). Madison then issued a Proclamation of the declaration of war on the following day. Thus the state of war existed from June 18 but was only proclaimed by the President on June 19. Dabbler (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2018

Change "Republican" to "Democratic-Republican". The use of the word "Republican" to describe a political party in this article is anachronistic and confusing. The "Republican" political party did not exist until 1854. The Democratic-Republican party actually became the Democratic Party. An acceptable alternative to "Democratic-Republican" is "Jefferson-Republican", though it is less precise. 24.216.52.139 (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Question: Can you please be more specific as to where you would like this change made? Both "Democratic-Republican" and "Republican" appear in the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: due to requesting editor not answering request for clarification. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Indians, Native Americans, Indigenous Americans and American Indians

The article references Indians 82 times, Native Americans eleven times, American Indians six times, and indigenous peoples three times. Given this, and given the contention around the naming conventions and the debate between historical and accurate, is there a standard across Wikipedia for the referencing of indigenous Americans? Is there a reason that there are different names across this one article? Should there be one standard, or is there a logic behind having multiple ways to refer to indigenous Americans.  Matt Sylvester  Talk  04:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question. Hundreds of editors contributed to this article, bringing many different perspectives. Wikipedia's rule is to follow the reliable sources, and in this case the reliable sources are highly divergent on the terminology for the war of 1812. scholar.google.com counts word usage from many thousands of reliable sources, both books and articles. A quick check gives this count:

• 42,000 "american Indians" "war of 1812"
• 20.000 "aboriginal" "war of 1812"
• 12,900 "native americans" "war of 1812"
• 7,300 "american Indians" "war of 1812"

I recommend the fascinating short discussion by Canadian military historian Carl Benn on how he decided on terms to use at Carl Benn (1998). The Iroquois in the War of 1812. U of Toronto Press. pp. viii–ix. Benn avoids the word "Indian" because it conjures up subhuman and superhuman stereotypes. He rejects 'aboriginal' and 'native', as transitory and inadequate in the same way that "Amerindian" was used a generation ago. He rejects 'Native-Americans' "because of its dissonance to Canadian ears" and because its too much like 'Italian-American' or 'Irish-American'. All in all, he rejects them all. He tries to rewrite his paragraphs to refer to highly specific tribes or nations, such as the Iroquois. With some trepidation, he does use the terms 'warrior' and 'chief'. Rjensen (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I copied this discussion to Talk:Native Americans in the United States Rjensen (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"Because of their lower population compared to whites"

"Because of their lower population compared to whites" This statement in the article could use some attention and movement away from using the term "whites". Additional effort may yield a better statement. In the discussion around impressment, I think there is more thoughtful language around the difficulties of identifying ethnicity and origins. I believe burgeoning nationalism and the complexities around ethnic identity (current/past) are important topics in the article. They are given weight in other areas of the article but seemingly everyone not Indian is "white" in the section on "Indian" forces. I would question how the term "whites" adds value here. The confederate indigenous forces their populations already greatly reduced due to European migration and the subsequent Western expansion (or in short previous conflict) were constrained......perhaps something along these lines.

Tattersail (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Tattersail

Honor works in this article

the RS in this case use the "honor" spelling because the discussion is entirely about "American honor". The Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage (1997) p 252 says both spellings are standard in Canada. Likewise the Gage Canadian Dictionary (1997) (p. vii) states: Canadian usage is almost equally divided between -our and -or spellings in words such as colour/color and honour/honor, so both spellings are accepted by this Canadian dictionary as standard Canadian spelling. . Recent published examples 1): Globe and Mail April 24, 2018, a major editorial states: " the most fitting and lasting way to honor Monday’s victims [ of a car attack on pedestrians in Toronto]is to go on doing what people have always come to cities for: getting the most out of life." 2) Maclean's Apr 7, 2018 - "The @NHLFlyers held a moment of silence to honor the victims of the Humboldt Broncos terrible tragedy" 3) Maclean's had an annual "Honor Roll" Rjensen (talk) 04:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No, there are references to British honour in the article, so your first argument is not valid. Secondly, the Canadian government states the spelling honour is preferred, the Toronto Star the country's highest circulation newspaper, uses the term honour so official preference is for use with the U. Dabbler (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rjensen:I’ve always found this to be one of the silliest aspects of this article that both spellings cannot be used. There would be no confusion over the minor difference in spelling. I was just reading an essay from the British academic Andrew Lambert that he wrote in 2003, where he used at different times “defence” and “defense”. I was not confused by the one letter difference and doubt that anyone else was confused. Having said that, it probably has to stay with “honour" or some people will get upset over it. Unless I'm mistaken, it's the rule on Wikepedia to use the same spelling except when quotes have a different spelling. Dwalrus (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, if non-uniformity was allowed by Wikipedia or its editors, then I would have no problem with a mixture of U and non-U spellings. However, if we have to use one or the other then the U form is the preferred by Canadian government etc.. Dabbler (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no "mixed" use. The RS state clearly that "honor" is a Canadian spelling: Gage says "both spellings are accepted by this Canadian dictionary as standard Canadian spelling." For exaqmple in dealing with the anniversary of the War of 1812 the Globe" uses 'honor' The Globe July 25 1914 NIAGARA FALLS, Ont., the one hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Lundy's Lane was celebrated here toda....it became a rousing demonstration in honor of the century of peace." Rjensen (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

So major Canadian newspapers disagree on the spelling, and the Oxford Guide and dictionary say either way is fine. Going back through the archives, the Canadian English designation was an arbitrary choice to begin with, and it generates discussion on spelling very frequently (not to mention editors making "corrections"). Now we see that the spelling conventions within that variant are inconsistent, even within Canada. A non-Canadian contributing to the article will almost certainly make misspellings, and even Canadians may reasonably disagree. These seem to be very good reasons to choose BritEng or AmerEng, where the spellings are reasonably consistent and predictable.

WP:Retain does not demand that the chosen variant be kept no matter what. A stated exception is made where "a term/spelling carries less ambiguity." If Canadian Eng is not clear about '-or/-our' spellings, that creates a significant ambiguity. And if the Oxford Guide and dictionary cannot even clear that up, then this variant will continue to generate editors attempting to correct spellings, and to further discussions here. The point of choosing an ENGVAR is to preclude intractable arguments; the variant chosen here fuels those arguments instead. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Canadian grammatical advice on spelling is "The recommended spelling authority is a reliable Canadian dictionary such as the Canadian Oxford or Gage Canadian Dictionary. It is important to choose one and use it consistently. Both publications are based on research into Canadian usage, contain specifically Canadian terms and reflect the usage of most federal government departments and agencies more closely than do American or British dictionaries. When they list two spellings for a word in the same entry, choose the one entered first. When two spellings are given separate entries, choose the primary spelling, which is the one followed by the definition (the variant simply refers the reader to the primary entry)." I sincerely doubt that you will find any reputable dictionary of Canadian English which does not have honour as the primary spelling. Yes there are some users of Canadian English who have adopted American styles and spelling, but that does not make them authoritative.

I honestly do not understand why people get so worked up about this simple issue. You can all understand the word whether spelled with a U or not, there is a preferred Canadian way of spelling, though variants are used by some and that preferred Canadian way should be used unless and until, there is a consensus to change the whole article to another English variant, which has been attempted many times and not yet agreed to. And before you turn the "What is the big deal?" argument back on me, I espouse the standard preferred Canadian spelling rather than a variant. I don not understand why WP:ENGVAR is continually challenged by editors on this particular page unless it is an attempt to win the War of 1812 by alternative means.

As for the suggestion that Canadian authorities are not clear, they are perfectly clear. There is a preferred spelling and one which is used by some people which in a dictionary is reported as a variant. Dabbler (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is contradicted by the examples raised by Rjensen above. The spelling isn't even consistent among major newspapers, so how can we be consistent here? Yes, we can understand when we read the article; but if I am editing the article, which spelling do I use? Even the sources you cite do not seem to answer that. And your remark about winning the war by alternative means is untoward. I'm an American, and I would choose BritEng, as that was discussed as the ENGVAR back in 2009. I am also not "worked up" over anything; it is simply tiresome to have this come up so frequently, over an arbitrary choice that creates unnecessary ambiguity. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that you misunderstood a little Anglo-Canadian pleasantry. Dabbler (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Dabbler states "When they list two spellings for a word in the same entry, choose the one entered first. " ok==the Gage Canadian Dictionary lists 'honor' first (p 560--they repeat it six times for variations like "on one's honor")--he can now follow his own rule and we can have an article that uses one spelling all the way through to refer to American concepts of honor. Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a section on spelling in Studies in Canadian English: Lexical Variation in Toronto. It says that there is no authoritative guide for Canadian spelling but that "our" is preferred.[1] Canadians generally used the OED, which only brought out a Canadian version in 1998, published in Toronto. The Gage Canadian Dictionary was first published in 1967 in Vancouver. But all sources I could find say "our" is preferred. The English Writing System makes an interesting point: Usage varies between Canadian provinces, Ontario having the highest number of <-our> spellings such as 'honour' and 'favour', Alberta the lowest proportion."[2] That could explain why Gage and the OED differ, and why the Canadian contributors to this article favor "our." TFD (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am an Ontario resident and they are the part of Canada most interested in the War of 1812, for geographic, if no other, reasons. So my Canadian English includes the U. I am able to read and understand honor without a U, as I expect American readers do. Why do they need to change it from honour to honor? If it because it looks odd to them, imagine what it looks like to someone with the expectation that it should include the U. The majority of non-American English writers do spell it as honour, so it will be an ongoing area of contention regardless of what is decided upon here. Dabbler (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

unanimously ratified

The lead has 'The treaty was unanimously ratified by the US on February 17, 1815...'. From this and the later the mentions in the Negotiations and peace section, it's not clear who was unanimous - each state, each member of congress, the senate only or something else. --Cavrdg (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

On treaty votes, each senator gets one vote. 2/3 majority needed to pass a treaty. House does not vote. Rjensen (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Would 'The treaty was ratified unanimously by the US Senate on February 17, 1815, ending the war with status quo ante bellum (no boundary changes).' be good wording? --Cavrdg (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The US copy of the treaty arrived in Washington on February 15. The next day the Senate unanimously approved it and President Madison signed it the same day, February 16, thus officially ratifying it. The following day, February 17, Anthony St. John Baker arrived with the already ratified British copy and that evening the ratified copies were exchanged as required by the treaty.Dwalrus (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 1812-north-moore 00.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Lede reference to 'assault on neutral territory'

If there are no objections I would like to change this section: 'Fighting also took place overseas, with Britain launching an assault on the neutral Portuguese colony of Fayal.' to something like: 'Fighting also took place overseas, with naval engagements fought worldwide including at Fayal in the Portuguese Azores.' If a mention of the Battle of Fayal must be included in the lede (despite being a relatively minor encounter) then I think this phrasing might be better. The current wording sounds like the British attacked Portuguese territory whilst in reality it was an engagement between British and American ships in port (still arguably a violation of Portuguese neutrality but not quite the same as an assault). in fact the UK and Portugal had just come out of the Peninsular War where they had been close allies and they remain arguably the oldest alliance in the world. Thanks Riled Ignatius (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I figure the problem can be avoided all together if the sentence is rephrased to something more general about the naval portion of the war (seeing how it is a lede...). Leventio (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Fayal inclusion in lede

So what are people's thoughts on the inclusion of the Battle of Fayal in the lede? I'm sorta against its inclusion as the battle is not a major engagement (in terms of implications, morale, or memory), especially noting the lack mention for other naval engagements (beyond generalities).

Based off the edit summary, the crux of its inclusion is based on the idea that the battle "take place directly within the sovereignty of a non-belligerent state," thus making it a notable enough to mention in the lede. On top of my concerns for generalizing the lead, I sorta think that the rationale is inaccurate. A key component of the Battle of Valparaíso was getting the other side to fire first, in order to break neutrality laws (the battle occurred in Chilean/Spanish territorial water, the latter still considered a non-belligerent at the time). Another naval engagement also occurred in the Sunda Strait (territorial waters of the Dutch East Indies). And while no claims were made on the Polynesian islands during this time, they wren't exactly inhabited by non-entities.

Anyhow thoughts? Leventio (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Historians give it little attention--it's not among the 50 best known aspects of the war and does not belong in the lede. Rjensen (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a peripheral to the war, it deserves mention in the article, but not the lede. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Impressement in the Info box

I do not feel like impressment should be in the infobox having addressed it with the author of the contested changes with him here is what I had to say:

As to impressment, the 100 days was a panic to Britain the Royal Navy was in no way going to restart the war with America to get sailors. You are correct it wasn't addressed in the Treaty of Ghent, but it was observed. Nothing about the causes of 1812 were addressed. Ian W. Toll gives a good account of it. The age of impressment was ending anyway so there is credence to that. Nor was Britain about a restart a war with America which might have happened. I'm not wedded to impressment in the infobox. If it has to stay in then it should be noted a bit more because the answer is nuanced more than that.

My view is that the answer to impressment could take up an entire section by itself and isn't addressed by the Treaty of Ghent. It is just too complex to put into an infobox.Tirronan (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Template:American conflicts (i.e. {{American conflicts}} ) is missing from this article. As it is protected, I cannot add it at this time. -- 155.95.90.241 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That template is already present in the article (though its written as {{Template:Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces}}). You can find it in the bottom at the bottom of the article, grouped with the other template inside the navbox (titled Links to related articles). The navbox is a collection of all related templates (excluding the main War of 1812 template) and is collapsed by default, which is probably why you missed it. Leventio (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Standardizing references/citations

The refs/cites in this article seem cluttered. There are for example six articles listed in the Sources which are never cited, one cited but not listed in Sources, a mixed bag of formatting approaches etc. I will happily standardize these in the manner of Aristotle if no one persuasively disagrees.... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

ok but don't let the cites disappear. Some sources were used to write the article without getting cited. Rjensen (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

They could go in "Other Sources" or similar ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

OK by me. Rjensen (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• OK Done. That was a pretty large undertaking. There are still three errors left on the page:
  • Heidler, p. 45. Harv error: link from CITEREFHeidler doesn't point to any citation.
  • Gardiner 2000. Harv error: link from CITEREFGardiner2000 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Voelcker 2013. Harv error: link from CITEREFVoelcker_2013 doesn't point to any citation.
• There shouldn't be others, afaik. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Spain

" In neighbouring Spanish Florida, a two-day battle for the city of Pensacola ended in Spanish surrender.[14]" -- This lone sentence as a paragraph at the end of the section provides too little information. Only by looking over at the info box does one find out which side Spain was on. 87.247.52.166 (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can determine, the US and Spain had never declared war against each other. Spain was allied with Britain against Napoleonic France but was not involved in any declarations in North America. I suspect that this was just an American side adventure to seize some of Florida, not part of any deliberate war aims and effort. Dabbler (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There was no declared war between the nations at that time. However, there were plenty of provocations provided by Spain. What I don't have a clear picture of is if this was planned or not. I suspect not by the amateurish operations that ensured enragement of American southern politicians who were a large part of the war hawk faction. The Creek nation was in a civil war and under pressure from white settlement. Lower Creeks were often of mixed race and seemed on a path to assimilation. Upper Creeks resented the loss of traditional tribal structure and war broke out. The Red Stick faction decided to send raiding parties across Cherokee lands to attack American settlements and farms. There was no love lost between the Cherokee and the Creek, to begin with. So, they began to track and kill raiding parties. Unsurprisingly, the Cherokee and the Lower Creeks joined forces with American forces when the southern states had enough of the Red Sticks. All in all, it is a complex and muddy thing and my statements are at best a gross simplification of the events. The upshot is, that British and Spanish involvement was uncovered, further, almost no real political control of the territory existed.Tirronan (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Grammar

This article has a huge number of grammatical errors. There are many run-on sentences and sentence fragments. It needs a thorough rewrite. 173.243.179.239 (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2017‎ (UTC)

American Expansionism

I've just made some fairly drastic edits - cut/paste and re-writes to try and improve the flow of the section and make it a bit less disjointed. I'm kinda not happy about the "He said, She said" bit at the end where various historians view points are quoted, I feel like the information contained has already been given and that if these opinions are in the article then who holds them is apparent from the footnotes - and of lesser importance - this being an article not an essay, I wasn't however brave enough to just chop them out without writing something here first - I don't want to inadvertently cause a fight! Grible (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

If you run together multiple footnotes -- eg [44][45][46][47][48] then the reader will be unable to find who said what. That is a disservice to students writing papers who depend on Wikipedia as a guide to reliable sources so they can evaluate the debates ongoing among historians. An "essay" in Wiki language just means that there are no sources provided, which is certainly not a problem here. see WP:ESSAY = "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)." Rjensen (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not entirely fair - I was quite careful to keep the foot notes with the text they related to. The ones you mention were already a huge string of notes before I began, related to Canadian feelings. My comment about an essay feel was more that the section near the end, which I didn't change has too much, "Bob says this" which just doesn't read nicely I feel it should say "Blah fact" (foot note). But I'm not going to try and debate the point, if this is how you prefer it then I'll just back off. Grible (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The text in question deals with historiography--that is debates among historians. Exactly who said what is essential. Wikipedia has a clear definition of "essay" ao please don't misuse it. The facts we are reporting is that X said ABC and Y said DEF. Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I know I said I wasn't going to get into debate about this but I think we are talking past each other so I'd just like to explore that. So, if I leave the historiography section of named historian views at the end alone, which I had anyway, and was the reason for this talk post. Do you really think that upper section as reverted is more readable and useful to a reader than my edited version? I apologise for using "essay" here on the talk page without considering the specific wikipedia meaning, but if that is your main objection can we get back to the edit itself. The intent as a whole was to bring together the various disjointed statements and quotes into an ordered form, that provided the viewpoints and evidence. The information was and is there but it's just badly presented, I hope you accept that I didn't actually cause the bundling of foot notes you give as the revert reason, and basically this was a reordering exercise of statements supported by foot notes. Grible (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd just fix this trifle myself if folks weren't fanatics, but alack, "London Was assured" should be "London was assured" in any English.

Fixed. Thank you. Chewings72 (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Date format

An editor recently changed the date template from mdy to dmy. Given the contention concerning Canadian and American English, I am hesitant to switch it back. But it appears that mdy had been used previously. The standard American form is mdy, and I think the same is true in Canada—but I'm not sure. Is there a consensus on this? —Dilidor (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The closest thing to an official standard for Canada is YMD (I know... weird), though all three dating formats are used (DMY and MDY jockey for popularity up here, with the official format probably the least used funny enough). In saying that though, I made the edit with the assumption that the date standard template was changed when the "American English" template was added (honestly shoulda checked the revision diffs; only really looked at the date format used on the citations and artice). Saying that though, I'll defer to the decision made here (or an earlier one, I sorta assume this was a topic of discussion at some point with ENGVAR being a an issue here). Leventio (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I prefer using four digits for the year and letters for the month to avoid confusion. But then we would have to decide which order to use and when to use full names of months or just three letters and how to use commas. TFD (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can discover, there has only been peripheral discussion of which of the two Wikipedia sanctioned date formats for prose are appropriate in this article in the talk archives: Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_19#Dominant language:_Canadian_english_was_hardly_used_in_the_war

That said, I personally favour the least prolix (by a comma) and most widespread date format used by users of English (both native and as a second or auxiliary language). --BushelCandle (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Our Wikiproject has never "picked" a date format for Canada articles as seen at Date and time notation in Canada its complicated .....but that seen our FA articles try to avoid all-numeric dates as seen at Canada with the format used as Month (spelled out) day and year like "April 12, 2016".--Moxy 🍁 16:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

In any form, the guideline WP:DATERET is a long standing agreement among many contributors on Wikipedia. Many times someone who is unfamiliar with a date format will sometimes change it into something they prefer. That said, it's a long standing precedent to not unilaterally change the date formats on articles just because you don't like the way they look. Folloing DATERET has alleviated many edit wars over the years and the same should be followed here as well. It should be changed back.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The point being made is that 2 formats were used.....so back to the question which one is preferred?--Moxy 🍁 23:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a previous version where both formats were used interchangably or equally in the article. Before the date format was changed to DMY, the article had used MDY predominatly for years. But, WP:DATERET answers this question as well Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor". This appears to also be MDY. We have these long standing guidelines and agreements for a reason, so we don't keep having incessant discussions over date formats.--JOJ ^Hutton 04:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the Article uses Canadian English format, for consistency we should use the date format recommended with it. According to the Canadian English article: DD-MM-YYYY is most common, while YYYY-MM-DD is the format recommended by the Canadian government. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The above claim does not accurately summarize the Canadian English article - the only sentence in which the DD-MM-YYYY pattern is mentioned does not indicate it is the most common: "Nonetheless, the traditional DD/MM/YY and MM/DD/YY systems remain in everyday use..." --Noren (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Since the article originally used MDY consistently throughout, it should not have been changed in the first place. It was already established and stable, and as such should be reverted to what it was. —Dilidor (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the assertion of it being 'stable' is belied by the amount of discussion it has received here. Consensus seems to be for a revision in format. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The next question being, "Why is it in Canadian English"? Of course that's usually because a few editors get together and then while nobody is seemingly paying attention, they form a consensus to change everything. That's apparently what happened here. Again, why is it in Canadian English? Who made that determination? I've seen this happen time and time again. Anything that is not 100% American or 100% of the United States, gets changed over time, usually without anyone noticing because there are millions of pages to patrol.

It's clear that the change violated WP:DATERET and should be reverted. --Noren (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mediatech492: There is clearly no consensus "for a revision in format". If anything, the consensus is leaning in the direction of reverting to its original MDY format. —Dilidor (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the matter is under discussion disproves your assertion. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is this matter still being discussed at all? The guidelines are extremly clear and have been used for over a decade as a way to keep the articles away from constant revert wars. The reason that any one of the number of editors here who disagree with you, haven't changed it back yet, is because we are waiting for you to reveal some reasoning as to why WP:DATERET should not apply in this case. The fact that the article already is using Canadinan English is a poor argument because according to WP:RETAIN, that language should not have been changed either.

But let me use your own previous argument against you. You previously cited the Canadian English article as an example, stating According to the Canadian English article: DD-MM-YYY is the most common..., while ignoring the fact that according to the article the format MM-DD--YYY is also used, and that DMY is only more common in formal writing and bilingual contexts. The English Wikipedia is hardly formal or bilingual in the traditional sense. MDY is very common among the English speaking communities of Canada, and that is the date format that we should be focused on here. So as I said, convince us to why this article should use DMY date format and why this article should continue to use Canadian English over the original American English spelling it had used prior. If you can't, then I suggset that we immediately revert the date formats back to it's original per the longstanding and agreed upon guideline standard WP:DATERET.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I merely mentioned that it would be more consistent, there is no need to hissy fit. The matter as been opened to discussion, deal with it. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Consistent with what exactly? With the Canadian varation of English? How do you answer the question that the MDY date format is also used in Canada? In fact I would suggest that it is the preferred format among the English speaking part of Canada. How say you to that? Do you disagree?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mediatech492: Your tone and demeanor are becoming a problem in this discussion. You begin by presenting illogical assertions as though they conclusively ended debate: "the assertion of it being 'stable' is belied by the amount of discussion it has received"; "The fact that the matter is under discussion disproves your assertion". You then degenerate into verbal abuse: "there is no need to hissy fit. The matter as been opened to discussion, deal with it". You have not presented any clear, logical support to change the date format away from its original MDY, so I believe it's time to revert, as proposed above by JOJ. —Dilidor (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm still wondering how he answers the question as to the fact that the English speaking portion of Canada clearly uses the MDY date format. This is the English Wikipedia, not the French, so therefore MDY should be the preferred format, especially given the articles WP:TIES to the United States.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• So just to be thorough before I make the date changes, I'll provide some links to articles from some of the leading English Language Canadian news sources and papers from some of the the largest cities and a link to a government website, all using MDY.
  • Toronto Star
  • Calgary Herald
  • Ottawa Citizen
  • Edmonton Journal
  • Montreal Gazette
  • The office of the Prime Minister
• Proof positive that if it's in English in Canada, the preferred common format is MDY, and since this is the English Wikipedia, the MDY format should be used throughout this article.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Your assertion of MDY is clearly not supported by the Canadian English article. Likewise your claim that I have offered no reasonable alternative is also baseless if you were to actually read what is written above. You've offered no response to the alternatives other than "that's how we did it in the past" which if you check SP:POLICIES is not by itself sufficient basis for continuing with an existing format. The purpose here it to discuss ways to improve the article. If there is a better option, and several have been suggested above, then they need a fair hearing. There is nothing illogical about that. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with the Wikipedia policy or WP:CIRCULAR. You are attempting to use information in a Wiikipedia article to justify a conclusion that is not supported in reliable sources in the least or even in the article you are referencing. You continue to just say that's its still "under discussion, without bringing anything new. Several editors have clearly pointed out the fact that you are incorrect in saying that the Canadian English article prefers DMY over MDY, so yes we have responded to that question. Several have asked you why you feel that the Wikipedia guideline of WP:DATERET should not be adhered to. You have not answered that question other than saying, Three Times Now, "Thats why we are discussing". Time for you to either come up with some reasonable response or move on.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Could someone with edit permissions please add the word "to" after a simple search for the two words "British wanted"?

Thanks. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.202.180 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2020

I suggest that the sentence, "Historians debate whether the desire to annex some or all of British North America (Canada) contributed to the American decision to go to war." Should be amended to read "American historians.... etc. We who defended BNA knew what manifest destiny was. Tigertaylorwood48 (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide reliable sources that support this change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

Henry Porter (lieutenant colonel) should be added to Commanders and People as long as he gets his page back 82.17.221.173 (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This request is backwards. First we need an article on the person that demonstrates they are notable then we would have a discussion about their inclusion here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

youtube video vs. casualty count (Nazia not welcome)

And stuff 18:32 (timing|) he shattered the \\kentucky Rifleman... umm, in Empire\: Total War, its not good when ur enemy is shattered.. like more than 30-40%casualty rate causes that.. i know in Pierre Berton's book the natives had tro beg for bones and meat but nothing wa mentioned like this--in 4 other boos mind you (mason is one author I remmeber off heart)l. okay thank you! 63.135.6.165 (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Change the term "Indians"

The term is offensive to the First nations people. They should be listed as First Nations instead of Indians. They called them Indians back then because they didn't know any better, we do know. Please fix the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepFriedPickle (talk • contribs) 17:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Treaty negotiations

"By 1814, both sides had either achieved their main war goals or were weary of a costly war that offered little but stalemate"

What is the basis for the claim that "both sides had...achieved their war aims"? This statement is made without reference to sources. Similarly, the American Casus Belli for war had been belligerent maritime rights (impressment etc). American negotiators made the conscious decision to drop these demands as a British-set prerequisite for negotiations to begin. In the article these are simply dismissed as being "dead letters" with little further elaboration.

IMO: there has been plenty of good stuff written on the run up to the Treaty of Ghent which isn't being utilised in this article-particularly on maritime belligerent rights. F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, there could be more on it, but there is a separate article for that stuff, there's no room on this page for it - page is maxed out in recommended size 13:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

One editor has challenged cites to JCA Stagg. He is a well-established reliable source. The Journal of Military History review of his 2012 on 1812 says: "It is a rare talent to be able to untangle the wider social, diplomatic, economic and military dimensions of the Anglo-American war of 1812 to 1815, in a narrative that runs less than 200 pages. Yet, J. C. A. Stagg, a leading scholar on the political, diplomatic and military history of the early American republic and authority on James Madison, has produced a work that is as noteworthy for its economy of language as it is for its sagacious analysis." [JMH Oct 2012 pp 1225-6 reviewing Stagg, The War of 1812: Conflict for a Continent Cambridge University Press, 2012]. Stagg was born and educated in New Zealand (B.A. and MA Univ. of Canterbury) and the US (PhD Princeton). He was a professor at U Aukland in New Zealand before becoming a full professor at U Virginia and the editor of the The Papers of James Madison in many volumes. See https://history.virginia.edu/people/profile/js5h and https://www.jstor.org/stable/1921716 Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps wrong tag,,,dont see them saying what its supporting ...meant need better sources that supports statement.--Moxy 🍁 10:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the sources support the statement that there is a national bias of historians is supported by the source rather than whether the sources are reliable. TFD (talk)

Two thoughts on this. If this were a scientific article and there were a lot of varying theories it wouldn't be hard to say that there were serious disputes about the theorem. I have no clue how many books have been written on the War of 1812. I've read about six, that were all over the place. Then there is the RS issue, another can of worms we could argue to the end of the next century. Military histories on the subject are for the most part fairly consistent, with a few exceptions. But, for every decent book on the subject, there are dozens of works of dubious value. Beyond that, you still have the issue that both sides of the war decided that it wasn't worth the cost. How do we propose to ignore the inconvenient truth that the British and American leadership called it even and walked away? Somehow to me, so and so eminent historian decided this or that, doesn't really excuse the facts of the decisions of the actual participants that they were in a war that couldn't possibly be worth the cost.Tirronan (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC about alleged national bias of historians on who won the war

Section: National bias of historians
Do the sources used in the article support the claim that there is a national bias of historians (U.S., UK and Canadian) over which country won the War of 1812? TFD (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Do not support The sources appear to be saying that popular perception, escpecially in the past, differed among the three countries, not that there is any dispute among historians today related to their nationality. TFD (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Do not support I agree with TFD. Rjensen (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Do support I just posted excerpts from just three of the references, I haven't looked at the other yet. They talk about the "national narratives" in the context of historians, and while they are talking about Historiagraphy, they mention national views. So of course, yes, that's historians, not the general public. Apart from that, its blatently obvious there is a bias amongst US historians(at least twenty I know of) who believe the war was a draw vs US historians (only three I can think of) that it was a win for Britain. I don't know why anyone would even question it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Do not support Agree with TFD. Tirronan (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Do not support. Evidence is presented to say there are different views on who won, but not that modern historians champion conflicting views. It is SYNTH to extend the evidence presented to include historians. We cannot do this. Besides, it adds nothing to the article; just say that there are conflicting views, which is significant. That somehow respected historians are also in conflict is not. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

While the number of footnotes is daunting, the sources generally reflect what is said in the first one cited, a review published by the Institute of Historical Research of eight new books, "Whose War of 1812? Competing Memories of the Anglo-American Conflict" (Trautsch 2014). It doesn't seem to claim that there is any serious dispute among historians, just that national perceptions differ and historians in different countries emphasize different aspects of the war. American historians for example provide more emphasis on events in Washington, while Canadian historians are more likely to write about political and military leaders of Canada. TFD (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Canadian history of the war began with a completely different set of heroes and villains. If the U.S. has its Paul Revere, Canada has Shawnee chief Tecumseh, who lost his life defending Upper Canada against the Americans, and Laura Secord, who struggled through almost 20 miles of swampland in 1813 to warn British and Canadian troops of an imminent attack. For Canadians, the war was, and remains, the cornerstone of nationhood, brought about by unbridled U.S. aggression. Although they acknowledge there were two theaters of war—at sea and on land—it is the successful repulse of the ten U.S. incursions between 1812 and 1814 that have received the most attention.By contrast, the British historiography of the War of 1812 has generally consisted of short chapters squeezed between the grand sweeping narratives of the Napoleonic Wars." - reference - "The British View the War of 1812 Quite Differently Than Americans Do"
• "Did any nation win the War of 1812? Canadians are emphatic that America did not win, and the British agree. Americans usually argue that we really did win. In terms of military outcomes, “stalemate from mutual exhaustion” is the phrase to use. By 1815 it became extremely difficult to see how either side could have carried on the war for another year. In that sense nobody won." referenced from "Interview with war of 1812 Historian J C A Stagg" - reference - JCA Stagg article
• " (American) Hugh Howard’s popular history of the War of 1812 – Mr. and Mrs. Madison’s War: America’s First Couple and the Second War of Independence – also follows the *national trajectory*. *The traditional American narrative of the War of 1812* is cut to pieces by Andrew Lambert, Professor of Naval History at King’s College, London, in The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812. Finding fault with the claim – *frequently made by Americans* – that the war was caused by Britain’s maritime policies and ended in a U.S. victory or at least a draw* - reference: Whose War of 1812? Competing Memories of the Anglo-American Conflict Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian describes accurately the British-Canadian viewpoint. That is not the French Canadian viewpoint, and not the viewpoint of recent ethnic immigrants, nor of the First Nations. The British Canadians viewpoint used to dominate the Canadian textbooks, but in the last couple of decades those textbooks seem to have downplayed this theme. Rjensen (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Deathlibrarian describes accurately the British-Canadian viewpoint" Yes, thank you Rjensen - my point being the references point out there is a British-Canadian viewpoint, and obviously a different US one. I do not doubt the first nations have a completely different view on the War of 1812, and of atrocities committed to them at the time, and understandably so! Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No one questions what popular views in the UK, Canada, or the U.S. are, but whether there is a national bias among historians. As the source correctly states, Howard's account is a popular history, which was cut to pieces by a professor of naval history. Howard is a popular writer with a B.A. in English and drama, according to his linked in page.[3] There's no disagreement among people who have PhDs in history, teach at universities and write academic papers and books. The only difference is emphasis. Toronto historians for example are more likely to research the burning down of the city than an historian in New Orleans. That doesn't mean they have a different view about the overall outcome of the war. TFD (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already mentioned above that the articles discuss Historiagraphy, and give examples of Historians views - they talk about Canadian Views, and British views - they don't differentiate between the public and historians. Aren't Canadians historians, Canadian?

To be honest, I'm surpised at editors comments here. If you read widely on Historians comments on the war of 1812, it is obvious that overwhelmingly US historians support the draw theory. British and Canadian historians support the Canada winning....and Only US authors (specifically Troy Bickham, Alan Talyor, and Stephen Budiansky) support The US winning. Is that coincidence? Its clearly a pattern retaling to Nationality.

So according to the historians I have here (I've been looking at this for a while, research for writing an article on bias in Wikipedia)

• Nationality of Historians who believe the US won the war of 1812
• US - 3 - Uk - 0 Canada - 0
• Nationality of Historian who believe the War of 1812 was a stalemate
• US - 22 - UK - 2 - Canada - 6
• Nationality of Historians who believe the War of 1812 was a win for the Canada/UK
• US - 4 - UK - 3 - Canada - 10
• I have all the references, and pages for the authors above, 53 in total, and can include them in the article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We can't include your research because of restrictions on original research and synthesis. incidentally, Trautsch does not say that Bickham considers the U.S. to have won the war, just that it did not lose it. TFD (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know the research can't be included, but I've put it here as supporting evidence. As per Budiansky, - that "Stephen Budiansky is the author of last year’s Perilous Fight: America’s Intrepid War with Britain on the High Seas, 1812-1815, and typical of a long line of American writers who have picked up on this naval underdog narrative. (Budiansky says) The U.S. navy was the “unambiguous victor of the war,” "Donald Hickey of Wayne State College in Nebraska is one of the *few American historians to call the war a loss for the U.S*. Nonetheless, he considers the conflict to be an opiate of history" = Both from <Peter Shawn Taylor "Damn Yankees are trying to steal our victory in 1812" October 11, 2011 Macleans - https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/damn-yankees/ ?

Saying that the U.S. Navy was the victor is not saying the U.S. is. The U.S. Navy outperformed expectations as remembered in the Battle Hymn of the Republic. And you can't use an article in Maclean's by a journalist with an MA in economics for statements about what historians in general write. In any case no one questions that most American (or UK or Canadian) historians do not consider the war a U.S. loss. I refer you to Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (REDFLAG). The suggestion that academics come to radically different conclusions based on their nationality is exceptional, because it implies they are irrational. You need to find a clear source for your conclusion. The war had victories and losses on both sides. the U.S. won in American waters and lost in Upper Canada. If Ontario historians write about what happened in their province, it doesn't mean they believe that overall the British won. What happened in the province was pivotal to its history, while the Atlantic battles were not. TFD (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

TFD You claim there is no difference in opinions on how historians see the outcome of the war, based on nationality. In that case, if we have three American historians saying that the US won the war (as stated, Troy Bickham, Alan Talyor, and Stephen Budiansky) then who are the US or Canadian historians that also support this viewpoint? Is it coincidence that only US historians support it, and no one else does? Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, Trautsch does not say that Bickham claims the U.S. won the war, just that they did not lose it. Budiansky writes about U.S. naval victories, but does not say the U.S. won the war. I don't know if your claim about Taylor is accurate either. But in any case, we can't cherry pick three historians among tens of thousands and form a conclusion about the general population. You need to find a reliable source that presents your conclusion. I will point out that you are claiming that professional historians form their opinions based on their nationality rather than the facts. TFD (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

TFD Ok, for arguments sake, lets exclude Budianksy, which leaves us with Taylor and Bickham - here are their quotes:

Alan Taylor says "The Americans forced the British to choose between alliance with the Indians and peace with the republic.”. This was the true key to victory in the war, for in choosing the latter “the British accepted the Americans’ continental power.” (Source: "The Civil War of 1812", p 437 - 438)

Troy Bickham says "“true primary issue of the War of 1812—whether or not the United States would be respected as a sovereign nation rather than humbled as a quasi-part of the British Empire—was resolved, and Britain had lost,” (Source: "The Weight of Vengeance" p263)

As I said, if as you say, there is no national bias in the various viewpoints, shouldn't there be some British and Canadian historians also claiming that The US won?. Wouldn't it be logical that if only American Historians claim America won the War of 1812, then its quite likely its something to do with them... being American? Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that either passage says the U.S. won the war. They say that the U.S. was victorious in the sense that the peace treaty forced the UK to accept the U.S. as a sovereign state rather than a part of the British Empire. That is not an unusual claim and does not equate to a U.S. victory. 25 years later, Canadian insurgents would loose the Great Rebellion of Upper and Lower Canada, but the UK would meet their demands after executing or exiling their leaders. But even if these historians did claim the U.S. won the war, you cannot draw conclusions about the national bias of historians based on your own research. You need an expert source that draws that conclusion. And it's not merely a matter of polling books written about the war, you would have to poll all the historians teaching history. You need to show that these conclusions are accepted by the national community of historians. And even if we waive the restriction against no original research, there's the problem of weight; we cannot provide space to facts that are ignored in the body of literature, in this case conclusions about the national bias of historians. TFD (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

TFD At this point, I feel like it doesn't really matter what I say - the result is likely to be the same, so I think continuing is probably wasting both our time, I'm sure we both have better things to do. Thanks very much for the discussion, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

some British historians clearly state the war of 1812 was a negative for Britain: "This was the most futile and wasteful of wars. Its only result was to embitter the relations between the two main groups of English-speaking peoples." Ramsey Muir British history (1930) p 505-- a standard British textbook from 90 years ago. Muir avoids the word "losing" but makes its negative dimension perfectly clear. Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would interpret that as him calling it a stalemate, in that it had no positive result for either side?. I agree, there are UK authors who think it was a stalemate, I have noted two above in that little summary of the numbers. (1) *Harry Cranbrooke Allen* he wrote: "Of such stuff were the causes of the War of 1812. ... Ill But whatever the objects of the struggle, they were not achieved, for it ended in a stalemate which, since such ambitions as there were had been on the American side, constituted a kind of..." and (2) *Michael Dunne* who wrote "“Innumerable pages have been written on the military and naval campaigns of the War of 1812. From them we can see that the war ended not so much in a draw as in stalemate; for the forces on either side were not equally matched but rather incomparable.” Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit break: Wording in lead

While we're discussing the infobox, we should also look at the lead. The final paragraph, which sums up the end of the war, is written entirely from the American perspective and doesn't mention the Canadian perspective at all. Calidum 18:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Calidum, Could you please change the title of this, just so it's a separate discussion to the infobox discussion vote? This para? "Peace negotiations began in August 1814, and the Treaty of Ghent was signed on December 24, 1814. News of the peace did not reach America for some time. In February 1815, news reached the East Coast concerning the great victory at New Orleans—at the same time as news of the Christmas peace treaty. The Americans triumphantly celebrated the restoration of their national honour, leading to the collapse of anti-war sentiment and the beginning of the Era of Good Feelings, a period of national unity. The treaty was unanimously ratified by the US Senate on February 17, 1815, ending the war with no boundary changes." -- I mean it is discussing the Battle of New Orleans, so there is a focus in the para about the US reaction to that... but yes, I think I agree with you, it is a bit odd that the final para only mentions the US and not Canada at all?. While the Americans were happy they won at New Orleans, I'm pretty sure the Canadians were happy they weren't made part of America! Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Trevelyan 1812 --helped Canada "Otherwise it had been fought in vain"

G. M. Trevelyan 1876-1962 was probably the most famous British historian of his day--Regius Professor of History at Cambridge U. Here's his evaluation of the war of 1812 from British History In The Nineteenth Century And After (1782-1919) (1920) p 177 online. Canada did well but Britain not so well. Happily the peace making after 1815 was very well done.

The self-defence of the two Canadas against invasion, and the historical traditions that the infant nation thus acquired, were an important result of the war. Otherwise it had been fought in vain. It solved none of the disputed questions out of which it arose. The treaty signed at Ghent on Christmas Eve, 1814, very wisely did not even attempt to decide the embittered controversies on blockade and right of search. But one of the causes of war, the belief of the Southern democrats that Canada could easily be annexed, received its quietus. On the other hand anti-British tradition had obtained a fresh lease of life in the United States, whose orators now had the theme of a second war against Britain as the second romantic period of their national history. The Tory Cabinet cannot be praised for the management of affairs that led to this breach of the peace. But Castlereagh’s dealings with the United States after the war was over were a model of pacific statesmanship, reciprocated by the Government of Washington and its representatives over here, John Quincy Adams and Rush. Before Castlereagh’s career as Foreign Secretary ended, the fortunes of Anglo-American peace had been established on the sound basis of disarmament along the Canadian border, enabling future generations to weather many fierce storms, and to settle a frontier problem that no other two Great Powers would have been able to decide without war." Rjensen (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So thanks for that Rjensen - Its always interesting seeing what the older historians views are. He seems to say the main important result of the war having been fought was that Canada was defended, otherwise the aims of the war were not achieved. But then blames the (UK?) tories for the war starting in the first place? Is that right? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

yes. Both Trevelyan and Muir say the worst result was to make lots of Americans angry at UK for future--risking the Special Relationship Rjensen (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Various American military papers would see the British as a possible enemy for decades in the following years. The feeling that America had to avoid European wars at all cost had much to do with the American late entry into the World War 1. Lasting effects indeed.Tirronan (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

BRD: nationality of commanders in infobox

Since "" will not accept either "indigenous leader" or "Shawnee" to replace the incorrect "The Canadas" flag in front of Tecumseh. To the best of my knowledge he was not a citizen of Upper Canada, and considered himself an ally of the British. On another somewhat technical point, Drummond was born in Upper Canada but served in the British Army. Does this go by birth or affiliation? He currently is labeled as The Canadas. Better suggestions? Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Creek War and Pensacola

The article for this topic says it is part of the war of 1812. Is this wholly or in part? I am wondering whether we can use the casualty numbers. Similarly, there are some casualty figures in Battle of Pensacola Elinruby (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

WP: MOSFLAG

Apparently MoS frowns on flags in Infoboxes. Removing the ones that are there would also improve the NPOV issue of treating indigenous nations differently in the layout because we don’t have flags for them.

Does anyone object to implementing this? Elinruby (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not all that keen on following the Manual of Style (or uniformity) myself, except where it performs essential functions such as those related to ambiguity, confusion, clarity, needless offence, or accessibility. If you waste a year or two (as I did, together with the long-suffering @Pmanderson:) on the Manual of Style's manifold talk pages (or try to read the whole damned thing), you'll understand why. ¶ However, I think the flags do more than decorate or clutter the infobox; they improve clarity where clarity is very much needed: which leaders in which armies or navies? which contesting powers? On the other hand some of the repetition of tiny little flags does look fussy; maybe there's a way to group several items under one flag. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

On reading the specific Wikipedia:MOSFLAG, it does make exceptions for military matters and infoboxes. But, of course, that doesn't mean we should be afraid of exercising such discretion in the most fitting way. —— Shakescene (talk)

welp, I don’t personally object to them really, but I do see an issue with only some of the combatants having flags. If the goal is to have indigenous nations on the same hierarchical level, we aren’t quite there. But I am not really pushing this change, at least not at the moment; for that matter. Do we know that the template does not include a flag or other icon for the Iroquois or the Shawnee? I don’t. I am not hearing a lot of enthusiasm, so let’s this just simmer on the back burner for a while as something I was wondering about Elinruby (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As Shakescene says, the MOS endorses the use of flags in infoboxes for military conflicts. Note that there were only two parties to the war, the UK and the U.S. We might want to consider removing the Canadas, which was not a party or even a state. Could remove their flag too since they didn't have one. TFD (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

[For context, Elinruby wrote] You are just trolling. Elinruby (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces used the template RPA to strike the above comment at 22:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hard revert, TFD was just whining about his comments being moved, yet feels entitled to say it's a personal attack when I agree that there are ownership issues on the page. If the shoe fits, dude, but that is not what I said. Your bad behaviour is escalating. It must be sad to be stuck on one topic like this, I feel for you, really. But uh no, we not be deleting random parties to this war to please you. Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is so much owned by The Four Deuces and I that we do not even make the top 10 by edits. Yet you and Deathlibrarian are fourth and eight by number of edits while I am not going all the way down to see how far away from the top 20 The Four Deuces and I are.--Davide King (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, you are ninth on authorship. The Four Deuces and I are nowhere to be found.--Davide King (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: you seem to believe that WP:OWN is about the number of edits. It is about chiding other people for not discussing, then refusing to discuss. It is about resisting any and all changes to the article. I am indeed making many edits to the article, which needs work desperately. In fact, as far as I can tell, nobody but you and I is editing the article. There are many small edits, yes, the better to revert me, and because these are copy edits done on a phone and it works better that way. Feel free to escalate if you disagree but I think the misspellings and other problems speak for themselves. Everybody has been too busy arguing about the article to actually edit it.Elinruby (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, what are you referring to when writing about me resisting any and all changes to the article? The only change I resist is removing military stalemate, Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante and defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy from the infobox; and I am not the only who support retaining those in the infobox. Also, where and when did I chid[e] other people for not discussing, then refusing to discuss? I am discussing and the reason this talk page grew so large in the first place is probably because I kept replying back and discussing in the first place, so I guess I should apologise for that. I agree that there are much bigger problems, so why not just drop the result issue in the infobox, leave it as it is and concentrate on the main body?--Davide King (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If the shoe doesn't fit then don't wear it? Can you please start a separate section if you want to talk about how you don't think you own the article? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You are the one who went off topic by falsely accusing The Four Deuces and I of "owing" the article in the first place, what was I supposed to do? As for the flags, do you think it is better as it is now?--Davide King (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS also says "Do not use flags in genocide-related lists and articles". In case you guys missed it, this is what we have here. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the flag standards, and I'm certainly no expert on Canadian flags, but according to this, the flag at the time for Canada was the union flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_flags. As a separate colony, with its own militia and Governer, they should have their own flag. All the parties in military conflicts commonly have flags (eg even small non state actors in the Syrian civil war for eg), not just actual countries.Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know the flag for Canada is correct. I put a little effort into getting the right flag for the Spain of the period, also. However, if you put "Iroquois" into the flagicon template, you get a grey box. So it may not be that simple. There might be something we could use instead, but that would take research. A lot probably, with a high risk of being wrong, and I don't want to be wrong about somebody's symbol if identity. This is far from the article's biggest problem, of course, but symbolically I am not sure what is right. Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

They flew the flag of the United Kingdom and the Governor General of British North America as Commander-in-Chief was in charge of all British and colonial soldiers. Presenting them as a separate party would be like showing Hawaii as a separate party in the Attack on Pearl Harbor. (Hawaii had its own governor, militia and flag.) TFD (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Um. Upper and Lower Canada are definitely distinct from each other and from Britain. As you keep saying, Canada was not a country at the time; this is merely shorthand. Not only that, but you have left some participants off Elinruby (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD, professor sir, put on your teaching hat then and explain to me what the proper terminology is for someone who repeatedly interrupts reasonable conversations with accusations and proposes changes that he knows have no hope of consensus? You misrepresent what happens on this page and refuse to provide any evidence for what you say about the article's content. I don't understand why you are this way about this article, but I know contentious editing when I see it. Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: based on that article you appear to be right. The other flag looked familiar but I guess that was because some of the provinces use something similar? In any case, huh, I'd like to see a better reference that Wikipedia if we are going to change it, but I guess if it was the Union Jack it was the Union Jack. Someone should tell whoever is maintaining the template. Meanwhile, here's my concern: on the list of combattants, the European nations are treated as individual entities but the indigenous ones are not. Also, now that I look, Tecumseh is listed as British, which I am sure he would hate. He was a Shawnee who was an *ally*, and I could be wrong, but I believe that even in European terms of reference he wasn't a subject of either US or Britain, wasn't his whole thing that he was trying to avoid having it taken over? Elinruby (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I know we are all really tired, but on this issue of flags: Gordon Drummond was born in Canada but served in the British Army. Just noting the issue, doing nothing about the info box pending more comment Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

BRD: I deleted the flagicon template in front of the name of Tecumseh. He was not a citizen of UC nor was he in its military. A question remains about Drummond and about whether flagicon even has the right flag for The Canadas in the first place Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

¶ I bit the bullet and took a stab at reducing the number of flag icons in the Infobox by grouping all of each country's commanders under a single flag. But there might be better solutions to the which-Canada-when? conundrum and a better substitute for my non-symbolic icons for Tecumseh's Confederacy. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

on this change, I like the idea. I did wonder where the flag came from but if in fact the Confederacy used it, then yay. Good change. Elinruby (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the exact flag for Canada matters. The red ensign with the union jack in the corner is probably less confusing that using the union flag for both the UK and Canada (even if that is technically correct)Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, @Elinruby:, although I wish it were true, those symbols are just arbitrary placeholders taken from Windows' Character Map. I did look (on Bing rather than Google) for symbols of Tecumseh and the Shawnee, but found little that seemed to fit; and anyway I wouldn't know how to convert a greatly-reduced image into a Flag Icon (or regular icon). So to fill a space roughly as wide as a flagicon, and not easily finding a wide-enough black square or blob, I first tried 1 pilcrow [¶] and then 2 before fishing for something that would work. ¶ Speaking of fitting the space, I'll probably replace the "and" in your revision of the Canadas with an ampersand [&].—— Shakescene (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I tweaked the Infobox a little more with boldface and a few added flags for each side's component of the balance of forces —— Shakescene (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I will look shortly. On the design issues, I agree that deleting Tecumseh's flag is a problem visually, but I am not sure what we can put there and I am pretty sure inventing a flag could also be an issue.

Grouping the commanders the way you did gets rid of the problem with Drummond, for a start. I like that Tecumseh is a separate entity. Not sure what to do about his flag since apparently people really want to have flags in the infobox. On the ampersand,I dislike them, but ok, it's shorter. Is there some reason you don't want to use The Canadas? There is a whole separate issue about Lower Canada that I haven't even started on here, but for purposes of your grouping title, it should be included but doesn't need specific mention. (American troops never actually entered Lower Canada, and while Canadian and British troops from Lower Canada as well as the Voltigeurs were involved in the fighting, and possibly some of the Iroquois were from Oka or another reserve in Lower Canada, all the fighting against US invaders was in Upper Canada.) Elinruby (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong objection to using "The Canadas", but I'm not sure that it would mean much to those who didn't learn Canadian history in school (cf. First Nations to non-Canadians). I think it might be wrong to imply that Charles de Salaberry came from Upper Canada, but whose troops did he command? I'm not keen to invent symbols for anyone, but is there some other way to indicate the Indians' parallel status? —— Shakescene (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: I am not pushing to replace it with the Union Jack. Accuracy would seem to require that but yes, it would be confusing. All the more reason to just not have flags, maybe. I am sure there was a long serious discussion somewhere about using that flag in flagicon. Sometimes the answer is an empty set, just saying. Meantime, I don't have strong feelings either way about that Canadian flag. It's an issue, but I don't have a better idea right now. Elinruby (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

In any case, there is no evidence that the Canadas ever used the red ensign, except like the UK for naval vessels. The flag was added by a now permanently blocked editor who claimed without sources it was the flag of the Family Compact. Note also that there was no Canadian nationality at the time and both British and colonial troops reported to the same Commander-in-Chief of British North America. It might make more sense to divide troops between regular forces and militia. TFD (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the Provincial Marine already has its complement listed in the Infobox, perhaps it would make sense to group that with the miiitia, while leaving the regular imperial Army, Royal Marines and Royal Marines in a separate regular group. On the other hand, it also makes sense to match opposing land forces with land, water with water and Marines with Marines. —— Shakescene (talk)

I was thinking about the section in the info-box that that lists military leaders. Drummond and De Salaberry are listed as Canadian leaders. Drummond was born in Canada, moved to England and became a general and returned as a colonial official. We create an artificial problem of whether he was a Canadian citizen, since Canadian nationality did not exist at the time. TFD (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think grouping is the way to go, but my mind is open on criteria. The flags seem to lead us into deep waters though; there is also some stuff about the flag of Lower Canada. On Salaberry, he commanded (based on his bio) the Voltigeurs, which "was officially part of the militia, and its enlisted personnel were subject to the Militia laws and ordinances, but for all practical purposes, it was administered on the same basis as the Fencible units, also raised in Canada as regular soldiers but liable for service in North America only," Elinruby (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I've done some work on French colonial armies but I don't remember how they handle this in the infobox. This probably also comes up in articles about British forces in Kenya, India or South Africa, though, if anyone is moved to go look at comparables.Elinruby (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Troupes de Marine has a picture of its logo but Troupes coloniales and Voltigeur have paintings. No infoboxes, and by the way the latter article deals with the type of unit, not the one in Canada specifically. If someone can think of a campaign primarily fought by colonial troops in the British Empire, that might be a better guide. TFD, yes, the artificial problem you mention is the same one that is fixed by the way Shakescene grouped the commanders; it doesn't matter where he was born because he fought for the British Army. I am not sure if we can finesse like that all the way down the infobox however.Elinruby (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Yes, @Elinruby:, Voltigeurs is just a general article focussed on the French Empire, but it also links to a specific article about the Canadian Voltigeurs with much discussion of Charles de Salaberry and service in the War of 1812. Needless to say, as with specialised articles about many other subjects, I learned a lot (never having even known of Voltigeurs before) but also became rather more confused and perplexed. That article drew me to the more general Canadian units of the War of 1812, which complicates some of our choices even more, since it distinguishes units from The Canadas with Fencibles from the Atlantic provinces — is The Canadas or else "Lower & Upper Canada" even the best term? "British North America" (i.e. what was left of it north of the Bahamas after 1783) is an accurate term but may be anachronistic. As a side question was there one Governor-General for all the provinces or was there, for example, a Governor-General of Lower Canada and other ones for Upper Canada and for Newfoundland? ¶ Sadly, neither the English nor the (rather-different) French Wikipedia article about the Canadian Voltigeurs has usable symbols or standards for the force. However it's conceivable that should we decide to break up units by province, we could use one of these outline map-icons of Lower Canada https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag-map_of_Lower_Canada.svg , https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portail:Bas-Canada#/media/Fichier:Map_of_Lower_Canada.svg —— Shakescene (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Prevost was Governor General of British North America, which included the Canadas and the Maritime provinces. But the position was essentially military - he was Commander-in-Chief over all UK and colonial forces. TFD (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The French and Indian Wars were fought primarily by colonial militia on the British side. There were also Loyalist militia who fought for the British during the American Revolutionary War. In both cases, the union jack is used. Since all these wars are part of the Sixty Years War, we should have consistency. TFD (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shakescene: check out what I found: https://blog.nmai.si.edu/main/2012/11/a-flag-of-the-fathers.html Elinruby (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Elinruby:, that's fascinating. The Blue Ensign has been used for many purposes over the centuries. The Red, White and Blue Ensigns were originally hoisted to distinguish different squadrons of the English or British navy. In plain form, today, without any other symbols, the White Ensign is used by the Royal Navy, the Red by the Merchant Navy, and the Blue for ships of the Royal Naval Reserve. But those ensigns (especially the red and the blue) have been used for many other purposes in the intervening centuries. ¶ As for Tecumseh, the commentary muddies the question even further, since it says that the British commander gave Tecumseh not only the flag, but also a Brigadier-Generalship in the British Army. Should we therefore move Tecumseh under the Union Jack? Should we do the same for his warriors? — Perplexedly yours, —— Shakescene (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Tecumseh was never informed of his appointment and never swore allegiance to the Crown, in fact did not want to. I don't see any relevance to the blue ensign in this case. TFD (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Shakescene: I don't know. But it what you say is true then this flag is not specific to Tecumseh, right? So I am really not sure. This is the first result you get when you plug "Tecumseh's flag" into Google, is what I know, and it's a pretty damn good source. But then, we don't know if he actually used it, or just accepted it as a gift, politely. I am think it may be most useful as an indication of how the British saw him. Maybe we can get somebody at the Indigenous history project interested in this question. Or just delete the flag? I got the impression that you and Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) really don't like that idea, though (?) Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

a couple of thoughts: I found this link which talks about a flag that seems to have a claim to being Tecumseh's flag, but it doesn't have a picture so I don't know if it is the same one the Smithsonian is talking about; I think not. But it's a lead. As for shrinking an image to an icon, I could conceivably do that if that is needed. I have image editing software on my laptop, and journeyman level skills. I still think omitting the flag is best. Should I start a separate discussion about that? The question about the governor-general is a bit technical. I was taught that he represents the queen but his role is largely ceremonial. In a time of war when these were separate colonies, I suspect that this may not have been true. Let's start with MOSFLAG. Can we determine what it thinks about colonial military units? Just as a starting point for discussion? It says that Oscar Wilde, who was born in Ireland when Ireland was British, should not get either an Irish or a British flag, because that would be confusing. But ok, he was a writer not a soldier, and one thing that doing articles about French regiment s has taught me is that they really really care about being allowed to fly a certain flag or wear yellow epaulettes rather than red, or whatever. Elinruby (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I was going to propose a theory that we should go by the unit and whether it was not part of the British Army. Under that theory. Drummond was regular British Army. Prevost was born in the US when it was British, btw, and Ross likewise in Ireland, so that is another good reason to go that route. But I came in here to ask about Jenkinson. Was he actually even a soldier?

Another random thought about flagicon: there may be copyright concerns about shrinking an image. Probably better to re-create it, if we can find out what it looked like.Elinruby (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Other infobox thoughts: it says "Indian allies" again in casualties. I'd make this "Allies" as I did above, but we don't report casualty figures for the Spanish. We also should probably be able to get better numbers for indigenous casualties. If anyone has good ideas and/or strong feelings about this maybe should start a separate section since we are still working on format and participants, but just saying. It's something to think about Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I made changes to the infobox. Basically: the Six Nations does have a flag, and were not part of the Confederacy so I moved them out of that list. They were important militarily. I added two commanders also. Elinruby (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Cited, but neutrality questioned anyway

"They were brave, but their tactics favored defense rather than offense. -- from Forces#Indigenous Fighters Elinruby (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

"I would need more context than that.Tirronan (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That's close to all there was, but let me see what I can do. I am questioning it because a) I am not sure it's true. I would have said untraditional warfare, personally, but the bigger issue is that it's pretty meaningless and it's a generalization about an ethnic group, which one s dangerous. He says all three forces were brave btw, which is polite but doesn't convey much real information imhoElinruby (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tirronan: the text was in this paragraph: "The Indigenous allies of the British avoided pitched battles and relied on irregular warfare, including raids and ambushes which took advantage of their knowledge of terrain. Their leaders sought to fight only under favorable conditions and would avoid any battle that promised heavy losses. Their main weapons were a mixture of muskets, rifles, bows, tomahawks, knives, swords, and clubs." Elinruby (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that is absolutely correct. They got crushed in the one battle they attempted to fright and, they went away.Tirronan (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Huh, think I disagree with you on that, but you do seem more famiar with events than I am. Which battle are you talking about. Thames I guess? The part I was questioning was "defence" -- standing in line and waiting to get shot was not their preferred tactic, but there are a lot of mentions of ambush, right?Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, got it in one. Confederation fighting methods were more modern than the line up and fight methods. Huge losses to a Nation's forces tended to end fighting for that nation over a long term.Tirronan (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Questioned text

This one remains in the article, might be needed: "However, the state militias were poorly trained, armed, and led. The failed invasion of Canadian Lake Champlain led by General Dearborn illustrates this.[73]"

We keep saying the US militias were poorly trained, but never give examples (?) Also, Lake Champlain is in Vermont, no? Probably a copy edit error, maybe even mine, but can somebody confirm? Elinruby (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Depends on if a US General wanted to train them or not. For the most part no they were poorly trained. However, the Baltimore campaign where a general said, you are either building fortifications or training showed just how fast that militia could be trained up. Winfield Scott also did this. Militia behind fortifications was always tougher.Tirronan (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So, bottom line, we say this in several places. Where is/are the best places to make this point? Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The best place would be the burning of Washington. The current Sec of War decided there wasn't any real threat and squashed any attempt to prepared for it. He didn't get to keep the job.Tirronan (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Questioned text

This one remains in the article, might be needed: "However, the state militias were poorly trained, armed, and led. The failed invasion of Canadian Lake Champlain led by General Dearborn illustrates this.[73]"

We keep saying the US militias were poorly trained, but never give examples (?) Also, Lake Champlain is in Vermont, no? Probably a copy edit error, maybe even mine, but can somebody confirm? Elinruby (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Depends on if a US General wanted to train them or not. For the most part no they were poorly trained. However, the Baltimore campaign where a general said, you are either building fortifications or training showed just how fast that militia could be trained up. Winfield Scott also did this. Militia behind fortifications was always tougher.Tirronan (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So, bottom line, we say this in several places. Where is/are the best places to make this point? Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The best place would be the burning of Washington. The current Sec of War decided there wasn't any real threat and squashed any attempt to prepared for it. He didn't get to keep the job.Tirronan (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Questioned text

This one remains in the article, might be needed: "However, the state militias were poorly trained, armed, and led. The failed invasion of Canadian Lake Champlain led by General Dearborn illustrates this.[73]"

We keep saying the US militias were poorly trained, but never give examples (?) Also, Lake Champlain is in Vermont, no? Probably a copy edit error, maybe even mine, but can somebody confirm? Elinruby (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Depends on if a US General wanted to train them or not. For the most part no they were poorly trained. However, the Baltimore campaign where a general said, you are either building fortifications or training showed just how fast that militia could be trained up. Winfield Scott also did this. Militia behind fortifications was always tougher.Tirronan (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So, bottom line, we say this in several places. Where is/are the best places to make this point? Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The best place would be the burning of Washington. The current Sec of War decided there wasn't any real threat and squashed any attempt to prepared for it. He didn't get to keep the job.Tirronan (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Check for neutrality

"The British Royal Navy was a well-led, professional force, considered the world's most powerful navy." --- from Forces#British Elinruby (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC) It was the most powerful navy in the world at the time. Still, has to be counter-balanced, to some degree.Tirronan (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I am under the impression that this is objectively true. But it's adjectives. But I didn't want to delete it because this might in fact be information Elinruby (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, so it was THE naval power in the world. But, to be absolutely honest? It wasn't the best anymore. A lot of those single ship battles were lost because of shitty shooting. It is dressed up in the article due to opposition. The ships were just large enough to do the job counting on numbers to make up the difference. Too many landsmen not properly trained. All the stuff that you expect to see when a service, any service by any country btw, is stretched beyond what it can reasonably staff. So you will see complaints that American ships were larger, better manned, etc. All true, but they often, but not always, were better trained as well. Shannon vs. Cheaspieak being an example where the American captain got stupid. One of the hallmarks of this war naval was was that the better-trained ship almost always won. We have cases were squadrons chased down single ships where numbers mattered more.Tirronan (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

More to the point, numbers won the Atlantic theater, not that the Royal Navy was better ship to ship, in this case the opposite could be argued.Tirronan (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

So as far as you are concerned this is beside the point? And yeah, it often does sound like excuses. But you say better-trained matters? Because I think there was one of those too. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Nationality aside, and you are talking to a US Navy guy, There are lots of battles where American and British ships squared off against each other one on one. Often the American ship was better trained at least in gunnery. So there are many examples where the RN ship's rate of fire was spectacular, while the aiming of said naval gun was frankly horrible. Teddy Rosevelt's book is pretty brutal to both sides on this issue. He noted examples where high moral was supposed to allow a ship to overcome a lack of training, it almost never did. So to be fair, HMS Shannon handed USS Chesapeake a loss, albeit in the most bloody 10 minutes in age of sail. The normal course of events was usually the reverse.

Now let us talk about the effects on the course of the Atlantic war. Up to the point that they started facing USN warships, the RN could count on winning just by showing up. The French Navy for the most part wasn't up to the previous standard. So, if the RN has ships that were not quite as big, or didn't outnumber the other side. Frankly, it didn't matter, they sailed in and won anyway. You see that in their deployments. Ugly shock, the USN came from the same traditions, and they didn't have to man a hugely expanded navy. The British public did not receive the losses well. A lot of ugly questions were being asked. So a USN heavy frigate might be more than a match for a 38 gun frigate, but it wasn't to 4 of them. A change to deployments of the fleet and the number of ships assigned was the answer. Also, there was no reason an RN ship couldn't be trained to the same standard. The sharply worded letter to British captains "in early 18th prose" spoke to that. In 21st century American dialect, it would read as such. We don't give a damn about how nice your decks are or how fucking bright your brass is. We are getting our asses handed to us because you are not training your crews to an accurate gunnery standard. Fix this now! To that extent, the single ship battles did matter, mostly to the long term detriment of the USN.Tirronan (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok that helps thanks. Elinruby (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I know Tirronan obviously knows his stuff, but I just want to add, its my understanding that in terms of size and being able to exert power, not only was the British Navy the most powerful at this time, but it was the most powerful for the next 100 years at least as well. I think, up until ww2? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The real shift didn't happen until 1943, from that point on the USN was and still is the largest navy. Nothing in my comments should be misconstrued as to which navy was larger or more powerful in 1812. Despite being stretched beyond what it could reasonably sustain in crewing, the RN solved the problem simply by shifting resources. Ship for ship, the USN was probably superior, that doesn't mean much when the other side has you by seven or eight to one. It did present problems that were shown during the war. It was pretty obvious that training of the crews wasn't what it should have been. Some of their captains were making decisions that had the Admiralty shaking their heads in dismay prior to the war. When you have to man 600 ships, quality has to decline no matter who you are. Still looking back the RN made the right call.Tirronan (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Should any threads be retrieved from /Archive 23 ?

From my own talk page:

War of 1812 Talkpage

I agree that the talk page was becoming excessively long, but in this edit [4] you archived multiple discussions that were last active less than a week ago, including an active RFC. This kind of indiscriminate archiving is far more disruptive than an overly-long talk page. Please undo your edit. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: @Elinruby: @Davide King: @Deathlibrarian: @Rjensen: Hi, RRC, all of those interminable discussions are not lost but can be found in Talk:War of 1812/Archive 23. I wouldn't be the best person to retrieve the discussions that might in fact still be live to someone (the RFC dates back to the end of June and already has the barely-digestible equivalent of 12 typewritten pages or 14-15 successive screens on my desktop).

However, if you want to retrieve the topics that you think should still stay open, you could easily cut (or just copy them) from /Archive 23 after opening its Edit tab and paste them back either at the bottom of the Talk Page, or into a newly-created page like those for Who won? and Mobile.

In theory this is what User:Miszabot should be doing, but it's currently set to leave open any discussions which have attracted a comment within the last month, so I could easily see (given editors' and intervenors' past behaviour) some ever-longer threads, if left alone, filling up the current Talk Page for years and years to come. With all best wishes for the week. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If the bot archives after 4 weeks then the solution is to reduce that period. It also does not help that one editor has started dozens of discussions threads in the past month, most of which have attracted no response. At this point I don't think it matters what we do because the wall of text is a discouragement to most editors, particularly those new to the discussions. TFD (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Within the limits of my own technical comprehension, the successor to Miszabot, User:Lowercase sigmabot III, seems only to offer a version that forces a 30-day trigger or else one that allows user-setting of triggers but can only be used once until it hits about half the size of Archive 23. I wouldn't be utterly dumbfounded to learn that there is some way to reduce the trigger to one or two weeks, but someone else would probably need to implement it. See the bewildering details at User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III/Archive_HowTo. Any takers? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Try asking at Wikipedia:Help desk. There's information too at Help:Archiving a talk page. TFD (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the people who have issues with the way the talk page was archived should be the ones to figure out how to fix it to their own satisfaction. Shakescene (talk · contribs) is not here to do your bidding. Elinruby (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm.. yes, there were some active threads going there that have been archived - damn - I wanted to get third party input into one of the threads - the infobox neutrality issue there has been a lot of debate over. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

¶ [Edit conflict] If truth be told, I was at first hesitant to do the archiving when urged to do so by a couple of more impatient editors, for reasons parallel to Red Rock's — I didn't want to bury live threads although I didn't know how to begin. But at some point I bit the bullet, forewent all the tedious, frustrating toil that a more-careful archiving would have demanded, and just archived everything before WP:MOSFLAG, which I knew to be still alive. What I left on this page at the time, although a substantial 41 kB or so, was one-tenth of what went into /Archive 23 (419 kB).

Much of the archived material is variants on the decade-old wrangle over Who Won?, questioning (rightly or wrongly) a fairly stable consensus that there was no immediate winner and no immediate loser except the nations who first populated North America. Although there's much more sourcing, all those questions should be really wrenched out of Archive 23 (and earlier archives) and pasted into /Who Won? (which begins in March 2008).

@The Four Deuces: I did consult Help:Archiving a talk page and went for the simplest alternative, creating a new page and then filling it with threads cut away from the then-current Talk Page. But the rest of that help page is pretty bewildering (probably written, amended and corrected by many hands over time), so I'll leave it to you, as the original proposer, or someone else here to determine and choose among the possible ways to adjust our automatic archiving.

[after Edit Conflicts] @Deathlibrarian: I have a feeling that when you talk about the infobox issue, you're referring to the lingering RfC mentioned by User:Red Rock Canyon. As I noted above, this by itself already takes up the equivalent of 12 printed pages or requires someone reading it on a desktop to hit "Page Down" about 15 times (heaven knows how many times on a hand-held). Besides it's really a variant of a position you've been unsuccessfully litigating for a dozen years since 2008. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

there are several infobox neutrality questions, but I guess you mean the one about the outcome? Maybe you could start another section and link to the archive? Just a thought.Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry —— Shakescene the page was getting huge and did need to get archived, I didn't mean to come off attacking you about that, it was massive. In terms of the Infobox issue, there was a discussion on here about changing (discussion we had was here - Archive 20) it to include both points of view, we came to an agreement that everyone (including me) was happy with...then unfortunately, it was changed back without consensus. Then we had another discussion here more recently, which people voted on... and then THAT was changed without consensus. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby Yep good suggestion, I'll start the discussion again, and link to the outcome. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if I was in any of that; I know I commented a few times, but just to restate: I actually think you are essentially correct, but given all the shouting, for the moment I am going to concentrate on the body. This may in fact lead to changes in the infobox at some point, so I think this fixation that everyone has on the outcome is not a good use of time, but I just worked on an article about a village on Indonesia, so who am I to say how people should spend their wikitime? You go. Good on you, mate. I also think it's kinda wrong, and fresh eyes would certainly help Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers mate, you are doing some great work on here. I agree, I see myself concentrating on the outcome perhaps too much, and I'm actually trying to broaden out what I do here, as I have some good resources here (and I have university level access to databases and inter library loans). I would at least like to get a third party opinion on it, I do believe its an NPOV issue, but we shall see. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

An alternative is to collapse the dozens discussion threads that have been created in the last few weeks. Maybe the editors who created these threads could do this. TFD (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Afaik it is accepted practice to offer to discuss a change that someone may object to. Elinruby (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My main concern, and the reason I brought this up with Shakescene was the RFC. In general, active RFCs shouldn't be archived. I think there were problems with that RFC: the question was both too vague and too specific. Different people who requested the same outcome in their comments marked their answers with both "yes" and "no", which I think indicates the magnitude of the issues with the way the question was framed. Because of those issues, and because I think the current text which has existed on the article for years is fine, I don't really care if the RFC is formally closed. But a dozen editors commented, some as recently as July 9th, and it was only a couple weeks old, so I think archiving it was inappropriate. Maybe we should move it to Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?, since apparently that question still has the potential to become a godawful mess and should be cordoned off somewhere it won't interfere with the rest of the talk page. Though honestly, I've gotten kind of sick of this issue, and it seems like everyone else has as well, so maybe I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. My apologies Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Informal Request for Comment: how do you want to reconfigure automatic archiving?

@Shakescene:, regarding your comment about Lowercase sigmabot, the how-to page seems quite clear, so I don't see where the confusion lies. It is fully configurable, up to many millions of bytes, and to any configurable lag time you wish. If you can explain your confusion, or alternatively, just tell me how often you want threads archived, and what the max size archive page you want is, I'll configure it for you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mathglot: User:Lowercase sigmabot III looks like one of those things that seem easy and straightforward once you've done them, but bewildering beforehand. I'm thrown by terms like "parameter" that could mean any number of things — but in fact means something quite specific — so I'd gladly accept your offer to set up archiving. As for frequency, size, dates, etc., it's probably best to ask the other users here with a (gasp!) Request for Comment, which I'm doing below. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

request for comment

User: Mathglot has very kindly offered to readjust the archiving robot's timing and sizing, but asks for guidance about "frequency, size, dates, etc." Can we reach a reasonable consensus in a reasonable length of time and space about such choices? I have a feeling that some here will want fast file & forget, while others will want to sacrifice brevity and compactness to maintain some kind of continuity with a thread's beginning (and not restart some arguments afresh over and over). If someone can reduce all that to a few specific questions, I'd be grateful. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot (talk · contribs) tends to know what he is talking about. I am not going to formally vote, since I really am trying not to get too deeply embroiled in this talk page, but here is my question... Is it possible to archive sections individually? For instance "Creek redirects to Muscogee" is intended to advise other users of a change I made that may not be exactly according to policy. Nobody seems to be objecting and as far as I am concerned at least, we are done. MOSFLAG on the other hand hasn't reached consensus either way, and looks like it may not. Nobody is having a meltdown over it but it is still an open issue, yet if the criteria is age, it will get archived first. That said, I am willing to live with whatever choice. And Shakescene (talk · contribs), a parameter is just information you send a script, for example the one that puts a link around your name in this sentence. In this example the parameter is your name. HTH Elinruby (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Elinruby: you can definitely archive discussions individually. I have always just done this manually, but I've been aware of One-click archiver for a long time; and I'm going to install it for myself now and check it out; it sounds like it makes it much easier. I'll let you know how I like it, but I know tons of people use it, and I never heard any complaints.

By the way, regarding automatic archiving: even if you set up the bot to archive, say, after 45 days of inactivity, you can always extend that on any individual discussion, by adding {{DNAU}} somewhere in the section.

Finally, just fyi (and this is not a big deal, so no apology needed): not "Mathglot tends to know what he is talking about," but rather, "...what "they are talking about". Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The time period for archiving depends on the amount of discussions one expects to see in the future. Talk:Donald Trump archives every 7 days, since he is perhaps the top newsmaker in the world and highly controversial. But this page has seen dozens of discussions threads set up in the past four weeks or so, which is probably more than the Trump article. The question is whether that will continue. Do any editors intend to set up numerous discussion threads in the near future? If so, then 7 days seems right. If not, then the current time interval that has worked in the past should be fine. TFD (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support TFD in that there just happens to be a lot of threads set up recently. I've been posting a bit on here recently, as have others.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

thanks. I tend to default to he on the grounds of WP demographics, but I probably shouldn’t. So noted. And actually, some set time after the last response might be a good default. Elinruby (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Creek redirects to Muscogee

Which to me that indicates that Muscogee is the preferred term. However, we have Creek War, which is not redirected; I think, to reduce confusion, we should standardize on the appellation "Creek" (?) If nobody objects, I will change references in the body of the text from Muscogee to Creek, and remove Muscogee from the list of combatants in the infobox. Elinruby (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple. I wouldn't use the presence (or absence) of a redirect as evidence of anything. Anybody can create a redirect, no discussion or consensus needed. A more detailed analysis should be done, before deciding which term, if any, is preferred. A first stop might be Google ngrams. You have to be careful in what you're comparing, because just comparing "Muscogee" and "Creek" won't give useful information, because the most popular bigram with "Muscogee" is "Muscogee County" (a county in Georgia), and "Creek" is used in hundreds of place names (or songs!) which throws off the numbers. Using bigrams in the search terms can eliminate some of the false positives, for example, adding "Indians" to the search would get rid of all the counties, songs, towns, etc.; that gives a very different picture: "Muscogee Indians" vs. "Creek Indians". But maybe one of those groups prefers not to use the term "Indians", so maybe we should compare "Muscogee Nation" vs. "Creek Nation" instead. And what about the alternate spelling, "Muskogee"? And what if the terms are not quite equivalents, but one is more a grouping of nations including the other, like the Mohawks being part of the Iroquois? Bt what if, the distinction was observed in the past, but more recently, the divergence in frequency of use has almost disappeared, what does that tell us? Do we give greater weight to the last two decades, or to what seems to be a clear trend in published books?

My point here, is not to try to answer this question, but to point out that there are subtleties of search and analysis involved. Redirects shouldn't be considered. Google ngrams data are a good place to start (they are limited to what is found in Google books, so are likely to be more reliable sources, and web results are excluded), but requires care to generate meaningful data, which then needs to be analyzed carefully. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Forgot ping. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It does, but the problem I am trying to solve here is very specific. In the narrative account of this war, there is mention of Muscogee warriors accompanying Andrew Jackson in some of the battles of the Creek War. So should the Muscogee be listed separately as combatants? I am under the impression that "Muscogee" is a family of related peoples like the Huron or the Iroquois, but I haven't actually studied any of these groups since middle school, so I could be completely wrong about that. But I am determined to by gosh get the list of combatants right, so I am considering all input. There are however some big pitfalls, see the threads about flags. Your input is definitely going to be useful for some of that. Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

We should use the terminology in reliable sources about the War of 1812 and avoid these problems. Over the centuries, Native American tribes have merged and split, moved or been removed, and changed names. It may require a lot of research to identify all the Creek allies, where they came from and what the successor nations of their original nations are called today. It's a bit like rewriting replacing the names of ancient tribes in Roman wars with what they would be called today. TFD (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that accuracy is good and if we are going to include the Creek War as part of the War of 1812 then we should get the facts right. We aren't there. And no, this isn't somehow unknowable; there are detailed accounts of all this in other Wikipedia articles. And the question isnt what's the name of some ally, it is aren't the Creek a subset of the Muscogee and are these Muscogee who were with Andrew Jackson upstream or downstream. I mean, it's a war. The names of the participants is discernable. Elinruby (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The Creek were one of the five "Five Civilized Tribes." They were part of the Muscogee speaking people, but they were also called Miscogee and they have a political district called the Muscogee.[5] Part of the problem is if we look at them from a European perspective, we expect that there are clear cut definitions, which may not be the case. For readers who are interested in this information, I suggest we use the name provided in reliable sources with a hyperlink for readers who are interested in this information. TFD (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

that is not a reliable source. And where is "the Muscogee", please? I believe you are correct about the Five Civilized Tribes, but that doesn't answer my question. Elinruby (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So, getting back to flags, I am finding three flags for the Muskogee, none of which fit the facts as far as I can tell. There is one for the Jefferson Davis army. There is one for the State of Muskogee, which is probably what TFD was trying to remember above, and one for the modern tribal government, which, as far as we can trust Wikipedia, is in fact the same group as the ones in this war, AND btw this group includes the Creek and also the Shawnee. This is from the lead section of Muskogee Elinruby (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

However, it's the current flag. The other two stopped being used in 1803. Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — minor correction, the State of Muskogee flag was not used after 1803. The Confederate flag of course was used in the Confederate Army in the Civil War. Elinruby (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mingo/Mascouten: no evidence of participation

I have removed the Mingo from the list of combatants. The entry is uncited and I am unable to find supporting evidence. Will also remove Mascouten unless I find evidence on this one last try I am about to make. Either or both of these entries can return to this list if accompanied by RS Elinruby (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Article has collected a flag for this. Since I have been adding wikilinks, it's probably something I did. But the tool that makes it easy to solve these hangs forever on Android, or at least this Android. If someone is moved to fix this, fine, otherwise my primary point is that I will break out the laptop in a day or so, so not to worry, this is a known issue and I will fix it if someone else doesn't break out Dabsolver first Elinruby (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a laptop which I use as if it were a desktop and a wi-fi connection (via Dish) that is unfortunately not reliable 100% of the time. If you can give me details of and a link to this tool for redirecting wikilinks, I might take a stab. Have a good weekend (only 4 more days until Bastiille Day) —— Shakescene (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It is called Dabsolver . It highlights links to disambiguation pages and lets you select the correct link. It may be down; I just got a server stopped responding message on iOS as well. But. The link should be something like https://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Charles_Henry_Juliá_Barreras, though Barreras is irrelevant, just the page I was trying to disambiguate. Otherwise it would mean clicking through all the links. You might try Charleston and Grand River; I got notifications about those, but I think I fixed them. If not, perhaps somebody else? Anyway. The tool is a satisfying pastime for when you want to be productive on Wikipedia without too much effort. But I will be breaking the laptop out today one way or the other, so don’t sweat this unless you want to. If you do then by all means. As I recall it may live at wikimedia. Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

that tool appears to be disabled at the moment, if anyone was following this. I guess that means clicking through all the links Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

somebody helpfully listed them at the top of the page. Thank you, whoever that was. Elinruby (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Captions

Is it ok to un-center the photo captions in the info box? Also, for some reason the bullet is appearing after the caption, not before Elinruby (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you from mobile? Because from desktop it looks fine.--Davide King (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Ok, I will look at it on a laptop before I try to tackle this Elinruby (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Casus belli and territorial changes

Is there some consensus or agreement about what the causus belli was and what territorial changes were? Would status quo ante bellum for Britain and United States; and loss of territories (state which ones) for the indigenous nations and Spain suffice?--Davide King (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about "suffice"...and the wording would take some discussion. But I (personally) would consider some such proposal as a step in the right direction. Elinruby (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say there is general consensus among historians that the only permanent changes of territory as a result of the war were the Spanish possessions that the US got (Mobile and some other nearby areas). There is dispute over *exactly* what started the war, though I think historians would agree on somethings. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually they bought the Florida possessions about three years later. And there's a boatload of tribes that lost territory. Everyone keeps saying that nobody lost any territory, but that is an un-fact. Elinruby (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, they are helpful. However, I am not sure Everyone keeps saying that nobody lost any territory [...]. If you are referring about the use of status quo ante bellum in the infobox, it is not in territorial changes and it merely summarises the results of the Treat of Ghent which established a status quo ante bellum (for Britain and the United States). Hence why my proposal to add something at Territorial changes to clarify that the status quo ante bellum in Results is referring to Britain and United States and not to the indigenous nations and others that did lost territories.--Davide King (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would Results only include Britain and the United States? Elinruby (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And, just to clarify, you’re still talking about the info box, right? Elinruby (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I did not mean Results would only include Britain and the United States; I was referring only to status quo ante bellum (which is one of the things which appear in Results) per the Treaty of Ghent which is referring only to Britain and the United States (because it was the United Kingdom and the United States who did sign the Treaty of Ghent); I think Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy makes it clear it was not status quo ante bellum for the indigenous nations which did lose but this should be reflected in Territorial changes too. And yes, this is only about the infobox because we have a Casus belli and Territorial changes parameter and I wonder if there is some consensus around that.--Davide King (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

With wording changes maybe Elinruby (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

So what do you propose? I believe we should reflect the loss of the indigenous nations in Territorial changes too.--Davide King (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I told you before, there is no point in debating this. The infobox really does not reflect the article, the article is changing rapidly. And I really want a reference on it no matter what. Elinruby (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Here we are talking about territorial changes; these are facts. Since I believe you are more knowledgeable than me on this, I am asking you to write about the losses of indigenous nations' territories; which territories did they exactly loss and how many? Same for Spain; I believe it lost something to the United States, was it the Louisiana or Florida? Or was it something else?--Davide King (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert in this period but I believe the following is correct: Spain shortly afterwards sold its Florida holdings to the US. I believe the colony was called West Florida. Depending on how you measure, the indigenous nations lost most of what is now Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana, ie what was then the Northwest Territory... but that is off the top of my non-expert head.Elinruby (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

there was was probably also displacement in Georgia and Alabama, and I know there was in New York. Actually, there's a definite fact for you: the Mohawk in New York were displaced. The ones in Upper and Lower Canada were not. I believe the Seneca were also displaced from New York, but I think that was prior to this war and they were again displaced after this war, into Oklahoma. That is what happened to most of the indigenous nations, but there will be different dates and treaties related to this. Elinruby (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! One last question about that repelled invasions; was it Britain repelling the invasion in Lower/Upper Cannada and the United States repelling the one in Louisiana?--Davide King (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Northwest Territories were lost to the Nations, though as per the 1783 Paris treaty, Britain ceded those territories. So if the war were looked at strictly from the American/British view, Status Quo Antebellum. Tirronan (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Not quite--the British largely ignored the treaty of 1783 re Northwest Territories and supplied arms and safe harbor to Indians there. That ended in 1814. It had been a major cause of the war of 1812 and was a major result for US for the Indians. Rjensen (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• I removed the loss of Spanish territories from the infobox. Just because the loss of the territories began during the war does not mean it was part of the war itself. Calidum 20:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the Creek War was a separate war that continued after the treaty. Which only affected some of the nations in this war. It is, to me, a matter of how broadly you interpret consequence and what time frame. The sale of Pensacola/West Florida as I recall was very soon after the end of this war, which probably helped convince the Spanish that it was more trouble than it was worth. So yes that is a consequence if we include the Creek war. The other fighting and treaties in the west are a bit of a blur but, it seems to me, extend over ten or fifteen years. Yet there is no question that this was the tipping point, where it became clear that Indigenous nations were not going to prevent the colonization of North America. It's complicated, but if you go through the links in the list of combatants and the List of Indigenous flags of North America (or whatever the category is at Wikimedia) you will see that almost all of them were displaced to Oklahoma, some from territory to which they had already been displaced once. By the way, feel free to fact-check the flags. They need it. I think we should delete the entire infobox personally.Elinruby (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: we are as it happens discussing related stuff right now. I think the sale was related to this war, but yanno, I am just answering questions here. When I got here Spain was listed as a participant but had no commander or casualty figures. I would be ok with deleting it altogether though, especially if we spin off Creek War. I also say we should delete the entire infobox. But. If we must have an infobox and we must include Creek War and we list Spain as a participant then somewhere in there we need to know HOW. For the record, Spanish casualties were very light, but there are some discrepancies in the numbers. Elinruby (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: on your question of fact, no you are thinking of the Louisiana Purchase, which is similar but afaik unrelated. The argument for repelled goes like this "US invades Upper Canada, burns capital, gets kicked out" is pretty similar to "Canada invades US, burns capital, gets chased out." I just think it's silly to discuss it because the whole infobox needs to be killed with a flame-thrower. But ok. That is where "repelled" came from. Doesn't explain the Creek War. Also omits Lower Canada, but that's ok, for an infobox ....there was only one battle there. The Canadian Voltigeurs should have a men Elinruby (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I knew about that, but I remember seeing Louisiana being mentioned and so I thought it was that or Florida. I believe the Creek War should be included because it was part of it and so this Spanish loss should be reflected in the infobox. As for the invasions, I do remember the discussion now, but I think it was Rjensen or maybe Tirronan who wrote about a decisive American win, I guess it was the battle of New Orleans and so I thought the Lousiana's invasion was also repelled in that sense. Here, Ironic Luck, whom I invite to reply back, wrote that [t]he same defensive argument proclaiming that British territories (Upper/Lower Canada) won the War of 1812 could be flipped with the American state of Louisiana. Louisiana was not considered American territory by the British (as it was sold to the United States by Napoleonic France in the Louisiana Purchase) and probably would have been returned to allied-Spain if their invasion was successful.--Davide King (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The British actually financed the US purchase of Louisiana in 1803 (provided the gold for Napoleon in return for US government bonds) and it's imaginary to suggest London did not recognize it. Rjensen (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello RJensen,

Ronald Drez and Ron Chapman discuss (in their books) how the British army viewed Louisiana as a separate entity from the United States as they tried to divide the public. I have in Archive 23 the quotation from Chapman available (in my first post) in case you would like to read that, but I’ll continue with Ronald Drez and I’ll leave this here:

Ronald Drez writes (pgs.203-204),

“On October 8, in a seemingly deviation from their negotiation talking points, the British minister brought up yet another subject. Having contended that land aggrandizement had always been America’s object of the war – vigorously denied by the Americans – they suddenly called into the question the legality of the Louisiana Purchase, and that it had been done without the consent of the Spanish king, and that the Spanish foreign minister had actually protested against the cession. “Can it be contended,” the British ministers asked, “that the annexation of Louisiana, under such circumstances, did not mark a spirit of territorial aggrandizement?”

It was an odd question, since the British had wholeheartedly approved of that transaction when it occurred because it took possession of the land out of the hands of Napoleon. The ministers now sought to mitigate that approval and conveyed the idea that they had been duped in the whole affair. “But the conditions under which France had acquired Louisiana from Spain were not communicated,” the letter said. “The refusal of Spain to consent to its alienation was not known; the protest of her ambassador had not been made; and many other circumstances attending the transaction were, as there is good reason to believe, industriously concealed.

The rest of this very long October 8 letter contained the usual demands concerns Indian affairs and boundary changes. After this one meeting, the Louisiana Purchase subject was curiously dropped and never came up again.

So what was the purpose of this extraneous presentation in the formal discussions at Ghent? In their constant demand for adjusting boundaries relative to fishing rights, and regarding forts along the Great Lakes, and request for land cessions in the northeast, they never asked for any boundary adjustment for the Louisiana Territory. The great invasion to seize New Orleans was under way, and the British had now placed themselves on record in an official document as having contested the legality of the Louisiana Purchase. After they seized New Orleans, they would have a better legal standing because they had publically stated that they were only acting to protect the interests of Spain – the rightful owner!

On October 21, the British commissioners introduced yet another wrinkle to the discussions and proposed an end to hostilities. They introduced the idea of uti possidetis as the basis for settling differences. That is, each side would keep whatever land it had seized from the other.”

I don’t know if I can type all of this without violating copyright (or if I have now and you may delete if deemed necessary) but Ronald Drez later discussed in the book that the islands off Passamaquoddy Bay (pg.307-309) and how each of the British demands was discarded (i.e. the indigenous buffer state, renegotiate the Mississippi River, etc.) and the islands were the only tipping point for the British negotiators to end negotiations. The American negotiators agreed to the inclusion of the words possessions in Article 1 of the proposed treaty for the (considered insignificant) islands of the Passamaquoddy Bay. This was a loophole as the desired territory was (as he put it on pg.307),

“New Orleans itself, and the Mississippi River.”

The point that Ronald Drez makes in his book (my paraphrasing now) is that the British negotiators were arguing in bad faith with the American negotiators. I am not trying to be rude here, but can you explain to me (or provide me a source) on how the British Empire was planning to give back stolen land to the United States upon their successful invasion?

Ironic Luck (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

TFD has raised a question about a source at the reliable sources noticeboard. Elinruby (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Territorial Changes

1. The Louisiana Purchase was not from Spain, was it? And was it connected to this war? 2. Given this is an infobox, we probably don't need to list every complicated territory loss, just convey magnitude or "Many Indigenous nations were displaced from their territory, maybe". If you do do a list, it should be complete, and the one in the note omits New York and everything in the south. Elinruby (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I took out the Louisiana Purchase because that was in 1803. I am very willing to believe that these events are related but I have never heard that and the article doesn't mention it at all Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would prefer that the note go away because it's a whole thing of determining who last territory and how much, and somebody will inevitably be omitted, and it sort of trivializes something like that try to itemize it Elinruby (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Deep dive into flags

I have added some flags to the combatants section. This comes with major caveats, and I am still not sure this is the way to go. Let’s start with the Shawnee, as an example of some of the problems with this. Apparently they were relocated to Oklahoma from where they were in this conflict. There are three modern Shawnee flags. The key word here is “modern”. I am not sure this can be done at all without introducing anachronisms. The Sauk and the Fox seem to have become the Sac and Fox, at some point since this conflict. This is the flag I used, but I am not sure whether it is based on something these warriors would have carried. The Anishnaabe flag does seem to be based on an indigenous emblem, so I am ok with that. The Mascouten were pretty much exterminated as far as I can tell and those that remain have joined the Kickapoo. I will put a little more effort into this since I find joy in obscure topics, but there are big pitfalls all over this design choice, without even getting into the issue of the Canadian flag. I am still in favor of eliminating all flags. I urge the people who oppose this to help with the flag effort if they really feel we must have them. My knowledge of Plains and Oklahoma tribes is limited; the little I know I mostly know about the Pueblo and the Navajo. Elinruby (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know where the list of members of the Confederacy came from? I was skimming at the time but I think I read that the Mascouten were wiped out *before* 1812 Elinruby (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, there were several Cherokee flags; I went with the one described as “the original”. Elinruby (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby You mentioned here you are still in favor of eliminating all flags. I can see it is damn tricky trying to get the right ones for the time period, in particular for the native allies. The French and Indian War article deals with this problem by having the flags for the main countries/colonies involved, which it is easy to confirm the correct flag for, but leaves the native allies without flags. I know you've already done some research, but could we do that? I can see you are doing lots of work here, this would make it easier for you. As for the Canadian flag, I'm not Canadian, so its not my call - may be its just better to go with the red ensign as that's what the other articles are using, and it differentiates it from the UK by not using the Union Flag? I think researching all the correct flags for native allies is a huge job!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Its a very elementary school book, but according to this, pre 1867, it would appear the union flag was used in Canada. I personally don't mind if people want to use the red ensign, which may have seen some use on land, but perhaps more use at sea. (Ann-Maureen Owens "Our Flag: The Story of Canada's Maple Leaf" p10-12 2014) Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

For fifty years, I owned a small book called "The Story of Canada's Flag" by George Stanley (who claimed credit for designing the current red-and-white Maple Leaf Flag of 1965), but after my last move, I have it no longer. However, there is (surprise !), a pertinent Wikipedia article, Flag of Canada#Early flags, which indicates that before Confederation in 1867, Canada had no flag of her own. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to match with what I have read, in the book above, and elsewhere. Us colonials are fond of the union Jack, it seems! Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I still remember from my Anglo-American schooldays a comic strip from the old Eagle where the (white) heroes track down and defeat an anti-colonialist pirate radio station run by a (Negro) scoundrel blasting such verse as "Take back the Union Jack !/Give the Governor the sack !/Freedom for the birds and bees,/And also for the West Indies !" —— Shakescene (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Lol, that is a bit bizarre, probably a comment on the times I guess? I think the best thing I got out of British comics was (1)Judge Dredd (2) Tank Girl (3) Viz. First time I saw Viz I was reading it while stopped at the traffic lights and almost crashed the car. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not particularly fussed about the Canadian flag. I guess I am the Canadian sounding board here but I am not very typical and have been an expat most of my life. But I believe in accuracy. So. In 1812, Upper and Lower Canada were British colonies. It strikes me as likely that their flag was the Union Jack. It (or they — possibly the individual colonies should be listed separately...) should definitely be listed under Britain in the list of combatants. It would be confusing perhaps to use the Union Jack. But it’s not accurate to use another flag(?) unless something attests to its use. To me this is an argument against using flags, as the articles about French colonial regiments tend not to use flags or even infoboxes. But this is only one issue and not even one I consider all that important. As I have mentioned before, I have other fish to fry on Wikipedia alone. For now, if that is what “the other articles” do, then perhaps we should be consistent. But what bothers me most about this article is its lack of balance, and it seems to me that if we are going to list combatants, we should list all the combatants, and if we are are going to give the combatants flags, even if inaccurate, then we should give all the combatants flags, even if inaccurate. It’s more troubling to me that I can’t find a cite that says the Mascouten were members of the Confederacy. As for the work, it’s mostly done and was mostly digging in Wikimedia Commons. And you’re talking to someone who once translated an article about a color people were arguing about in the 18th century, and referenced the trial of a dead pope. The issue is not the work. The issue is accuracy. For what it is worth, I found an article about Tecumseh by the Smithsonian’s Museum of Native Americans, or whatever they named it, and it seems to quote one band of Shawnee in particular, so perhaps we should use that flag. But it also says that according to Shawnee belief, since his body was found, his name should not be spoken, and I am not suggesting we go there. But I would like a discussion of balance, which this article still seems to lack. This is going to require work with sources though, which some of you have already done, so let’s discuss. Moxy (talk · contribs) posted a lovely little gem of a website, which I was already examining; I strongly suggest you take a look, as it does a nice job of summarizing the war’s importance for the various groups. We are using this as a reference now, but wrongly, as it references a statement that the British were supplying the tribes with weapons, and it doesn’t say that; it says that the Americans believed that. Possibly they were, and why not? But it is not in the reference cited, and accuracy matters. This makes me wonder about all the other references. Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

on examination, the flag for that band of Shawnee was designed by a descendant of Tecumseh, so is presumably the same bunch that followed him into battle, or a subset thereof. I added it. Of the names that remain, the article for one questions whether it actually exists, and another or possibly the same tribe is apparently named something that translates from Iroquois as “dicks”, so more shades of grey there. I am going to add the Miami flag, since I found one, and the people who are now in Oklahoma are presumably related to the ones who were chased out of Ohio. Still not happy tho. Elinruby (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems the Seneca are one of the Six Nations (?) so if that is right do we put that flag on both sides I guess? Also the Muskogee may or may not have been Creek. Currently confused, taking a break from flags Elinruby (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

In relation to Moxy (talk · contribs)'s exhibition post, Oh yeah, as time has gone by, I have realised that perhaps the truth about "who won the war" just comes down to how people from different sides see it, and there is no right or wrong - there's only truth from your perspective. That's what I'm trying to do here, make sure that both "the truths" are represented here, not just one side, or having one side relegated to "fringe theory". Same with the Korean war, its not cut and dried. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The realization that the question is viewed differently by nationals of different countries, is good for one's empathic understanding of other countries or cultures, but isn't really necessary here, and could lead to a wrong course of action. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to try and provide "equal time" or "make sure that both 'the truths' are represented here"; see WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Our job as Wikipedia editors, is simply stated: we summarize the majority and minority positions of reliable, independent, secondary sources on the topic, in proportion to their presence in the published record in English. We ignore opinions that are represented by only a tiny minority. That's basically it. If those majority/minority sources include "both sides", then we include them; if they don't, then we don't. No attempt should be made to see that each point of view is included, because "they have their own truth", or something. We go by the sources; that's it. The very last thing Wikipedia editors should do, is try and figure out "who's right", when reliable sources disagree. Mathglot (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Well yes I agree with you, our job isn't to simply give "equal time" to all viewpoints - however it is our job to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints" - where those viewpoints are supported in mainstream scholarly works, as per WP:WEIGHT; representing those viewpoints relative to the weight of support they have from scholarly works. But yes, I take your point, if a national viewpoint was fringe theory, its not our job to support it simply because it is a national viewpoint, if there was no scholarly evidence to support it - however, in this case, there is, so both are addressed, I guess!. To add, one viewpoint shouldn't be left out, *simply because it isn't the largest viewpoint*. Obviously fringe theory isn't included as a mainstream opinion and there is no place for it, as per WP:fringe, I could have made my post clearer, it may have implied that, so just wanted to make that clear of courseDeathlibrarian (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. But. It is also not ok to portray a genocide as ok because the dominant culture got some land out of it. I am not certain you have read the entire article, Mathglot (talk · contribs). It's a bit better than it was, because I changed some happy references to "nobody lost any land" and how fortunate it was that Native Americans were no longer impeding settlement. Some of that also disappeared when Dianaa came through here and removed a bunch of copyvio material; part of the problem was somebody copy-pasting from old history books I think. But. The list of combatant should be complete, and accurate, and the European participants should not get more weight than the indigenous ones. I also think we should delete all flags. Maybe even the entire infobox. Elinruby (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right section to drop this in... But I sorta noticed y'all are representing entities using modern flags that were made after the war (i.e. the 20th century Shawnee flag, the Muscogee flag from the 1930s, etc.). Just reminding y'all that the Manual of style (spec. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Entities without flags until after a certain point in time) states that [modern flags] should not be used to represent the country when the context is specifically about a time period predating the flag. Keep in mind, this is a history article, we should not be introducing anachronism within it. Leventio (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a bad place to say that, actually. I personally think we should remove all the flags in the infobox, but this is opposed for reasons that are unclear to me. I *actually* think the entire infobox should probably be deleted. Meanwhile, as a layout issue, if there must be an infobox and it must have flags then balance applies, no? It really would be better to just not have an infobox, because the problems get worse from here. Elinruby (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Neutrality in question, uncited text

Review pls: "The American warships were well-built and equal to British ships of a similar class, as British shipbuilding emphasized quantity over quality."

This was under Forces#Amerucan Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Nor my area of specialty, I would have thought British and US ships were of a similar level of quality, I don't recall anything about US ships being less quality. I don't know that British shipbuilding was emphasizing quantity over quality, and also, are they talking about general British shipbuilding, or just the shipbuilding taking place in North America in the context of the war? I think if there is no citation for it, it should come out, it seems a big call to omply UK ships were bad quality, which seems the implication. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I can go with removing it Elinruby (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Do not remove citation needed templates

There is no scenario in Wikipedia in which it is better not to provide a reference. If something is so clearly self-evident then referencing it should not be difficult. Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The infobox should be about key facts, so there should be no need to use refs there (just like for the lead). Military stalemate was the de facto result of the Treaty of Ghent and has been a constant in the infobox throughout the years along with status quo ante bellum; no one is disputing this. Those who claim one side won are making interpretations and they do not dispute de facto it was a military stalemate; they are disputing draw, not the military stalemate. As noted by Ironic Luck here, they are making a defensive argument such as Canada repulsed the invasion and was not annexed by the United States, hence they say she won (the same defensive argument has been used to support the United States' win claim); this does not change the fact it was a military stalemate, it is an interpretation which is represented in the main body (and I have no problem with this becfore you falsely claim I do) but does not contradict the military stalemate. Hence, why not simply say that it was a draw (the majority view of historians) but that both sides claim[ed] win which is true? If you want us to say it is actually disputed, we need sources that say the result is disputed because even those who say one side won, they still say they fought a military stalemate and admit that draw is the majority view, nor they say the actual result is disputed.--Davide King (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

See "References in infoboxes": "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in info-boxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." Readers don't want unnecessary clutter. TFD (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that there is a dedicated talk page archive for this one entry means it isn't obvious. Elinruby (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I am saying that any entry to this field needs a reference. At least one. Preferably about three. No matter what it says. Elinruby (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It says "IF the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere OR if the information is obvious." So as with the lead there is no need to provide footnotes if the information is provided in the article and in fact it is discouraged. TFD (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

please discuss where in the body this is discussed and cited? Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have better things to do than help you navigate the article. You set up a mediation request. Instead of opening up dozens on discussion threads here, why not confine your activities to the mediation request. TFD (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The mediation request has nothing to do with me. I think it is a waste of time no matter what happens, because there should not be an infobox. Some articles just should not. And there should be references, thank you, and not the Encyclopedia Britannica either. But anyway, the can be removed by providing the references. Elinruby (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the contentious nature of the article, and we have people arguing over viewpoints, it makes sense to include references. Also, I started the mediation request, not Elinruby Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Point of policy: at 20:54, 16 July TFD said,

So as with the lead there is no need to provide footnotes if the information is provided in the article and in fact it is discouraged.

Not quite. There is no requirement to provide footnotes, unless consensus is that they should be provided, such as in contentious articles or assertions, or if the material is challenged. This Infobox, and this article, are nothing if not contentious, and if the material is challenged, then per WP:Verifiability, footnotes must be provided, even in the WP:LEAD or in the Infobox, if there is one. Mathglot (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes quite. So long as the material in the LEAD or info-box summarizes information in the article, there is no requirement to provide a cite and in fact it is discouraged. TFD (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Thanks to Davide King and Elinruby - I think the inclusion of Draw/Both sides claimed victory, and some of the other things here in the infobox makes it less NPOV. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand both sides declared victory. Both sides formally declared war and formally signed a peace treaty. But how and when did they declare victory? TFD (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian and Elinruby, thanks to you too! Again, I really appreciate that. The Four Deuces, I did not change it to that wording to say or imply both declared victory, but that both sides claimed victory which I believe it is true; both British Canada and the United States thought they won, or at least that is the interpretations some historians or other authors give. I am fine with that as long as we keep the majority view which it was a draw, if that is the only way to keep it, then so be it.--Davide King (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I continue to believe that the infobox should be removed. However the citations are a good start* and I think other recent changes have improved the infobox as well. They add to the issue of its length but the improved accuracy is worth it imho. I am going to see if the markup can be improved to compress some of the lists. Maybe
instead of bulleted list; I think that would remove the line of space after each item. Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I think "claimed victory" is probably safer than declared victory. Historians have claimed victory for both sides, and certainly after the war, both the people in both countries claimed victory. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Info-boxes are useful to casual readers who want to know the key points about the war. For example, someone reading about the Star Spangled Banner (which is a current issue) reads that its words were penned during the War of 1812, which they had never heard about. So they come to this article which tells them when and where the war was fought, who were the participants and what the outcome was. They're not interested that the Ontario French separate school system teaches that Canada won or that a sentence in an article Latimer wrote for the History News Network is ambiguous about whether the UK won or it was a draw. TFD (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD Is this your argument for not having references in the infobox? Not sure what you are saying here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll rephrase it. It's redundant clutter and the guidelines recommend against it. If you want to go against the recommendations in guidelines, you need to provide a reason. TFD (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes the infobox, where we now have CANADA WON! With a fucking newspaper article to provide the weighty proof for it in the fucking infobox. I am so proud, really.Tirronan (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Collapse discussion thread started by sockpuppet