Talk:War of 1812/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 29

The Canadas

There is no evidence that the red ensign was ever used as a flag for Upper or Lower Canada and should be removed.

Also, we should either use the individual names of the colonies involved in the war or the formal term used, British North America, instead of "The Canadas," which referred to Upper and Lower Canada. We should also consider removing the colonies altogether.

TFD (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The other advantage of the term British North America is that term at the time included Bermuda, which was definitely involved in this conflict. That being said, including subdivisions of the national whole doesn't make inherent sense to me. If we were to consistently include political subdivisions of the participating nations it would require us to include subdivisions of the United States such as the flags of Massachusetts and Maryland etc., which were analogously relevant to British North America at the time. Of the two internally consistent options of including both or neither, I would vote to include political subdivisions of neither Great Britain nor of the United States. --Noren (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are good points. The individual states also had their own militias but unlike the colonies of British North America, they elected their own governors and were sovereign within the federation. In fact state militias joined regular forces in the invasion of Canada, while other states did not call up their militias, remaining "neutral" in the war. TFD (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I dislike the probably-wrong flag for Canadas also, actually. I was thinking of listing the colonies individually though, since they are different; Newfoundland apparently sent ships to the Great Lakes, vs Halifax was apparently quite an important port. I believe there was a battle in New Brunswick but *after* this war. I was wondering about PEI. If the term British North America was in use at the time and included the Bahamas, that is an interesting suggestion. What else did it include though? Do you have a reference about this? Elinruby (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, I disagree with eliminating any of the militias. I actually think the militia that refused to leave Vermont was rather notable. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The militias are not in the info-box. I cannot find any source that says British North America was a defined place but Prevost was formally the Governor General of British North America. I think it is misleading to consider Canada or British North America or the individual colonies as combatants since they did not control their own executives and did not have war making powers. We don't for example list Hawaii as one of the warring parties in the attack on Pearl Harbor because although they had a territorial militia, they were a dependent territory. Even World War I lists often omit Canada because although de facto independent, it had no power to declare war or sign treaties and its troops were under the command of Whitehall, just as they were in 1812. The Commander-in-Chief of British North America and Canada has always been the Governor General who first acted on the orders of the King-in-Council and now acts on the advice of the Privy Council of Canada. In other words the role has remained the same but the decisions have moved from Whitehall to Ottawa. TFD (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Militias are commonly listed as combatants in many conflicts, with a lot less claim to being formalised units part of any government than these ones. At least these militias are related to colonial governments, with a Governer General. Look at Lebanese_Civil_War, Spanish_Civil_War Kurdish–Turkish_conflict_(1978–present). If people want to be really strict on the flag for British North America, it seems to have been the UNion flag, not the red ensign... but I'm hardly the person to ask. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Militias are listed as combatants, however, do not attempt to use that to list Canada as a separate nation, we have had that discussion before. I resent the fact that you keep attempting to do this. Tirronan (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It makes sense to list militias if they are autonomous of central power. In Lebanon and Spain, for example, various political parties had militias that worked in loose alliance. In the War of 1812, the various Indian tribes acted in a similar way. But both American and British militias operated under the command of their respective commanders-in-chief, even though some state militia resisted central control but acted as defense forces only. Various Canadian militia regiments have fought overseas, but are not listed as separate parties to the war. And if you are going to list each militia regiment, why not list every regular forces regiment too? The most similar war may be the American Revolutionary War, which featured militia on both sides, yet they are not listed in the info-box. TFD (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

my thought would be to list them separately because 1. Upper Canada was invaded 2. Lower Canada was not, I believe, actually invaded, but did supply militia 3. New Brunswick also supplied militia 4. Nova Scotia: Halifax was important in the naval battles 5. Newfoundland supplied ships. We could balance this out on the American side; for example Andrew Jackson was commanding the Tennessee militia Elinruby (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well in the examples I gave some of those militia are autonomous of central power, and others are proxy forces - but they are all listed in the infobox. It would appear to be that that Militia are listed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

actually the fencibles did not commit to battles outside of North America Elinruby (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I think all the flags should go, Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs), and especially that one since nobody can articulate a good reason for using it Elinruby (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Issue - Results in the Infobox only showing one viewpoint (Re posted from the archive as thread was still live)

This is a continuation of NPOV Issue - Results in the Infobox only showing one viewpoint (Archive 23).

This post is currently being discussed as a content dispute issue, with a request for third party comment. Please feel free to contribute. The link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#War_of_1812 Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen and Tirronan, I didn't include you as parties to the third party dispute resolution, as I gathered from your comments, you are probably a bit "over it" (and I wanted to be respectful of your mental health :-) )... but given your commendable longstanding efforts on this page, of course, feel free to add yourself and be involved if you'd like Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is getting ridiculous. The talk page was just recently cleaned of 400,000 bytes of arguing on this same topic, and at this rate it's going to fill up again. As far as I can tell, the dispute is very simple and doesn't merit this endless debate. Some editors want one thing in the infobox, others want something else. This is exactly the kind of issue that RFCs were meant to solve. Here's my proposal: bring the RFC out of the archive and request closure. Alternatively, open an RFC with a question like this sample I've mocked up here User:Red Rock Canyon/sandbox and notify editors who participated in the previous RFC. Either way, this issue definitely needs some kind of formal closure, and that will not come from this thread. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Red Rock Canyon I've put this thread here for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#War_of_1812|noticeboard discussion, specifically for the convenience of the third party person, so they can see context. I think the discussion is supposed to take place on the noticeboard from now on, which will save more text filling up the talk page here, stop constant new threads, and also get some closure (hopefully) Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we should start with references in the infobox. Well actually. I don't think the article should HAVE an infobox. But if it absolutely must have an infobox, it needs to be accurate. Elinruby (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to the discussion resurrected from the archive, I don't have an opinion about who won, or even what the majority of historians say about it, but I do have an opinion about Wikipedia policy, and this does not align with it:

"And the majority view represents the consensus."

No. That's simply wrong. It's very clear in policy, that Wikipedia represents the majority and minority viewpoints, except when it's an "extremely small minority". There's no support whatever for the idea that the "majority view represents consensus". That isn't even true in Wikipedia arguments on Talk pages, much less in determining what we say in Wikipedia's voice in an article, based on majority/minority views of reliable sources. Wikipedia does not have to specify a single truth about an assertion. When experts disagree, we report that disagreement dispassionately, in proportion to how the reliable sources line up on the question. We don't try to tally them up, pick a "winner" and just report that. That's not how it works, and would be contrary to policy. Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Except the minority view is exactly an extremely small minority and is fringe per The Four Deuces and Rjensen. By the way, even those who say one side won do not dispute that the de facto they fought to a military stalemate, but they make an interpretation that one side won (for example, Canada was not successfully invaded and annexed by the United States, hence they won; similarly, the Americans achieved some of their goals and used that to claim win; both sides have done that, without disputing it was de facto a military stalemate). Hence, the dispute is about draw, not military stalemate; and do note that the infobox does not actually say it was a draw.--Davide King (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

See also this relevant comment by Shakescene.--Davide King (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Any thoughts about Results saying Draw; both sides claim[ed] victory and move Military stalemate in the bullet list as the de facto result of the Treaty of Ghent?--Davide King (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King To settle this once and for all, wikipedia says about the difference between the levels of views:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to *name prominent adherents*;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

To prove that the viewpoint, as seen by some Historians, that Canada won the War of 1812 is a viewpoint held by a significant minority, would you like me to name some prominent adherents? Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not telling me your thoughts about Draw; both sides claim victory? I am not going to waste my time discussing this to you again, especially when the first time you did confuse popular historians for historians, people who were not historians and even had the same historian used to support your claim saying that the war was a draw, etc. For The Four Deuces, Rjensen, others and I, it is clearly the third point. By the way, we already have this discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, so there is no point discussing it here again and recreate the huge pile of comments that caused problems with the Archives. So just discuss why Draw; both sides claim victory would not be fine. It is actually inclusive as it gives the viewpoint of both sides that claim win.--Davide King (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Saying that a theory has prominent adherents is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for it to be mentioned. There are prominent birthers, including Orly Taitz and even Obama's successor as President of the United States, but it doesn't mean that in the Barack Obama info-box we replace Hawaii as his place of birth with "disputed." It doesn't even mean that we necessarily mention the view he was born outside in the U.S. in his article. TFD (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

TFD - the exampel you gave, Orly Taitz, the first line, describes her as "Orly Taitz (born August 30, 1960)[8] is a Moldovan-American political conspiracy theorist" - are you seriously trying to equate her and the "birthing" fringe theory to the range of different academics that support the view that Canada won the war of 1812? All of whom are legitimate and respected historians who have published in mainstream scholarly works? Seriously? TFD I'm not debating that with you, its ridiculous. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I'm certainly happy not to debate your theory about if being fringe theory, as you say its been done to death. Clearly, no matter what I say, you even going so far as to ignore wikipedia policy, so there's little point. As for Historians, I've quoted a range of historians, some are popular historians, some are academic historians. But they are all legit respected historians. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, no I am not seriously trying to equate alternative theories of the outcome with conspiracism, you are. I am pointing out the ludicrous nature of your argument that because a theory has prominent proponents they represent a "significant minority." As I said above, having prominent proponents is a necessary but not sufficient requirement. Your reply btw way is an example of a strawman argument: misrepresenting another editor's position. We'll get through this a lot faster if you stop doing that. It just requires more pointless discussion. TFD (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No mate, you gave an example of Orly Taitz as an example, which completely does not apply. Certainly she is prominent, but she is also a known *conspiracy theorist* so the policy is clearly NOT talking about her. The prominent adherents I can name are not conspiracy theorists, they are respected mainstream scholars. The ruling says for a viewpoint to be significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. I am naming them, they are: Jon Latimer, and Carl Benn, Eliot Cohen, Donald Graves, Donald Hickey, Gilbert Auchinleck, William James, Brian Arthur, Andrew Lambert, Claire Sjolander, Stephen Marche, Ricky D Phillips, Robert Smol, Ron Dale, Pierre Berton (technically not a historian). These are all historians (though Berton is debated). They are all published writers, and many of them are published in scholarly works. THEREFORE according to wikipedia, the view that Canada won the war of 1812 *is the view of a significant minority*, because we can name prominent adherents. End of Story! Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

So your new argument is that we only count prominent proponents if they are experts. While you have listed 15 people who you say are historians and disagree with the majority view, you need to prove that is the number required to say that the consensus view is disputed. Note that if this happens then one would expect other tertiary sources, such as textbooks to routinely say the result of the war is in question, which they don't. [(IF a viewpoint is held by a significant minority THEN it should be easy to name prominent adherents) ≠ (IF it is easy to name prominent adherents THEN a viewpoint is held by a significant minority)]. Incidentally, Eliot A. Cohen is not an historian, but a political scientist, best remembered for his role in promoting the invasion of Iraq. And his book was not published by academic publishers but by a controversial publishing house. We went through an extensive discussions about how Pierre Berton was not an academic historian and whether Desmond Morton had actually claimed Canada won the war. I don't look forward to spending hours dissecting your other examples. What you need is a secondary source that establishes the acceptance of these views in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Its not my new argument, it's the text of Wikipedia's criteria for what counts as a "significant minority"! . Policy says "name prominent adherents". It doesn't say to establish that they are a certain number, or that they are a certain percentage, or that in addition, you need a textbook to back up your argument. It just says that you should be able to name prominent people that support the view. In any case, we aren't talking about one or two....there's 14, and they are all referenced (We can remove Cohen if you like). Will you finally agree on this? Can you agree on one thing at least? It's wikipedia policy, the wording is clear, and I have met the criteria.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, there is no requirement that the sources be historians, as opposed to museums or magazines or writers. The reliable sources standard is that a source must have editorial review and a corrections policy Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you, good point, indeed: its not up to editors to be discounting something, when RS policy says it should be counted. I need to look at RS policy a bit more. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. This is not a medical topic. Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please comment on my Draw; both sides claim victory (maybe also adding (indigenous nations loss)?)? I believe that may be a good compromise. Despite agreeing that the majority of historians say it was a draw, we do not actually say that, but we should; on the other hand, both sides claim victory gives some weight to the viewpoint that one side and is also factually true because both sides thought they won, even if just by avoiding loss, etc. Because if you believe the result is actually disputed, I agree with The Four Deuces that we would need tertiary sources and others clearly discussing about the result and actually saying it is disputed; they do not. Even among those who do claim one side won, they admit that the majority views is that it was a draw, not that it is actually disputed; the military stalemate is not actually disputed, it was the de facto result of the Treaty of Ghent.--Davide King (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, no one claimed that sources must be written by historians. We were discussing what weight we should give to the opinions of people who are not historians. So I would not give any weight to something written by a Bush administration official and published by a controversial publisher. We are interested in what the consensus is in the body of academic literature, not what opinions have been expressed outside it. TFD (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, you should remove Jon Latimer who is first in your list of historians who question the outcome of the war. He wrote, "But in truth it was a ‘war that nobody won’."[1] TFD (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is a poor summary of Latimer's book. When he makes that comment, he is talking in terms of material gain. In terms of the fighting, he clearly holds the opinion that, "... it wasn’t really Canada that ‘stuffed them,’ [the Americans] but the sole oceanic superpower of the day: Britain". and, "[it] wasn’t a 'war that both sides won.' Only Britain achieved her aims as they stood in 1812; the United States achieved none of hers, and on that basis it can only reasonably be accounted a British victory". This would be clearer if you had read the book. Latimer, like most historians, considers the war pointless, avoidable and a senseless waste of blood and treasure, and that is what he means when he says there were no real winners. In any event, he certainly isn't saying it was a stalemate. Perhaps it would be useful if you listed some historians who think it was a stalemate because I think you would be surprised how few there are. Hattendorf is one.--Ykraps (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Alan Taylor (pg.458), "By producing a military stalemate, the war led to a sharper distinction between Upper Canada and the United States."

Willard Randall (pg.405), "the War of 1812 can only be accurately described as a costly stalemate."

Wade Dudley (pg.183), "It is debatable whether anyone won the War of 1812"

There is Albert Merrin (nobody won), Wesley Turner (both sides won), or other authors on the topic. That’s not accounting for DeathLibrarian’s “draw” polling consensus that I read; nor my previous listing of others (Tristan from StepBackHistory) among other online historians that have noted this as a draw or that both sides won. Or even the people who claim victory for one party but list a military stalemate prior that (i.e. Hickey, etc.) whom recognize this.

I will say (at this point) the most thorough author (regarding research) I that I found on the war has been Alan Taylor. His book is something like 458 pages (+600 pages on the topic counting citations) and it very meticulous. And I (initially) planned on keeping any further discussion on the "who won" category" for that talking page as I am trying to avoid walls of text on this page - but we'll see what happens. . . Ironic Luck (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume you are replying to me so I have indented your comment accordingly. As I constantly have to explain to those without a dictionary, a stalemate is a particular kind of a draw. It is not, no side won, nor is it both sides won, nor is it an agreement to a truce. It is a position from which it is impossible for either side to win. With that in mind, only two of those examples back up your position. You are going to have to do a lot better if you are to convince me that "the overwhelming majority of historians think it was a stalemate" and that all the other points of view are such a tiny minority we should discount them as fringe.--Ykraps (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

TFDYou have cherrypicked that quote, the full quote is "So this wasn’t a 'war that both sides won.' Only Britain achieved her aims as they stood in 1812; the United States achieved none of hers, and on that basis it can only reasonably be accounted a British victory. But in truth it was a ‘war that nobody won’; certainly not the dead, or the bereaved, or the maimed, or those rendered homeless." As per Ykraps, he is saying the war was pointless and didn't achieve anything, (many people killed) but he specifically says, *in terms of objectives*, Britain won. This is what he says in his book, and it is the same argument Benn and many others make. Ironic Luck I have been researching this for years, I do have references for 30 scholars who say the war is a draw... but I have about 18 who say Canada/UK won, and 3 who say the US won. There are plenty of historians who say the war was a draw, however, I think in support of what Ykraps's is saying, from what I can see, the ratio of "draw to Canada win" isn't as big as what people would believe, seems to be about 2:1, or may be 3:1. The complicating factor her of course, as Elinruby mentiond, is that there are so many more US historians and universities compared to Canadian ones. In any case, the ratio of Draw to win isn't as large as what people may think (and yes, I know primary research can't be used in articles, I just bring it up because I thought people may be interested) Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the full quote is, "So this wasn’t a 'war that both sides won.' Only Britain achieved her aims as they stood in 1812; the United States achieved none of hers, and on that basis it can only reasonably be accounted a British victory. But in truth it was a ‘war that nobody won’; certainly not the dead, or the bereaved, or the maimed, or those rendered homeless." You are cherry-picking when you choose the first part of the sentence and ignore the rest of the sentence and falsely claim that is the "full quote." I am not cherry-picking because I am not trying to use this source to prove anything, just explaining why we should not cherry pick it to prove something. TFD (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Well firstly, I was following on from a discussion where Ykraps had already mentioned that. My point is you only used part of the quote, and left out the context - the full quote shows what he was trying to say, and that is that there were no winners in the war, in that achieved nothing but death - however, in terms of objectives, the British won. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round. You presented part of the quote that said the UK won, then I presented the other part that said they didn't. Just as you should not use part of the sentence to conclude Latimer claims the outcome was British victory, I would not use part of the sentence to conclude he saw it as a draw. Since the sentence is ambiguous, you need a reliable secondary source to interpret it, not our personal interpretations. TFD (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

sigh, actually, you said Pierre Berton was not a quality source because he was not a historian. But don't mind me. Elinruby (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please stop misrepresenting my statements. TFD (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King You asked for comment on the "draw /both sides claim victory" I'm ok with this, I think it shows both viewpoints, good suggestion. Howver, I dissagree with "military stalemate" being in there, as its subjective, and its just one point of view, so I have removed it. Its says "draw" in there, so hopefully that should cover it anyway? - I hope that's ok, and that's the only changes I have to make, except I have to check on "louisiana invasion repelled", but I can open a separate thread for that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am glad you are okay with that; and yes, I hope you can check about the invasion. The only thing I disagree is about military stalemate which I believe should remain as it is sourced, it was the de facto result as established by the Treaty of Ghent and it does not actually contradict the claim of both sides; it is not unusual to have a military stalemate yet one side claiming win. De facto that is what happened, both sides stopped to fight each other; and even those who may say one side won, they do not disputed they fought to a military stalemate, so I do not see the issue with it, it is referring to what was established by the Treaty of Ghent and it is not really controversial as the actual result.--Davide King (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, lets agree to disagree about the military stalemate. May be it will be discussed in the dispute raised on the noticeboard, but for now, this is a lot better than it was at least. Thanks for all your hard work again. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you too, I really appreciate that. :-)--Davide King (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Re Jon Latimer: the full paragraph from Latimer's article in the History Network (note not his book) is: "So this wasn’t a 'war that both sides won.' Only Britain achieved her aims as they stood in 1812; the United States achieved none of hers, and on that basis it can only reasonably be accounted a British victory. But in truth it was a ‘war that nobody won’; certainly not the dead, or the bereaved, or the maimed, or those rendered homeless."[2] It's cherry-picking to take the first part of the paragraph and ignore the last part. This is one reason why we need secondary sources to interpret what someone actually said. I have raised the issue at RSN. TFD (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

actually eerily similar to my thoughts on one of your sources for "draw": it actually doesn't support it. It says that most people think it was a draw, but he disagrees.Elinruby (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Does that not actually reinforce the draw result? When even those who disagree or are in minority say that?--Davide King (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

re: repelled - if Britsh troops were still on American soil, they weren't "repelled." I think I changed that. Elinruby (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No issue about that. I did use chased out which I believe is exactly the wording you used to describe it when you explained it to me, so I hope you do not mind I used that.--Davide King (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to repelled, just because it’s the article itself vs the talk page. No strong feelings about this wording though if someone objects. Thanks for mentioning; I was a bit confused. It sounded like me but I didn’t remember doing it Elinruby (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Ykraps, you are concerned with the definition which is quite understandable, but to support the change as “British Victory-Stalemate” as DeathLibrarian suggested is not neutral point of view either. Maybe you can clarify your position on this?

As to both DeathLibrarian and Ykraps,

Perhaps I hit every “military stalemate” available in succession (prior readings and post-Wiki discussion) and (with the added “draws” listed from my other books) came to this conclusion. Reliable historians have cited this as a fact, but I find it bizarre that other historians will sometimes leave it at a “draw” or even claim victory for Canada when the nation did not exist. I could make the same argument for Louisiana; I might as well use Ron Chapman (or other authors just talking about Louisiana) as a source for “victory” in the War of 1812 (despite the focus of being on the Louisiana side of the conflict) as the citations for “Canadian Victory” were a limited perspective on the entire war. I only cited Drez (as he looked over the papers) rather than Chapman (who focused strictly on Louisiana) in this war. If you only read Chapman (without any other textbook on the topic) then a reader would come to the conclusion that the United States won the war as there is no other perspective shown.

There is concern with the wording of a “military stalemate” but even Hickey (a “conflicting” source) has acknowledged that it was a “draw” on the battlefield prior to making his opinion of the war.

I am not going to re-read through multiple books right now. I actually remember seeing “stalemate” once in Wesley Turner’s book, but I cannot recollect the page right now and I will have to search for it later. On DeathLibrarian’s suggestion, I actually just bought Carl Benn’s book to read next week.

And there is a higher population density in the United States, but the government spending towards viewing this conflict as a “Canadian victory” is immense and my biggest problem with this article. That creates historians that are directly related to the bicentennial (pushing the Canadian narrative) rather than unbiased sources on the matter.

Stephen Marche is all about defense of Canada. He noted that it was an (embarrassing) military stalemate as well.

Robert Smol's article is primarily about Gordon Drummond rather than the larger focus (i.e. southern, western, naval, or even diplomatic) sides of the conflict.

Gilbert Auchinleck's book (according to the title) only goes up to 1814. If it that true then it is an incomplete history when dealing with the War of 1812. The treaty wasn’t ratified until February 16th, 1815. Keep in mind that the ratification process is important.

Example of ratification: The British failed to ratify an 1815 draft treaty known as the “Treaty of Nicholls’ Outpost.” It was signed by the Red Stick Creeks and other native tribes to defend them from potential invasion (via British protection) of the United States. This treaty made the natives British subjects as they raised the Union Jack under the Florida territory in post-War of 1812. This failed to stop the invasion into Florida which inevitably led to the Seminole Wars.

Ron Dale is a historian and retired 1812 Bicentennial Project Manager – and he states in his article:

“The Americans suffered embarrassing defeats in 1812, 1813 and 1814 and failed to annex Upper and Lower Canada or the Maritimes.”

This is the perfect example of what I was talking about with Canadian history. Ron Dale promotes the annexation theory of Upper and Lower Canada. I previously discussed that the United States voted against the annexation of the British territories prior to the American invasions in Archive 23. The annexation theory is one that even Donald Hickey argued against.

Dale has stated that the war had, “no impact on this sovereignty issue,” but the United States continued to provoke the British Empire and invade their (now former) allies post-War of 1812. Alan Taylor noted that this war led to “continental predominance” by the United States.

Dale ended his article with:

“The headlines in a newspaper after the Treaty of Ghent was signed could have read, The War is Over, Canada Won!”

Historians George Daughan and Ronald Drez have cited newspapers from that era that claim the opposite of Ron Dale’s claim. Drez cited the Dublin Evening Post:

"The American War has closed with unmitigated dishonor for England."

Daughan cited from the Edinburgh Review:

“the British government had embarked on a war of conquest, after the American government had dropped its maritime demands, and the British had lost. It was folly to attempt to invade and conquer the United States. To do so would result in the same tragedy as the first war against them, and with the same result.”

As for the money spent towards War of 1812, I'll leave the news article here:

“A bill to set up a United States commission to mark the bicentennial of the war as well as “The Star-Spangled Banner” died in Congress, although the Navy, Coast Guard and Marines are holding commemorations. Several states that have established War of 1812 commissions that rely mainly on sponsorships, donations and, in Maryland’s case, the sale of commemorative coins.

New York’s governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, vetoed a bill to establish a War of 1812 commission, but he allocated $450,000 for commemorations. By contrast, the government of Canada is spending $6.5 million on television commercials alone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/world/americas/canada-highlights-war-of-1812-casting-us-as-aggressor.html?_r=0

I just watched Drachinifel’s video on the War of 1812 (Freshwater Edition) on YouTube and the United States was still planning to build more ships to continue the War of 1812. And knowing about the U.S. invasions (south and westward) post-War of 1812 actually does make me question the military stalemate.

Historians (by majority and even citing their own books) have labeled this a draw in some fashion. Would you prefer an “inconclusive draw on the battlefield” as it seems as if both sides were willing to fight (if for a limited time) when the Treaty of Ghent was signed? Stagg mentioned in his article that he couldn’t see this war continue for another year for either side. I am fully open to “Both Sides Claim Victory” as it seems that both sides (British and American) have their own case and a "draw" is possibly the best definition here.

Ironic Luck (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice Boards and Selective Invitations

It has some to my attention that I and several other editors have not been notified of notice boards where we should have been notified. I also note that those boards seem to have editors that I've never seen before showing up at these noticeboards. Would you care to explain what you are doing with these actions Deathlibrarian? Tirronan (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well there are a lot of noticeboard issues flying around at the moment from various people, so I'm not sure why I am getting singled out, but if you are talking about the request for third party comment, I put the notice up, and then mentioned it here on the talk page asking for comments, and added the link, and some people did - I also *specifically* mentioned you by name, inviting you to comment. That was a week ago. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I wrote: "This post is currently being discussed as a content dispute issue, with a request for third party comment. Please feel free to contribute. The link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#War_of_1812 Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen and Tirronan, I didn't include you as parties to the third party dispute resolution, as I gathered from your comments, you are probably a bit "over it" (and I wanted to be respectful of your mental health :-) )... but given your commendable longstanding efforts on this page, of course, feel free to add yourself and be involved if you'd like Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)"

From this point on make sure you invite all concerned. It could be taken as packing the board with people you want. That would be a rather serious violation, we clear? Tirronan (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I take it you haven’t yet noticed the new issue, which is at Reliable Sources for some reason. And FYI this wasn’t Deathlibrarian. But yes, at notice boards everyone involved is supposed to be notified. And there really should be a post on the article talk page also. Elinruby (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please avoid personal attacks, which detract from constructive use of the talk page. I posted a question at RSN sbout Jon Latimer's article and mentioned it in the discussion of Latimer's article above. It's very hard for anyone reading this page to find anything since there are dozens of discussion threads. There is in fact no requirement or even recommendation at RSN to notify other editors on the talk page. TFD (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan You were making comments implying you didn't want to be in a lengthy discussion, and you were "over it all": You said: "So I am to gather that we are going to blog endlessly and accomplish not one single thing of note. I do not agree with any of these assertions, WHICH ARE NOTHING, BUT REPEATED ARGUMENTS REHASHED ENDLESSLY. You two will continue to blog on hoping to wear the rest of us out. At least if we are consistent with past blog storms. Stop wasting other editor's time with the rehashed shit. I think that 20 years of this is long enough. Make your points in consices terms, and stop wasting our time. Tell you what just put it down to a vote and be done with it. Please do not repeat another argument from the past expecting to get another answer. God, what I waste of good time and brain cycles" - so I didn't include you based on this - this statement implied you didn't want to be involved in a long mediation. Damned if I do, damned if I don't!!. I don't ask you, and you are pissed off for not including you. I do ask you, and you could have been pissed off for being included in another long mediation. In the end, I extended to you a specific invitation to be part of the noticeboard, acknowledging the hard work you and Rjensen have done over the years, and you didn't take up the invitation. In any case, I acknowledge that I should have asked everyone, but I wanted to explain why I didn't ask Tirronan specifically. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

it’s a personal attack to say you opened a discussion at RS? Elinruby (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it is your passive-aggressive wording, "I take it you haven’t yet noticed the new issue, which is at Reliable Sources for some reason." TFD (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well? It is open, right? At RS right? For a reason, right? You just haven't shared the reason with the rest of us. I know Tirronan (talk · contribs) is busy, just trying to keep him caught up. Feel free to take it to a noticeboard, but hehe, that's a statement of fact. It is also a statement of fact that afaik you still haven't answered Ykraps (talk · contribs) Elinruby (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to Ykraps' question at 05:59, 17 July 2020, my reply is at 20:04, 17 July 2020 in the same discussion thread. Note that I was discussing Latimer's article. "A Truly Pointless War ... The War of 1812," not his earlier book. And the reason I asked at RSN whether Latimer claimed in the article that the UK won is that I didn't think he did and wondered whether outside editors agreed or disagreed with me. TFD (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

But in reliable sources context really matters and you failed to provide any. So what were you going to do after the one editor told you that that it seemed out of context? I ask you. Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We were discussing a list of historians that supported the view that the war did not end in a draw. Latimer was one of those historians. You participated in those discussions., TFD (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, you were having previous concerns over my posts related to being in the “wrong section” in Archive 23, but here you are discussing an unrelated section of the wiki article down here. I actually find your behavior concerning as:

- You failed to provide me with citations in Archive 23 (i.e. Canadian annexation without any citation) as you cited your memory from school rather than a textbook.

- You never answered my one question to you. Look it up again.

- You went onto Davide King’s talk page to argue with him and somehow mistook your prior argument with me towards him.

- You have fewer citations yet you’ve made more unnecessary edits (i.e. flags) to the War of 1812 page.

Explain to me what books have you read on this topic? Why are you changing the War of 1812 page so much without proper discussion on the Talk page first?

Ironic Luck (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Elinruby is doing lots of good work here, tidyign up things, and dealing with issues that were long overdue, including pushing for the article to be shorter. I think its good to have a different pair of eyes looking at it. To be fair, a lot of his edits are minor things and not really worthy of discussion, same with Davide King. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironic Luck (talk · contribs), I don't mean to put you down but I have multiple big projects going and all I signed up for here is a couple of hours pro bono; not that the rest of what I do on Wikipedia is not, but this is very far from my actual interests, yet so deeply dysfunctional. If you are a history student with access to some of these texts, that's awesome, and the article could really use your help verifying citations. If you are just a new user who happened to stumble in here, the article currently fails to follow Wikipedia guidelines in a number if ways. What I have been doing is called a copy-edit, which is now past the initial stage of grammar, spelling and wikilinks, and is examining the structure. I normally do several of these a week. You might want to look at Debt-trap diplomacy if you think I am being mean here. I don't remember talking to you about schools, unless you are actually TFD. I literally do not have time for this conversation with you, especially since it interrupts progress being painfully made towards consensus. Elinruby (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

"British invasion of Washington, D.C. repelled" infobox

I'm a bit confused, what does the ""British invasion of Washington, D.C. repelled" in the infobox, refer to historically? I mean, obviously the attack on the capital, Washington was successful and wasn't repulsed - is it referring to some other attack? Apologies if I have missed something here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The invasion of D.C. was a success, with the British leaving of their own accord after the storm once they had repaired their ships. How was it repulsed? The Infobox should read America’s invasions of Canada Repelled, British Invasion and burning of Washington. There is no equivalent failed invasion of the capital. There is lots of talk of “you must have a historical source” to support claims on this talk page, yet here there is no source to be found. It must say the invasion was successful, or simply state the american invasions were failures.Hunkydawry (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why this information is in the info-box. Both York and Washington were burned, but the respective invading forces were defeated elsewhere. TFD (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

My point was more that the American invading forces were defeated and beaten back every time, the British Invasion forces were not. In fact, at wars end they still occupied various areas in the United States, namely Fort Bowyer with plans to go on to take Mobile. In reality, the British invasion forces weren’t repulsed, albeit defeated at individual battles. If the infobox is to include the invasions, it should be correct. I’d argue it should also mention that British maritime belligerent rights remained unmolested, as that was a key war aim of the British.Hunkydawry (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Correct, for example the Brits were defeated quite soundly at New Orleans, but Jackson declined (possibly wisely) to leave the cities defences after the battle to attack them, as they still had considerable forces. The Brits buried their dead, and left the area unmolested to attack Mobile. So the attacks on some of the cities failed, but the invasion forces themselves weren't defeated or repulsed from US territory.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, since I am probably the most recent person to change this field, I'll speak up. I should mention at the start that I think this field, definitely, should just be deleted, and probably the entire infobox which is just full of this sort of problems. It did say "chased out" which another editor picked up from my comments on the talk page, where I am more colloquial. Encyclopedic language was my rationale for the change. Now, was I wrong to say chased out? Yes, possibly, if it is true that they simply withdrew. I am remembering some sort of fake-out that the National Park Service docents discuss at Fort Washington. The article doesn't really discuss British goals for this campaign, or if so I missed it. If it was a punitive raid for putting York to the torch, then repelled is indeed the wrong word also. That is what I have to say about this. I will try to look up what happened at Fort Washington Elinruby (talk)

Nope, whatever I am trying to remember does not support "repelled". The British captured the fort on their way back down the Potomac from DC. I agree the wording should be changed if we can't bjust delete the field and/or the inbox Elinruby (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

On another, related, note: the US invaded Upper Canada. They tried to invade Lower Canada but never actually entered it. The rest of Canada was affected but not invaded. Elinruby (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I made some changes for discussion purposes. The wording is a bit awkward and this definitely doesn't help the the length of the infobox issue I am complaining about, but do we all agree that this is accurate? Let's start there. We can work on smoothing afterwards Elinruby (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve tried to clear up the wording, “of” instead of “in” and added British maritime rights.Hunkydawry (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What's your objection to "in"? "Of" sounds strange to me, but this may be a dialect issue. What I am trying to get across is that fighting continued in the Creek War, which for some reason we are considering part of the War of 1812, long after the Treaty of Ghent.Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know why it’s included either, but “in” implies the preposition that Britain was a belligerent, because it directly follows the British vs American invasions. But fighting “of” the war is more a statement on its own.Hunkydawry (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok I see. My intended meaning was that fighting continued in the Creek War but not in the other theatres. I don't have a better idea at the moment, but if you think my wording implied that the British were involved, then that's a good reason. I'll come back to this later, need to go somewhere. Elinruby (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The entire term is wrong. It wasn't an invasion it was a raid. So, excuse the sordid facts, the British, note for the particularly dense NOT CANANDIAN, had approx 6,000 troops. They had defeated the militia. Had they intended to stay now that would be an invasion? But, since their commanders were not insane, they properly retreated before the forces in the area reorganized and animated them. The burning of Washtionto, or the raid on Washtington would be the correct terminology. LETS TRY REALLY HARD NOT TO MAKE THIS ARTICLE LOOK LIKE IT WAS WRITTEN BY TWO-YEAR-OLDS WITH NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT!Tirronan (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Tirronan it was a punitive attack, as retribution for the Burning of York, and to send a message to the US... it wasn't meant as invasion of conquest as such, though it does come down to semantics. I have seen it described as a raid, though IMHO the fact it involved a full scale battle at Bladensberg tends to indicate a raid is an understatement. My original point was that, whatever it was, it wasn't repelled. "The Burning of Washington" I guess is what it is generally called, so that seems most appropriate. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I am ok with saying “raid” on DC. I also don’t know why you’re complaining about Canadians. The last time I looked at the infobox it said the British invaded Washington. If you want “raided” Washington, that is fine with me. Elinruby (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what his comment about the Canadians is referring to either - certainly no one said they were at the Burning of Washington - there's seems to be some beef about the Canadian colonies being equated to as a country or something, not sure if he is referring to that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No, they were not, however, I am about fed the hell up with the meme with the Canadian colonies being victors, or feeling that they were victors and it finding its way into the infobox. This has been discussed before and I am expecting that to be removed shortly or I am going to remove it. We have not gotten consensus on this addition and I find it very offensive and, disrespectful of the editors that have said no. Tirronan (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan I think the infobox, after a lot of work done by Davide King and Elinruby with a bit of input from myself and others is pretty fair. I don't agree with military stalemate being in there unchallenged, but at least now it is sort of balanced. I'm not sure what you intend to do to change it, but I would seek consensus here before you intend to make any controversial changes, because you are just likely to start an edit war if it doesn't reflect the article and isn't NPOV. In any case, it doesn't say "Canadian colonies being victors" it says "US and UK both claim victory"... possibly it's changed since that comment was made and this has satisfied your concern. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that and I am getting tired of being lectured about something I never freaking said. A) there is nothing sacred about an infobox. We don’t have to have one and I really think this article should not. Two, if you think the infobox says Canada won the war, welp, it has changed since I last saw it. Three, I really don’t want to hear about my alleged lack of respect at this point, especially from editors who don’t trouble to do anything but yell about the outcome. You want to know what I think, ask *me not some dweeb that doesn’t even read the page. Now write me another ALL CAPS RANT about the things you think I want to do with the page and how disrespectful they are Elinruby (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Even the "both claimed victory" doesn't really belong in the infobox. That is just a claim, not a fact. The German population claimed they were stabbed in the back as the reason they lost at the end of WW1. Despite the fact that Gemany couldn't stop the Allied armies advances. Does that belong in the infobox? It does not belong in the infobox. Now take it out.Tirronan (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan, I agree, but that seemed the only way for us to say it was a draw. Do you prefer this?--Davide King (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do like that better. Infobox changes should have a wide discussion before changing them given the history of this article Tirronan (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok some Historians have claimed this as a victory for the UK so it does belong in there. We already agreed that this needed to go into the Results box to make it NPOV. I thought this was settled, do we really have to start this all over again Tirronan ???? Both a draw and a Britsh Vcotry is claimed by Historians, except there is just a majority of Historians claiming it as a draw - but that is only one opinion - history is not simply decided by how many historians say something. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

DB, we have discussed this to death, and you have had the answer from the editors that actually work on the page. No means no. The way you phrase that is not correct. Tirronan (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan We need all viewpoints represented in the infobox, and major changes to this change need to reflect a consensus of the editors on this page. There are historians that say it was a draw, and others that say it was a UK Victory, both those views need to be represented in the Infobox. Please respect NPOV. This is just another example of editors arguing over the infobox, when I thought we had finally come to a solution. At this point, seriously, I am so frustrated with it, I am starting to agree with Elinbruby, and saying it should just be killed. Davide King, Elinruby and I had actually come to an agreement that works, and you have come along and removed that, without asking us, or achieveing any sort of consensus. How long must this go on? Can we please agree on this, some of us have other things to do than continue endless debates on this sort of thing Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reinserted the reference as we agreed on, with the claim for UK victory, as made by some historians with new wording. I hope this suffices.If we can't agree on this, I suggest we remove the results field. I am not going to spend endless hours constantly debating this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you Davide King has reinserted "Both sides claim win" which I think was the agreed compromise, and reflects historians making claims for both viewpoints. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, if the deciding factor is who actually worked on the page, as far as I can tell not one of you people do outside of the ridiculous infobox. I saw Rjensen (talk · contribs) delete some uncited text about sailors who were British nationals the other day, and that's it. Davide King (talk · contribs) watches the page and checks out what I do. Says he doesn't feel qualified to edit. This is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Elinruby (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You'd be very wrong, there are all sorts of incidental edits but if you go back far enough you'll find us. Don't ever question my work again. Tirronan (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sir. Take a deep breath and process the fact that I don't take orders from you. I have deferred to you in matters of naval strategy because you seem to know more on the topic than I do. And I am very willing to believe that you have been a major contributor to the current article. But here lately, you have been very busy and fine; anyone can understand that. The talk page of this article will become a full-time job if you let it. But please understand that people are working on the article, and it needs a lot of help. You should read through it Elinruby (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

P.S It would be better to just delete the whole thing. The entire infobox is like this. Deleting the results section would however be a good start.Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, in terms of the infobox, I thought we had sorted it out, and it was done and dusted. But yes, I agree, if this continued debate goes on, seriously, I'm going to start an RFC and ask for it to be deleted, and have a link to the relevant section - as per the infobox guidelines. I'm going to commit to putting more time into the page, and less into the infobox, I'll start by looking for references for some of the statements made in the page. I've got plenty of references here, and access to University databases, so hopefully this will help the effort. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Better references would help immensely. And those of us who aren't subject matter experts would deeply appreciate better annotated references, maybe even in cite format with a quote and oh btw one of the references I did have access to did not support the text it followed, so there is room for a healthy critical eye on the referencing of this thing. This is kind of normal in an article like this that's been serially edited. For example somebody may have moved some text without taking the reference with it. This is particularly likely to happen when the references are grouped at the end of a long sentence Elinruby (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if an RfC would be met with stunned silence, but it's worth a shot. Be sure to link to the archive and explain what it is ;) Elinruby (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Getting back to this question of "repelled", I am ok with any other wording that is accurate and can be sourced. I suggest "withdrew" or "defeated" depending on the facts (thus the source request). I hereby voted in favor of anything that can be proven. Balance and weight may be necessary if it really looks like there are two different versions. I need to go work on some other stuff. Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think Tirronan is right here - if you want to mention the event in the infobox, you would just say "Burning of Washington". Roughly, the British sailed up, landed troops, won the battle of Bladensberg, marched into nearby Washington unopposed, burnt some of the buildings there, took some supplies, hopped on their ships and left. The Americans were either destroying things (mainly at the naval yard) so the Brits couldn't get them, or were evacuating. The Brits certainly weren't repulsed or chased away from Washington, they weren't even engaged at all, apart from some citizens complaining about looters. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

We have a point of agreement here since I loath, dispise, and otherwise hate, infoboxs in general, and in this article in particular. I'e prefer the infobox simply refer the the treaty of Ghent and refer to an aftermath section. I'd also prefer the article get drastically shortened and get much more precise. Tirronan (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably your go to guy on military and naval matters in this period. Be careful on the destruction of trade interestingly the historians get that one wrong. Tirronan (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You need more buy in than just me on infobox changes. You and DL do not rate as a majority consensus. I'd prefer to hear from TFD and RJensen on this as well. Tirronan (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The info box:

- I sort of agree that the defeat of Tecumseh’s Confederacy helps (related to the northwest) as it explains the indigenous struggle within the United States.

- I never perceived either the burning of Washington or York as assisting with the info box. There is a display picture of the British burning Washington. Why was there any need to address a point that is clearly the biggest picture shown?

- The target for the British Empire (on the northeast coast) was Philadelphia; the British failed in Plattsburgh and Baltimore. Plattsburgh resulted in a court martial and Baltimore (North Point) resulted with Ross being killed in action.

- There is no page 329 listed in Brian Arthur’s book. Brian Arthur’s book ends at page 328 – unless you count the Forward, Preface, etc. I presume that whoever cited Brian Arthur (in the info box) did so in jest. Perhaps they can clarify why “p 329” is listed on there or it is somewhere else in the book?

Arthur writes (pg.201),

“During its course the war had sometimes been unjustifiably described, both within Congress and outside, as a second war of independence. However, had the Ghent treaty not been ratified it seems doubtful whether Britain would have been able to sponsor the separation of New England from the Union, beyond the initially selective British blockade, because of further potential British military and financially commitments in Europe in 1815. In America, the apparent possibility of New England’s secession, and a separate treaty with Britain, had prompted discussion of its commercial isolation, and military intervention, by the rest of the Union.”

Arthur claims that the “second war of independence” is unjustifiable in his book yet (in the info box) the wiki-editor claimed that Arthur wrote that the majority see this as a draw? Arthur may have written this somewhere in his book, but I am not going to bother looking for the page right now. Arthur adds to the fact that the Federalists (whom wanted the British to win) were abandoned - which again addresses what I said earlier (Archive 23) of the British Empire abandoning all of their allies.

Taylor’s book writes (pg.439),

“The ultimate legacy of the war was that the empire and the republic would share the continent along a more clearly defined border more generous to the Americans and more confining to the British – but most ominous to the Indians.”

Ironic Luck (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ironic Luck yes, good point. I have an e copy of that book, I just ran a search on it and can't see a reference to him saying anything about a draw. I mean, the search may have missed it. I think if no one comments, may be it can come out, as the page number is defintely wrong. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Article should be accurate. Is this in infobox? Good catch, you guys. Just asking, could the issue be a different edition? Elinruby (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I can agree with the infobox as is. Tirronan (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on with the Brian Arthur book, There are listings for it having 352 pages and 328 pages - looks like its only a 2011 edition, but there could be a difference between hardcover and softcoaver. biblio record for it lists it as having 352 page Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

One thought on this is that the Google Books page numbers used in the url often differ from the ones in the corner of the image of the printed page. However, as I recall this is not cited to Google Books. This is why full cites would be nice. Elinruby (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I dont like this

10,000 lol [3]

Not true. But an indian victory is labelled a massacre and thus so for your troops today, my friend. 24.235.46.183 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem. You do know you can edit the page, right? Well, I guess you need an account with a little experience under its belt, but if you can articulate what change you think should be made and why, it could possibly happen. Or it may get argued about for the next fifteen years. Depends what it is. I think you are talking about the casualties and the references to atrocities in Indiana or somewhere? If so, I agree, those are both problems. Elinruby (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please post some examples of this? I must have missed them and I would like to analyse that.--Davide King (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not the IP whisperer but I believe someone is complaining about "10,000" indigenous casualties in the infobox yet the article talks about "Indian atrocities" and says they massacred people. That is how I read it anyway. Elinruby (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know and I agree that should be changed or removed, but I was asking if you please link or direct me to some of this wording so I can try to fix it. In which section, etc. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Didn't I ask you to stop editing the indent on my comments???? It's a really bad practice to play with other people's comments. Elinruby (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not editing other people's comments; I am not changing any word. Is it so hard for you to correctly identicise to make clear who you are responding to? Now could you please link me to the section about "Indian atrocities" so I can remove/reword that?--Davide King (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Back cover as reference

This strikes me as odd. Covers may or may not be written by the author. The reference covers something that is so obvious, and so clearly the consensus of historians, I am told, that there is no reason to even reference it. Surely a reference can be found that isn't part of the packaging? Elinruby (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Jingoist sentence

Ok, so this one is pretty bad. Yay America! I think this could be reworded in a more neutral fashion.

• (as it is now)"The Treaty of Ghent failed to secure official British acknowledgement of American maritime rights or ending impressment. However, these rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I. The defeat of Napoleon made irrelevant all of the naval issues over which the United States had fought. The Americans had achieved their goal of ending the Indian threat; furthermore the American armies had scored enough victories (especially at New Orleans) to satisfy honour and the sense of becoming fully independent from Britain.[231]" Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• How about something a bit more neutral like:
• (suggested change)The Treaty of Ghent failed to secure the US desire for British acknowledgement of their maritime rights, or the ending of impressment. In any event, US maritime rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until the end of World War 1, and the need for British impressment stopped with the defeat of Napoleon. The Americans had achieved their goal of ending the Indian threat; through some of the major victories achieved, the United states felt their honor had been upheld, were happy their territory was maintained and that peace had been achieved.

References

Better. Fixes some things. More details later if you want Elinruby (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, yeah I thought it was a bit too jingoistic. Overall, it would be good to make the text more fact based. I'll leave it here a while and see what other comments pop up before I change it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no use for the satisfied honor bit at all. Agreed on that point. Ian Toll noted that while impressment was not addressed, the RN went to some pains ensuring American vessels were not stopped. Two reasons behind that being that again unspoken the commerce raiding had never been successfully curtailed, nor did Britain want another flareup with America when the 100 days started. Also, we are going to have to address the point that the relationship between the countries changed pretty radically. Winston Churchill noted it in fact. Both countries got a lot more cautious in their dealings with one another. Two points of note there impressment ceased. The second being when Canada had its issues in the 1830's Irish immigrants began using America as a staging area for revolts. US authorities stamped down on it hard, throwing more than a few in prison for it. When pressing for the Northwest territories, the American negotiators pointed out that the best warrant for Canada was a peaceful neighbor. That was echoed by the RN Admiralty stating that "if another war with America broke out we must lose Canada." The points here that both countries had a lot to lose and little to gain with another war. Tirronan (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the phrase 'failed to' is not neutral, particularly in reference to the ending impressment- that objective de facto happened anyhow so the Treaty didn't fail, rather it simply didn't address something that was no longer needed. How about:

• "The Treaty of Ghent did not include an acknowledgement of American maritime rights or address British impressment. However, these rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I. The defeat of Napoleon made irrelevant all of the naval issues over which the United States had fought. The Americans had achieved their goal of ending the Indian threat; furthermore the American armies had scored enough victories (especially at New Orleans) to satisfy honour and the sense of becoming fully independent from Britain.[231]"

--Noren (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I still feel that is NPOV, and would support the “suggested change” as above by Deathlibrarian and Elinruby. It seems to focus far more on what America achieved without including what Britain achieved. For example, my suggestion would be: The Treaty of Ghent just like that of Vienna completely maintained Britain’s maritime belligerent rights, while failing to acknowledge American maritime rights or the end of impressment. While these rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I, the defeat of Napoleon made the need for impressment irrelevant and the grievances of the US no longer an issue. America achieved their goal of ending the Indian threat, and felt their honour had been upheld with victories throughout the war.

I’d even go further personally and add citations from Madison to congress stating he could not in any way Force the British to concede maritime rights and even went so far as to say he couldn’t dare demand an end to impressment in the treaty, but I feel my paragraph is fair and balanced to BOTH sides.Hunkydawry (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would you change until WWI to until the end of WWI? TFD (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

So...some thoughts, don't hate. I agree that "failed to," implies, well, failure. I dislike "Indian threat". I agree that Americans probably though of it in those terms. Ditto national honour. How about:

the defeat of Napoleon made the need for impressment irrelevant and the grievances of the US no longer an issue. America achieved their goals, and felt their honour had been upheld.

Elinruby (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems like the verb "felt" is less likely to get lost in the shorter text and the sentence is actually stronger and more pro-American if we don't try to shoehorn in a complex summary of the cultural zeitgeist. it sounds like people agree what happened with maritime rights, just not on wording yet; I've been trying not to get involved with this discussion so I am fine with whatever people agree on. I'd rather leave out the stuff about peace at least in the lede, because that wasn't really true if you were Native American. Elinruby (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, good point, Noren about "failure" is a non neutral term. Yes, good point also TFD - it should be until WW1. Ok, combining Hunkydawry, with Elinruby... changing the WW1 reference for TFD and removing the reference to failure for Noren. I agree, I'm not 100% on the national honour thing, but the sources do make reference to it, and as per Elinruby - I think the US peeps saw it that way. How about:

"The Treaty of Ghent, just like that of Vienna, completely maintained Britain’s maritime belligerent rights, while not acknowledging American maritime rights or the end of impressment. While these rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I, the defeat of Napoleon made the need for impressment irrelevant and the grievances of the US no longer an issue. As such, America achieved their goals, and felt their honour had been upheld." Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

should be Americans/their or America/its, one or the other, but yeah. That language makes clear that this is them and Wikipedia is taking no position on the matter ;) Elinruby (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

And I personally would say "...Treaty of Ghent, which like the Treaty of Vienna..." but this what we call a minor edit, no? Elinruby (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes that makes the Treaty of Vienna connection a bit clearer, I agree.

OK, with the grammar changes - "The Treaty of Ghent, which like the Treaty of Vienna, completely maintained Britain’s maritime belligerent rights, while not acknowledging American maritime rights or the end of impressment. While these rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I, the defeat of Napoleon made the need for impressment irrelevant and the grievances of the US no longer an issue. As such, America achieved its goals, and felt its honour had been upheld." Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll update it - note here if you have any issues - thanks for your input everyone. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we agree on the principle of the thing. I have a few additional linguistic quibbles, some of them rooted in translation concerns, since this would be the standard at es.wiki or fr.wiki for the topic so it should if possible be really clear. 1.end of impressment: verb appears to be acknowledged, which is awkward and confusing. Consider “or promising the end...” or “or formalizing the end...’’ or some other verb there. 2. Strike “while” and simplify sentence structure, ie “and the defeat”. Sentence is getting long so break there. Make grievances their own sentence and make clear that this relates to impressment. Strike as such. Change to past perfect (had achieved). I will type the text back out with these changes, but any or all of the above would be good, if you ask me. Elinruby (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"The Treaty of Ghent, like the Treaty of Vienna, completely maintained Britain’s maritime belligerent rights, while not acknowledging American maritime rights or making an end of impressment. These rights were not seriously violated in the century of peace until World War I, and the defeat of Napoleon had made the need for impressment . So the US grievances about it were no longer an issue. America had achieved its goals, and felt its honour had been upheld." <= all of this discussable, natch Elinruby (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

one thing is though, “rights” is saying British rights were not violated, is that what we mean to say? I have been trying to stay out of the naval aspects of this war, which look like a huge time suck Elinruby (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Rights in the second sentence is referring to American maritime rights not being violated by the Uk. Yes you're right, the fact rights is used twice in the first sentence is probably confusing - I'll change it to make it clearer. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

“Triumphantly celebrated the restoration of their national honor”

This should read “The Americans celebrated their perceived restoration of their national honor” - it is misleading to claim in the lede that their honor was “restored” when who decides that? The Americans decide when their own honor gets restored from a victory at the end of the war that wasn’t even the last land battle?

It is their own perceptions of honor restoration that should be highlighted.Hunkydawry (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note Hunkydawry has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Jack Coppit [4]. --TFD (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC) (UTC)

absolutely Elinruby (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I said the same thing about 3 weeks ago. It needs the word "percieved" added, to make it NPOV. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Who decides that? The same people who decide that the world is round - writers in reliable sources. Do you have evidence that these sources use that terminology? TFD (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The text accurately says what historians say they did: celebrate the restoration of national honor. "perceived" needs a reliable secondary source. For the evidence historians are using see John Grodzinski, The War of 1812: An Annotated Bibliography (2008) pp 244-250, summarizing numerous speeches in 1815. Take a look at this summary of the central role of national honor in Pennsylvania Rjensen (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I rather object to the term being used at all. There is way too much boosterism in this article. I would prefer that the article take a more neutral tone. As it stands it sounds like two sides wrote the article. We are to write the article in a manner that does not take sides. it does not at this point.Tirronan (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan Do you mean you'd prefer that the term "National honour" isn't used? In that case, I agree, and I would certainly agree with the article taking a more neutral tone, and just stating the facts. This particular sentence has been brought up multiple times by different editors for sounding jingoistic. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It totally sounds jingoistic. There may well have been a school of thought that felt that way, but this should not be in the voice of Wikipedia. Especially since only Americans believe it Elinruby (talk)

It is. I agree. My thought here is like all such things, this is the aftermath after the war. The problem is that it is a war article period. There were lots of effects from the war that far outweigh the war itself. From the British side only two things went right. The blockade, and if you have a 600 ship navy and can't pull off a blockade, I don't know what to tell you. The other thing was the defense of Canada, and all thoughts to the contrary that was entirely Britain and the Confederation's doing. Canadian militia was hard to find, hard to recruit, and few in number. This applies to the most extreme extent to upper Canada. Almost everything else was pretty ugly. From the American side, all that can be said was that it held off a much larger nation. If you want to get an agreement from the other editors, the way it has to be handled is "just the facts", and put everything mushy in the aftermath section. Even then, I'd keep it to what can be proven with MS historians. Oh, btw, Britain wasn't bragging about winning the war, it was concluded just as the 100 days was beginning. The few articles I've been able to see varied between, "well that is over with", to "we are going to regret that we didn't wreck them".Tirronan (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Britain didn’t care very much, I agree Elinruby (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

|}

Weird combined reference after "both sides"

These should be separated. Benn needs a page number. I found the Latimer reference; I am still thinking about that. He does talk about claims of winning there, but also disagrees with them. For now can we have a page on Benn please? Elinruby (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I just checked, its page 83. Yeah, it was combined some time ago, I don't know why. I'll change it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've separated those now Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

British maritime belligerent rights maintained in Infobox

Does British maritime belligerent rights maintained warrant being in the infobox? I thought we were basing the result on the Treaty of Ghent, hence military stalemate and status quo ante bellum, but I believe British maritime belligerent rights were not mentioned in it. I just would like to hear your thoughts.--Davide King (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thats exactly the reason it belongs in the infobox. A key reason for going to war, and a key goal for the British was to not have them impeded in any way. This was a very important result of the war, the fact it wasn’t mentioned in the treaty is why it needs to be mentioned in the infobox, otherwise you wouldn’t be aware that The British goal was achieved/maintained. If it was mentioned in the treaty, you wouldn’t need it in the infobox as it would already be covered by “Treaty of Ghent”.Hunkydawry (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wish there was a way to say that in shorter words so as to not split it in the infobox. As Tirronan wrote I'm probably your go to guy on military and naval matters in this period, I would like to hear from them too.--Davide King (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually the first time I saw it I had my doubts, but Hunkydawry is right, it was one of the key reasons going to war, so it is probably justified Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment.--Davide King (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hunkydawry was a sockpuppet of Jack Coppit. Here, The Four Deuces wrote Americatcp [another sockpuppeter] also said the British "maintained their belligerent maritime rights." (23:20, 15 January 2018)[5] (These rights were the right to intercept ships and pressgang sailors.) In the huge discussion talk pages, no other editors said that the UK maintained belligerent maritime rights after the war, probably because the UK no longer exercised these rights against the U.S. and the U.S. never recognized them. In fact very few editors used the term belligerent rights at all as it is a fairly uncommon term. The Four Deuces, I assume you are against that being in the infobox? Because it is still in the infobox, so please share your thoughts and if my summary is correct.--Davide King (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that reliable sources give much attention to it. After the war it was no longer an issue. I think the point was that if the U.S. objective of the war was to end impressment they lost because the UK never agreed to renounce the right. But that's just one editor's opinion and doesn't belong in the article. TFD (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppets have been known to be right. What do the sources say? I support whatever DeathLibrarian and Tirronan can agree on. Peace out Elinruby (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Impressment and maritime trade were two major issues that started the war, so the fact they weren't dealt with is worth mentioning, IMHO. But Its nothing major for me... They were obviously a major thing for the US at the beginning, but then as the war dragged on, and it was clear conquering Canada wasn't happenning, the US may have considered it wasn't worth starting a war over and it seems to have been less spoken of (also the Brits stopped doing it). I would be interested to see what Tirronan thinks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That's an accurate summary of what sources say. Sources don't treat it as a major issue. TFD (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Casualties

Both the British and their indigenous allies apparently lost 10,000? That is quite a coincidence, and a suspiciously round number Elinruby (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it's related, but not very long ago I removed another instance of an unsourced 10,000. I haven't looked into these other 10,000s, but it's odd how that number keeps popping up. --Noren (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Attempts to smother American maritime trade failed"

"The British then increased the strength of their blockade of the United States coast. Attempts to smother American maritime trade failed and soon both sides began to desire peace.[29]" - This statement, from the lead seciton would appear to be innacurate, from my interpretation. The text of the article says that the blockade *was* effective. I checked the reference, and it says nothing about the attempts to smother American maritime trade failing. Any comments? "Numerous historians have pointed to the damaging effects of the British blockade of the American coast during the War of 1812. Donald Hickey argues ‘the British blockade had a deadly effect on the United States. Foreign trade dropped sharply and government revenue dried up ... the coasting trade became perilous, too, forcing American merchants to resort to overland transportation’.(1)" https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1215 Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Was Britain trying to smother the American maritime trade? I am asking. What would the British say they were doing with their embargo? Trying to mess with Napoleon's supply chain maybe? That's my first reaction. Then what is the definition of fail? I don't claim any kind of expertise on Napoleonic trade routes, but isn't it the case that the leaders of both countries were being told in no uncertain terms that all this was bad for bidness? BTW please tag that reference if it fails verification. Elinruby (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Britain was using an economic blockade to stymy US efforts at progressing the war against Canada. The US economy took major damage as there was no foreign trade and the Govt ran out of money. So the economic blockade was a success. At the later stage of the war, Napoleon was defeated and Wellington was out of Spain and back in the UK, so it wasn't so much about his supply chain, at that point, methinks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

ok. There is a long discussion somewhere in the article about shipping to the French, is why I asked. So the first part of the statement is true but the second is not? If it's plain wrong, it should be removed. I would call "smother" and "fail" emotional language, also Elinruby (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

so if you want, since you already have another source, you can just write an accurate sentence, delete that one rather than tag it, and reference it with your quote above. Nobody seems to be arguing that you are wrong about this. Elinruby (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, will do, - I mainly wanted to put it up here for comment, and see if there are any strong feelings - but it just seems to be wrong. Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You notified. Might not even have been required to actually, but apparently nobody thinks it should stay that way Elinruby (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification

• Arthur - may be edition issue? Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) and Ironic Luck (talk · contribs) cannot find that page.
• Hickey - does not support claim it references.

• On replacing the Toronto Star reference with the two books now there, I have no objection in principle but the cite must be verifiable. I am currently having a little trouble with that, but the fact that I am having trouble doing it on my smartphone doesn't mean it can't be done and if DL or IL want to knock that out it would simplify *my* life. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It is verified in the main body. I did put those two sources just to show that even those who claim one side won over the other still acknowledge the result was a draw.--Davide King (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

C'mon now, we had finally reached a compromise.--Davide King (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The reference citations everywhere in the article MUST be verifiable. This is the overwhelming consensus of all reputable historians you say. It shouldn't be hard to find two references for the statement then, right? Hickey does not support you and neither Deathlibrarian nor Ironic Luck can find the Arthur reference, and they have the book. This may be an edition issue but forensic research methods should not be necessary; just fix the freaking citation. I can't believe I am getting an argument about whether it's ok to have an imaginary page number on a citation. No. It is not, and double plus not on an infobox. Go ask anyone you like. Fix it or it's gone. Elinruby (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

In The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict, Bicentennial Edition (2012), Donald Hickey does write Thus, after three years of campaigning, neither the United States nor Great Britain could claim any great advantage in the war, let alone victory. Militarily, the War of 1812 ended in a draw. By the way, the onus is on you and Deathlibrarian to show this is actually disputed; and to do this, you cannot merely search any historian who claim one side over another, we need secondary and tertiary sources talking about the result and writing that it is disputed.--Davide King (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As for Arthur, that wording actually comes from here.--Davide King (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As for the Toronto Star reference, I did move it here.--Davide King (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Then use those as a reference omg. And no the onus is on you if you don't want a tag there. A verifiable reference is a bedrock principle of Wikipedia. This is not something I am *supposed* to have a sense of humor about. The Toronto Star thing, I just wanted to say I wasn't ignoring it but I haven't gotten to it yet. If somebody wants to be snobby about books vs newspapers, that's an eyeroll, unnecessary but not wrong. I am going to want to verify those references though. So far they all fail verification. Elinruby (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Calm down, please. I already did. As for this, I thought that ref was fine? There was consensus that there is no national bias and your claim that there are more historians in the United States does not hold up; as noted and pointed out by Ironic Luck here, I agree that there are more United States historians than Canadians historians. It makes it just as plausible to have a wider divide in those opinions as well. In other words, the fact there are more American historians means that there are more possibilities to held more viewpoints as well, yet as noted by the ref they agree the result was a draw. So I do not think you can exclude that ref because it is talking about American historians. If the other two refs are fine, it is not a big deal and this third one is probably unnecessary, but your reason for it failing verification is flawed in my view.--Davide King (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a big deal. It is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that references must be verifiable. There are issues about what that means exactly, but someone with a copy of the reference is supposed to be able to find something that supports the statement in front of the reference. Please don't tell me to calm down and PLEASE don't quote a month-old SPA like I am supposed to take its word on Wikipedia policy. It is also a very big deal that you took off the failed verification tag AGAIN after I warned you about this Elinruby (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Dude. First of all, the quote says nothing about historians. The source itself appears to be quite reputable. But a reference is supposed to have a relationship to the text it is referencing. Elinruby (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

For one, you really need to calm down and correctly indent your replies to make clear who you are responding too; it is basic common sense. You are not assuming good faith and it looks like you have something against me when I do not have anything personal against you. I took it off by mistake because I thought it was referring to historians and that the verification failed because of some national bias as you claimed it was only about Americans which I thought was wrong but I did remove the ref itself already even before you wrote this rant.--Davide King (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to file a complaint about my outdenting habits. The point is, while we were discussing Things We Don't Do on Wikipedia on your talk page, ie take off tags without resolving them, I explained that it is not good practice to edit other editors' comments, as it raises issues of accountability and authenticity, and you blithely ignored that whole discussion. And stop telling me to calm down. I am very calm. References must be verifiable. Elinruby (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that applies to changing words and actual meaning and context of the comments, not fixing indents; I thought I was dong everyone a favour by making clear who we are responding to. I have seen other users doing that and no one complained; here no one else complained but you, so I simply thought it was fine as long as I do not actually touch words, etc. Again, is it so hard for you to correctly identicise? References are now verifiable and the infobox is pretty fine now, so I hope we are done with it and we can finally move on to fix the damn article as you correctly lamented many times. Thank you.--Davide King (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you or ever had been stopping you from fixing the article. Please feel free to tackle any of the many tagged problems. And as for verifiable, we'll see; I don't think a book cover is a reliable source, for a start, not for something you claim is so obvious that it doesn't need a reference. Elinruby (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to do that and I asked you twice to help me find the section about "Indian atrocities" so I could fix that by either reword it or removing it. So I ask you for the third time, could you please link me the paragraph or section where this discussed? Working together will make it faster and easier to improve the article and solve its issues.--Davide King (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you should put your big boy pants on and read the article instead of wikilawyering over policies you do not understand. WP:FRINGE does not apply here. Period. It is ridiculous that I had to take this question to a noticeboard, but I did, and that is what they said. Therefore we will not be conforming to your wishes to "show" whatever it is you are trying to "show". We are going to look at the references and we will discuss them like grownups without taking a freaking poll of historians and we will follow Wikipedia's policies. There is a dedicated archive where you can make speeches and grandstand all you want. Now. Unless you have something you want to say about these references, buzz off. By the way, I am deleting the one from the book cover. Be serious. Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh and -- I have asked you four or five times now not to edit my comments. Last warning. Elinruby (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you to read this statement by Robert McClenon. I am not sure which article they are referring to exactly, but could it be the Toronto Star article? I gave you references and they say it was a draw; I already removed myself the backcover ones from the infobox. By the way, was not Deathlibrarian exactly taking a freaking poll of historians here? I just hope you do not hold a double standard against me. Or did I misunderstand your freaking poll of historians wording? If I misunderstood, then I apologise, but I assumed by that you mean giving a list of sources with historians, etc. You are the one who argued the article is too long (I agree), so forgive me if I am having trouble reading it. I also suggest you to stop writing me back if you are so annoyed by me and my "essays". Davide King (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Result in infobox debate

IMO a result statement is like any other statement in an article and requires sourcing. In this case, an extraordinary claim in view of it being unclear / disputed. IMO such a statement needs particularly strong sourcing to stay in Wikipedia. Being disputed, such strong sourcing probably does not exist. IMO that means completely remove the "result" entry. The desire to include the entry and fill in the blank does not override the wp:verifiability policy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As noted by The Four Deuces here, [s]ee "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." It is discussed as the majority view in Historians' views.--Davide King (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

IMO a mere majority/plurality view is not enough to state it as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Further, IMO, in such situations trying to create one-word characterizations in an area where opinions are divided is not an encyclopedic quest. North8000 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is being discussed here.--Davide King (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Was. Didn't Fiveby (talk · contribs) say it was a misapplication of WP: FRINGE? Did something else come up over there? Elinruby (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Is. It is not closed yet. WP:FRINGE guideline does have the language you refer to about departing significantly from the prevailing views. I don't like it and think the guideline should be more objective—stick to UfOs and such and avoid issues that are better handled by the core policies. I thought here Fiveby said that I was right about WP: FRINGE but that they disagree with the current wording, so we would need to first change that. There is no mention of misapplication and they also wrote Deathlibrarian and Elinruby with their "Canada Won!" arguments are really fringe, using poor sources and often misrepresenting what good sources they do mention. So you cannot cherry pick the parts you like, but let us leave to them to clarify what they meant.--Davide King (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

1. I do not claim that Canada won. I keep saying this. You keep not listening. I said that this is not a FRINGE theory. 2. Yes, Fiveby (talk · contribs) repeated your mischaracterization of my position. This is why I would like you to stop misquoting me. 3. Speaking of misquoting, what wording do you think Fiveby was talking about? He says FRINGE is about UFOs and this discussion is "better handled by the core policies." This is why people stop talking to you, Davide. Also, FYI, noticeboard posts don't usually "close" Elinruby (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

So what is your problem or issue again? Draw and military stalemate are referenced. No, I do not believe Fiveby repeated that, they were agreeing with me on this, although they are free to correct me, if this was not true. My point is that The Four Deuces, Rjensen and others' interpretation is correct, but maybe that wording should be changed so that fringe theories should be only about pseudoscience and not any view that departs from the prevailing views. Until we do that, WP:Fringe theory is clear about that. By the way, this applies only to the infobox which should just say it was a draw; the Canadian et al. views ought to be in the main body and are not fringe.--Davide King (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

North8000(talk) This has been a huge discussion here, ongoing in fact for many years. The present results section reflects a compromise that shows the differing viewpoints. We have sources that say (1) The majority see it as a draw (2) We have individual Historians who see it as a win for the UK (3) We have some sources that say it breaks down on national lines, "Canadian Historian see it this way, US historians see it that way, etc. Overall, the position is that the majority see it as a draw, but a significant minority see it as a win for the UK. A very small number see the war as a win for the US. As per Davide King a discusison on this topic is currently waiting for a Third party commenter to be appointed. 03:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe North8000 (talk · contribs) is somewhat familiar with this from the recent noticeboard activity. But for the record, I would like to mention that the argument dates back -- how many years is it, somebody? Elinruby (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it probably dates back to about 1815.... :-) North8000 But yes, the references say "mainly" seen as a draw, not everyone agrees on it - as there are some historians that don't see it that way. But I'm not saying much new here, its been said many times. If you want to be part of the noticeboard discussion its here - still no one assigned as yet. There are a number of people that agree with you and also think the result field should be removed... I believe the phrase "burn it with fire" was used on one occassion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm just trying to be helpful. While I indicated what I think the outcome should be, I don't have any advocacy type feeling for any particular outcome. In general, my advocacy is for including encyclopedic information, not arguable characterizations assigned by Wikipedia editors. When there is a debate / dispute (= it is unclear) on picking words to characterize something, the result is not information, it is an editor-assigned characterization) in which case, IMO leave it out. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The actual, de facto result is not actually disputed; its interpretation, which has nothing to do with the infobox and should be discussed in the main body, is.--Davide King (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

you keep saying that like you think it makes it so Elinruby (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Here, you wrote Nobody is suggesting that the article say in Wikipedia’s voice that Britain/Canada won, only that respected writers do exist who say this, because Canada is not currently a US colony. So what is your issue exactly? You wanted the infobox to be referenced and now it is; both Draw and Military stalemate are referenced and I did remove myself the third ref which failed verification, although I think it was fine.--Davide King (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't "fine". It would have been "fine" if it supported the text it supposedly supported. And I don't know how to explain to someone who isn't listening that not wanting to say in Wikipedia's voice that Canada won is not the same as not disputing the outcome. I told you before, this isn't the debate team and you don't get bonus points for extra red herrings. Elinruby (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Was the source referring to the view of American historians or the popular view of American? If is the latter I agree; if it is the former, I believe it is fine.

By the way, as I was reading Talk:War of 1812/Who Won?, I found those sources by Dwalrus, who wrote:

Here are some British and Canadian writers who do not view the war as a British victory.

British writer Paul Johnson in A History of the American People stated that as a result of the treaty neither side could declare "a success or a defeat."

Canadian Duncan Andrew Campbell in Unlikely Allies: Britain, America and The Victorian Origins of The Special Relationship writes that the war was a stalemate.

Briton Kenneth Bourne in Britain and The Balance of Power in North America, 1815-1908 stated that as a result of the war "neither side could claim substantial victory."

British scholar H. C. Allen in Great Britain and The United States: A History of Anglo-American Relations (1783-1952) argues that it was a stalemate.

Canadian historian Reginald C. Stuart in United States Expansionism and British North America, 1775-1871 does not declare a victor and leaves the clear impression it was a draw.

[...]

I should have added Christopher T. George who is from Britain, now living in the US, who wrote Terror of the Chesapeake: The War of 1812 on the Bay. He also believes it was a stalemate. By the way, James Hannay was Canadian not British.

Could you please verify those ones?--Davide King (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Why would I verify them and for what? What do I look like? Please don't start writing me long reproachful essays again. Yes, we are going to examine the sourcing. You seem to be off trying to prove some sort of mad point. If you want to improve the article, pick one of those references and work from it on the article. Elinruby (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, because maybe we should work and improve the article together? Because you do not seem to trust me to verify them, so I asked you to do just to because I want to be sure? Like I may think they do verify that, but maybe you disagree? So just let me know, not trying to prove some sort of mad point or anything. I am still waiting for you to link me the section about "Indian atrocities" as that would be important thing to fix first and I would be very thankful to you. Davide King (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You're right I don't trust you. You don't seem to be here to write an encyclopedia. But go look at the stuff about the Northwest Territory or Prairie du Chien if you really need a suggestion, and maybe figure out what exactly these atrocities are. I got some of the low-hanging fruit, but there is probably more. Go make friends with that IP who was mad about this. He was also working on Seminole Wars. Anything along those lines would probably do more good than harm even if you make a mistake or two Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a big accusation. I am still assuming good faith, I believe you should do the same. Davide King (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not examined all seven years of your edit history but in the month I have been observing this article I have seen you write long impassioned essays on the talk page, and apply SEO techniques to the Infobox results field. That's it. Oh and once you quoted another (month-old) SPA about wikipedia policy. Forgive my cynicism; I just spent most of the day coaxing you to read the article, so explain to me again how you're here to improve it? Elinruby (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What SEO techinques are you even talking about? I do not know how to do that and what do you mean by SPA? Are you referring to the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard? If that is what you are referring to, I did ask the user in question to clarify their wording. Because they did write If WP:FRINGE is applied for such as Don Hickey saying United States lost the war then there is something very wrong with the guideline. But Donald Hickey actually say it was a draw. Davide King (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Article just says massacres or whatever but gives no details, see? So were these attacks on army units, or homesteads, or what? The newspapers of the time may well have used language like that, but it's like the national honor thing, that needs to not be Wikipedia saying this. Elinruby (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, thanks. Could you please tell me the title section? I believe I found one which read Indian atrocities along the Wabash River in Indiana were enabled by supplies from Canada and were proof that "the war has already commenced". But I believe this has already been changed to Indian ambushes along the Wabash River in Indiana were enabled by supplies from Canada and were proof that "the war has already commenced". So one is gone, which ones are left? Davide King (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

right. I did that. And have since realized that "ambush" implies they were travelling, and we do not know if the were, because we don't know what they are talking about. And we don't know who is saying the words in quotes. We could use some sourcing there. As for others, read the article. They may not all say atrocity. That IP was complaining about "massacres" Try that if you are doing a find on this stuff. Elinruby (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As you noted, the article is really big and hard to navigate, so I would really appreciate if you could name the section where this discussed; I could find only one and that one was changed. However, I did notice that p. 262 of given source does say Indian atrocities and there is no mention of ambush so I agree we need better sources as you wrote. Davide King (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

North8000, we should follow reliable sources such as textbooks that routinely report the outcome of the war as a draw as a fact. In every field there are some scholars who will disagree with academic consensus. It seems that the degree of dissent among scholars is largely exaggerated. A lot of the sources cited on closer inspection do not actually challenge consensus, while others are from popular rather than academic books. But as editors we cannot read through the thousands of books and articles written about the war, but need to rely on experts who have already done this for us. TFD (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

And yet we are using the back cover of a book as a reference for the word draw. But your actual point, which you keep repeating, is contradicted by Wikipedia policy on balance and weight. We aren't supposed to spend years distilling the wisdom of the authorities. That's Dark Ages thinking. Elinruby (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Draw vs stalemate

@Ykraps: said a while back that a draw is not the same thing as a stalemate, and a stalemate means that neither side can win. I believe he also said that he did not think this was the case in this war. The infobox currently says both, with references, assuming the references are verified. If they are different things, should the wording be adjusted to show this as a range of opinions rather than as two separate outcomes? Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

*Very* subtle difference - from looking at the cambridge definitions, a stalemate is where both parties are blocked from winning (so neither can win). A draw is where both teams in a game get the same score (1-1). The sources, when talking about The war, tend to say draw, I guess implying that both sides got what they wanted, or got some things they wanted. Subtle difference. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so... We have references for both, assuming they verify. So is this a difference of opinion? Elinruby (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: There is no need for teams to have the same score. One side might be winning but because they are tired, they offer the other side a draw to bring the game to a quick conclusion.--Ykraps (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, true but in that case, its like both sides agreeing to finish on the same score - but yes, one side can "offer" a draw... where that game of chess is taking 6 hours!Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn’t giving my opinion. There is a school of thought that Britain was in a very strong position at the time of Napoleon’s abdication but that wasn’t really my point. I was mainly objecting to editors pointing to sources that say it was a draw, to bolster their claim that the vast majority of historians see it as a stalemate. It’s also worth noting, for those reading snippets on Google books, that some of the sources that use the term “military stalemate” are referring specifically to operations along the US/Canadian border, and not the war as a whole. I am still of the opinion that by far the simplest solution is to redirect the result section as discussed here [[5]].--Ykraps (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The military stalemate was the de facto result for the Treaty of Ghent and is referenced by the two refs which describe this in the first paragraph of the historians' views stating the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive.--Davide King (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether the British were in a position to win the war is beside the point as both sides de facto agreed to the draw result as outlined in the Treaty of Ghent. As I wrote here, there seems to be a confusion and conflation between the de facto result (draw) and the few interpretations who claim one side won, without disputing the de facto military stalemate. There was not a de jure winner or a treaty that established a winner, etc. While I am fine with the current compromise, I believe the solution is simple; we say it was a draw in the infobox while linking to the interpretations in the main body, which are already in. Because I believe both sides claim win is an interpretation (in my view correct, but that is besides the point), not an actual result, so it does not fit the parameter and should be linked to the section in the main body. We simply cannot say the result is disputed either, because it actually is not, nor can we leave it blank when the war is usually seen as a draw and de facto that is what it was. I liked Deathlibrarian's wording that [t]he sources [...] tend to say draw, I guess implying that both sides got what they wanted, or got some things they wanted. Subtle difference. [...] [It is] like both sides agreeing to finish on the same score - but yes, one side can "offer" a draw... where that game of chess is taking 6 hours!--Davide King (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

We cannot assume that sources using the terms draw and stalemate mean different things. Obviously both sides had the resources to continue the war but lacked the will to do so, so it wasn't a literal stalemate. TFD (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

yes yes, but we say it was a stalemate. Words matter. The infobox is supposed to be factual and facts are facts, not something you vote about. Elinruby (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Context matters too. Words take on different shades of meaning according to context. When no context is provided they (as in the info-box) they may become misleading. If a source for example says that the Republicans will be slaughtered in November, it doesn't mean that 10s of millions of people will be killed, although that is the literal meaning of slaughter. So even though a source might use the term we would not put the exact word in the info-box of the outcome of the election. TFD (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Whereas, assuming they mean the same thing, is far more sensible, is it?--Ykraps (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it sensible to claim that no matter what resources either side applied that they could not have gained any concessions? Isn't it more likely the cost of further conflict and lack of popular support outweighed any possible concessions? Or that the problems that gave rise to U.S. grievances had lessened to the extent concessions were no longer as important? TFD (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok look. If draw=stalemate then why say it twice? If they are not synonymous then shouldn't this be phrased as a difference of opinion? Also you are doing it again. He said the point of view exists, not that he endorses it. He specifically said this is not necessarily his own opinion. Meanwhile, another thing you are doing again is interpreting, then trying to prove that your opinion is the most correct. This is Wikipedia and we don't do that here. Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Elinruby - draw and Stalemate are both referring to the same thing. We don't need them both. The sources normally say draw. Also TFD both sides, arguably did not have the means to continue. They had the troops, but they had run out of money - they were both shockingly in debt.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King could we please have the "Both sides claim win" back at the top level with "draw" please? Where it was yesterday? That was what we had agreed on, and we hadn't discussed moving it - thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

mutual lack of interest, lol Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, it's all relative. At the end of the war, U.S. debt was 10% of GDP. At the end of the Civil War it was 30%. (See History of the United States public debt). The Revolution was expensive too. It comes down to priorities. The U.S. was not willing to pay the same price they were in the other two wars. TFD (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, the only agreement was adding both side claim win and that is still in; I simply moved as the very first thing of the bullet list because it looks better and some users expressed concerns, so rather than remove it, I did put it first in the bullet list; it really does not change anything.--Davide King (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ykraps, we say both Draw and Military stalemate because we base the first one on the result according to historians and other sources; and the military stalemate, along with the status quo ante bellum, is based on the Treaty of Ghent which established both.--Davide King (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King The treaty of Ghent didn't establish a military stalemate. That would have been established by the military situation. The Treaty of Ghent established official *peace*. I think probably Ykraps Elinruby and I all agree it's the same thing and just mentioned twice. May be as a compromise, you could put military stalemate/draw together? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, we do write in the main body [it] has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. I do not see the issue, they are not mutually exclusive; what am I missing? Another thing is that both military stalemate and status quo ante bellum may well be seen as results too, but it would be weird for us to say Draw/Military stalemate/Status quo ante bellum so they are simply put in the bullet list; and they are fine because they are referenced and those are all terms used to describe the result, so they should be listed; Draw is the top one because that is the position where we put Win/Draw/Loss. Davide King (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I think the three of us have issue with it, unless Elinruby and Ykraps have changed their mind. As the three of us have shown our feelings on it, could you please remove draw or stalemate, or combine them? Otherwise, if you think it's that important, we can put it to the vote all the users to vote on.... though if we are going to vote on the infobox again, we probably should vote as to whether we keep the results section or not, as so many people just want it to go. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, actually it is said Ykraps wrote draw is not the same thing as a stalemate, then both should be in the infobox; while they may believe or did not think this was the case in this war, that is their opinion. Furthermore, they are not mutually exclusive and it is really petty to hold a vote when the whole infobox is sourced and we reached this compromise. Again, draw, military stalemate and status quo ante bellum are all used and we cannot tell for sure whether they mean the same thing or not, so we list all viewpoints, just like we list that both sides have claimed victory, etc. Did you not want us to give more weight to other viewpoints? Why not apply the same standard to those three various terms that have been described as results of the war? Draw is the main result (hence at the top) but (military) stalemate and status quo ante bellum have been used too, are key facts and so are in the bullet list. Davide King (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Kill it with fire. Elinruby (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: (trying again) why would draw be the main result? Elinruby (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Because the main result should be Win, Draw, Loss, or Inconclusive. The consensus among sources is that it was a draw and the disagreement or dissent is largely exaggerated as argued by The Four Deuces here. Further, as pointed out by The Four Deuces and by Robert McClenon here, [a] lot of the sources cited on closer inspection do not actually challenge consensus and I have read the article that states that Canada won the war. That statement is meant somewhat humorously, and is not meant to imply a British victory. [...] The statement was never meant to imply a British victory. In other words, you are misreading them like they are dissenting the consensus it was a draw when they are not and this has been discussed for year; I did read the Who Wan the War of 1812? and the same arguments were already used and rejected there. Rjensen, Tirronan and others have been pretty clear about this too and I am merely agreeing. I believe they gave the better and stronger arguments there.

If you want sources, we have Hickey 2012, p. 228: "Thus, after three years of campaigning, neither the United States nor Great Britain could claim any great advantage in the war, let alone victory. Militarily, the War of 1812 ended in a draw." and Coles 2018, p. 255: "Militarily the War of 1812 was a draw." And that is not considering all the other sources which same the same thing with different words. The USS Constitution Museum says Both sides could claim victory, the British because they held on to Canada and their maritime rights, and the United States because just fighting the 'Conqueror of Napoleon' and the 'Mistress of the Seas' to a draw vindicated its sovereignty and earned the respect of Europe. As British diplomat Augustus J. Foster acknowledged at war's end, 'The Americans [...] have brought us to speak of them with respect.' And yet it also unequivocally say Ultimately, the War of 1812 ended in a draw on the battlefield, and the peace treaty reflected this.

Then we have British and Canadian writers who do not view the war as a British victory and do not dispute the consensus.

British writer Paul Johnson in A History of the American People stated that as a result of the treaty neither side could declare "a success or a defeat."

Canadian Duncan Andrew Campbell in Unlikely Allies: Britain, America and The Victorian Origins of The Special Relationship writes that the war was a stalemate.

Briton Kenneth Bourne in Britain and The Balance of Power in North America, 1815-1908 stated that as a result of the war "neither side could claim substantial victory."

British scholar H. C. Allen in Great Britain and The United States: A History of Anglo-American Relations (1783-1952) argues that it was a stalemate.

Canadian historian Reginald C. Stuart in United States Expansionism and British North America, 1775-1871 does not declare a victor and leaves the clear impression it was a draw.

British Christopher T. George who wrote Terror of the Chesapeake: The War of 1812 on the Bay and also believes it was a stalemate. Davide King (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Draw and Stalemate

The term stalemate is from chess. In chess, a stalemate is one of the ways that a game can be a draw. There are also other ways in chess that a game can be a draw (and stalemate is rare in expert play), such as by repetition or by fifty moves, but a stalemate is a draw. A stalemate is a position in which the player whose turn it is cannot move because any move would result in check.

I see no reason to make any military distinction between a draw and a stalemate either. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

ok so. It's not encyclopedic, so we would have to reword it, but is it reasonable to say that the outcome was mutual exhaustion? I think I may know a precedent for that, hmm. Elinruby (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of Cham–Vietnamese War (1471), but apparently now that I look there was a decisive victory in that case however. But the economic aspects of it are interesting and perhaps parallel.

The Cham and the Đại Việt had a long history of conflict. In the course of their wars, peace often paired with economic exhaustion, recovering their economies just to go to war again.[2]

Those two kingdoms apparently would beat each other bloody every so often for decades (? I did not fact check article). Elinruby (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Ykraps:Can you confirm your position here, do you think draw and Stalemate are the same thing and shouldn't be in the infobox twice, or do you see them as separate and the two distinct mentions are justified?Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the three (British English) dictionaries I own, a stalemate is a position from which it is impossible for either side to win. So yes, a stalemate is a draw but a draw is not necessarily a stalemate. In the same way that a square is a rectangle but a rectangle doesn't have to be square. Using the term draw covers both meanings but using the term stalemate does not.--Ykraps (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ykraps: Sorry to ping you again, but are you saying that draw should be used here to cover both? In terms of getting a consensus on this issue, do you think they should both be in there, or are they similiar enough that either draw or Stalemate should be used and not both.Thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

DO NOT REMOVE FAILED VERIFICATION TAGS

Unless you deal with the stated issue. The first two citations for "draw" look ok if they can be verified. The third still does not support "draw". The easiest way to fix this is to remove the third reference, upon which it will be fine to take off the tag that applies to it. If you really want three references there, you should be able to find another one easily, right? Elinruby (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what the issue is much less have a position on it. But a quick structural note. WP:V places restriction on / requirements for the presence of material, not on the presence of sources. Those WP:V requirements are basically for sourcing, including the specific source requirements to consider the material to be sourced. If the sourcing does not meet those requirements, that means that the WP:V requirements for the presence of the material have not been met, not that the source is not allowed to be in Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Apparently I was unclear. The issue is that I am finding that many referenced statements in this article contain references with zero relationship to the content of the sentence. For example I found one last night on a quote about Indian loss of territory that pointed to a page about the congressional foreign relations committee. A very fine reference mind you, reputable historian, RS as can be but not the source of that quote. The tags I am talking about here were getting removed I guess on the basis of the author's reputation, but the reference did not support the accuracy of the material; it said that many Americans believe this but I think they are wrong. There are about eight of these tags in the article right now and these issues need to be resolved before the tags are removed. Elinruby (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: some of these problems may be typos in page numbers or differing editions, or caused by incomplete edits, tough to say. But references are there to reference and if they don't do that they need to be fixed or replaced. Elinruby (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

My previous post provided the info I intended to provide. It appears that you are ignoring it. Since I just wanted to provide the info, I'm not overly concerned beyond that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything. I am not sure why you are talking about the Wikipedia policy. Maybe it is the word verification that is confusing. The copy edit tag says I made a good-faith effort to substantiate that the reference at the end of a sentence in fact supports the sentence. Most are failing on page number, even though I am checking both the page numbers of the scanned pages of the book and the url pagination. A few do not say what the sentence says, although they are related, for certain meanings of "related". If you want to tell me about MoS or any other Wikipedia policy that is very fine, but still doesn't change the fact the the footnotes are mostly irrelevant. Elinruby (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned policy because you were implying (via command type language) that yours was a policy-based argument. Also, I thought it useful since it's a common misunderstanding that wp:verfiability restricts presence of references. My 11:21, 23 July 2020 describes what it actually does in this respect. North8000 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Pacific Coast

Was this in fact ever a theatre in this war? I thought this was a reference to the Pig War but apart from the fact that it was ridiculous, it was also twenty years or so later. Elinruby (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A quick word search for "Pacific" in this article came up with the Battle of Valparaíso, which is in 1814 and part of the War of 1812 proper. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Our template of naval battles during the War of 1812 also lists a lot more battles in the Pacific Ocean. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't been through the naval section very thoroughly, but I do remember seeing that now.Elinruby (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra: the way the infobox entry is written implies Pacific coast of North America; going to change "coast" to "Ocean". Note to you since you commented and anyone else who may have an opinion. Elinruby (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'm not seeing anything indicating west coast battles, not Mexico or Canada, let alone California (which wasn't even US territory, yet of course). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Lede section: 4 failed verif, 1 each cn, how

These tags refer to the reference number right in front of them. Specific issues in edit summaries. Most failed verification tags in this section are because there is nothing on the topic at that page, whether you use the pagination of the book or of online host images. Elinruby (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

PS I have not checked many references yet; it is a lot of screen-swapping on a phone. Of those I have checked, 80-90% are like this. I notably have not checked the new references in the outcome box yet. Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyway to get an effort to find sources? These are all very easily verifiable to anyone with knowledge of the topic.--Moxy 🍁 20:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

These can be remedied either by finding a correct page number, or replacing with a correct source. Either one is good. The other references should be checked also since so many of them are like this. It would also be good to find out where these came from; I don't actually know that is was students but it's an educated guess that I think is pretty plausible. If this turns out to be the class, perhaps classes should be more closely monitored.Elinruby (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Limited Further Imput

I am under considerable pressure to get my 3rd book out. As such, and given my audience's expectations any input from me on this article will be very limited. As an editor, I've been known to play rough and occasionally lose my temper. Be aware however that I am not the only one with that issue. As a favor, I'm going to ask all of you to turn it down a couple of notches. I've received emails complaining of aggressive actions towards other editors. Take it from someone who knows, that can come back and bite you. It is OK to attack an idea, but never OK to attack an editor. I've been seen more than a few editors receiving bans or topic bans in my 15 years here. Taking up a cause is always a mistake. Tirronan (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting us know Tirronan . Good luck with the book. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Draw is a list item not the list title

I thought this had happened by accident, but I see it has moved back, as if the items underneath support it. Whoever keeps doing this needs to enunciate why they are doing it, or stop. I believe that Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) has already asked nicely for the previously agreed format Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

yes, it should be a list item, its a result the same as the rest of them. They are all results, right? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Apart from my questions about synonyms, that is what I think, yes. But making "Draw" the title seems to imply a causal relationship. I actually, I repeat, suggest a flame-thrower. But if someone must have an outcome, then what goes in there needs to reflect balance and due weight. And that means discussion. I could see making a change and asking for opinions. I think I have done that myself. But for something this contentious there definitely should be discussion. But the article itself is supposed to be the basis for the infobox, not the other way around. Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the actual issue here? Are you saying Draw should be in the bullet list? Why? The parameter for Results is for Win, Draw, Loss and/or Inconclusive (while we use the bullet list to list other important things like a treaty, or in this case the defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy) and the consensus among sources is that of a draw, hence we say Draw. Davide King (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Draw should be combined with stalemate in the results list. Its referring to the same thing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, I did add Draw because one user, I guess Ykraps or you (maybe both?), lamented Military stalemate, especially as the first thing and no longer as part of the bullet list, that the parameter did not support that, etc. So I did add Draw because it is more in line with the parameter, where we should use Win/Draw/Inconclusive. Davide King (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the parameters were only three options (1) A Victory (2) B Victory (3) Inconclusive. I don't think there was a draw option. So in fact, for this, to follow wikipedia suggested guidelines, it would be *inconclusive*... not draw. But yes, I can see people would attack "military stalemate" because it's not clear what it means. You see people use terms like "German Tactical Victory" which I'm personally not a fan of, because the average punter probably has no idea what it's saying. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, Draw is just another way to say Inconclusive, so I do not really see the issue. That is why I added Draw in the first place, to make more clear that military stalemate comes from that or what it means and entails. Now can we please drop this and leave it like it is and work on the article instead? Davide King (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed house rule

I propose that unless mutually agreed, for example in a discussion about references, that we agree to limit comments to five sentences or less, with no quotes.Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

In 34 days, you have posted 454,738 bytes, which makes you the major contributor to the talk page over the last 14 years. Deathlibrarian is second, having posted 403,404 bytes over the last 14 years. Only two other editors have posted over 200,00 bytes.[6] Instead of recommending restraints for other editors, you might want to set an example. TFD (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been working hard to AGF, this is true...but the walls of text do seriously impede readability; I definitely don't read them and I don't think anyone else does either. Which is fine, because they are generally off-topic anyway. Don't worry, as you've just demonstrated, a five-sentence limit won't prevent you from exercising your core competencies Elinruby (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

In reply to TFD..... Elinruby is posting stuff on here because he is actually doing work, the same as Davide King. In my view, the problem is people putting up biq quotes from books, and arguing about who won the war/Annexation. We don't need to continue arguing that, unless you actually want to implement changes to the content about that particualr issue. Otherwise, its just chatter and can be done elsewhere. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Occupation of Maine

HI all - I've been researching a bit about this, to see if I can add anything to this section, and I have seen mention of the British occupying "some offshore Islands" off Passamaquoddy bay. I assume one of these is Machias Seal Island. Does anyone know about this particular bit of the war, or this part of the US/Canada? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Not, really, but I think you are right about that. There may be more at the Canadian militias article. I seem to remember some stuff about a border war with New Brunswick. It was a little after this war but you might find some search terms there. That's all I got. Elinruby (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Elinruby - I'll tkae a look, its not a major part of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete the outcome field RFC

I count Deathlibrarian as a reluctant yes, and North8000 as a yes, which he may intend to be purely advisory, not a vote, but still a solid yes. TFD and Davide King are naturally against and Tirronan is a wild card who despises infoboxes and is still talking about what should go in the field. This was not a vote, just a straw poll, but given the results I suggest an RfC, which is as easy to ignore as anything on this talk page, but still would bring in people with some experience of Wikipedia policy. I don't have time to write one right now, but this is notification that I currently intend to write a formal one with all due notifications etc. Something along the lines of "should this article follow Wikipedia guidelines" Elinruby (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We just had an RfC on the content June 18 at Talk:War of 1812/Archive 23#Rfc about the outcome of the War of 1812, which was archived by July 10. If you want to have another RfC, you must use neutral writing, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment. So you cannot say should we follow guidelines because it implies that your only your proposal follows guidelines. TFD (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't recall asking permission Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Asking permission for what? TFD (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't open an RFC with the question "Should this article follow Wikipedia guidelines?" RFCs should be "brief, neutral statements". Your proposed question is not neutral, and worse, it's very unlikely to actually settle the issue. Obviously the answer to the question "should the article follow guidelines" is "yes", but what does that mean specifically for the text of article? It doesn't actually address the dispute and the close will give zero forward guidance on how the article should look. If you want an RFC to determine whether the infobox should have an outcome field, then the RFC question should be "Should the article infobox outcome field be deleted?" Earlier, when the dispute seemed to be over whose proposed wording to include in the RFC, I made a template User:Red Rock Canyon/sandbox#Proposed War of 1812 infobox RFC, but the discussion moved on from that before I could open it. I agree that the best way to settle this would be to open an RFC, and the best kind of RFC is one that gives respondents a clear choice between a few proposed outcomes.The time for an RFC on this issue was months ago, but the previous RFC was deficient and was also archived too early. If you're serious about starting an RFC, we should hash out the wording and then get it started, making sure to advertise it at the appropriate noticeboards and wiki projects, and to contact every who commented at the previous RFC. Here's my proposed wording based on my current understanding of the various opinions on the issue:

What should be in the "Result" section of the infobox?

A: (as in this version) [7]

Military stalemate

• Treaty of Ghent
• Status quo ante bellum
• Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy

B: (as in this version) [8]

See Memory and historiography section

C: the "result" section should be left out.

Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Red Rock Canyon, thanks for your comment. Any thoughts about the current version? This is a bit of a compromise and I thought the issue was finally done, but they do not seem happy until they get exactly what they want; and if they cannot get want they want, they would rather want us to delete it. Davide King (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If people want to include the current version instead of my choice A, then that's fine with me. I think the fewer options we have, the better, since it's harder to judge a consensus when opinions are split between many options. I would recommend people read WP:WRFC since it has some good pointers on how to frame an RFC to maximize the chance of successfully resolving the issue. Basically: be brief, be specific, and be neutral. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer to use the current version than version A. It at least included both viewpoint on who won the war, so its NPOV - and Davide King has done a pretty good job of getting it to that point. If you don't include both views, the Canadian view that the Uk/Canda won the war, as well as the US view it was a draw, you are going to have people continuing to come here and argue that it needs to be included, as its NPOV (which is what it will be!). Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, I think that is one of the issues. The draw view is not an American view, it is the consensus among sources and most historians, no matter their nation; the American view includes both American win (minority), American loss (minority) and that it was draw (majority) while the Canadian view is probably that it was a win (majority) or a draw (minority). But the consensus among sources and historians, no matter their nationality, is that it was a draw (majority), a British win (minority) or an American win (minority). I do not hold an American view, I simply believe we should follow whatever reliable sources say. I believe the same applies to the others. I do not think or believe The Four Deuces, Rjensen and Tirronan have an American POV, they are simply following what reliable sources say, so the issue may well be that reliable sources hold an American POV, that it was a draw, but there is not much we can do about it; Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, so we have to report what we say, they say it was a draw and I believe the current infobox reports that more neutrally. I thought we had reached a compromise, so I would really appreciate and be thankful if we could all accept the current one and avoid yet another request for comments. I do prefer too the current version which add both Draw and Both sides claim victory; and it also does include links to the section. Davide King (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's not litigate the whole issue now and just try to settle on the wording for the RFC. How about we just include the current text as the only option, since it's a combination of the previous A and B text, and both of you seem to support it? Elinruby and some other editors clearly want the results section removed, so that has to be an option in the RFC as well.

What should be in the "Result" section of the infobox?

A: (as in this version) [9]

Draw

• Both sides claim victory
• Treaty of Ghent
• Military stalemate
• Status quo ante bellum
• Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy

For its aftermath, see Memory and historiography of the War of 1812 and Results of the War of 1812

B: the "result" section should be left out

Would that be okay? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good option for leaving as is, thanks Red Rock Canyon. Elinruby - I'd like to clarify, is there any reason why you would prefer to have no results sectin there, as opposed to a link to the memory and histo section? Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer the link, a blank outcome field is an invitation to drive by editors.--Ykraps (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Elinruby (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's delete the outcome field

It is not required and if we just do that we can all do something meaningful with our lives rather than attempt to get certain editors to read. This should be an RFC but I need to go adult. Let's just have a show of hands instead for now. As nominator, I support deleting the entire infobox, but the outcome is one of its many problems and solving that would be a start. Elinruby (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It may not be required, but the result is not actually disputed among sources and now it is sourced too. You are clearly exaggerating the dissent among them and in some cases even misrepresent their views as has been argued at length by The Four Deuces, Rjensen, Tirronan and others. So we should delete it only if there is an actual dispute, but there is not. You are also never happy; I did compromise so we say that both sides claim win, let us not throw it out of the window now.--Davide King (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It is better not to have it than do this for ten more years. I for one, think it is ridiculous to argue about that one box when the article is in the shape it is in. It MUST be rewritten at this point, and I really want to know about the nature of the assignments that students are getting when they work on the article. I am seeing a whole bunch of random references that relate to nothing in particular. I can't believe you can't find something wrong with the article, and there is some helpful tagging I left when I went through as well. And in the example above, no it is not fixed, even though I am the one who fixed it. It is better in that it doesn't say "atrocities" in Wikipedia voice, but on reflection I do not know what the settlers or soldiers or whatever were doing when they were supposedly attacked, and I asked you to find out. You say you found the source. So who is saying the words between the quotes? It sounds like someone from the period. Sigh Elinruby (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe you, Deathlibrarian et al. may stop trying to change it when, as reported by Tirronan, your views about the infobox have been rejected for a decade now? By the way, I never said I did not find anything wrong with the article, so do not put me words I never wrote. I always said the sooner we end this thing about the infobox, the sooner we will be able to concentrate only on the actual article. I also find it quite ironic you write I really want to know about the nature of the assignments that students are getting when they work on the article, when you and Deathlibrarian have misrepresented sources about the actual result, when they either did not support your claims about British victory nor disputed the consensus of a draw. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit; if you have problem with this, maybe it is not me who is not here to build an encyclopedia. "Indian atrocities" seems to be a wording that used. Just like was the case of "Indian", we should report what sources say. If they say "Indians" or "Indian atrocities", we say so; if they do not, we do not either. Just like many reliable sources have a bourgeois bias, so they have a colonialist-imperialist bias; and there is not much we can do about it. By the way, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.--Davide King (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't re-direct this argument against me. The notion that the infobox would be completely stable, excpet for me trying to change it, is ridiculous. I have always been concerned about NPOV and who won the war being represented, but people are changing it all the time, or other issues. I'm just going to ignore your comments on me misrepresenting sources - I don't know what you are on about. If you ahve an issue with me doing something wrong, please take it up on my talk page, not in the middle of a discussion about changing ar article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I was merely reporting what several users have lamented about you and others, i.e. that sources used to claim British victory or that disagree with the draw result have been misinterpreted; I just happen to agree with them; and I believe it is especially relevant because Wikipedia bases itself on reliable sources and verifiability, it cannot be dismissed. I also have to disagree with you on your claim that people are changing it all the time for the infobox has been pretty stable for the last couple of years... until a few months ago when everything was removed from the Result and added a link to a section. I thought we had reached a compromise about it, so can we please leave it like it is and concentrate on the article first? You were the one who wanted us to have all viewpoints in the infobox and Draw, Military stalemate and Status quo ante bellum are all terms used and sourced to describe the result and are rightful listed. Davide King (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

And golly gee here I am trying to verify. So whose words are between the quotes, Davide? You asked me for a place to start. Who got attacked? By whom? Why? And it's fine to say that the settlers were mad about it as long as it is clear that this is not what Wikipedia itself thinks of this, do you see now? Now please. Go find something to do. /me scrolls up ... Let's see. For the record there is nothing wrong with students editing Wikipedia, but instructors should be responsible for minimal quality control. But the very widespread problem of unverifiable references indicates to me that there was probably an assignment like "make an edit to the text and provide a reference". I did not have you in mind specifically. This is a follow-up to the comment on the article quality. /me scrolls up ...I have no idea what conspiracy nonsense babble thing you are saying about Deathlibrarian. Ten years, what? How does one single person argue about this for ten years? I am starting to think we should delete the entire article for the mental health of all concerned :( Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That is no conspiracy nonsense babble thing [...] about Deathlibrarian. I was referencing those two comments by Tirronan here and here, where they wrote That has been the non-stop object of DL's desire for 2 decades. And, no there is no consensus for it. [...] I believe that Davide is correct in this and it has been argued endlessly. We are just beating dead ground again, and again, and again. This can be easily confirmed by the Who Won the War of 1812? thread going back to the 2009 and 2010 years.--Davide King (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Note how just a comment above one of Tirronan's comments I literally wrote The article is currently a mess [...]. So much for you claiming I can't believe you can't find something wrong with the article!--Davide King (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Lets look at it this way. There is so much work involved in it, its better to get rid of it and link to the section, as per the guidelines. There is currently two debates going on associated with it (1) whether draw and stalemate are the same (2) whether impressment/Maritime rights should be in there. It should also have in there that the US invasions of Canada were repulsed, and that shouldn't of been removed, because its obviously very important to the canadian point of view. I DO appreciate all the very hard work Davide King has done... but the results/outcome field is just so problematical, and involves so much work, its better to just follow guidelines and get rid of it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The conspiracy nonsense babble thing [...] about Deathlibrarian.That's Tirronan having a rant about me coming on here for a long period of time, making changes to the page. It annoys him, I see it as me trying to make the changes to the page to make it less US centric and more NPOV. I'm not going to engage with him with that, I have better things to do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I know but Davide has no business spewing that kind of ad hominem as if it proved something. You made him mad so he said nobody likes you. Boohoo. Elinruby (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop implying things I never wrote or mean, stop misinterpreting me as if that was an ad hominem. I am not mad, I simply believe that misrepresenting sources is an issue, perhaps that we are all guilty for, but the use of sources used to imply it was a British victory, or that they dispute the consensus by making the dissent look bigger than it actually is, has come from you. Davide King (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean by US centric? Are you referring to the infobox or the main body as being US centric? Please, give some examples; maybe we can try to fix that together. Davide King (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree about getting rid of it just because we disagree; while we may disagree, sources do not and to me it is pretty clear that the ones we currently list are generally key and uncontroversial facts. You said it yourself, we are now discussing whether draw and stalemate are the same, not which side won. I believe the maritime rights and the invasions are more controversial and are better to be discussed in the main body; the infobox should be for key, short and concise facts, something that may not be done with those; and second, it would start to be way too big. I mean, why then not also add that the Americans won at New Orleans? I believe Rjensen has emphasised this as important and Ironic Luck has made the point how the same defensive argument could be flipped with Louisiana. We will just keep adding more and more things. I believe those are better discussed in the main body and the current infobox is better than it was before; it is sourced and it does say that both sides claim victory. Davide King (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

US centric - more the article generally, than the infobox, the infobox is better now..I mean for example the sentence I noted a couple of days ago as being pro US jingoistic - which everyone agreed it was and we changed. Also the last two paras of the lede section are a bit pro US as well... in that the talk all about the US, but only mention the UK in a negative sense, and don't mention Canada at all! I'll raise that as a thread and ask people's opimions. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Then can we please concentrate on this rather than on the infobox? Because I agree with you on this and I believe this is something that we can work and fix together without too much issues.--Davide King (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: I don't know how to break this to you my man but the Americans did win in New Orleans and the article does say so at some length. Elinruby (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think otherwise it might be because I took the Louisiana Purchase out of the results box, because it happened before this war. My mind is open on the subject but...Elinruby (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I was simply arguing that if we add more things to the infobox Result (such as the invasions and British maritime rights), we may end up adding more things too which other users find important and so I gave the example of New Orleans which has been described as an important event by several users; it was just an example and I do not want us to add the American victory at New Orleans in the infobox. I believe the bullet list is fine as it is and anything else that may be added there, it is better to be discussed in the main body. Davide King (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Usually when editors suggest a change to the text, they provide a reason, which was not done in this case. It seems to me that the most important thing about any war is who won. TFD (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You're beside the point again. A change was made with consensus. It was then changed without consensus. Elinruby (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Peacemaker67's proposal, but a vote is not consensus and that did unreasonably change an infobox that was pretty stable for the last couple of years. Consensus should have been based on the request for comments, not on that proposal. Davide King (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Of course you're talking about the inbox. No Davide King (talk · contribs) the bulleted list is not fine the way it is because you've changed it since Tirronan (talk · contribs) said they could live with it, without talking to anyone about it, and you've been asked twice now, politely, to put it the way it was. Also, the layout you have changed it to implies that everything else is a consequence of draw, whereas, as we are currently discussing, draw and stalemate are pretty much the same thing. On a related note, treaty of Ghent and status antebellum should be on the same line, but we aren't ready for that conversation yet. Elinruby (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That was discussed for a month, AND voted on (twice), with four people supporting, and only one person dissenting. How is that not consensus? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because it was just four people, it was not advertised (again, can we agree that was a drastic change? Surely we would need as many users who did contribute to the article as possible to express their thoughts) and neither Rjensen, Tirronan and perhaps others expressed their views? Davide King (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I am surprised I found that discussion myself. In any case there was an RfC on what the info-box should say: 6 said draw, 2 said status quo ante and 4 wanted to say the outcome is disputed. (E&OE) TFD (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you expect me to talk about? This discussion, literally titled "Let's delete the outcome field", is about the infobox and the infobox is what we have discussed the most, so what is your point? Anyway, I never thought that way; I simply thought that was the way is done, with Win/Draw/Loss and then a bullet list with other important results of the war; it does not have to imply everything else is a consequence of draw. I always thought the bullet list does not mean that it was a consequence of a draw, just that it was a result and aftermath of the war, without implying that everything was a consequence of the draw itself. It is more clear now? Finally, I thought we did reach a compromise? Treaty of Ghent, military stalemate and status quo ante bellum have always been recently in the infobox. We have added to that draw and the Tecumseh's Confederacy. I assume you are fine with the latter addition and you have issues with draw. It is sourced (I removed the backcover ref from there) and several users have argued that that the degree of dissent among scholars is largely exaggerated and that a lot of the sources cited on closer inspection do not actually challenge consensus. So the issue is whether we should say only draw or military stalemate, or if both are warranted; and if they mean the same thing or not. Davide King (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy, which I absolutely support in the bullet list, makes clear the bullet list is not about as a result or consequence of a draw but as a result and consequence of the war which is different. Indeed, it was not a draw or a status quo ante bellum for the indigenous nations; it was a loss. Hence, it is clear to me the bullet list is about the aftermath and consequences of the war, not that it was a draw. The draw simply is the main result which is where we put whether Win/Draw/Inconclusive; and the bullet list, where we put important aftermath and results of the war itself. Davide King (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(trying again) Why is draw the "main result"? Elinruby (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Because whatever other results there were depended on the outcome. The Treaty of Ghent for example might not have restored the status quo ante had one side or the other won. Otherwise what was the point of the war in the first place? TFD (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

But they did not. Stalemate is close to a synonym and the defeat of Tecumseh did not stem from a stalemate or a draw, and actually led to treaty contraventions. It also wasn't status quo ante bellum for him, was it? So he needs to be a separate item. But here we are at the heart of the matter: the layout implies a causal relationship that is not there. It also is not what was agreed, so given that it also reduces the field to gibberish, the change should be rolled back. Elinruby (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That gets into synthesis, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Although your conclusions about who won the war may be better than that of most experts, we are forced to accept their findings. It really doesn't help readers to see articles reflect our conclusions rather than those they would typically find in textbooks. Like you, I don't personally agree with every view that the is considered consensus. But I either ensure that i edit those articles from a consensus point of view or avoid them. TFD (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Just no. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says we need to use two synonyms, and make untrue statements in the infobox of a vital article. Just stop. We should delete the entire field but pending that it should be the consensus version. Elinruby (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require that information be true, but that it be verifiable. The reasoning is that the body of expert writing is more likely to be accurate than what individual editors believe. And policy says that we should give the same prominence to facts as do reliable sources. We shouldn't hide the outcome of the war because with very little knowledge of the war we long ago formed the conclusion that Canada won. Also, let's not set a precedent. I don't want to encourage editors who think the wrong side won the U.S. Civil War and WW2. TFD (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Please verify that Tecumseh's death is a consequence of a military stalemate then. The layout implies that it is. The disputed "stalemate" is then repeated again as a synonym which is somehow a consequence of itself, just in case we missed it, along with the treaty, which, possibly, could be a consequence of a stalemate, I suppose, and then the terms of the treaty are mentioned again as if they were a separate thing. How about if we use our words in a sentence? Just saying, this is currently word salad Elinruby (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd delete the field. In this case it would be a characterization derived by Wikipedia editors (via maneuvers with sources) rather than information. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: thank you Elinruby (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts here. The defeat of the Confederation was a major even of the War of 1812. The Treaty of Ghent sealed the outcome. It should be in the infobox. I to this day am not at all sure that there were any real losers in the War of 1812 with the singular exception of the Confederation. They lost every single thing they fought for.Tirronan (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

support Deleting outcome field and linking to the Memory and historiagrphy section (This was voted on before and carried), and unfortunately reverted. As mentioned before numerous times, this is inline with wikipedia policy on infoboxes for miltiary articles. However, I do acknonwledge the infobox is now better than it was before. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Voting is not consensus. For something as controversial to remove the outcome from the infobox, a request for comments should have been opened instead. The infobox was also pretty stable for years with Treaty of Ghent, Military stalemate and Status quo ante bellum, so I believe it was probably unwarranted. Neither Rjensen nor Tirronan, two users who worked hard on the article, were notified of the discussion for their inputs and thoughts; and their silence should not be assumed to imply consensus on that vote. Here, Tirronan expressed preference for this infobox over this one (see diff). The only difference with the current one is that the former, which Tirronan favoured over the other, did not include both sides claims victory while the current one does as compromise on my part. Davide King (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a discussion on the matter - with voting. People indicate their thoughts by stating a vote. I agree, the infobox was stable, for at least three years, however the logic that "its always been like that" is not an argument for not changing things. In my opinion, the infobox has been NPOV for years and *should* have been changed. Even now, there should be a statement in there that the US invasion of Canada was unsuccessful. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia nor consensus are about voting; and since you agree that the infobox was stable for the last couple of years, can you at least also agree that was a drastic change (the whole removal of it) that would require a request for comments? I believe the current bullet list is full already and if we add one more, we will have to add another more and so on. For example, if we add that the invasion of Canada was unsuccessful, we may have to add about the British invasion of Louisiana and the infobox will soon grow up way too big. Davide King (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: what if I told you that one way to deal with this problem is to just not try to synth the one perfect distillation of the lore of the Ancients as if we were monks in the Dark Ages? Elinruby (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The whole war was about the invasion of Canada!The war was not about the British invasion of Louisiana. How can they be equated? This is what I mean about US focus on this page. Clearly the invasion of Canada, with the threat of the country beeing annexed and added to the US is a pivotal event, and the main theme of the war. No one ever says the British Invasion of Louisiana is a core component of the war. This is trying to equate a Major Canadian event with some minor US event and is a disparity of focus. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be more of your personal view, especially the part about [t]he whole war [being] about the invasion of Canada; the war was more complex than be reduced about that. For Canadians, it may well be about that, but that is their view, which should be in the main body. We cannot say the war was all about that. Davide King (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Davide KingLOL My personal view!!!! Are you trying to tell me the fact that Canada not being successfully invaded and made part of the United States wasn't a pivotal result of the war? Seriously? If Canada had been made part of the United States, don't you think that would of been a fairly important historical event? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that did not happen and I would prefer other users such as The Four Deuces, Ironic Luck, Rjensen, Shakescene and Tirronan would reply you back about this. I am really tired of being the only one to reply you back. Davide King (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Another issue is that there is disagreement about it, for example that the annexation of Canada was not an objective of the United States. I believe and remember one comment saying this already but I could not remember where. Again, the Canadian viewpoint may well say or believe that annexation was an objective of the United States, but we need to say the historians and reliable sources' viewpoint, not nations involved's. I believe that is also why it was not mentioned either in previous versions. Davide King (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

OK I accept that, the article does dispute the annexation. However it doesn't dispute the fact the US army did invade Canada and the invasion failed. That fact is easily verifiable and should be included. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So did the British. Whether you may think they would have been successful if the war continued is beside the point. De facto both invasions failed and the British were defeated at Baltimore and New Orleans, so we should say both invasions failed or were repelled, etc. But the failure of those invasions was one of the reasons the war ended in a draw, not a result of the war. Davide King (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not the one who is doing synthesis. And what does that even mean? Davide King (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to keep this short for obvious reasons. I've noted various Canadian historians, usually of dubious quality, wanting to make the whole cause of the war the Annexation of Canada. The War Hawk faction was all for kicking the British out of Canada. Historical examination of the records in both the House of Representatives and the Senate show huge confusion over the issue. Note that the American south didn't want new northern states voting against slavery. So the issue was kicked up to the Executive branch where President Madison said no. DL, this is a rehash and would be seen by most of us as tilting the article in a pro-Canandian way. It is not supported in main stream modern histories. Tirronan (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Tirronan, I've admitted (above) that I was wrong to sugggest to include *annexation* of Canada in there, as the article debates it, with arguments for both sides. However, it is a fact that the US invaded Canada. Its a fact the invasion failed. These are core facts of the war, and should be included in the results field. But yes, annexation can go, but the fact the US invaded another country, and that invasion was unsucessful is an important Historical/geopolitical event, Its probably the most important conclusions of the war. For it not to be in there is US bias. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me know when you want to start on the actual war sections and I'll help.Tirronan (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright so let's talk sensibly. If annexation doesn't belong in the infobox because it's for sputed, then neither does half the stuff that's in there. It seems like people are trying to call balls and strikes. If there are multiple national narratives we should not be trying to decide which one is right. If the article must have an infobox then everything in it needs to be verifiable. Those casualties numbers are not in the article as best I can see. Nor are they cited. It is also strange that both the tribes and the British had 10,000 casualties. I have yet to find a source for the members of the Confederation. All those flags need to go. The only ones we are sure about are the imperial powers. If the country went broke this should be in the article. Elinruby (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

For the national narratives, i.e. both claims they won, I thought that was already taken care off with Both sides claim win? The infobox is for key facts about the battleground and military results; the main body is for all the national narratives you want. By the way, the flags were already removed here. As for the casualities, they are actually referenced in the infobox? The 10,000 number is sourced to Clodfelter 2017, p. 245, so maybe that needs to be verified. In the main body, we use Tucker 2012, p. 113 for casualities. Davide King (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)