Wikipedia

Talk:War of 1812/Archive 23

< Talk:War of 1812
Latest comment: 4 years ago by 110.145.52.28 in topic Canadian English
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 29

Canadian English

Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments12 people in discussion

You do just accept American Spelling. Nobody even won the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZezzInfinity (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is the article in Canadian English? I believe given the totality of the circumstances (the war broke out because of disputes between the US and UK, the US declared war, many major battles were fought on US soil, etc.) American English would be appropriate. Emperor001 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The statement above is a prime example of US imperialism!! Why on earth should it be written in American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.52.28 (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times before and you might find it interesting to review the Talk Page Archives (See above). You should also review the Wikipedia Policy on English Varieties WP:ENGVAR
TL:DR Basically as far as I recall Wikipedia policy on the variety of English used in any article depends on a number of factors. One of which is what variety the originator of the article used. One is that the subject is really uniquely under one language variety. As Canadian and to a lesser extent British English can claim that this topic is is significant to those countries, choosing American would be selecting one for a reason which is not unique any more than selecting Canadian or British English is appropriate because it was an existential war for the British in North America and there were many battles fought on what is now Canadian soil. It has been established that once a variety is being used, it should only be changed if there is a clear consensus to change it. For many years no consensus has been established to change from Canadian English. Dabbler (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be good to change it to American English since the United States was the only country on its side and the article talks more about it. Also, Canadians tend to accept most American spellings, and the British have largely forgotten about this war.--Roastedturkey (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean that the US was the "only country on its side," that in itself means nothing. Also, speaking as a Canadians, we don't just "accept American spelling." Also on a semantical note, Canadian English is British spelling, with adopted American lexicons (broadly speaking). And in saying that, that seems like good ground for compromise, with this kind of article. Also if were going to talk about cultural impact, compared to Americans, Canadians tend to talk about this conflict ad nauseam (and in saying that, I don`t think cultural relevance/impact should play a determining factor for issues like this, but thats just my two cents). Leventio (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
What I was trying to say was that the US had no cultural allies, and were fighting both British and Canadians. As I mentioned before, the British hardly pay attention to this war, but hearing Americans (like myself) talk about it is not uncommon, and given that the article seems to focus extensively on the United States while saying comparatively little about Canada makes me believe it should be changed to have American English. And it seems to me that Canadians are usually more tolerant towards American Spellings than other English speakers.(Am I wrong?)--Roastedturkey (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Your going to have to clarify on the whole lack of cultural allies, as that would seem to be a proposition that is in itself contentious (I mean, your really glossing over a number of Native American cultures that were aligned with the Americans, not to mention this sort of discounts nominal levels of support on a private level outside North America). And in saying that, I don't really see how the perceived "cultural isolation" has anything to do with spelling (really I'm confused about the relevance of that statement).
With regards to Canadian English, I have no idea what you mean by "more tolerant towards American Spellings than other English speakers." If by tolerant, you mean that certain words can be spelt both "American," or "British," than sure (e.g. American -ize and British -ise are both accepted practices in Canada). But really, that isn't tolerance, so much as thats just how the Canadian spelling system is set up (both are taught to be correct in Canadian English). Which was why I was saying earlier that it seemed like the the system the makes the best compromise. That said, if by tolerance, you mean that you could just pass off an American-spelt word (thats written differently in Canada) to a Canadian without them correcting you, that'd be pretty wrong (and if this is the case you were saying, that seems... like a rather subjective argument).
That said, I actually do think that you have a fair point with what the content actually addresses (content is definitely more American-centric; although the citations used are pretty diverse in origin to go back to the who's talking the conflict). Really though, it should be taken as an opportunity to expand on content that current editors find insufficient. Which sorta leads me into a point that the article has changed throughout its editing history (including a few sections that were spun off into their own articles), so the existing content that is there shouldn't be the end all of this discussion (it should be determined by all facets of subject at hand, whether or not the article sufficiently covered it, but again, just my two cents with MOS:ENGVAR being as vague as it is). Really though just clarifying a potential misunderstanding about Canadian English (probably took it the wrong way, but your comments seemed sorta dismissive of the differences). Honestly I'm good to go with whatever consensus other editors have reached here. Leventio (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
What I mean by having no cultural allies is that the Americans were fighting alone on one side against the British and Canadians on the other. This means that Americans fought in every battle, while the other side was split. The natives didn't speak English and were too insignificant for me to consider.
And with Canadian English, I do mean the former. The reason I am writing this is because I see Canadian spellings in American-focused sections and sentences, such as US reasons for declaring war. Would Canadians accept changing the spellings in these areas without changing the article's official spelling? --Roastedturkey (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I can't speak for everybody, but I personally don't care. That said, I should probably point out that MOS:ENGVAR does make it clear that the variant of English remains consistent throughout the article (MOS:CONSISTENCY). Its unfortunate, but the present way the MOS is set up sorta requires us to debate the standard used for the entire article, as opposed to just using the variant most suitable for individual sections. Leventio (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
That's why I am afraid I would have to change the official spelling first, but I guess I could just go for it and see if anyone cares.--Roastedturkey (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Really make no difference to me as a Canadian.....but most of the action took place in Canada.....so it just seems natural to many. Have a read over this article about why Canada cares.
MOS:ENGVAR seems to apply here ("English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of the language over any other."), also MOS:RETAIN, ("When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary.") Given that this was a war fought on Canadian and US territory, I don't think either side can claim a strong national tie to the topic. Ian Furst (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I would definitely not recommend the 'go for it and see if anyone cares' approach- I guarantee that someone would care. I suspect you'd have more responses if most of the regulars here hadn't already argued this topic into the ground. See the thread at the top here. --Noren (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I suggest keeping the current spelling, as the topic seems to attract more Canadian editors. TFD (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I concur with TFD, Ian Furst, Leventio, Dabbler and Noren that the current variety of Canadian English should be retained since it both lessens the maintenance burden and conforms to our policy of no-change-without-good-reason. The first versions of this article from seventeen years ago definitely did not use US English as their inclusion of spellings such as "favour" and "harbour" demonstrate.
All this missionary fervour by a relatively new editor to change articles into US English needs to stop since it's against established policy and wastes a great deal of time that could be spent more productively.--BushelCandle (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The policy is to not change the English form. So enough of this.Tirronan (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Good idea! --BushelCandle (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Results box - Change to Disputed Victory/Stalemate

Latest comment: 4 years ago44 comments6 people in discussion

Some years back, there was a discussion held, here, quite a lengthy discussion about the results box. The issue was, that it was seen as reflecting a US centric point of view - that is, that the war was a stalemate. To address, that we came up with a compromise, and changed the results box to reflect that there was dispute over the view of who won the War. That reflects th3e article, in that people in Canada see it as a victory for them, people in the US see it as a draw. Similiarly, historians tend to be split along national lines. Brit and Canadian historians tend to see it as a Victory for Canada, American Historians mostly see it as a draw, and a few US historians even see it as a victory for the US. This is nothing new, the article itself says this. I'm asking that the article results box is reverted to the conclusions of that discussion - that is, the results of the war, are seen differently, and that the US view that it was a stalemate is in fact that - not a Wikipedia view, but a US view. Basically, everyone knows no one agrees whether Canada won, or the US drew, the article should reflect this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC) As a precedent - I would point to Battle_of_Khe_Sanh this is a similiar conflict in which both sides involved disagreed on who won, and the results box shows *both* the US and Vietnam viewpoints, not just the US view. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of this topic belongs on the sub-page Who Won. Please read the rather large banner at the top of this page.--Noren (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a discussion about who won...and I certainly *don't* want to discuss that!:-) . Its a discussion about the infobox (please see Template:Infobox military conflict) reflecting the content of the article. The article indicates there is a dispute over who won. However, the infobox indicates there is no dispute, it only indicates one side. By not showing that the results of the war is in dispute, as the content of the article indicates, I believe we are breaking WP:NPOV policy. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC) We in fact already had a *lengthy discussion* with voting on this talk page, and it was decided to include the fact the results were disputed in the infobox, but someone had come along and changed it without checking WP:CON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
You made a proposal very similar to this one in 2018 for which there was a lengthy discussion with voting in which you failed to gain consensus for your proposal to edit the infobox. I am not aware of and doubt the existence of any such agreement reached elsewhere concerning the infobox. You did finally get agreement then to add the paragraph to the body of the article about national differences in framing of the outcome of the war, which is still there. See most of Archive 21 .--Noren (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion we had was here - Archive 20 - it was decided to add into the infobox that the results was disputed, as was said at the time, it reflected the article. The discussion you linked to there ended up being about adding material about the national bias of historians, which was in fact added. In any case, the page as it stands now, reflects that the outcome of the war is in dispute, both by people in different countries, and historians of different countries. As that is what the content of the article is about, the infobox should reflect this. The article doesn't come to the conclusion it was a stalemate, so the infobox shouldn't say that. In my opinion, if the results box doesn't reflect the view of non US historians, it doesn't reflect the article, and is also a WP:BIAS/NPOV issue.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a good reason to get rid of the infobox.--Ykraps (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think if the infobox is innacurate, then yes, maybe its better to get rid of the results section? It *is* convenient, but if its not representative of the article, it could be removed and people can read the section in the article?. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
My view is that infoboxes in general are of questionable benefit but when used to sum up wars and battles they are often detrimental. Plenty of wars/battles cannot be simply assigned a victor because the result is more complicated and sometimes depends on a point of view. For example, check out Battle of Fayal which is trumpeted as an American victory. However, as the British orders would have been to capture or destroy, in all likelihood, they would have seen it as their victory. The war of 1812 is not the only case where the issue is too complicated to sum up in an infobox. The article covers the outcomes of the war so people who are desperate to hear that their side won are free to infer that by mentally attaching more importance to selective parts of the text.--Ykraps (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Battle of Fayal Should really be a disputed victory, summing it up as an American victory seems an oversimplification (it could be something like the Battle_of_Khe_Sanh, where both sides saw they had won). In this case of the War of 1812 article, how about the results are changed to a link to the section in the article? What do you think? Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC) I note the infobox pages states "Information in the infobox should not be "controversial". Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank rather than make an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim." Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so considering the current issue with the results box being disputed (and it's in fact often disputed, of you look at the talk page history), and noting the suggestions in the military conflict infobox template pageTemplate:Infobox military conflict, how about we change the results to redirect to the "Historian's Views" section?Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Although the myths that the war was won by the Upper Canada militia or that America has never lost a war still have sway among some people in Ontario and the U.S., they have little or no support among experts. With possibly a few outliers, historians see the war as a draw. TFD (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi TFD - I don't think this is the place to argue our personal opinions about who won the war if you want to do that, as per Noren , may be its better you do that here Who Won - What we are trying to do here is getting the *infobox to reflect the article*. The article says (1) that there is a difference in opinion between historians from different countries(with US historians overwhelmingly supporting a draw, and Canadian/Brit historians more supporting a Canadian win) , and (2) there is a difference of opinion between people in different countries (people in Canada see they won the war, US people see it as a draw or they won). That needs to be reflected in the infobox - If we can't reflect that in the infobox, I agree with Ykraps may be it is better to remove the biased results and just connect to the section in the content, and people can read that.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I made no judgement about whether the results in the infobox were biased or not. I just think this is one of those situations where it's too complex to be summed up in the infobox. Telling people it was a draw without further explanation is meaningless. The view that it was a draw is generally based on the premise that, with perhaps the exception of the Canadians, everybody lost, and not the ongoing argument that everybody won. My stance is that I am anti-infoboxes which I see as unnecessary at best and utterly detrimental at worst, and that this case illustrated the latter. If we are keeping the infobox, my preference would be to put "disputed" or similar. This would, I think, force people to read the article, and we could even link to the relevant section. --Ykraps (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Disputed, link to the relevant section. People can read the section themselves (and as noted, wikipedia template policy seems to support this the military infobox template says "Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.") Personally, I think.... where the results are obvious, infobox results are appropriate. *However* summing a complex conflict/event situation, or discussing controversial results, with a few words is misleading and really, just having an infobox for the sake of it, rather than it being accurate or useful.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Back at it again I see. The infobox, and I despise infoboxs, only states that it was a military stalemate. A decision reached by both combatants whom I presume had a clearer view than we shall ever have. And, that the outcome was the Treaty of Ghent. I presume that everyone agrees that the Indians lost. As I recall, we spent over a decade arguing that one out. I will not agree to any further wrangling. Either everyone agrees to just get rid of the infobox entirely or leave it be. TFD was not wrong to summarize the consensus of historians, and it isn't his personal opinion. I object to your trying to marginalize his input, he has every right as an editor that you presume upon yourself. Be advised that I am taking this to the Milhist group and I'll let them take a look at this.Tirronan (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to open this up to a wider audience. Now that descriptions such as 'decisive', 'tactical', 'strategic', 'pyrrhic' etc are banned, the outcomes of battles and wars have become even more difficult to summarise in an infobox. Also, I am not entirely sure that 'stalemate' which nearly always infers a position where no side can win, is appropriate. With the defeat of Napoleon, Britain was in a very strong position but she was tired of war and not prepared to bear the financial burden of continuing. --Ykraps (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The War of 1812 was wrapped up before the 100 days started. Wellington made it very clear that the war could not be won. More optimistic views in Britain held that at least 2 more years were required to win. This wasn't a war that Britain was willing to continue to fund. Those are facts, not opinions. That is an enforced stalemate. America was unwilling to continue the Vietnam War and enforced a loss. Rare as it is, military stalemate works here. Deathlibrarian is simply trying once again to force a change for (in his own words) a matter of national pride. Attempting to shut TFD out of the discussion was not and is not right.Tirronan (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed your knowledge of the subject would have led you to realise I was talking about Napoleon's defeat at the end of the War of the Sixth Coalition. The Hundred Days was a future event and therefore would not have been a consideration for any side. A draw is not necessarily a stalemate and the view that Britain was in a strong position is not a fringe view. America was unwilling to continue fighting the Vietnam War but the North Vietnamese were not. That is entirely different to this situation where both sides wanted peace. --Ykraps (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Deathlibrarian, as is quite clear in my wording, I was not expressing a personal opinion, but summarizing the opinions expressed in reliable sources. Your view that U.S. historians think they won, while UK and Canadian historians think that the British won is wrong as was explained to you in great detail. Your suggestion that historians come to conclusions based on their nationality rather than rational judgment is demeaning to them. TFD (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
TFD Thanks TFD, that may be your opinion, but in this case, the article states that Historian's views *in fact do break down* on national lines, so we need to reflect that. There is a whole section on it here - Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC) This was looked into in depth back in 2018, a lot of times was spent looking at it, and and voted on by a number of editors including yourself, so please lets not go over it again. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The claim isn't supported by the sources. Take the first sentence: "Historians have different views on who won the War of 1812, and there is an element of national bias to this." The first source (Trautsch 2014) is talking about national narratives, not the findings of historians today. He says the "'militia myth' has been laid to rest." (That's Trautach writing, not my personal opinion.) The fact that textbooks from different countries emphasize different aspects of the war is hardly surprising. In Ontario for example, the war is included as part of a course on Canadian history. Obviously the battles of Brock and Tecumseh, the burning of Toronto and battles on the Great Lakes will receive more emphasis than maritime battles or the Battle of New Orleans, which might receive more coverage in U.S. textbooks. On the other hand, in the other provinces and the rest of the British Commonwealth, it receives less if any coverage.
Governments in both Upper Canada and the U.S. promoted the myth that their respective countries were threatened with conquest and they won by repelling the enemy. But that was never the aim of the war on either side. (Again not my opinion, but what reliable sources say.) Therefore each side could falsely claim victory.
TFD (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Regardless, this is just walking the same footsteps once again. Sophistry isn't buying you a thing here with the same old rehash of the same old subject. There is nothing new here at all Deathlibrarian.Tirronan (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned, there was a huge discussion previously, and we all agreed there *is* a national bias with historians. That's what the article says currently. TFD If you personally believe otherwise, that's OK TFD, you can have that discussion and you will need to get the editors to agree with you to change it, and show evidence there is no pattern between the nationality of historians, and their opinions on the war. But at the moment, that's what the article says, and its our job as wiki editors to respect that. The infobox needs to reflect that. And as per Ykraps I think its too complex to have all the various opinions, and as per Wikipedia policy on infoboxes, the military infobox template says if the results are complex or controversial, there should just be a link to the section. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The relevant policy here is WP:WEIGHT. The vast majority of quality sources agree, a small minority of sources disagree and it was agreed a while back that an appropriate weight for this minority was the short note in the body of the article, but no consensus was reached at that time for adding anything concerning this minority view to the infobox. The existence or not of a bias among the minority viewpoint is beside the point for the infobox and lead, as we should not present minority views with a disproportionate weight as if they were equivalent to the majority view regardless of the details. --Noren (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- NorenEven if one viewpoint is the majority viewpoint, and one viewpoint is the minority viewpoint, there are still two viewppoints on the outcome of the war, with notable historians on boths sides supporting their views.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a number of discussions going on here. I understood this to be about whether the infobox accurately depicts what's in the article. The article says that views differ as to the result so I don't think putting 'disputed' in the infobox is unreasonable. I am happy to entertain other suggestions, including leaving it blank. The rest off this dialogue appears to be off-topic and not aimed at improvong the article. --Ykraps (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree - this is about the infobox, and how an infobox should reflect an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Disagree Nation VIEWS do not accurately report the summation of the outcome of historical events. This is a history article not a popularity contest by nationality. Further, far more that 4 editors would be needed to make a change, let alone that 2 of the four seem to disagree.Tirronan (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Ykraps Unfortunately, this page is quite political. I agree with you, it will make a better article to change the infobox with your suggestion, and I would vote with you, but basically certain editors that are active on this page will vote against that to keep it as it is. There's no harm in going with a vote to see what happens in any case, it would be great if you could propose it. I would remind editors that the infobox should reflect a WP:NPOV, and shouldn't be pushing forward one national narrative from one country (ie that it was a stalemate) over another national narrative (that it was a win for Britain). IMHO while one viewpoint remains in the infobox, and another is excluded, this is a WP:BAL issue and is generally biased to that point of view. WP:BALANCE Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tirronan: What is it you disagree with, that opinions differ as to the result, or that the infobox should reflect what's in the article? --Ykraps (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest it would be better to replace the current contents of the results field with [[War of 1812#Memory and historiography|See Memory and historiography section]], as is recommended in cases where historians aren't clearly in support of one outcome or another. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

That would work for me too. Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems sensible to me. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
The info-box is for a quick summary of the topic. Since who won a war is is always a key fact, it belongs there. Since the consensus among historians is that the war was a draw, that's what it should say. I would point out too that the claims made about the historians reporting a win by one side or the other turn out on closer inspection not to be true. We're taking statements such as the U.S. naval was victorious in the Atlantic or Brock and Tecumseh was victorious in Upper Canada as a statement that one side or the other was victorious overall. TFD (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
TFD *there is no consensus among Historians that the war was a draw* That's the whole point of this discussion!. There are plenty of historians who say the war was a win for Britain and Canada (in particular British and Canadian historians), the article discusses Jon Latimer, and Carl Benn I think, but apart from them 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) and Desmond Mortton all say that it was a win for Canada/Britain. I mean, Brian Arthur's book is titled "How Britain Won the War of 1812".... it's not particularly ambiguous! Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
We need to distinguish between popular writing, especially by journalists and books and articles from academic publishers. No one questions that there is a national bias among the first type of source. Most if not all of your sources are of the first type. Second, here's what Brian Arthur's publisher says about his book: "Overturns established thinking about the Anglo-American War of 1812-15....The war is usually seen as a draw."[1] Note it doesn't say that historians disagree on the outcome of the war based on their nationality, this is the latest of a long line of books by British and Canadian historians explaining how they won the war. You need to show that the book has achieved its aim and had a substantial impact on thinking among experts in the field. TFD (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
TFD I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole where you start picking apart books you don't like because of X reason. I can say I don't like your sources, you can say you don't like mine, we could spend hours debating each of 50 sources....and it will get nowhere. In any case, the article talks about the views of Historians, and all these sources quote the views of Historians, on the war. Putting nationality aside for the moment, *The main thing I am trying to show you is there is a body of historians that view the war as a win for Canada/UK, including people like Donald Hickey and Donald Graves*. You would at least agree with that? Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It'd not me not liking it: Arthur's publisher says the goes against established thinking. And as I and other editors have pointed out, you need to stop attributing opinions to other editors when they are merely reporting what opinions are expressed in reliable sources. Sometimes I agree with the consensus of experts, sometimes I disagree and most of the time I don't know. And unlike you I have not polled the various books about the war so I don't know if you are right. Instead, I am relying on 3what experts have said and none of them say there is a national bias among historians. TFD (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
TFDPutting Arthur and individual sources aside, can you please answer the question I asked: *The main thing I am trying to show you is that there is a body of historians that view the war as a win for Canada/UK, including people like Donald Hickey and Donald Graves*. You would at least agree with that? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
We should mention that dissenting views exists provided we have reliable secondary sources that discuss the dissent. per Wikipedia:Fringe theories. (Note that although the term is generally derogatory, this guideline merely refers to views that have little or no acceptance in reliable sources.) TFD (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
TFD I mean, the viewpoint that Britain won the war is an opposing viewpoint to the stalemate theory....and it is shared by a number of reknown historians who write about the war of 1812, including Donald Hickey and Donald Graves..Pierre Berton, and the commonly held view in Canada...and you are saying it's fringe theory!!!!? Frankly I find it hard to take that comment seriously. I think as Wikipedia editors, its our job to step back from our personal views, try to be more NPOV, and consider the wikipedia user. We should be considering opposing viewpoints. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
As I wrote above, "Note that although the term is generally derogatory, this guideline merely refers to views that have little or no acceptance in reliable sources." (03:38, 20 May 2020} You are ignoring what WP:FRINGE says and pretending that saying something comes under WP:FRINGE is comparing it with irrational theories such as ID. WP:FRINGE merely means "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field." Since you won't bother to click on the link, I will quote the guideline: "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted." That clearly describes you view that the UK or Canada won the war. TFD (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
TFD If you want to insist to claim that The view that Britain/Canada won the war is fring theory, that is a huge claim, and should be a separate discussion, which other people may want to comment on. Part of the article would need to be re-written. As such, I have started a new section where people can discuss it below. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring how Wikipedia defines WP:FRINGE. Even you cannot argue against the position that either the UK or U.S. won the war is "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field." TFD (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit Break - Vote on Peacemaker67's proposal

Latest comment: 4 years ago34 comments5 people in discussion

I'd like to propose a vote on Peacemaker67 suggestion that we, in his words, "replace the current contents of the results field with [[War of 1812#Memory and historiography|See Memory and historiography section]], as is recommended in cases where historians aren't clearly in support of one outcome or another." as he says, as it is recommended in these cases. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Do not support We should follow the results of the RfC below. TFD (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    I don't see the relevance. That RFC is about whether there is a bias among historians of different nationalities. That discussion is different to this one, which is about whether there is a difference of opinion (not bias) among historians (not nationalities) as to the outcome and whether that is reflected in the infobox. If you think all historians agree, or that the infobox summarises the article, then say that but don't muddy the waters with a different argument.--Ykraps (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    It's the same thing: an attempt to provide undue weight to the views of a tiny minority of historians, mostly writing outside academic publications. TFD (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    No, it isn't. And historians that consider the war a stalemate are in the minority. Although many consider it a draw, as explained above, that is not the same thing.--Ykraps (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    TFDFrom my research, I could find 30 historians, that explictly said the war was a stalemate or draw, and they were mostly(22) American. I found *17* that said it was a win for the UK. So no, in my math, 17 compared to 30...is not a "Tiny minority". That's probably a significant minority(Not sure?). Additionally, the sources generally say there are opposing views with historians, I've NEVER seen a source that says "only a tiny minority of historians believe that Britain won the war". If you have this source, please feel free to post it. TFD - Also, you are trying to apply WP:FRINGE Wikipedia policy to this article, for a minority viewpoint supported by a sizable body of historians; as stated, some of them are noted experts on the War of 1812. That is completely innappropriate and incorrect application of Wikipedia policy, the policy that is relevant here is WP:WEIGHT and WP:Bal. I people are concerned this is original research, I have the references and they can be added to the article if people wish.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    So why does the source you provided say that conventional thinking among historians is that the war was a draw? Policy specifically prohibits original research. Hey I could survey a bar in Toronto (once they open) and find 100% agreement that Canada won. Mind you most of them would also say the Leafs are going to win the Stanley Cup. But let's leave these things to experts. TFD (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    There are sources that say that there are multiple views on the war, they are included in the article. In terms of comparing those situations, they are completely different. For starters, the people I am referring to who view the war as a win for Canada are verifiable authorities in History.... in their field. Jon Latimer, Pierre Berton, Andrew Lambert, Donald Graves etc...Anyone who has studied the War of 1812 in depth would recognise some of these names at least. They even have Wikipedia pages.... for you to say they are spouting fringe theory is ridiculous. I can reference what they say..like this: [1] so what they have all said is verifiable. In contrast with the people in the bar, the difference being (1) they aren't experts in their field, and (2) you can't verify what they said there, because it hasn't been published. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC).
    Show me a reliable source that says there is a significant dispute among historians about the outcome of the war. BTW, we discussed that we are talking about historians, not popular writers and popular opinion. Since Pierre Berton was a journalist, not an historian, it shows the flaws in your methodology, which is why we don't rely on original research by editors. TFD (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    The issue here is whether the infobox summarises the article. In my opinion it doesn't; it promotes a single POV. We can either fix the infobox or rewrite the article to agree with it. Which is your preference?--Ykraps (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - There appears to be no agreement as to the outcome, and indeed, the article spends much time discussing this. The infobox should reflect this and not state it was a stalemate, which is only one of several opinions. The infobox template states that, "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail". [[2]] I think this is one of those situations. --Ykraps (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support obviously. On the basis that there is no clear academic consensus on the outcome. Any issues of bias should be dealt with in the Memory and historiography section and summarised in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • CommentDoes three out of Four votes carry the motion, or do we need more input? Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    As the proposal has only been open for a day, I would say it's too early to claim consensus. I would leave it running for a week at least, may be two.--Ykraps (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    Since we are effectively overturning the RfC below, we would need another RfC. The reliability is that there the received understanding among professional historians is that the war was a draw and most of the exceptions brought up turn out on closer inspection to either not actually challenge the consensus or are not professional historians. While I understand that individual editors may question who if anyone won the war, we shouldn't mislead readers on what experts say. TFD (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    No, we are not overturning that RFC and even if we were, it is only an RFC, not a !vote. The issue here, as has been explained to you, is whether the result in the infobox accurately summarises what is in the article. Are you advocating that the infobox should promote a single POV?--Ykraps (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    The RFC below is about the effect of the "Nationality" of historians and their viewpoints on the war and national bias, and it deals with the specific section in the article. *This* vote here is about the results of the war (as discussed by historians generally - their nationality is not an issue) as summarised in the Infobox, and it not following Wikipedia policy on the results section in infoboxes. They are separate issues. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    While the info-box should summarize what is in the article, the purpose of the RfC was to determine if what was in the article was accurate. it isn't. There is no serious dispute among historians as opposed to popular writers what the outcome was. You have moved the goal post from there is a dispute that goes along national lines to merely there is a dispute. But as I pointed out, the lists of historians who claim the war was a stalemate includes historians who said no such thing (such as Desmond Morton) as well as popular writers such as Pierre Berton. While I think we should mention the view in public opinion, we should not misrepresent what historians say about the war's outcome. TFD (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    No, I didn't say that TFD, check again what I wrote above ...I said *Desmond Morton* supported it as a win for Canada/Britain (quote - ".....Ron Dale, Pierre Berton (technically not a historian) and Desmond Mortton all say that it was a win for Canada/Britain"). The source for this is his talk "How Lower Canada Won the War of 1812" he said "Americans have claimed the war as a national triumph. Had not the Americans set out to conquer Canada? Their invasion failed utterly" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02722011.2012.707050?journalCode=rarc20. Clearly the purpose of your RFC below is to check the section of the article dealing with nationality - it says, literally "Do the sources used in the article support the claim that there is a national bias of historians?" - It's NOT checking the validity of the *WHOLE* article, its just checking that aspect. If you want to attempt to change the article to say that the view that Britain won the war of 1812 is fringe theory, that's your call (and good luck with that!!), *but the article doesn't say that its fringe theory currently*. Currently it says there are differing viewpoints among historians....because there are! Sure, more Historians see it as a draw, but there are also historians who see it as a win for Canada. Plenty of them. You trying to put them in the same category as Creationists and flat earth people is just banale, and to some people, it would seem to be an attempt to marginalise an opposing view you don't agree with. Please, by all means, start an RFC or discussion to categorise that view as fringe theory, I would love to be part of it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    In terms of the "Goal Posts" yes, I did start talking about the nationality of the Historians... however the infobox is still incorrect in that it only represents one view, and there is more than one view discussed in the article. Rather than arguing over what goes in the infobox, as we have done for years, its better to link to the section, as Ykraps has suggested, and wikipedia policy states that is what we should be doing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote above, "Note that although the term is generally derogatory, this guideline merely refers to views that have little or no acceptance in reliable sources." (03:38, 20 May 2020} You are ignoring what WP:FRINGE says and pretending that saying something comes under WP:FRINGE is comparing it with irrational theories such as ID. WP:FRINGE merely means "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field." Since you won't bother to click on the link, I will quote the guideline: "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted." That cleasrly describes you view that the UK or Canada won the war.

Morton was not claiming that Canada had won the war, merely explaining why they thought they had. He also explained why the Americans thought they had. He does not endorse either view.

TFD (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

TFD I have put four reference in here, to indicate that a historian had a viewpoint one way, or another, about how they felt about who won the war. You have disagreed with absolutely every single one of them, and reinterpreted it differently. I am at the point where I see there appears to be no point in me adding my references here, because no mater what I write, no matter how clear it is to me that a Historian has a view on whether the war was a victory or a draw, you will disagree with it. It is blatently clear that Morton believes Canada won the war. The article is EVEN titled "HOW LOWER CANADA WON THE WAR OF 1812"!!!! - and you still dissagree that he is saying Canada won the war!!!!Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
there's actually a current discussion in which I am involved concerning whether to mention in the policy that book and article titles are not reliable sources, since many tendentious editors try to use them. Lower Canada was at the time a colony and therefore could not win or lose a war. Morton was sufficiently competent an historian that he was aware of this and made no such claim in his article. Are you really going to say Lower Canada and Maryland won the war, while Virginia and the County of Essex lost? TFD (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Clearly, he is saying that lower Canada's contribution was a major factor in the overall Canadian victory in the conflict. The point is, the article title states that the article is *about a war that was won by Canada*. If you thought Canada had lost the war of 1812, why in Gods name, would you call your article "How Lower Canada Won the War of 1812?" Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, Pinging Peacemaker67 , TFD,Ykraps - Peacemaker67's proposed change has been discussed, and open for discussion for about a month now, with what appears no changes in people's votes. As it stands, we have 3 votes for this proposed change, and one dissent. I think its time to go ahead and make the change. How does that sit with people? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
As I wrote, this is an attempt to overturn an RfC, which should only be done by another RfC. if there's no dispute among historians about the outcome of the war, we should not say in the info-box that the outcome is disputed. I would also say that the discussion was frustrating because editors continued to bring up sources by people who were not historians or if they were misrepresented what they said. For example you asked "If you thought Canada had lost the war of 1812, why in Gods name, would you call your article "How Lower Canada Won the War of 1812?" In reply: article titles are not reliable sources and an attempt to interpret the meaning of an article based on its title is original research. Canada did not exist at the time: there were two Canadas, Upper and Lower. Neither colony was a party to the war which was declared between the King of the UK and the United States. Editors don't want to spend a lot of time explaining why your arguments go against policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, It looks like we are largely in agreement here on implementing Peacemaker67's proposal , with one dissenting vote, and we've given it a month to discuss - so I will go ahead and implement the change. Please note: this brings the article into alignment with Wikipedia policy on the results section in Infoboxes "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail. " Thanks for the contributions to the discussion, everyone, cheers - Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the results of Rfcs should only be overturned by new ones. While you claim this is a different topic, it is implicit in an RfC about whether historians disagree on the outcome of the war based on their ethnicity that they in fact do disagree about the outcome. TFD (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh good lord. I see now why nobody is currently editing the article. For the record I support making the indicated change, since the issue is complicated and the rule of thumb is to explain the controversy. I am going back to copy editing the article Elinruby (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Benn 2002; Latimer 2007, p. 3.

The Viewpoint that Britain won the war is Fringe Theory

Latest comment: 4 years ago61 comments6 people in discussion

TFD has made the claim that the viewpoint held by a number of historians that the war of 1812 was a victory for Canada is Fringe Theory. As this is a rather huge claim, and no doubt would involve a lot of discussion, and changing the article as wikipedia policy that applied to Fringe Theory would then be applied to this article, I have made a separate section here where it can be discussed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I am using the terminology in Wikipedia's guidline, WP:FRINGE. It is defined as "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field....In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field....We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field....Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process....Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted."
Can you please explain why you do not think that accurately describes the position that one side or the other won the war? Or perhaps you dislike the title of the guideline, in which case you should think of a better name.
TFD (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the term "fringe Theory" and how wikipedia is using it for an "alternative theory" that isn't accepted by the mainstream. However, the view that Canada won the war is a standard view proposed by a number of mainstream historians. These are not crackpots, or flat earthers. I have named them repeatedly above, and I will name them again because you seem to be ignoring this. It is a mainstream view, supported by a body of historians, based on certain principles. It is not a new view; Gilbert Auchinleck wrote this belief back in the 1860. Articles commonly refer to the differing views on who one the war of 1812, and none of them refer to the view that Canada won the war as "fringe theory".... only you do. As mentioned before, some of the most renown historians believe that Canada won the war, including: Pierre Berton (who is not a historian, but a respected writer in the field), Donald Graves, Don Hickey. You can't say a view in a field is a fringe theory if it is supported by a significant body of writers in the field. Also, from a popular perspective, this is the general view held within Canada, that historically, they won the war of 1812.... are you saying the whole of Canada follows a viewpoint that is fringe theory? Why is the US view that the war was a draw the "proper/standard" conclusion, and the Canadian viewpoint that they won the war, "Fringe theory"? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
FYI - These are the historians that say that Canada won the war: Jon Latimer, and Carl Benn (both referenced in this article) 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) and Desmond Morton - how can you say its fringe theory if so many historians propose it? G. M. Trevelyan, as quoted above by Rjensen, says that the only good thing to come out of the war was the defence of Canada, does that sound like he is saying it is a draw, or a win for Canada?, in that they defended themselves successfully? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC). Yes it is a minority viewpoint, because yes, more historians support the viewpoint that the war was a draw. But a minority viewpoint is not the same as fringe theory - they are different.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly pointed out, instead of conducting your own original research on what historians have decided, you need to provide a source that makes the conclusion. Ironically, the only source you provided that addresses that says that the established view is that it was a draw. Please don't expect me to research all your examples, but i will say offhand that Pierre Berton was not an historian and Desmond Morton said the war was a draw. Eliot A. Cohen was a not an historian but a member of the George W. Bush administration who persuaded the public that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was behind the 9/11 attacks. No one questions that there is popular opinion about who won the war.
Why can't you find an expert source that supports the opinion you wish to express?
TFD (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Why don't *you* provide a reference that states the view that the Canadians won the war is fringe theory? You're the one that raised it? I am allowed to refer to Historians viewpoints as part of this discussion, the "no original research" policy doesn't say I'm not allowed to do that, it's about including original unpublished research in the article. These references can be included in the article. I don't expect you to research the references, I have posted the reference information here below for your convenience, you don't have to take my word for it, you can verify them if you want to. Yes, I take your point, Elliot A Cohen actually isn't a historian, *however* he is Professor in Strategic Studies so he is an authority in military strategy, and he does have a Ph.D. from Harvard in political science, and I have seen him referred to as a military historian - whether that qualifies him as a authority, I'm not sure. I'm happy to leave him out, and Pierre Berton if you wish, though he seems to be acknowledged as an authority on Canadian history, even if he isn't technically a historian. As for Desmond Morton, I've already quoted here how he supports the view that Canada won the war. Choose to disagree with it if you wish, but I don't agree with you, and as I mentioned, you have disagreed with all the references I have posted so far. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Historians that support the view that Canada won the war: ( Note: Pierre Berton is not always considered an Historian. I have removed Eliot A. Cohen as he isn't a historian):
  • Jon Latimer "War of 1812" (reference in article)
  • Carl Benn "The War of 1812" (Reference in article)
  • Donald Hickey "Why America Forgets the War of 1812" "By my count, we lost the War of 1812 and we lost Vietnam. That's not a widely held opinion in the United States about the War of 1812. The common view is that the war ended in a draw." ref http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2012/0608/Why-America-forgets-the-War-of-1812
  • Donald Graves "Damn Yankees" “In their version of the war, the fact that they got defeated doesn’t even rate a mention.” Ref http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/damn-yankees/
  • Gilbert Auchinleck "The War of 1812: A History of the War Between the Great Britain and the United states" p 400 "In what a proud position, now, did the Canadians stand at the declaration of peace, and in what a ridiculous light the American Government! Ignorant of the undying love for their contry, animated every Canadian, and nerved their amrs for the contest, the United States Government has boastingly announced that Canada must be conquered, as it was a rod held over their heads, a fortress which frowned haughtily on their country. What was the result of all their expeditions and proclamations? That two of their fortresses were in our possessions at the time of peace.."
  • Brian Arthur "How Britain Won the War of 1812" p 528 "British Victory was moderated by wider concerns to cut expenditure after twenty two years of total war, to stabilise Europe at the congress of Vienna and to resume trade with a major economic power"
  • Andrew Lambert "Creating Cultural difference: The Military political and cultural Legacy of the Anglo-American war of 1812 p 303 "Americans began to rewrite the war as a victory, exploiting the ambi-guity of the diplomatic settlement achieved in the Treaty of Ghent on 24 December 1814, a status quo ante compromise that did not reflect the depth of America’s defeat."
  • Sjolander, Claire Turenne "Through the looking glass: Canadian identity and the War of 1812" International Journal 69.2 p 166 "Canadians are unified (because we participated in our diversity in the war under the British Crown, which is our real heritage) and we are distinct from the United States (because we won, and because we are British)."
  • Stephen Marche "That Time We Beat the Americans" The Walrus March 12, 2012 Mar2012, Vol. 9 Issue 2, p24 "If we hadn't won the war, we wouldn't be Canadian"
  • Ricky D Phillips "Winners and losers": MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History(Vol. 27, Issue 4) ""Not a single aspect of America's declaration of war was met, leaving status quo and victory to Britain and Canada, who also liberated 3,000 slaves, sent them to freedom, and then paid for them at top dollar rather than return them to slavery. In all, a military, political, and moral victory for Britain and Canada."
  • Robert Smol "Sir Gordon Drummond: the general who won the War of 1812" Esprit de Corps(Vol. 21, Issue 7) Aug. 2014 2014 "Sir Gordon Drummond: the general who won the War of 1812"
  • [Ron Dale] (quoted in) "History Unveiled: Who Really won the War of 1812" Niagara's History Unveiled, Series Special to Niagara Now March 8 2020 "Britain was a winner…. Canada was a winner…" "Final conclusion: the United States was not a winner in the War of 1812. The headlines in a newspaper after the Treaty of Ghent was signed could have read, The War is Over, Canada Won!"
  • D.Peter Macleod (interviewed in)"Who Really Won the War of 1812?" The agenda with Steve Paikin Jun 29, 2013) "for Canadians, it's self evident - we won the war.If we had lost the war, I would be working at the North American Museum, and the exhibit would be called the Canadian War of Liberation"
  • Pierre Berton "The American Invasion of Canada:1812-1813" Introduction: " "The War that Canada Won, or to put it more precisely, did not lose"
  • G. M. Trevelyan (Thanks Rjensen) "British History In The Nineteenth Century And After (1782-1919) (1920) p 177" p 177 online "The self-defence of the two Canadas against invasion, and the historical traditions that the infant nation thus acquired, were an important result of the war. Otherwise it had been fought in vain. It solved none of the disputed questions out of which it arose. The treaty signed at Ghent on Christmas Eve, 1814, very wisely did not even attempt to decide the embittered controversies on blockade and right of search. But one of the causes of war, the belief of the Southern democrats that Canada could easily be annexed, received its quietus."
Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The onus is one you to show that it is not an alternative theoretical formulation per WP:FRINGE. Where original research comes in is not when you cite historians but when you make gerneral statements about the overall views of historians. Those statements must be reliably sourced and not based on research by editors. For example, a source you provided says, "The war is usually seen as a draw."[3] That's what this srticle should say, not that historians dsipute the outcome.

If you did want to originally research what historians think, you would need to determine which modern historians are most well known on the topic and read what other historians say about their findings. You would also need to read each book fully in order to be assured what they were actually saying rather than taking their statements out of context. By doing this you would avoid including popular historians such as Pierre Berton, political polemicists such as Cohen and misrepresenting actual historians such as Berton. The reason you found them is that you deliberately searched for sources that said Canada or the UK won. Considering that Google Scholar alone was 75,000 entries that mention the "War of 1812,"[4] unless you have read all of them, you cannot say that however many sources you found have any degree of weight in the literature.

Also, Canada could not have won the war because it was not one of the parties to the war. Canada at the time was a collection of British colonies with no international personality. It would be like saying that South Dakota won the First World War or the Isle of Wight won the Second. However, that was the official position of the Family Compact, which has remained in popular consciousness in the province, particularly on both the left and right.

TFD (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

TFD You asked me to list the historians for you that support that Canada won the war of 1812, and I did.... now that I have spent a lot of time doing that, you have chosen to ignore them. No I am saying again, it is currently in the article as one of two viewpoints. You want to change the article, so you need to specifically show us where anyone states that the view that Canada won the war is fringe theory, with some sort of reference. All you've produced so far is "The war is usually seen as a draw."- this does not prove that the viewpoint that Canada won the war is fringe theory. It only says that most people see it as a draw. A significant minority see it as a victory for Canada. And yet other historians disagree with that statement, and say there are varying views of the war amongst Historians, for instance:
  • Don Hickey, however, says that most *Americans* (not Canadians) see it as a draw he says "By my count, we lost the War of 1812 and we lost Vietnam. That's not a widely held opinion in the United States about the War of 1812. The common view is that the war ended in a draw." He says the view that it is a draw is specific to the US, but not to Canada.
  • Amanda Foreman states: "Not surprisingly, the Canadian history of the war began with a completely different set of heroes and villains. If the U.S. has its Paul Revere, Canada has Shawnee chief Tecumseh, who lost his life defending Upper Canada against the Americans, and Laura Secord, who struggled through almost 20 miles of swampland in 1813 to warn British and Canadian troops of an imminent attack. For Canadians, the war was, and remains, the cornerstone of nationhood, brought about by unbridled U.S. aggression. Although they acknowledge there were two theaters of war—at sea and on land—it is the successful repulse of the ten U.S. incursions between 1812 and 1814 that have received the most attention." so she says that Canadian historians see it as successful repulse of the ten U.S. incursions.
  • JCA Stagg says "Canadians are emphatic that America did not win, and the British agree. Americans usually argue that we really did win." Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Trautsch "The traditional American narrative of the War of 1812 is cut to pieces by Andrew Lambert, Professor of Naval History at King’s College, London, in The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812. Finding fault with the claim – frequently made by Americans – that the war was caused by Britain’s maritime policies and ended in a U.S. victory or at least a draw"
  • Jim Guy "Canadian historians have long claimed victory for this country over the United States. But was it really a “Canadian” victory or do the British have more reason to celebrate?"Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't remember asking you to list Canadian historians who say their country, which by the way was founded more than 50 years after the war of 1812, won. Why would I ask you to do that? As someone who studied statistics you should be aware that a skewed sample will not properly reflect the population. In other words, if you present 5 or 10 or 100 examples, it is insignificant compared with the terns of thousands of articles that mentioned the war.
It seems that your real concern with WP:FRINGE is the word itself. If so, you can also get them to change it. Your claim that WP:FRIMGE only applies if we have a source that uses the word fring is disingenuous. First, they may use other terms, such as your source that says the view that the U.S. lost the war of 1812 goes against "established thinking."Are you seriously suggesting that we assume a theory has widespread support unless a source says it does not? Sources tend to ignore theories that have little support. There are not many articles for example explaining how the Green Party will win the 2020 U.S. presidential election because it is a fringe theory. We don't need a source to say that it is fringe.
TFD (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
TFD At this point, you don't seem to be acknowledging what I write here. I've just quoted a number of articles here that talk about differing views, saying there is a difference in how some see the war as a draw, and others don't, and they talk about the national leanings of historians. You've completely ignored these. I went to the trouble of typing out a range of supporting quotes, from established historians that believe that the war was a win for Britain/Canada. This alone should indicate to you that its not fringe theory, because of (1) the number of historians and (2) the fact they are established historians, and not "fringe theorists. I have the feeling the discussion is going nowhere, and its probably a waste of both of our time. Thank you for the discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
You have been citing sources throughout the dicussion What you don't seem to understand is that reputable historian may disagree with established convention, but still represent a small minority of the thousands of historians. You are also still failing to read the sources correctly. JCA Stagg and Jim Guy for example are both correct that the Canadian narrative is that they won the war. But they are talking about popular perception, not the views of historians. Popular perception in the U.S. for example may be that God created the world in 7 days. That does not mean that is what is taught in science classes at Harvard. TFD (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi TFD I disagree with this, but as I've already noted elsewhere, I believe debating it with you is a waste of time, I think it best we just agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course it isn't a fringe theory. This is what is taught in Canadian schools: the US tried to annex Canada and did not succeed. Therefore Canada won. One can of course argue that the US restored its honor or something, and therefore *it* won, as in fact the article currently does in about six different sections, but the fact that the history is taught differently in different countries doesn't make one of them "fringe". Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, a good analogy here is King Leopold's Ghost , which caused a furor when it came out because Belgians did not believe it, and he was such a nice man who built palaces. We didn't take a poll of historians, we used it as a source along with all the other sources that said what a nice man he was. PS, Pierre Burton is a very fine source, nothing wrong with journalists. You are applying a rule that was written for medicine and science, where it really does matter what education an author has had. Elinruby (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Elinruby, what makes you think that Canadian schools teach that to students? TFD (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
At this point it's clear for some odd view that all Canadian historians are lacking credibility there should be a source.--Moxy 🍁 22:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@TFD: I attended one. Specifically the Ontario Separate School system. Also primary school in Alberta, but as I recall that focused more on Jacques Cartier and the Northwest Passage and stuff. But I don't see it as such an astonishing point of view; the US invaded Canada and the annexation was unsuccessful. Now, when I was in Washington D.C. I was an adult, but the docents at Fort Washington and the White House were all about how the US successfully repelled a British invasion. Both PoVs are true, in my opinion, just incomplete. Elinruby (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

If interested editors will read a little further down the page at WP:FRINGE, they will find the example are all from science and medicine, and the discussion concerns "pseudoscience and fringe theories." Similarly, the noticeboard deals almost exclusively with quackery. I haven't been there in a while, but think drinking bleach for coronavirus, or the social media trope about cancer coming from eating acid foods. It's a serious misunderstanding of the policy, in my opinion, to declare that an entire country is just wrong about its own history, even if more populated countries produce a numerically larger number of individual history books that repeat their own national myths and legends. Elinruby (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I would be interested to know what textbooks you used. In Chapter XVIII, "War and Peace With the United States", of George Grant's Building the Canadian Nation, there is no statement that Canada won the war. While it's a 1950 revision, the book was used into the 1970s as the sole Ontario Grade 10 Canadian history textbook. Alberta today does not require Canadian history in high school. It could be that your memory is incorrect. I would point out too that just because we are dealing with history rather than natural sciences, does not mean that the rules don't apply. There's an attitude among some editors that in history, social sciences and the arts, one theory is as good as another. TFD (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Really odd debate here...if your wondering real information starts at the junior high level in Alberta. ..Online book for student studies - Richard S. Fowler Catholic Junior High School, Alberta Canada. And even sooner when it comes to heroines like Laura Secord.--Moxy 🍁 04:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Elinruby is arguing that because he was taught in school that Canada won the war of 1812, that view must be given equal validity. I questioned whether his textbooks actually said that. Your link doesn't work for me, so perhaps you could identify the actual textbook that Alberta uses. TFD (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, here is the correct link.--Davide King (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
about to go away for the entire day so can't participate in this fun debate about what I was or was not taught in school, but that is not actually my argument. My argument is that if the US "won" because the British invaded and were repelled, then it is equally valid to to say that the Canada/Britain "won" because the US tried to annex British North America and failed. And that oh btw this is conventional wisdom where I come from, but no, I am not saying that this is any kind of reference. What I *am* saying is that it's the worst kind of ethnicentrism to call it a "fringe theory" on a par with astrology. I am still trying to AGF here but it's tough given the assumption that I would lie about a thing like that. Seriously? But FYI a) the school in Alberta was French-language and private, run by a teaching order. I was there grades 1-6. Don't remember this arising in history class there, except perhaps Laura Secord as a kind of Paul Revere figure. It's a pretty complex topic for kids that young. B) other editors who are looking at textbooks are probably looking at public school textbooks from Toronto. I did say *separate* school system. In Ottawa, where this is a proxy for language. Are we done with this now? I prefer not to give any further detail, since I do work on money laundering and other topics where it is good to maintain at least some anonymity, but I have said before that I am a Canadian immigrant to the US. I am just saying, if you want to call Canadian history a "fringe theory" then you should work on yourself, and yes I will wikilitigate the hell out of that. And you will lose. Ugg boots and the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff are just the precedents that I am aware of, not to to mention King Leopold. Elinruby (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I will say a little more. Using TDF's logic, we should ignore the Pentagon Papers because it's a single book. We shouldn't discuss colonialism in Africa because history is written by the victors. Get out. King Leopold did commit atrocities in the Congo, period. Even if only one English-language historian has taken notice so far. Of course weight matters but you don't do a poll when deciding whether something is a fact. You look at the freaking evidence. And there really is no dispute as to what happened here. The issue is that both sides say they won. Why are we litigating who is "right"?!? Isn't that the essence of original research? If there is a controversy you explain the controversy. If the facts are in dispute you explain the dispute as neutrally as possible. I am going away now. I have little patience with wikilawyers who refuse to examine their beliefs. Elinruby (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
You wrote, "Of course it isn't a fringe theory. This is what is taught in Canadian schools: the US tried to annex Canada and did not succeed. Therefore Canada won." Moxy and Davide King kindly provided a link to what the Alberta schools text book says: "The War of 1812 ended in a deadlock." So the premise of your argument is false. You did not learn that in school. Just admit that you were mistaken and we can move on. TFD (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Elinruby claims they were taught something at school, someone else produces a link to a text book that may or may not have been used at that school, and you see that as proof that they are lying. I can see why you are struggling with this topic.--Ykraps (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that Elinruby was lying, just that what they said was false. They probably believe that is what they were taught in school. Editors have now provided two school textbooks that Elinruby may have used. I have asked them what textbook they used and await their answer. But it's unlikely that any modern Canadian textbook would teach a fringe view of history. TFD (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

so you are saying that you know better than I what I was taught in school? It’s going to take me a minute to process that, but Jesus, it’s a complete straw man in the first place. Nobody is suggesting that we have the article say this, merely that this is in fact the view of quite a number of people. However, for your information, Edmonton is 2,147 miles from Ottawa, and a completely different world. Education is a provincial matter in Canada. A high school textbook used somewhere In Alberta is irrelevant to what I was taught in Ontario separate school system in Ottawa. It’s in a different language and would have a different set of cultural assumptions. The same would be true of the private school in Edmonton; I was there because French. As I have previously noted, though, I do not recalled this war being even taught at that private convent school, with the possible exception of Laura Secord giving the alarm. You seem to have a way of seizing upon minor details and beating them to death with stupidity. Now. Please make no further attempt to instruct me about my own personal and cultural history, mmm? Accept consensus and move on. Elinruby (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
You began by saying, "This is what is taught in Canadian schools." Now you say that that depends on whether they are private, public or separate or what province they are in. But you still haven't told us what text book you used. Did you use either of the two mentioned? You may have false memory, which is not uncommon, especially since it's probably at least a year or two since you took the course. TFD (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course big American bwana know better what happen to me!!!! Elinruby (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Dude. Let me introduce you to Quebec. It contain many people! They not think like you! Elinruby (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
As we discussed before, many Canadians believe that they won the War of 1812. But you have made the claim that Canadian schools teach that yet are unable to present any evidence. Without that, your claim fails reliable sources and is original research. I don't understand what relevance Quebec has to your argument, perhaps you could elucidate.TFD (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you a) confine yourself to the topic and b) re-read the definition of a reliable source. Also, if you don’t understand why Quebec is relevant to French language instruction you really understand nothing at all about Canadian history and you should not be in this article at all Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: - a little background, since you are still talking about Ontario like it is one thing. Ottawa is across the river from Quebec, and separate school system means French Canadian. https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/robsonsoced/chapter/__unknown__-3/ I really don't want to go any further into my background because I am writing about Nazis, yo, and about to start on white supremacists and the Albuquerque police department again, but the above isn't really identifying. Also, FYI, in my history classes there were the Canadians and then there were the British. I am not saying that this is anything you would have needed to know had you not chosen to call me deluded or a liar, but you should understand that it is insulting to impugn the beliefs of people's community. You don't have to agree with them or adopt them but don't put them on a par with drinking hand sanitizer ffs Elinruby (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I never called you a liar and it does not impugn the beliefs of a community to favor consensus academic opinion over theirs. Lots of people believe in creation science, but we don't give it equal weight with evolution.
I mention Ontario because that is where (as Upper Canada) the narrative developed that Canada won the war. If you are interested in the development of the province, there's a very good book I would recommend, The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada, 1784-1850. The idea of loyalty was used to disenfranchise most of the population of the province and to justify the suppression of dissent. Note that Upper Canada prosecuted innocent inhabitants for treason, hanged them and placed their heads on spikes as a warning.
On a point of fact the Centre-East French Catholic School Board has 21,000 students, compared with over 38.000 students at the Ottawa Catholic School Board. I don't see though what relevance it has to the conversation.
TFD (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see what it has to do with your straw man either. You took an exclamation at your ignorance and tried to say I couldnt prove it. You waved around a completely unrelated textbook in another language and demanded that I show you where it said that. You were called on this by other editors, and walked it back to I was making false statements that I probably believed. You know what, never mind. I was trying to explain how insulting you are but I see now that you are incapable of understanding such a thing. You know nothing, Jon Snow. You just now, a few dozen levels into this exchange, equated the belief that Canada won that war with creation theory. This tells me that I have been wasting my breath. If this were a different article I would suspect paid editing or some other COI. You spout wikijargon very fluently, always inappropriately mind you, but well enough to intimidate many editors. (Bites tongue) Your responses are off-topic, demand proof of assertions that were not made, and never ever provide a source. This is contentious editing and what you call consensus of historians is a cudgel you use when you WP:DONTLIKEIT. I suggest you reflect on your behaviour. You and I are done with this topic Elinruby (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what was wrong with

Result: Treaty of Ghent

Is it not that exactly what happened? So why was it removed?

The French version (featured article) also says:

  • Indécise (statu quo ante bellum) [Undecided (status quo ante bellum)]
  • Démilitarisation des Grands Lacs [Demilitarization of the Great Lakes]

Similarly, the German version (good article) says:

  • Wiederherstellung des Status quo [Restoring the status quo]

To me, it seems that the above is the consensus and that whatever other minority or fringe (in the Wikipedian use of the word is better discussed in the main body as it already is. That does not justify or overthrowing the stalemate in the infobox, so why should we give an equal standing to the majority and minority views which is unwarranted?

We write In recent decades, the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive so we should report this in the Infobox. If those minority views are significant, they warrant at best a footnote, not by wikilinking to Memory and historiography section which may be misleading claim or imply that there is no consensus among historians, when that does not seem to be actually true.--Davide King (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, Did you not read the discussions above and below this one? The consensus is to redirect the infobox to "the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail" as it says in the guidelines here [[5]].--Ykraps (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Ykraps, my edit simply re-added the actual results (i.e. Treaty of Ghent, military stalemate, status quo ante bellum and defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy). Which one do sources dispute? Maybe military stalemate (because some may claim one side actually won)? That still does not justify the removal of the rest. Note how the linked parameter actually say this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive" and military stalemate represents the latter (if you have the problem with such wording, we may use inconclusive). What you linked is about adding Won or Loss as a result, not about treaties, change or not changes of territories, etc.
Therefore, at least Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante bellum and defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy should be re-added (sources do not dispute those, they only disputed whether it was a draw or stalemate—the majority historian view—or whether at least one side won—whether Britain, Canada or the United States—which is the historian minority view). Also note how it says In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section") yet military stalemate or inconclusive describes exactly that. Claims that the result was not a draw or stalemate (such as that Britain, Canada or the United States won the war) may be added in a footnote in the infobox, describing that they are the minority view, if it is a significant minority view.--Davide King (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Words such as 'stalemate' and 'inconclusive' are points of view that aren't universally accepted. Redirecting to the relevant section ought to be a solution that suits everybody. What is it you don't like about it?--Ykraps (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Ykraps, I do not like how Treaty of Ghent, military stalemate, status quo ante bellum and defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy were all removed from the infobox. Note that the parameter you listed to support your view clearly states this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive" and therefore Inconclusive is absolutely appropriate. As noted below, the infobox had described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently so the onus is on you to get consensus for the current infobox---Davide King (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The onus is on me to get consensus? I already have consensus! There were two long conversations and vote here [[6]] where changes to the infobox were agreed. I am sorry if you don't like it but there it is. I should also point out that words such as draw, stalemate and inconclusive are POV and are not universally supported. Please respect consensus.--Ykraps (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Ykraps, yes, it is on you; and no, you do not have consensus yet. As noted by The Four Deuces here, [w]e should follow the results of the RfC below. [...] Since we are effectively overturning the RfC below, we would need another RfC and 3–1 is not consensus in my view (too few users involved and I believe The Four Deuces still gave the best rationale). Further, how are those words POV? Are not those exactly the words the majority historians use? We write In recent decades, the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. I think we should follow this. May I also remind you that Inconclusive is absolutely appropriate according to the parameter. You have yet to answer for why all the rest was removed. As correctly pointed out here by Shakescene, The Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante bellum and Tecumseh's defeat are all indisputable outcomes of the war, and I suspect that Military stalemate is also the most accurate description. I did change Military stalemate to Military stalemate; both sides' invasion attempts repulsed which is exactly what we report at List of wars involving the United States and also adding Burning of Washington, including the Capitol and the White House, or do you deny this too?--Davide King (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The only thing I am denying is that there is agreement as to the result. This should be self-evident to those who have read multiple books on the subject. Whereas you might think there is nothing wrong with using words like 'stalemate' and 'inclonclusive', they are in fact points of view that are not universally accepted by historians. The only thing historians agree on is that there is no agreement, and I think it's wrong for the infobox to pretend that there is.--Ykraps (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Ykraps, and yet we write [...] the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive, something which you have not actually replied to, so why should we not reflect that in the infobox? How is that pushing a view when historians themselves say so? I even proposed to add a footnote to better explain that and report the minority view (what is wrong with this?). Let me repeat that Inconclusive is absolutely appropriate according to the parameter and is the majority view among historians. As noted by Calidum here, that is the consensus of historians. It should be noted that the infobox had described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently and without consensus, I may add (3–1 is no consensus). The Four Deuces is right by arguing [w]e should follow the results of the RfC below. [...] Since we are effectively overturning the RfC below, we would need another RfC, so we should return to the status quo ante. The only thing historians agree on is that there is no agreement, and I think it's wrong for the infobox to pretend that there is, wrong; as far as I can see, the consensus among historians is that the war was a stalemate or inconclusive, which coincidentally is exactly what we report in the main body; and the infobox, just like the lead, should conform to the main body.--Davide King (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

the article as it stands has huge issues and suffers from contentious editing, so I don't think you should use that as your guide. I am not going to read the years of discussion about this one entry in the infobox. I came here recently planning to take care of a few [citation needed] tags and pop back out. I don't know if the infobox should say stalemate. I do think we should add Tecumseh. Maybe a note saying that Spain and the Creek lost. But the Canada-won-because-it-didn't-lose narrative is complex and should be in the body not the infobox imho. Elinruby (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, that is no excuse; there may be other issues but that phrasing in the main body is not one. And we should base the infobox on what we have now and currently, not on the future. But the Canada-won-because-it-didn't-lose narrative is complex and should be in the body not the infobox imho, you wrote; and here I thought the reason not to use inconclusive, stalemate or something like that was exactly because some users were pushing the Canada-won-because-it-didn't-lose narrative, so one has yet to explain why inconclusive, stalemate or other words which are used by the majority historians' view should not be restored. What some users do not seem to get is that they are acting like there is no consensus, that it is inconclusive (in the sense of no consensus), but there is a consensus and it is that the war was inconclusive (in the sense of a stalemate or a draw); and we should report this in the infobox. Inconclusive is specifically suggested as a parameter for the infobox.--Davide King (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The guidelines governing the result section in the infobox give three options. The first is to allocate a victory to one side or the other. We cannot do this because reliable sources offer six different opinions (US victory, British/Canadian victory, British victory, Canadian victory, draw, stalemate (not the same thing as a draw, by the way). The second option is to say the result was inconclusive. We cannot do this because a number of sources are adamant that there was a clear victory for one or more of the belligerents. And so we are left with the third option - "In cases where the standard terms (options 1 and 2) do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail". --Ykraps (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Ykraps, it is very simple. We should follow the main body and majority view. We say In recent decades, the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive and we should report this. Note how we write Some scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. [...] A second minority view is that both the U.S. and Britain won the war, so they are clearly minority views. I do not see why they should be given so much weight against the majority view.--Davide King (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
What is being suggested is that the infobox shouldn't pretend that there is agreement. The problem is that some people will only read the infobox and go away with a false impression. It's very simple.--Ykraps (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Except there is an agreement among historians that it was a draw/military stalemate; and as noted by Calidum (the infobox had described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently). There is not such a big dispute among historians to justify leaving it blank and implying there is not a clear majority view or that there is a dispute among them when it is not the case. As noted by Shakescene, Infoboxes are intended to give a short overview at a glance, which is hardly achieved by directing readers to #Memory and Historiography and The problem is that some people will only read the infobox and go away with a false impression is not a good enough reason to leave it blank, especially when draw/military stalemate does not give a false impression as that is actually the consensus among historians.--Davide King (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: Just because The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) keeps saying that there is a consensus does not make it so. I suggest you review the "view that...fringe theory" section where Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) goes through many many sources to the contrary, which TFD dismisses as not "quality" somehow. There is also a separate section where I take issue with one of these dismissals. As to the infobox, the discussion to me is TL;DR. I was reasonably happy with status quo ante bellum, but I agree with you that we should add Tecumseh, who definitely did lose and does matter, and possibly the Kingdom of Spain for the same reason. That is what I think. But as you know, until yesterday the article said that nobody lost any territory. That is why I said that the current state of the article is not a good guide. PS I am a bit confused about "excuse" -- excuse? For what? Elinruby (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not say they were not quality. The issue is the degree of acceptance of their conclusions in reliable sources. Quality means they got their facts right, they summarized other views correctly and they made well-reasoned arguments. The only way knowledge advances is if people challenge the assumptions of the past. Kudos to Schliemann for challenging the consensus view that the Trojan War was a myth and the city never existed. (Mind you his methods left something to be desired.) He turned a fringe theory into the consensus among historians. TFD (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Elinruby, clearly it is not just The Four Deuces; it is what the main body says. In recent decades, the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. [...] Some scholars hold that the war constituted a British victory and an American defeat. [...] A second minority view is that both the U.S. and Britain won the war [...]. This is what I meant when I wrote that is no excuse; there may be other issues but that phrasing in the main body is not one. Just because you claim the article as it stands has huge issues and suffers from contentious editing, it does not mean that the aforementioned sourced content regarding historians' views is part of the problem. In other words, you have not disputed that or added tags to the phrases I just quoted, so they are relevant and is what we should base on for the infobox.--Davide King (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
look, I am new to the article, but you, correct me if I am wrong, are newer. And apparently have not yet read the rest of the talk page. I suggest you read it before discussing why the article says what it does. There were no doubt other editors involved at some other points but he's the one talking on the Discussion page right now who is obstructing changes. Rjenson agrees with him usually but I've had fewer interactions with him; however his replies in those interactions have at least been on-topic. Elinruby (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You should definitely at least read the section about fringe theory. That majority is a majority of *historians* that he considers *quality* sources, which may or may not be a majority of all available reliable sources if you include the ones he calls fringe. But you know what, you do you. I don't care about the infobox even though I suspect that it will soon not reflect the article. We can worry about the infobox when that time comes. If they've been arguing about it for six years they will probably still be at it then. I have told you what I think about the info. Ox, and don't care whether you follow that or not. This section is about the exclusion of reliable sources from the article because a single editor claims they are WP:FRINGE Elinruby (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Elinruby, I have actually followed this whole discussion and read it. My conclusion is that The Four Deuces is right/has a point. The viewpoint that Britain won the war is fringe in the sense that it is a view not accepted by the majority of historians (i.e. WP:FRINGE), that it departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. Several sources purposed to support the claim do not actually say that and reputable historian may disagree with established convention, but still represent a small minority of the thousands of historians which seems to be the case. Since you mentioned him, I would like Rjensen to leave a comment here about what is the scholarly consensus.--Davide King (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If you think this is about Britain winning the war, you definitely haven't read the whole discussion! This and other recent RFCs are muddying the waters and drawing people away from the real issue which is, should the infobox promote a single viewpoint. The argument is not "Stalemate" v. "British victory" but "Stalemate" v. " Not Stalemate (Draw/British victory/Canadian victory/US victory/Disputed victory etc)". The sources that don't say stalemate are significant not fringe.--Ykraps (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This is nonsense. This section is titled The Viewpoint that Britain won the war is Fringe Theory [sic] and it starts by saying TFD has made the claim that the viewpoint held by a number of historians that the war of 1812 was a victory for Canada is Fringe Theory. So how is it not about that? The bottom line is that the majority of historians say the war is a draw and you two want to give more weight to the minority views than is warranted. They are indeed fringe as argued by The Four Deuces in the sense that they go against the established consensus (no pejorative here). Stalemate vs. not stalemate is still majority view vs. minority view. We should report the majority view in the infobox and discuss the minority view in the main body, simple as that. Furthermore, I agree with The Four Deuces that some sources used to support your point do not actually do that and there was a bit of synthesis and original research in doing it. For example, one source used to support your claim still says By my count, we lost the War of 1812 and we lost Vietnam. That's not a widely held opinion in the United States about the War of 1812. The common view is that the war ended in a draw. Even Deathlibrarian admits Yes it is a minority viewpoint, because yes, more historians support the viewpoint that the war was a draw. But a minority viewpoint is not the same as fringe theory - they are different. Except that is exactly what it is. Fringe is not used as a pejorative as Deathlibrarian seems to believe (showing a clear not understanding of WP:Fringe) but that it diverges from the mainstream view that war was a draw which is true.--Davide King (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Rfc about the outcome of the War of 1812

Latest comment: 4 years ago55 comments13 people in discussion

Should the info-box describe the outcome of the War of 1812 as a draw? TFD (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey (outcome in infobox)

(Note: please keep replies brief and post arguments and objections to the discussion section below.)

  • Yes The info-box should say the outcome of the war was a draw because that is the consensus of historians. Please see my comments in the discussion section and if you wish to reply do so there. TFD (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes because that is the consensus of historians. It should be noted that the infobox had described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently. Calidum 20:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No The article doesn't say the war was a draw. It says that while the majority of historians see it as a draw, other Historians see it as Victory for Canada. As everyone knows, there is a dispute about who won the war of 1812, if you are Canadian, you think Canada won, British tend to think Canada won, and the US tend to see it as a draw. In this case where the situation is not clear cut, Wikipedia policy says, that rather than have a bunch of text in the infobox, or put in some jury rigged comments in the infobox, you need to connect to the relevant section of the article; so that the Wikipedia user can read the full discussion. *This is the relevant Wikipedia policy - you can read it here* Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No - The infobox guidelines are clear that, "In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail". [[7]] --Ykraps (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No As much as I see, there doesn't seem to be specific decisive indication concerning "the war was draw". As a result, presumably it might be better not to mention that. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No The infobox used to say "status quo ante bellum", and I think it should do so again. (1) "Draw" is too ambiguous, but as least as far as territory is concerned, the result was the status quo; (2) Infoboxes are intended to give a short overview at a glance, which is hardly achieved by directing readers to #Memory and Historiography; (3) "Who won?" is such a perennial, protracted and fundamentally-unresolvable issue that there it has its own dedicated talk archive (see box at the top right) going all the way back to 2008 (3 or 4 times longer than the War itself). —— Shakescene (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • As someone who already voted yes to this proposal, I would support yours as well. Either way we word it, it is preferable to the current setup. Calidum 20:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia policy on what goes in the results part of the Military History infobox, has a stated very limited number of options(win or loss, something like that).. that doesn't include summing up an unusual situation (as we would all agree the war of 1812 was) by the phrase "status quo ante bellum" - which a lot of people don't understand the meaning of. In that case, according to policy, you need to refer to the section. Bascially, I gather, the policy is stating you can't make up your own particular phrases to suit the specific particular article, you need to go with the standard phrases that all other infoboxes use. The policy is pretty clear cut. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes because that is the consensus of historians. There is a clear majority of historian who have a view of the result and we should report that in the infobox, whether draw, inconclusive or revert back to status quo ante bellum because that is the consensus. Not having a result in the infobox imply that there is not a consensus when this is not true; there is. As a compromise, I would be fine with putting a footnote saying of historians who said there was an actual winner, whether Britain, Canada or the United States, if that is a significant minority. Note how the parameter for the infobox say this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive" and therefore Inconclusive is absolutely appropriate, if draw, [military] stalemate or similar wording is considered too ambiguous or whatever.--Davide King (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes follow the sources "status quo ante bellum". For get the guess work below...just regurgitate what the sources say.--Moxy 🍁 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally Yes but I don't know if "draw" is the right terminology. Maybe "military stalement" would be better. The main view of historians seems to be that the major participants just agreed to stop fighting after failing to achieve any decisive advantage. To compare it to another article, the "Result" section in the Korean War infobox might be a good template. Edit: I think the version that existed as of a month ago (the one that I reinserted here[8]) is perfectly fine and should remain. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • NO" status quo ante bellum as per the actual results as to the events. HISTORY IS NOT A concensus.Tirronan (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes It was a military stalemate but it led to a compromise "status quo ante bellum" and the Treaty of Ghent between the two nations. There is no need to make drastic changes to the info box. Ironic Luck (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No Follow the template guidance that it is optional and to not use terms other than “victory” or “inconclusive”. In this case the four parties differ in POV and opinion, and ‘draw’ is only a minority view. I suggest just use the “optional” and put nothing down seems better than Inconclusive. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

It doesn't matter what the "parties'" views are. We don't write articles to satisfy the pride of nation states, we write them to inform our readers. The only relevant views are those of historical experts, and the dominant view among them is that the war ended in a stalemate. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Red Rock Canyon Wikipedia doesn't just cover the view by numbers of historians. There are two mainstream viewpoints by historians, (1)The war was a draw/stalemate (2) Canada/UK won the war. The results box should cover all views. As has been noted, just because there are more US historians, doesn't mean a US slanted viewpoint should be the view expressed in the results box, and the other view left out. This isn't NPOV.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
My understand of the historical consensus based on the sources that have been presented is that the dominant view is that the war ended in a stalemate. A few historians disagree, but not many. That should be covered in the article but only the mainstream view should be covered in the infobox. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (outcome in infobox)

  • Comment Current reliable sources show that historians consider the outcome of the war as a draw. This is shown by a 2014 review of new books about the war, "Whose War of 1812? Competing Memories of the Anglo-American Conflict" by Dr Jasper Trautsch (Institute of Historical Research, 2014). None of the authors claim that the war was a victory for either side. Trautsch does however note that popular opinion in the U.S. and Canada saw the war as a victory for their respective sides, that some popular writers repeat these claims and that historians in the UK, U.S. and Canada concentrate on different aspects of the war. For example, Canadian historians are more likely to focus on battles fought on Canadian soil than naval battles fought between the UK and U.S. off the American coast. TFD (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Most reliable sources outline the three main arguments without offering an opinion so may I ask which books you've read?. Of the books you have linked to; one sees it as a British victory, one as an American victory and one doesn't come to a conclusion. This appears to lend weight to the argument that opposes your proposal.--Ykraps (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
"None of the authors claim that the war was a victory for either side" There's 15 historians listed above (Including some reputable Historians like Donald Hickey, JCA Stagg, Donald Graves Andrew Lambert, Pierre Berton, G. M. Trevelyan etc) that I have gone to the trouble to type out the references for there, *that say Canada/Britain won*.... which TFD seems to be pretending don't exist because they don't agree with his idea that ALL historians say it was a draw. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
As I pointed out to you before, some of the people you listed, such as Berton were not historians, but popular writers, the actual historians you mention did not make the claims you attribute to them and others such as G. M. Trevelyan (who never claimed a victory by either side) wrote 100 years ago. You are muddying the water with the fact that both U.S. and Canadian elites declared a victory and those views continue to resonate among sections of the population. Ykraps, you don't mention which historians make those claims. However, Lambert debunks the U.S. claim that they won the war. That doesn't mean he claims the UK won. He deliberately avoids answering, saying it no longer matters. But the way we determine the consensus of historians is not to poll the thousands of books and papers written on the war, but to rely on what historians say the consensus was.
Deathlibrarian, why do you keep including Pierre Burton on your list of historians, when you already admitted that he wasn't?
TFD (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
TFD OK - You are trying to claim that ALL historians say it was a draw. I have listed 15 that I could find that say no it wasn't a draw, and I'm not going down the rabbit hole of debating each one with you. Even if we don't count some of them (say we leave Berton out), would you agree we still have *some* references here for historians that agree the war was a win for Canada? Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I am saying that the consensus of historians is that it was a draw. No doubt some historians disagree with the consensus, as there are in all academic fields. The question is to what attention does the mainstream pay to dissenting views. Consider what Roger Riendeau says in his textbook, A Brief History of Canada, Second Edition (2008), p. 166. The result of the war was "inconclusive." We can btw use textbooks to determine the consensus per WP:TERTIARY. Now it could be that the consensus is wrong, and there is no reason why we should exclude dissenting views. But it is a disservice to readers to claim that there is a serious dispute among experts. TFD (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia policy, you could ignore the view that Britain won the war if it was WP:FRINGE. There is no RS that states that, and the fact that some *mainstream* respected historians hold this view, means that it is NOT fringe theory. THEREFORE it is an opposing view (even though a lesser number of historians hold this view) and needs to be treated in the article under WP:BAL - that is "An article....should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". So the view needs to be included in the article. According to Wikipedia WP:BAL, you can't simply put one viewpoint into the results box, and ignore another, and under the infobox results policy, if there is disagreement, it needs to link to the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces No! That is not what we do. If there are different perspectives in reliable sources they are added to the article whether we like them or not. This is called presenting a neutral point of view. The infobox is a snapshot of the article and the guidelines that govern it are clear that In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail. Also, when Lambert refers to America as a defeated nation, he is clearly offering an opinion on who won.. At no time does Lambert state that "there is consensus among historians that the result was a draw", and nor do the authors of the other books I have read on the subject. As I said above, most tend not to offer an opinion of their own, and as so many historians are reluctant to offer an opinion, why do you believe that Wikipedia should?--Ykraps (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment This matter was already discussed, on this talk page. Peacemaker67 , TFD,Ykraps and I have spent weeks discussing it, and voted on it. I have just made the change, to implement Peacemaker67's proposal. Now as soon as that change was made, TFD, is trying to overturn that decision by deliberately starting another vote, as soon as the other one was decided. We just spent a month discussing it, and the vote carried. The article says there is a difference of opinion amongst historians about who won the war, with the majority saying it was a draw, HOWEVER some historians saying it was a British victory. Everyone knows there is general controversy over who won the war of 1812. In that case, Wikipedia policy is for the results box to refer to the section in the article. The results box can't simply state one opinion. *This is Wikipedia policy* It is here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    See WP:RFC: "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes." Since very few editors participated in your discussion (only two other editors supported you), if makes sense to ask for a wider input. Furthermore your recommendation is in conflict of the outcome of a recent RfC (RfC about alleged national bias of historians on who won the war.) The conclusion was that there was no conflict because historians agreed the war was a draw. TFD (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There was no discussion here that concluded "there was no conflict because historians agreed the war was a draw" (The RFC discussion (which you started) was about the relationship between national views and opinions on who won the war ). That is your personal opinion, which you seem to be consistently trying to impose on this article. The article doesn't say this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
TFD- I also note that you refer to the Trautch article above, and you say "None of the authors claim that the war was a victory for either side"...... *This is blatently untrue* - The article refers to Lambert claiming it as a victory for Britain - "If America’s war aim was the conquest of Canada, Britain clearly won the war" Lambert concludes" and "At this point, according to Lambert, the U.S. had de facto lost the war." It also refers to Stagg saying that the Canadians were the victors "If anyone could be considered the victor it was the Canadians. With the help of British troops and the Royal Navy they were able to repel an American invasion and thus maintain their membership in the British Empire. Had the United States successfully conquered Canada, ‘there could have been no Canadian confederation of the sort that was formed in 1867’ (p. 155)." It then mentions Bickham, in contrast to Stagg and Lambert, says that Brit *didn't* win the war." Since the American negotiators were able to thwart Britain’s goals, and the British government accepted a peace on the basis of the pre-war status quo, Bickham concludes that Great Britain cannot be called the victor of this war." It then talks about the Historian Hugh Howard, in his book, and it says he "He also considers the outcome of the war in an entirely positive light. The British practice of searching American merchant vessels for British deserters on the high seas was discontinued....". So while you claim that all historians say the war was a draw, in the article you quote, it discusses four historians who all disagree on who won the war!!!!!Deathlibrarian (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
You are reading your own opinions into the text. None of your sources say that the war was not a draw. The most egregious example is your reading of Bickham's statement that Britain did not win the war to imply that the U.S. won. But that's what a draw is: neither side wins. TFD (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you serious? I quoted it directly above!!!! The quotes are there!!!! Lambert says " ...Britain clearly won the war " and " 'At this point, according to Lambert, the U.S. had de facto lost the war."' "- If Britain is winning, and the US had lost, how can that be a draw?????? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Lambert is quite right that if the objective of the war was the conquest of Canada, then the U.S. lost. But of course that was not the objective. (See the archives for that pointless discussion.) TFD (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
TFD NO matter what evidence I show here, even the most blatent and obvious, you are going to believe what you want to, so there doesn't seem to be any point. I give up talking to you, it seems to be a waste of time. Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
What about a sentence saying something like: "There is disagreement among modern historians who won the war?" TFD (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
How about User:Davide King's version?

Rather than wade through (or even read) the rehash of a decades-long wrangle above, let me see if anyone else here besides the two of us supports User:Davide King's language — which (unprompted) I find to be an entirely appropriate conspectus, compactly and accurately answering several questions:

|result=Treaty of Ghent See also the Memory and historiography of the War of 1812 section

I didn't object to referring to Memory & Historiography, only to making that the sole sufficient guidance for someone with little knowledge seeking a quick once-over. The Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante bellum and Tecumseh's defeat are all indisputable outcomes of the war, and I suspect that Military stalemate is also the most accurate description. However, it's certainly conceivable that there are better ways of describing the military outcome. I'm starting a new sub-sub-sub-discussion here because it wouldn't really fit into the precise debates above, and trying to start a fresh Wikipedia:Request for Comment [RfC] could easily confound the process even further. However, if someone wants to start a fresh RfC specifically about Davide King's edit, I certanly wouldn't object. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Shakescene, thanks for your comments. My main issue is exactly the unjustified, unexplained and unreasonable removal of all that. Further, Inconclusive is absolutely appropriate for the parameter; and as I wrote above, I am not opposed to add a footnote where we explain the historians who say one side won, making sure that is a [significant] minority view. We already write In recent decades, the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. I think we should follow this. I did change Military stalemate to Military stalemate; both sides' invasion attempts repulsed (if that wording alone was an issue) which is exactly what we report at List of wars involving the United States and also adding Burning of Washington, including the Capitol and the White House which also seem to be relevant and an outcome of the war.--Davide King (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Stalemate may be a term of art so I have questions about that, but probably not enough to die on that hill. Is there some better way to say "US and Britain both claim victory?" I was not contesting status quo ante bellum, but I think adding Tecumseh improves the article's NPOV issues. If we do that though we should probably also add the Creek and the Spanish. I guess the Mohawk would fall under the status quo category. If you are putting the burning of the White House in, you probably should add the destruction of the Parliament building. Those are my thoughts. I am against a footnote about the British winning, because of Balance. This is an infobox where we summarize, no? Elinruby (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
No. The results box is NOT supposed to have a whole lot of information in it. It is supposed to have a simply phrase like "British defeat" or "American defeat"... not *a list* of various things, achievements and conditions. If it's not clear, as is clearly the case here with the war of 1812, then it refers to the section in the article. That's Wikipedia policy, (please read it here [[9]]. We voted on bringing this article into alignment with policy, by adopting Peacemaker67's proposal in the vote above - please don't revert it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Deathlibrarian, my understanding of the policy is also that the results section shouldn't have a load of information in it.--Ykraps (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Except that is not how we do it for virtually any war-related articles (see French Revolutionary Wars, Napoleonic Wars, World War I and World War II as examples). The Treaty of Ghent, defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy, burning of Washington, including the Capitol and the White House, with territorial changes back to status quo ante bellum are all really uncontroversial and I see no reason toe exclude them; and I would include military stalemate (both sides' invasion attempts repulsed) because, as noted by The Four Deuces, one source used to claim the United States lost was because they United States wanted to annex Canada, they did not do that, hence the historian considers it a loss. Then why not simply saying disputed? That would still be better that what we have now for the same reason Shakescene gave.--Davide King (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You wrote We voted on bringing this article into alignment with policy, by adopting Peacemaker67's proposal in the vote above but that is not consensus; and we should follow the results of this request for comments.--Davide King (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, we should just say it was a draw. Even Deathlibrarian admits Yes it is a minority viewpoint, because yes, more historians support the viewpoint that the war was a draw. But a minority viewpoint is not the same as fringe theory - they are different. Except that is exactly what it is. Fringe is not used as a pejorative as Deathlibrarian seems to believe (showing a clear not understanding of WP:Fringe) but that it diverges from the mainstream view that the war was a draw which is true. You basically want us to give the minority view more weight than it is warranted, acting like there is no consensus or that there is a dispute among historians when that is not true. The consensus and majority view is that the war was a draw and this is exactly what the infobox should say (again, I am open to have a footnote for the minority view or wikilink to Memory and historiography of the War of 1812), but the infobox should be about the scholarly consensus and any minority viewpoints that war was not a draw should be discussed in the main body. Until scholarly consensus changes, we should report the current one, i.e. that the war was a draw and a military stalemate as both sides' invasion attempts were repulsed and there was a return to the status quo ante bellum. Simple as that. Also stop acting like there is consensus for the current version. This is absolutely not consensus.--Davide King (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Relevant comment by Rjensen here. The relevant quote as follows The Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century. Old notions become fringe when the RS drop them. And yet, you are acting like there is consensus for your views or that we should just link to a section in the article. Also, please stop with personal attacks, especially against The Four Deuces, as argued Tirronan here, but also including accusing me of not having read the discussion. Your issue is that you see fringe a pejorative (pseudosecntific, etc.) rather than what it actually means here (against the mainstream view of the historians today; maybe someday the reverse will be true, but we should base the infobox on the consensus today) and you basically want to give more weight to the view that it was not a draw/stalemate when that is a minority view, as is also reflected in the main body.--Davide King (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The only discussion we have had, for consensus, with a vote, has been to follow Wikipedia policy and put a link to the document section. No one has agreed on this shopping list of people's opinions. I am reverting this to what it was before, while this discussion takes place. If you like, we can have an admin look at this to see if it complies with Wikipedia policy, or I can list this on the policy Noticeboard, for clarification. Just because some other pages are following incorrect policy doesn't mean this one should. There is no point of arguing about what list needs to go in the results box because Wikipedia policy says NO LISTS go in the results box. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I will just add a commensense approach to this, not that that means anything at all..... but the list approach to this results page is ridiculous. No one can ever agree on what goes in there. IT CHANGES EVERY MONTH - CHECK THE HISTORY OF THE PAGE, and it never really reflects all sides of the debate. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Deathlibrarian, I dispute that was representative of consensus or that it is something immutable. If I could vote to that, it would now be 3–2, certainly not a consensus. I agree with Red Rock Canyon's edit to revert back to the most stable version. No one has disagreed to this shopping list of people's opinions either as that is standard among war-related articles and are really uncontroversial claims. You say Wikipedia policy says NO LISTS go in the results box, yet good articles like World War II have it and they are really uncontroversial claims which we can all agree on, so it is not like it is absolutely forbidden and indeed that was in the long-standing version which Red Rock Canyon restored.--Davide King (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Its still recommended policy, and in any case, having the one viewpoint in there, that it was a stalemate, and not the opposing viewpoint, that Canada won, is incorrect. An article can't have one viewpoint in there, and ignore another, that's a NPOV issue. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Inconclusive, i.e. a draw or military stalemate, is also recommended and indeed is used in many war-related articles. As noted by others, Canada was not a country, so it would be more accurate to say Britain won, but that is a minority viewpoint and I do not see why we should give more weight than it warrants it. Discuss in in the main body? Sure. Give the minority view an equal weight to that of the majority in the infobox? Hell no.--Davide King (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Davide King I'm not going to continue debating this with you, you have your opinion, I have mine, we are just saying the same thing, over and over. I'll wait till its addressed on the NPOV noticeboard by a third party. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
No, I do not have my opinion; I am merely following the majority view which even you admitted. Similarly, a few cited sources to support the Canadian view admit as well in saying the majority see the war as a draw, so what is your point? This has written false balance all over it.--Davide King (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, as a colony, Canada was an adjunct at best to the war. Unless Canadian forces were the majority participant to the war, that is just stupid. You might have some in Canada that felt they won the war but in a war article it wouldn't make the slightest sense.Tirronan (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

At best you might put a tag in there leading to a section that would put that some historians disagree and leave it at that. I can name a few American historians that thought we got out by the skin of our teeth. Which blows the whole "they disagree by nationality argument to hell."Tirronan (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing text that seems POV

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

"The US celebrated the restoration of its national honour, leading to the beginning of the Era of Good Feelings, a period of national unity. "

My primary issue is with this "restoration of its national honour" phrase, (come on), although I have never heard of this era of good feelings. I have not clicked the link but apparently it is a thing, since we have an article about it. I don't object to saying that this era followed the treaty, if someone wants to edit that back in, but I think some explanation is called for. Meanwhile, removing the entire sentence. Elinruby (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

keep the consensus of historians -- which in the case of honor goes back 60 years to Norman K. Risjord, "1812: Conservatives, War Hawks, and the Nation's Honor". William and Mary Quarterly. (1961). 18#2: 196–210. Rjensen (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. It *is* a 1961 kind of idea that it's honorable to invade other countries. I get that Americans thought this at the time, but I don't think we should be saying this in Voice of Wikipedia. This is actually in about three other sections as well, article could use an edit for organization. And didn't I see that the era of good feelings had something to do with the Federalists as well? It can go back in if these issues are addressed. Elinruby (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, its a reference to the Americans at the time, celebrating what they saw as the restoration of their honour. Elinruby Are you saying, that the way its written, implies the article is substantiating that viewpoint? Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
yes, that is the heart of my objection to it. Sorry if that wasn't clear Elinruby (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The U.S. view was that they had stood up to the UK which conceded all their grievances and withdrew their bases from U.S. territory. The British were repelled at Baltimore and New Orleans. It's not a reference to the invasion of Canada. TFD (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
what I'm trying to get across here is that there is more to this than the "US view" Elinruby (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

ToC

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Article is very very long, have you considered a table of contents? Also there are an excessive number of quotes that don't contribute much, in my opinion, but I am still copyediting Elinruby (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It does have one, it's hidden, you have to click "show" for it to pop out.The TOC itself is long, because the page is pushing the size limit! Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Really? I will look again. Elinruby (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
it must be a browser issue because swear to god, I don't get one. I'll take your word for it for now. Elinruby (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

British felt backstabbed

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I have seen references to it in discussions, but I can't remember of a solid reference to it anywhere. Did the British ever felt backstabbed by the US at the time, because they saw themselves involved in a war with Napoleon, and from their perception, the US took advantage of this to attack them "when their guard was down" ? Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Heard it that way in school, but no, I don't have a reference for that. Nor have I looked, mind you. I came here originally because the article is tagged as needing references. As is often the case, there are other issues, and I am somewhat interested, but since en.wiki doesn't have many translators, I mostly do that. Come to think of it though, there aren't any French-language sources here. That might be interesting. Can't work on that today though. Elinruby (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
check it out, this does say that https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/british-view-war-1812-quite-differently-americans-do-180951852/ Elinruby (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@User:Elinruby When you mentioned your efforts to find French-language sources, the idea immediately struck me (as no doubt it already had to you) that one could do worse than consult the French (or Francophone) version of this article — which by the way succeeded in winning a gold star unlike this Anglophone version — and it does have a number of what appear to be original Reliable Sources in French. See https://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Guerre_anglo-am%C3%A9ricaine_de_1812#Annexes —— Shakescene (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Fantastic idea. It actually hadn't, but it should have. I've was preoccupied with something else today but did manage to do a quick Google and note a number of very fine Quebec sources in French. But translation is easier than writing from scratch. There may be further cognitive dissonance of course. Probably should start with the references Elinruby (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the British would have felt betrayed because they did not consider the Americans to be allies. TFD (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not realize what we are dealing with here

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When something is listed as needing references, it is generally abandoned, and as I worked on the article I saw nobody else in the history, many missing wiki links, and numerous misspelled names. My bad. I saw the old post here about Canadian English and rolled my eyes, and posted some text I had removed, which is my practice, in case I am wrong.

Anyway, since I thought I was alone in here, I did not post about a question I asked at the NPOV noticeboard concerning best practices when referring to indigenous people. “Indian” is considered offensive in my somewhat educated opinion, but different conventions exist in Canada and the United States (Native American, First Nations) and the border bisects the territory of some peoples, such as the Mohawk and the Anishinaabe.

Interested editors may want to comment. Elinruby (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Fresh start: Canada won: Fringe theory?

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Let’s try this again. Please read WP: FRINGE in its entirety before commenting. The definition of a reliable source is also relevant to this discussion. If reliable sources exist for the POV that Canada won the War of 1812, is it a fringe theory? Please comment in RFC format without reference to who did what ten years ago or whether I remember what I learned in school (eyeroll) Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

As Americans get more educated on the topic it can change Canada won the War of 1812, U.S. historian admits. --Moxy 🍁 17:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Davide King keeps saying the "Canada won" is a non mainstream theory, and is fringe. I've asked him to present a RS that says its "non Mainstream" or "Fringe" to support this. I would be interested to see if he, or any of the American Wikipedians that support this view, can present even one.13:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Please, see here. The onus is on you to show that it is not fringe, not on us; it is you who has to show us how it is not fringe and that it is broadly supported by scholarship in its field. Yet in that linked reply, I used your same sources that does not disputed the consensus among historians that the war was a draw. You tried to do that here. In my view, not only you failed in your intent to show that, but you failed in gaining consensus for your views and proposed changes. Maybe tomorrow things change and the Canadian won viewpoint becomes the majority view; until then, it is is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field and should not be given unwarranted weight in the infobox by implying it is equal to the majority view that it was a draw/military stalemate.--Davide King (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
this a a misapplication of fringe theory, which is intended to avoid having to apply balance to ideas like "vaping is healthy". If the idea that Canada won the war was actually fringe theory then we would have people in here from the fringe theory noticeboard at this point. Elinruby (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. Both the American win and British win viewpoints are fringe, i.e. neither are broadly supported by scholarship in its field. I think The Four Deuces and Rjensen have been pretty clear about this and explained why; I believe both are more knowledgable than me, so you are probably going to get better and clearer answers from them. Those American and British viewpoints belong in the main body, not to the infobox which is to list key facts. Military stalemate, Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante bellum and defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy are all uncontroversial and key facts.--Davide King (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Davide King We've had this discussion. You and TFD (and I don't know what the connection between you guys is, but I am getting curious) have decided to say that the "Canada won" viewpoint is fringe. It went to the noticeboard, and there was no consensus it was fringe. It's been discussed here on the talk pages, and no consensus it was fringe. Both Elinruby and I have asked for you to provide RS that says the "Canada won" viewpoint is fringe or non mainstream... and you can't provide any, not a single one. Please provide some sort of RS that backs your theory, or shut up about it. Until you do so, it is just your view, and doesn't belong on the page. Its just a made up theory, produced by mostly American Wikipedians who all believe that the America won the war, who want to diminish an opposing view by reclassifying it. It's laughable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This is beyond absurd. Have you even read what I wrote above or here and here? I am not going to repeat myself for the 100th time. The onus is on you, not on me; you are the one who is challenging the long-standing consensus of military stalemate in the infobox; you are the one who wants to add British win to the infobox, not me. So the onus is on you to show us why that viewpoint must be given equal weight to the majority view of military stalemate in the infobox. You have repeatedly failed in justifying that.--Davide King (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. fiveby(zero) 20:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so we do. What do *you* say about this? Elinruby (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Kidd, Kenneth. "The War of 1812, from A to Z". Toronto Star. It's become axiomatic among historians that Canadians know they won the War of 1812, Americans somehow think they won, and the Indians — who'd continue to cede land to American expansion — definitely know they lost, despite fighting alongside British regulars and Canadian militia..--Moxy 🍁 11:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I see you keep posting this. Could you please clarify what does that entails or what is your position? To me, that quote seems to be discussing popular views, not the views of the historians themselves. I have never doubted that popularly the views among Canadians, American and the Indians (i.e. the people, not the historians) is exactly as the quote outlined.--Davide King (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Fringe theory noticeboard notification

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theory/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Elinruby (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It is found at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#War_of_1812 Rjensen (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the link Elinruby (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Honor and Second Independence themes in American historiography

Latest comment: 4 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

There has been a question regarding "Honor" and "Second Independence" themes in American historiography. Alive and well as these cites demonstrate: -- Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  1. title: The War of 1812: Writings from America's Second War of Independence Edited by Donald R. Hickey. (The Library of America, 2013).
  2. "Madison was right in that the war did help foster a new sense of national pride and unity in the United States, especially among free men and women. For Indians, Africans, and African Americans, on the other hand, both the war and the peace that followed tended to limit opportunities for emancipation and autonomy. " [Eliga Gould in Journal of the Early Republic. 2014 p 11),
  3. title: "Dueling with Warships to Satisfy Honour: The Use of Naval Challenges in the War of 1812." International Journal of Maritime History. Dec 2013
  4. title: "Redeemed Honor: The President-Little Belt Affair and the Coming of the War of 1812." Historian. Spring2012,
  5. text: " During the War of 1812, New Jersey Federalists gained political dominance as the Peace Party. Federalists dominated a peace coalition consisting of themselves, antiwar Republicans, and Quakers, who condemned the war as immoral and unjust. In contrast, most Republicans advocated war in order to redeem American honor against despotism. At the end of the war, the Federalists questioned what the United States had gained while the Republicans claimed the war had won the United States respect and admiration from the rest of the world." New Jersey History. Feb 1987
  6. text : " American national interest and national honor had become deeply bound up with the treatment of U.S. merchant ships on the high seas. Concern with honor is linked to identity insofar as points of honor turn on a state's (or individual's) status in relation to others. That American honor became wrapped up with treatment of American merchant ships on the high seas indicates a growing identification of commercial interests with the national interest, and this identification was legitimized in terms of American interpretations of maritime law." [American identity and neutral rights from independence to the War of 1812. By: Mlada Bukovansky, International Organization (1997)--she is professor at Smith College
  7. book title: "Mr. and Mrs. Madison's War: America's First Couple and the Second War of Independence" (2012)
  8. title: Union 1812: The Americans Who Fought the Second War of Independence. Langguth, 2006
  9. title: "Waging War with Wool: Thomas Jefferson's Campaign for American Commercial Independence from England." Material Culture Spring 2009
  10. text "The US victory in the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812 earned Americans international respect and secured their independence from Britain." Ohio Valley History. Fall 2008,
  11. . from Bulgaria text: "proved a boon to industrial development and enabled the United States to gain economic and political independence." [E.G. Kulikova, in Annual Studies of America / Amerikanskii Ezhegodnik. 1980,
  12. from Mexico--title: "Algunos conceptos sobre el significado de la segunda guerra de independencia de los estados unidos, la guerra de 1812". by Academia Nacional de Historia y Geografia, México. --- Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I was perhaps a little facile in my sarcasm. I did not mean for you to do all this work. My issue was with tone, not substance, ie I am sure they did but the wording should not suggest that Wikipedia agrees with this sort of colonialism. I will do a detailed review of these tomorrow if you like but let’s start here: I do not think that invading a smaller weaker country is an honorable action. I am very willing to see the article say that the Americans thought so however, although I am not quite sure all the above sources support that exactly, but maybe you should make the section say what you think it should and then we should discuss? I am not actually sure we disagree. I don’t like that 1961 source though. I usually say that history does not have a sell-by date, but this article is teaching me that some interpretations are however outdated. Elinruby (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Elinruby (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The Americans did not invade "smaller weaker country" [Canada became a country in 1860s] -- it invaded the nearest outpost of the very powerful British Empire. Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
..which nevertheless...did just happen to be a "smaller weaker country".... Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
That's like saying when Canada liberated the Netherlands, it was invading a smaller weaker country. The majority of white people in Upper Canada were born in the U.S., had come to the province for cheap land and did not care who won the battles. The colonial authorities would reward them by stripping them of their British nationality, which deprived them of the right to own land or to vote. TFD (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, let's talk about that majority. I tagged that as dubious in the article, but am prepared to be proved wrong. Hand-waving isn't proof however. I'm under the impression that a majority of people in Upper Canada got off a boat from Ireland, England or Scotland in Kingston. There were of course Loyalists, but I thought they primarily travelled from New England to New Brunswick. As for the Americans as liberators trope, I would have thought the war itself proved that wrong. Elinruby (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

hearing crickets. By the way, please keep your answer on point. Nobody is disputing Loyalist immigration. I just want to see your sources for "most". Elinruby (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, there are so many discussion threads on the War of 1812 right now. Until the 1812, the vast majority of immigration to Upper Canada originated from the U.S., at which point Americans accounted for 80% of the population, mostly "late loyalists," i.e., economic migrants. After the war, which marked the end of the Napoleonic wars, the colony encouraged immigration from the British Isles. In order to enforce loyalty, they created the militia myth, that the province had been saved by political refugees from the American Revolution, that is, the United Empire Loyalists. In fact, the militias had proved ineffective and the main work was done by regular UK forces and their Indian allies.
I mentioned The Idea of Loyalty in Upper Canada and suggest your read it. I'm sure that you would be shocked to find that the views you are expressing originate with the Family Compact. You don't have to adopt the view that because the U.S. was imperialist, that somehow the British were not.
TFD (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a source for "most". I am not saying you aren't correct, but if the ruling elite in upper Canada said something was so and you claim they were wrong or making false statements, that is a big [citation needed] there buddy. Elinruby (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Your source, Pierre Berton, says, "In Upper Canada, three out of five settlers were newly arrived Americans." Why are you claiming that a majority of people in Upper Canada were from the British Isles? TFD (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You spelled his name wrong AGAIN. Also, he is not my source; I have not cited him, although I may at some point. Further, I am not 'claiming' (God you are patronizing) anything. I am asking (still fairly politely, considering) for you to substantiate your claims above. It would also be very nice if you discussed in good faith. Elinruby (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Pierre Berton is the correct spelling, just as it is spelled in the Wikipedia article you linked to, on the cover of his book, The Invasion of Canada: 1812-1813, and in the text you quoted at 09:27, 26 June 2020.
If he's not your source, why did you create a discussion thread about him? :::TFD (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

So the text "The Americans triumphantly celebrated the restoration of their national honor" has been returned to the article unchanged. I will be reverting this change against consensus. Reword so that Wikipedia is not endorsing this jingoism If you want that in there Elinruby (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It's clear to reasonable readers that the text is describing the U.S. view, not endorsing it. TFD (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Consider me unreasonable then. I am just fine with that. But considering the racism elsewhere in the article, I insist that you reword it to freaking say so. Alternately, feel free to start your own issue at the NPOV about how you want this to be in the article in the voice of Wikipedia. Elinruby (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it could simply be clarified by the addition of an extra word or two, as per Elinruby, so that its clear Wikipedia isn't actually endorsing the nationalistic element... so instead of "The Americans triumphantly celebrated the restoration of their national honor" we could add "The Americans triumphantly celebrated what they percieved as the restoration of their national honor"...or something like that? Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Right. We have a whole section about the effects of the war on shipping in Bermuda. Surely we can spare a few words to make that clear. How about: the American press and public were jubilant, and celebrated (some sort of quote about national honor)? I just don't want *Wikipedia* to say this.Elinruby (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Pierre Berton - not a “quality” source

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

The following is from his bio here:

“Established in 1994, the Pierre Berton Award is presented annually by Canada's National History Society for distinguished achievement in presenting Canadian history in an informative and engaging manner. Berton was the first recipient and agreed to lend his name to future awards.[20]”

Canada’s National History Society named an annual award after him. Also, his Wikipedia bio describes him as a historian, among other things Elinruby (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Berton provided a great service by popularizing Canadian history, just as Will and Ariel Durant did in popularizing world history and philosophy. But his writings were not peer-reviewed and never entered into the literature of professional historians. TFD (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
TFD General statements about "Pierre Berton not being a Historian" are oversimplifications. One the one hand, yes, he certainly didn't have academic qualifications as a historian. On the other hand, he is often referred to as a historian, and he is held in a great deal of respect for his work in the field of history, including having an award named after him, as Elinruby mentions, which is an higher honour than many people that *do* have a degree from a University can claim. So I was in two minds about whether he can be referenced, but I think simply not recognising his work simply because "he's not a historian" is perhaps a bit simplistic, and at worst, ignorant of his contribution to the field. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The reason I keep suggesting that people review the reliable sources policy is that there is absolutely no requirement that a source be either peer-reviewed or authored by someone in a given profession. Elinruby (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
except in medicine and maybe some of the sciences.Elinruby (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, editors sometimes adopt a higher level of acceptance for RS than is required by Wikipedia RS policy, and it happens here in this article. Arguably, they are overriding Wikipedia RS policy, which would accept certain sources, with their own, by applying a more restrictive set of criteria (ie it has to be peer reviewed). This is a concern where it may be used to eliminate a source that says something they don't agree with. The discussion can degrade into people attacking each other's sources, just based on their own personal opinions which may be coloured by their viewpoint. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

yes and while I approve of this in medical articles, if we stay with that, we can't use History.com, the Smithsonian, the National Library of France, the Atlantic, the New York Times etc, all of which are generally considered reliable, especially for citing undisputed facts like "the Battle of the Chateauguay took place on" such and such a day. Names of a general and of a battle were spelled wrong in the article but we are only supposed to consult peer-reviewed journals? For something like the date of a battle? Elinruby (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia policy is what we need to follow - if there is a disagreement if something can be used, its not up to anyone here to have the final say - it can simply go to the https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and they make the judgement on what is RS or not. So as you say, if someone used a History source by Pierre Berton, and someone else didn't like that, it would go to the noticeboard and they will decide. The other issue that Rjensen touched on with JCA stagg, if a recognised authority on a certain area is for eg interviewed and quoted in a published source(say History.com), the source generally doesn't matter so much, because it's the quote from the authority that is important, not the manner it is conveyed.Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, Pierre Berton did not say Canada won the war of 1812, he said both the U.S. and UK could claim victory. He further wrote, "This work deals with the war that Canada won, or to put it more precisely, did not lose, by successfully repulsing the armies that tried to invade and conquer British North America. The war was fought almost entirely in Upper Canada." In other words, he is writing about one part of the war of 1812, the American invasion of Canada 1812-1813. Even then he says that Canada "did not lose" the war. Note that his book is specifically about the battles in Upper and Lower Canada, not about the British invasions of the U.S. or the naval battles between the UK and U.S. TFD (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
You seem to still be under the impression that I want the article to say that Canada won 😂 I am saying that the PoV exists or did exist, and WP:BALANCE does not allow you to just dismiss it as "fringe". Also, even if I did believe that the article should say that Canada won, I do not argue policy based on what I want the article to say, quite the reverse.
It merely offends me that an iconic authority on Canadian history is being dismissed as "not a quality source." And I would, incidentally, appreciate it if you troubled to spell his name correctly. Elinruby (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Pierre Berton is the correct spelling, just as it is spelled in the Wikipedia article you linked to, on the cover of his book, The Invasion of Canada: 1812-1813, and in the text you quoted at 09:27, 26 June 2020. TFD (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that there are redirects I hadn't noticed, so ok, you are right about the spelling. Also, if you say I quoted him then fine, your record for truthfulness isn't good, but I don't care: these things would be true whether I had or hadn't. I don't go by whether somebody is or is not "my source". Can we get back to the main point, which is why in the world would he not be a quality source? Elinruby (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Translation From French

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

It appears that the article was originally translated from English ten years ago. They have of course considerably diverged since then. Here is the last part of the lede:

La Royal Navy engagea par la suite un blocus le long de la côte Est, fragilisant l'économie américaine d'une part, mais permettant d'autre part l'émergence d'une industrie sur le continent. Leur domination des mers permit aux Britanniques de mener des raids côtiers et d’incendier Washington en août 1814. En revanche, les batailles navales sur les Grands Lacs tournèrent à l’avantage des États
The Royal Navy set up a blockade of the East Coast, weakening the American economy on the one hand, but on the other, allowing the emergence of some industry on the continent. Their domination of the seas allowed the British to carry out coastal raids and to put Washington to the torch in August 1814. However the naval battles on the Great Lakes worked to the favor of the United States.
Bien que les Britanniques agent eu le dessus dans la plupart des engagements, la grande majorité des batailles font partie du mythe américain, en particulier la bataille de La Nouvelle-Orléans au cours de laquelle le général Andrew Jackson infligea aux Britanniques l’une des plus graves défaites de leur histoire, particulièrement mise en avant par les lobbys qui le soutenaient. Ironiquement, cette dernière bataille eut lieu deux semaines après la signature du traité de Gand le 24 décembre 1814, qui mettait fin au conflit et restaurait les conditions d’avant-guerre par un status quo ante.
While the British were able to take the upper hand in most of the battles, the vast majority of the battles are part of the American myth, especially the battle of New Orleans, in which General Andrew Jackson inflicted on the British one of the worst defeats in their history. (To check: haven’t looked at the wiki linked article, but that’s English not French. I think the next part says that this victory was much touted by the lobbyists (?) commercial interests (?) who supported Jackson) Ironically, this final battle took place two weeks after the signing of the treaty of Ghent on 24 December 1814 put an end to the conflict and restored pre-war conditions in a status quo ante bellum

pretty sure there are a couple of big differences right there. Caveat: this is a quick and fairly literal translation but the only question about meaning is noted. Going away now, had enough of this for a bit Elinruby (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

checked the Wikilinked article. It is indeed about lobbyists Elinruby (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe this article was started by copying an article from the 1910-1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. It has been updated to reflect modern scholarship. TFD (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
You have a diff for that? Because I went all the way back in the history and saw nothing of the kind. But this too is completely irrelevant. My point is that here is a narrative which is not in the article at all. Is the stuff about Andrew Jackson true, Mr historian? I am beginning to understand why nobody is working on the article. What are the updates you speak of? Elinruby (talk) 08:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The very first edit says at the bottom of the page, "(from an old encyclopedia)."[16] In his article about this article, Richard Jensen identified it as the 1910 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. (There's a link at the top of the page.) The French Wikipedia article was created by translating this article's version as of June 1, 2008. TFD (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Right. And that's what I am talking about. The French article. Note the header of this section. The French article however differs considerably at this point. In particular it says that this war has an important part in the national mythos of both the US and English-speaking Canada, for different reasons. I am not suggesting the wholesale introduction of translated text from the French; that isn't for articles where somebody is trying to WP:OWN the narrative, and in this sample at least, the point is not referenced. But it's a whole other point of view which currently does not exist in the article, and given how well-written the French is, is probably cited somewhere in the text, although it seems rather self-evident to me. Elinruby (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comments are offensive and are a personal attack. There is a distinction between people being in error and outright lying, and you should never claim on an article talk page that other editors are lying. I didn't say you quoted Berton, but that you listed him as someone who supported the view that the UK won the war. That is your position, isn't it? TFD (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Nope. I have no idea what Pierre Berton said about the war of 1812, beyond watching you tell Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) that he did not say that. My position is that it's pretzel logic to claim that someone the Canadian History Association named an award for is a fringe theorist when it comes to Canadian history. The Canadian History Association apparently disagrees. I am not sure what part of that is a personal attack. What I am sure of is that you have serially misunderstood pretty much everything I have said to you, with the result that I am tied up debating what I said or what you said, rather than editing the article.Elinruby (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
oh hey, I just understood that you are commenting in the wrong section and that's what's confusing here. I would appreciate it if you would move this exchange, which is not about the French version, into the Pierre Burton section where it belongs. I would prefer not to edit your comments. You have my permission to move mine with yours. Meanwhile, I didn't say you were lying. I am sure you believe what you say ;) Feel better now? Didn't think so. You really should apologize for that. Meanwhile, in answer to your concerns, once this exchange is moved I will strike out "truthfulness" and add "accuracy" and ditto with "is" and "has not been", which is definitely more than you did for your own slurs. Because, assuming good faith, you are going to start being more careful of what you say to other editors, right? Elinruby (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for length issue

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

if I am looking at this correctly, the article is about twice as long as it should be. I have been trimming here and there around the edges, but it occurs to me that the very long and detailed Atlantic theater section could be its own article, with of course a big summary and See also link. Just a thought. I am not volunteering for this incidentally, just suggesting that we consider it Elinruby (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right, the article is too long. I think summarising one of the sections and making it its new article is a good idea, nice suggestion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Since we are in front of a notice board I would suggest we wait for their ruling before making any changes.Tirronan (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Deathlibrarian: Right. That one came to mind, but I woulds be ok with any of the long sections getting spun off. We should try to agree on nomenclature Elinruby (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Tirronan: The problem with that is that this page has been debating one entry in the infobox for six years. I propose a round of bold, revert, discuss. WE ARE ALL LOSING IQ POINTS HERE. I suspect whatever goes in the infobox will need to be changed but meanwhile. I have just added some categories to the article, and somebody will be by shortly to complain that I broke something. Maybe they will have an opinion about this. I also rewrote the lede for clarity. I believe it is an improvement, feel free to check. No meanings whatsoever were hurt in this edit I don't believe, but this is me notifying you two of those changes. Elinruby (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elinruby: @Deathlibrarian: @Davide King: @The Four Deuces: @Red Rock Canyon: @Tirronan: @Rjensen: It's not only the article itself. Just for some cheap kicks, I pasted this Talk Page onto a blank MS Word document, and (in 11-point Calibri) this Talk Page fills so far no fewer than 53 U.S. standard 8 1/2" x 11" pages, with a word count of 30,761. How many halfway-sane editors are going to wade through all those filibusters echoing those of over a decade here? Now is probably not the time to archive this and start a fresh page, however, since I can't see this wrangle ending any time soon —— Shakescene (talk)

welp. I kind of agree that a reboot would be nice. My problem is that I am a Canadian who has been told that the Canadian view of Canadian history doesn't warrant inclusion in the article, and that is simply not acceptable. (There are actually at least three Canadian views, but we aren't ready for that conversation yet.) But I would like to see us all get a grip here, and I include myself in this. So let's start here: can we agree that the war is culturally important to both the US and Canada? I used the examples elsewhere of the Star Spangled Banner and Laura Secord. Presumably somebody is also pretty proud of Tecumseh. So can we please work on balance and due here? A other suggestion, since that one is likely to add to the length problem, would be to spin one or more sections off. The Atlantic theatre is very important, but all the stuff about what kind of ships and what kind of guns and how Old Ironsides got its name could be in a subarticle. For example. I noticed that that section is particularly long, is why I am mentioning it, but much the same is analogous to many of the long sections, probably. Just a suggestion. Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Just speaking for myself, the entire article is rife with half-assed excuses. As in oh my side lost so let me explain it. I'm talking about the Atlantic section in particular. I would like the entire article reduced to a very terse let the chips fall where they may and I DON'T want the article taking ANYONE's view. Any attempt to make this a Canadian's, American's, or British, point of view, and no you won't be editing on this page. Well at least not for very long.Tirronan (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
How about we remove all adjectives? I could get behind that. Also, I think that the siege of Detroit needs expansion if that story is true about the Americans getting punked by a few Mohawks running around in the bushes. I am inclined to believe it based on the reliable source. I mean excuse me, is that not brilliant tactics? Seems notable to me. Elinruby (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I can agree with that. There were two brilliant generals in this war and Brock was one of them, Winfield Scott was the other. Of the Generals that died in the war, I personally regret both Brock and Packingham.Tirronan (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
And Tecumseh ;) Elinruby (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks —— Shakescene I agree, yes as noted by Elinruby the article is long. I also agree with Tirronan, it takes a partisan approach to many things, I think it could be more based on the fact. Elinruby - completely agree on the details of ships, that should be taken out and put in a sub article. Why don't we consider, where there is a sub article already, reducing that section to a smaller section? Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no looked at what has been done with this, besides noting that some sections have subpages, but the very long Atlantic theatre section does not. Because French, I have had a lot to do with articles about the Foreign Legion and the Free French and assorted Algerian campaigns, and in my experience with those I found that military history articles do often discuss hardware at great length and so I don't propose that we simply truncate; also, the discussion of brig sails vs ship sail is probably important for understanding the naval battles, but that section is a big chunk of the article's excess length. Elinruby (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

But yeah, you would expect that if the article previously spun off subarticles, then the sections in this article would be shorter, but I have not looked at that to see how it was done Elinruby (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
who wrote that section, does anyone know? I would have a steep learning curve for trying to summarize that section. I am hoping someone else wants to do it. Elinruby (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This talk page itself is too unreadably long to be useful

@Elinruby: @Deathlibrarian: @Davide King: @The Four Deuces: @Red Rock Canyon: @Tirronan: @Rjensen:

¶ I had a much smaller derivative point: it's not only the article itself that's too long; it's also this talk page itself. The talk page now takes up the equivalent of 53 pages in a Microsoft Word document (.docx). No one who hasn't already participated is likely to read this forbidding, contentious wrangle (often over semantics or sentiment more than ascertaining or communicating facts) and then make his or her own contribution. At some point, what's here now (or most of it) will either have to be transferred to a fresh archive page or else to Talk:War of 1812/Who Won? See the notice (which I think leaves too much leeway for documented haranguing) at the top of this talk page:

This page is for discussions about changes to the article. There has been considerable debate over "who won the war" (please refer to Archives 8 and 9 for the most recent discussions). Historians and the editors have various viewpoints on which side won, or if there was a stalemate. For more information, see the section *Memory and historiography, Historian's views*. However, the consensus, based on historical documentation, is that the result of the war was per the Treaty of Ghent, i.e., status quo ante bellum, which, in plain English means "as things were before the war."

Please do not use this page to continue the argument that one or the other side "won" unless you are able to present citations from reliable and verifiable sources to support your claims. Per the principle of neutral point of view and due and undue weight, the article can only claim a side's victory if there is a verifiable general agreement.

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

With all due respect to those (on all sides) who know far more than I, —— Shakescene (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

¶ Within a short couple of days, this Talk Page's length has almost doubled. It now has 53,000 words, which would up ninety-three 8 1/2" x 11" pages set in 11-point Calibri on Microsoft Word 2016. Since Canada, the U.S. and France all have holidays this month, there will be those no doubt who will want to print this out and curl up in an armchair for a nice historical read. And I'm just about to add my own new section. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The mind boggles at this talk page Shakescene but I will leave this vote to people who've been in in a while longer. I think it's lime, or almost time. I think we just agreed about the infobox title of the list, and also that we should spin off the Atlantic theatre into its own article, and I'd like to be sure of that before you archive, is my only thought.Elinruby (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. We need to vote and move on.Tirronan (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
What are you agreeing to exactly? I think I am going to remove the indents and titles in the lists of participants, and you are going to work on shortening sections that have their own articles, do I have that right? Does that include the Atlantic theatre? Once we nail that down one way or the other I am fine with archiving this page, personally. Elinruby (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Burning of Parliament

Latest comment: 4 years ago31 comments4 people in discussion

This should be in the infobox if the White House and Capitol are going in Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No issue with that, Elinruby. Is there an article or something we can wikilink to as well?--Davide King (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
probably. I will look. Elinruby (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look, that was not the Americans in this war, my mistake. Please disregard. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

But see Battle of York#Burning of York. But I don't think individual incidents (including the burning of Washington) are important enough to overload the inofobox with. World War II was full of destruction, much of never restored, but the infobox there doesn't even include separate mentions of the utter destruction of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Dresden. I think the infobox should revert to the 2018 or 2019 model, with military stalemate, perhaps modified with a phrase such as "both sides successfully repelled invasions". The Korean War similarly has had no clear winner and clear loser, and the infobox there reads in part
Korean War
In South Korea: (한국전쟁, 6·25 전쟁)
In North Korea: (조국해방전쟁)
Part of the Cold War and the Korean conflict
Location
Korean Peninsula, Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan, Korea Strait, China–North Korea border
Result

Military stalemate

  • Failure of North Korean invasion of South Korea
  • Subsequent failure of U.S.-led United Nations invasion of North Korea
  • Subsequent failure of Chinese and North Korean invasion of South Korea
  • Korean Armistice Agreement signed in 1953
  • Korean conflict ongoing
Territorial
changes
  • Korean Demilitarized Zone established
  • North Korea gains the city of Kaesong but loses a net total of 3,900 km2 (1,500 sq mi) including the city of Sokcho to South Korea.
    • "Military stalemate" is given as the result, but then adumbrated with the two unsuccessful invasions of the North and South.
    Endless prose over the last 65 years has claimed that one side or the other "won" the Korean War, or that both sides lost, or that both sides won, but those are all interpretations. "Military stalemate" is the correct outcome for an infobox, as it should be (expanded or not) for this article. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    right. Parliament did burn, but not in this war, it was York that did. So, I thought we should not have one without the other. Since I was mistaken, I withdraw that assertion, but yes, that is an example of why picking out key events is a slippery slope, especially for a war that is part of the creation myths of two countries. Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    I agree with your comparison, Shakescene. The infobox should report this:

    Result Military stalemate

    Territorial changes Status quo ante bellum

    I think the burning of Washington is relevant and often mentioned, so it could be due; but I could be wrong. Maybe adding loss of Indian territories in parenthesis, per Elinruby here; or maybe just status quo ante bellum as we already say of Tecumseh's Confederacy defeat. Either way, I think this is pretty accurate and straightforward.--Davide King (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    I still have no particular opinion about the outcome section of the infobox. I think the article itself needs work. For the moment the only change I would like to see in the infobox is for "Native American" to go away or be replaced by something accurate. Is that agreement or do other people need to weigh in? Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    The burning of Washington is mentioned in the lede, as it should be. Americans rarely know of the Burning of York (Toronto), but listing Washington's burning would seem gratuitous, unwarranted or needlessly cruel without referring in the lede to the earlier burning of York. However, although it is borderline, I don't think either should clutter the infobox; the carpet-bombing of North Korea isn't in the Korean War infobox, nor does the World War II infobox include the Rape of Nanking or the flattening of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, far deadlier events than the burning of Washington and York. My own preferred version would look something like this:

    Result Military stalemate

    Territorial changes Status quo ante bellum

    , although it might be possible to bootleg York and Washington by some (not totally accurate) stratagem like this:

    Result Military stalemate

    Territorial changes Status quo ante bellum

    —— Shakescene (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I simply thought the burning of Washington was often mentioned and could be due; I did not mean to imply otherwise. I think Both sides repulsed invasions that included the burning of each other's capitals is actually perfect.--Davide King (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Shakescene, I say go for it and boldly put this version in the infobox (I say go for the no. 2, but the no. 1 is fine too). It makes no sense to put the Treaty of Ghent as the first result. The result should be military stalemate like we do for the Korean War.--Davide King (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    It would have been but... Wait, I just realized York was in fact the capital of Upper Canada. Ok, that leaves out Lower Canada but I otherwise completely agree with the statement Elinruby (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Right. I like #2 but #1 is also acceptable. Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    However, I've always been a little troubled myself by my own wording, since to the casual, uninformed reader, it's not clear that each other's capitals don't include London (let alone Lower Canada's which I presume was the city or town of Québec). Since I'm just as happy with what's up now, I'm not going to hurry to change it — although that doesn't mean I'd object very strongly if others, for reasons of editorial consensus or of more precision, do change it. (See also my response to Deathlibrarian's comment below.) —— Shakescene (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Shakescene, maybe we could add (burning of Washington, including the Capitol; and the burning of York) in parenthesis (or something similar) to clarify that? What do you think?--Davide King (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    I would submit this option, as the above is pushing only one point of view, and presumably will be dealt with in the NPOV issue currently on the noticeboard.

    • Result Disputed Military stalemate/British Victory
    • Treaty of Ghent
    • Defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy
    • US Invasion defeated
    • Territorial changes Status quo ante bellum

    The reason for not including the British invasion being defeated is, because if you know your history, it wasn't. They left voluntarily when they got word of the treaty being signed. The last military action on land they completed wasn't the siege of New Orleans (January 8th), it was the successful British attack on Fort Bowyer (February 7th). The British attack on New Orleans was defeated... but... the British invasion force was still there, and in fact, got reinforcements after New Orleans. The British army was still campaigning. Their troops weren't repulsed, and the invasion wasn't stopped militarily, they left of their own accord. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Still doesn't sound like a British victory to me (and I'm still English although I've lived in the States since 1960). Who knows, with the fortunes of war, might have happened had the conflict continued? After all (just like the Canadians in the North) the Americans were fighting on home ground. On the other hand, this may be a good argument against language about both sides repelling invasions, if "invasions" implies all invasions. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I mean, the point is, whether we individually believe the viewpoints, we need to make sure all the current viewpoints held by historians are represented. That's what Wikipedia does. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    US Invasion defeated is biased as both countries invaded each other and both countries repulsed that. This just goes to show you view Britain/Canada won because the United States wanted to annex/invade Canada and failed to do so, hence they lost. Why should we say only British victory and not also add American victory? By your own logic, we should add that one too as it is a minority viewpoint; or maybe that does not fit well with your own bias? In that case, the accurate wording to express your views on the matter would be Disputed but that is misleading because it is not disputed among the majority of historians who clearly says the war was a draw/military stalemate which is what we should put there.--Davide King (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King "is biased as both countries invaded each other and both countries repulsed that." No they didn't as already mentioned, the British invasion force was still active in the US at the end of the war, and only left when they heard the peace treaty was signed. It wasn't repulsed. *You can't write British Invasion repulsed, because.... it wasn't* That's not bias, that's fact, you can read it yourself, it even says it in the article We have a body of historians that say it was a draw. We have a body of historians that say it was a win for Canada - both viewpoints need to be included, unless you want a biased article. See WP:weight There are only two historians who say it was a win for the US, and its not generally regarded as a mainstream view. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    No, by following your logic of giving all viewpoints an equal weight, we should indeed add American victory to the infobox. It may be less held than the Canadian viewpoint but it still is a minority view, so why should that be excluded? WP:Weight would also imply that we do not give equal weight to the majority view (draw) which is the consensus among historians; and the minority view (British/Canadian/American win) which is a fringe view (i.e. an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field).--Davide King (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah well. If there were still British soldiers on American soil it the invasion was not "repelled" in that theatre, right? "Defeated", possibly. But what bothers me more, not to go all patriotic Canadian again, is that Canada repelling an invasion us somehow not a victory, yet it is a victory when the Americans do not repel the British. Seems inconsistent. Elinruby (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King Lets put it this way, only American Historians think America won the war, and only 3 of them. (Alan_Taylor_(historian) and Stephen_Budiansky) and George C. Daughan argue that the US won, that's a minority, but its not a "body" of historians, or a significant minority. It is mentioned in the article, but I would regard it as a non mainstream viewpoint, so Wikipedia rules around Fringe Theory would apply, and I don't think any Wikipedia editor is going to disagree. I've not seen any other commentary on the war discuss the US winning. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Here, you again appeal to the alleged national bias by writing only two US historians that I know of argue that the US won, that's a minority, but its not a "body" of historians, or a significant minority yet that is a double standard. Apparently, you consider the minority American viewpoint to be fringe but do not apply the same standard to the other minority Canadian viewpoint, even if both are minority views; it does not matter if the American viewpoint is less held than the Canadian viewpoint because both are minority viewpoint and I consider both fringe because neither are broadly supported by scholarship in its field, hence they should be excluded from the infobox and indeed they have been excluded; that was the long-standing consensus which you have repeatedly tried to change, but without success. I see no valid reason or rationale to change that.
    Yet by following your logic to give equal weight to other viewpoints in the infobox, we should include all three, even if one is clearly the majority view and is admitted as such by yourself and even the minority viewpoints themselves. Were the reverse true, i.e. the British win being majority and the draw view the minority, I would be writing the exact same thing and argue that we should only say the majority viewpoint, in this alternative example being that of British win. However, I am not sure whether, were the reverse true, you would be arguing the same thing and writing that we should still add the minority viewpoint (in this alternative example being draw) to the infobox.--Davide King (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King Is this your new thing to troll with now? That a couple of American Historians think American won the war (I note, only Americans think they won the war, no one from any other country thinks they do), so that is leverage to prove that the Canada won viewpoint is fringe theory? There's plenty of articles that talk about both views, that Canada won the war of 1812, and that The US won, and established them as mainstream views... can you show me an RS that says there are three views, that shows the fact that the US won the war is a mainstream view? Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Please, stop personal attacking me by falsely accusing me of trolling and strawmanning my position moreso. My point was that you have a double standard in wanting to present all viewpoints but excluding that. My point is that both are fringe and minority (just because the American viewpoint may be even moreso does not change the fact both a minority viewpoints and fringe) while you apply fringe only to the American viewpoint, when both are not broadly supported by scholarship in its field, the definition of a fringe theory. In other words, both views are fringe, yet you consider only the American viewpoint to be fringe and claim the Canadian viewpoint is mainstream despite the fact it is a minority in the field as you and your sources themselves admitted.--Davide King (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King As I said, I give up with talking with you about this. I just find myself typing the same thing over and over, and you don't listen to any arguments. It's a waste of time, thank you for the discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    I just find myself typing the same thing over and over applies equally well to me and you don't listen to any arguments applies equally well to you, so I agree on that. I thank you for the discussion; nothing personal.--Davide King (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Elinruby The Brits were defeated in the area *New Orleans*, but they were still operating in the theatre, and I think all the losses they had made were replaced with reinforcements, and they got a siege train. Pakenham had orders to continue the war until peace had been declared, unless given word from the Prince Regent. From what I read, the Brits would have been able to take Mobile pretty easily (being a lot smaller than New Orleans), and (I think) they would have given it back to the Spanish. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ok, well, they weren’t repelled then, tidy as that sentence would have been. What did you think of something like mutual defeat? Elinruby (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    By the way, I am currently working on Vichy France so I feel kind of strongly that some things are simply not so no matter what the national propaganda office says on the subject -Elinruby (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    This Article does not follow policy

    Latest comment: 4 years ago35 comments6 people in discussion

    The results box, according to Wikipedia policy, is only supposed to have limited words in it. What can go in there is restricted. These include simply statements like "American Victory" "British Victory" or inconclusive. Where there is disagreement about what happened, it is not supposed to have a shopping list of various things an editor has added in there. THis is Wikipedia policy, you can read it here. Peacemaker67 , proposed that we change the infobox to bring this article into alignment with Wikipedia policy, and myself Peacemaker67 , TFD,Ykraps spent a month discussing it and made the change to align with policy. It is now being continuously reverted by User:Davide King against Wikipedia policy, even though he has been advised. In order to avoid an edit war, I'll list this on the Wikipedia admin noticeboard for expert comment. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    The wording of the policy is

    • "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note *can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    I have listed this here for an admin to look at, so as to avoid a continuous edit war: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Not_Following_Policy_with_Results_Box_-_War_of_1812_article Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    My issue is that this is not consensus and that we should wait for this. Furthermore, I find it weird we are discussing this when the consensus is clear and thus Inconclusive should be the Result as that satisfies both the template's parameter policy and the consensus of historians (i.e. draw/stalemate). You want to push the view that there is a dispute among historians or no consensus when there indeed is consensus; and you want to give undue and unwarranted weight to the minority view that the result was anything other than a draw/stalemate. We should use either Inconclusive (which is supported by the parameter) or Military stalemate (as we do for the Korean War). Either way, we should represent the current consensus and majority view of historians that it was a draw/stalemate.--Davide King (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    There are two views here. One that the majority of Historians (mainly US), and the view mostly seen in the US. The other view, the minority support (mainly Canadian and British) seen in Canada. You seem to want to be making the article say one view over the other, by putting your viewpoint in the results box, and leaving other people's viewpoint out. THE ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY THE WAR WAS A DRAW. It says the majority of historians say it was a draw, and the minority say it was a win for Canada. There is a difference. They are both mainstream viewpoints, by mainstream historians, and they should both be represented here under WP:bal 10:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC). Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    That is because there was a discussion about whether there even was a national bias in the first place and request for comments is all Not support, so what are you even talking about? The whole thing you are basing it on for your proposal does not even have consensus in the first place! You were the only one to support that! Again, just because at the same no one else replied yet, it does not mean a mere 3–1 (which would be 3–2 with me) equals consensus, especially when it was not even "advertised" to get more users' participation. So you are basing this off something that was rejected in the first place! And you continue to not understand the meaning of fringe. I think Rjensen was pretty clear about this (The Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century. Old notions become fringe when the RS drop them). Even you admit It says the majority of historians say it was a draw, and the minority say it was a win for Canada. You want us to give equal weight when that is unwarranted. We should use the majority view in the infobox.--Davide King (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    National bias of historians?

    Why there is this paragraph under the National bias of historians subsection when here it was rejected that there even was a national bias and that historians simply emphasised different things, in other words that there is [not] a national bias of historians (U.S., UK and Canadian) over which country won the War of 1812. I think this is relevant because Deathlibrarian, incidentally the only one to support the national bias, is using that to argue against the mainstream views among historians, that the majority of Historians (mainly US), and the view mostly seen in the US. The other view, the minority support (mainly Canadian and British) seen in Canada. [...] It says the majority of historians say it was a draw, and the minority say it was a win for Canada. [...] They are both mainstream viewpoints, by mainstream historians, and they should both be represented here but that is no longer true. In other words, Deathlibrarian wants to give unwarranted and undue weight to the minority views and by falsely implying there is not a consensus among historians by having us either say it is disputed or link to a section like there is not even a consensus in the first place.--Davide King (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    Davide King I will ask you one thing, do you see the viewpoint that some historians hold, that Britain/Canada won the war as a mainstream viewpoint?Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    I personally believe that it is a valid point and is probably right, but that is not the view among historians. All I want is for us to report the majority view in the Infobox, whatever it may be. The view that Britain/Canada won the war is a minority and fringe view. It cannot be mainstream for the simple fact it is not a majority view; it is not fringe in the sense of being an absurdity or nonsense, it is fringe in the sense Rjensen explained it. Maybe someday this view will become the majority and the draw view will be the fringe one in that sense, but until then we should report the current majority view that it was a draw.--Davide King (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but if you are saying the viewpoint of a number of historians, like JCA Stagg, Benn, Latimer, Pierre Berton have non mainstream views because of their views that Canada won the war of 1812, then that is quite insulting to them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Again, you seem to think of fringe as a pejorative when it is not, so it is not insulting. I do not see how one can see this other than a draw or military stalemate as that is what de facto happened with the sign of Treaty of Ghent. A win for either is more in moral terms, like Britain/Canada morally won the war because the United States invaded Canada and failed in their attempt to annex it; similarly, the United States morally won the war because the British lifted their restrictions on trade and that it was a second war of independence. In practice and militarily, it was a draw/stalemate.--Davide King (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    The point is, it doesn't matter what you think, or what I think. It matters what historians, and the national views are. The differing views are mentioned in the article As Wikipedia editors, its not our job to shove our personal views down people's throats. Its our job to represent the views in the article in a balanced way. By you supporting only one view going into the infobox, that's what you are doing. YOu are misrepresenting the article. There is more than one view about who won the war, and you are pretending there is only one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    I find it ironic how [t]he point is, it doesn't matter what you think, or what I think applies equally well at you. It does not matter their national views because the consensus was that there is no bias, so it is you who is indeed shov[ing] [y]our personal views down people's throats while I'm merely following the majority view. The fact the main body gives too much weight to the minority views is indeed a problem and maybe that is also against consensus just as the national views are. So yes, I may be misrepresenting the article but I am misrepresenting a flawed article which gives the minority views way too much weight. In other words, just because the article currently gives too much weight to the minority views, it does not mean I am wrong. Yet, I do not see how I am misrepresenting the flawed article which gives too much weight to the minority views when it still clearly says In recent decades, the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. Period. So the problem is not that I am misrepresenting the article, it is you who wants to push the minority view as strong as the majority one. You have failed again and again to understand what fringe means in this specific context and you keep pushing your view that there is a national bias and that the minority view has an equal weight just like the majority view when neither are true; and the first one is even against consensus.--Davide King (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'm sorry I completely disagree. I am not trying to shove my view down people's throats. I don't want either view in the infobox, *I want to link to the section in the article, so people can read it themselves*.... that is what the template guidelines say you should do. I'm not trying to represent a minority viewpoint as a majority one, but that doesn't mean it should be entirely left out as you are. I think this conversation is probably not getting anywhere, and we need a third party to step in Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Edit conflict. I am not doing any of what you falsely accuse me of; I am merely trying to follow the scholarly consensus. As for your proposal of the link and as correctly pointed out here by Shakescene, Infoboxes are intended to give a short overview at a glance, which is hardly achieved by directing readers to #Memory and Historiography; and Calidum, who wrote [e]ither way we word it, it is preferable to the current setup [i.e. your favoured setup]. Why should it not be left out when it is a minority view that entails to fringe as pointed out by The Four Deuces and Rjensen? Why should we imply there is a dispute among experts when there is none? And what does How about you let people think for themselves, eh???? [sic] even mean? The link just confuses things even more, as pointed out by Calidum and Shakescene. It was de facto a stalemate (The main view of historians seems to be that the major participants just agreed to stop fighting after failing to achieve any decisive advantage).--Davide King (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    There is no scholarly consensus. There are two mainstream views from historians, one has more supporters than the other. A minority view is NOT a fringe view, as you claim. One is the view seen from Canada, the other from the US. You are pushing your view here, and leaving the other one out. That is a NPOV issue, as I said, we are going around in circles, I think it better it is raised there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    In my opinion, there is indeed a scholarly consensus, per Calidum, The Four Deuces, Rjensen and others. Again, you base your view on the fact there is a national bias (One is the view seen from Canada, the other from the US) when that was not supported in the requests for comments; and you continue to fail in understanding what fringe means here. I think Rjensen was pretty clear about that (The Canadian-victory viewpoint was widespread decades ago but is no longer found in Canadian scholarly articles & books or university textbooks. It may still be taught at the high school level in Canada, but I think it's now "fringe" in mainstream Canadian reliable sources in 21st century). I agree that we are going around in circles, but that is because your argument is based on the false claim there is a national bias.--Davide King (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, there is a body of respected Historians who are mainstream, who do say that the war of 1812 was a win for Canada. I have quoted all the references to them above. You and Rjensen may think their views are not mainstream, and fringe, but that's your opinion, and as I said, a bit insulting to them. I don't agree, and I think it best we agree to disagree at this point. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Again, you are confusing popular views for historians'. I think The Four Deuces made a good job in explaining the issues with your list, so I am not going to repeat myself. You say You and Rjensen may think their views are not mainstream, and fringe, but that's your opinion but the same apply to you. However, unlike you, Rjensen's views and mine are based on scholarly consensus; and you may continue to disagree and failing to understand the meaning of fringe in this case which is not insulting, but that is what they are. The only thing I agree is that we have to agree to disagree. No bad feelings.--Davide King (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    The list of historians who say the war was a win for Canada is there, on this page. Read it. If you are ignoring these mainstream historians viewpoints and the Canadian viewpoint as fringe theory/non mainstream view, that's not scholarly research in my view. That's letting your bias take over. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Again DL, we have been over that conversation before with you and that issue has been decided. Enough is enough, you ran us around that track too many times to do it again.Tirronan (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    I agree, Tirronan. I already replied you here to some of the same points and I am not going to repeat myself. We should not let the minority view the same weight to something that is actually broadly supported by scholarship in its field. The historians may well be mainstream but the views they hold in regard to this war are not, for the simple fact they are not broadly supported by scholarship in its field which is one definition of fringe and what The Four Deuces, Rjensen and I mean when we say it is a fringe view; or do you think we are all biased and wrong? You cannot see yourself as being either biased or wrong, what are you? Again, I am Italian and I could not care less about it; the only biased one may well be you though, for your bias in favour of Canada is over 9,000.--Davide King (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King Please provide me an RS that says that the view that Canada won the war of 1812 is either non mainstream, or Fringe Theory. Just one. Can you do that? If you and Tirronan, and TFD, all wish to think these historians are non mainstream and fringe, that's your personal opinion, and its insulting to them and to Canada. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Deathlibrarian Again and for the last time. Canada could not win the war. Upper and Lower Canada were colonies of Great Britian period. Under no circumstances would any history worthy of the title put such a thing in a book. If they did they would be laughed at. Secondly, you have been asked to drop the subject. You have heard all of us. We are not going to continue to endlessly blog on the subject that you apparently can't let go of. You are steadily marching right into outright harassment of other editors. I have no intention of further commentary on this subject. The answer is NO, it will remain NO, and please do yourself and all the other editors on this page a favor and accept that NO is the only answer you will receive. Now stop it.Tirronan (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    You wrote "All I can say, we will have to agree to disagree. They are mainstream historians, and their views are mainstream, as are the views of the Canadian people." I am actually expressing the majority view and the onus is on you to show us why or how the minority view (which even you and some sources you listed admitted) has due and weight. Again, they may well be mainstream, serious historians, but in the War of 1812 they represent a minority view and the view they hold about the result is fringe because it is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field! What is so hard to understand about that? You want to give an equal weight to the minority which would result, by not saying the result was a military stalemate, that there is a disputed among historians when there clearly is a majority view and consensus that sees that war as a draw. No, the onus is not on me to provide [you] an RS that says that the view that Canada won the war of 1812 is either non mainstream, or Fringe Theory; the onus is on you, you did that here and you failed (you cited a few non-historians, several of given sources still clearly say the consensus is that the war was a draw, etc.; I am not going to reiterate all The Four Deuces' points), for you did not got consensus it has enough weight or is due to be reported in the infobox. Do you want one source? I do not even have to search for that, you did that already for me; Brian Arthur, whom you used to support the Canadian viewpoint, says The war is usually seen as a draw. Similarly, Desmond Morton said the war was a draw. Hence why original research; some of your sources do not even support your claims or views you attribute to them. We say the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive. So no, that is not our personal opinion; they are fringe because both the British/Canadian won and American won viewpoints are not broadly supported by scholarship in its field, it is that simple! What is insulting is your continual fail to understand this and claim that the majority historians views that the war was a draw is merely an opinion. The infobox says military stalemate and has described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently without consensus in the first place. So the onus is on you for why we should not say military stalemate and why we should say Disputed Military stalemate/British Victory [sic] and get consensus for that, something which it seems you have tried to get for decades and failed.--Davide King (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Tirronan YOU are completely biased, of course there are scholars who say that Canada won the war, I've listed those good Historians here, who you have dismissed because you don't agree with them. There are books written on it. All Canada believes it. The US objective was to take Canada, they took nothing - not one inch of Canadian soil. What sort of illogical biased mindset says that where a country defends itself successfully from attack....that isn't counted as a victory from their view? As far as I am concerned, I hear from a bunch of US Wikipedians who are trying to push a US centric view on to an article. This article needs to be open to multiple viewpoints. I am not harrassing anyone, I am just trying to keep this article unbiased, and at times I've been the only non US wikipedian here, trying to argue opposing viewpoints and from my point of view keep the bias off the page - and instead of support or thanks, I get people like you attacking my actions, and people like Davide King threatening to ban me from the page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King You said about me, "some of your sources do not even support your claims" and then said "Desmond Morton said the war was a draw": Could you provide the source for that, with the reference? He says the US lost, here is my reference - Desmon Morton said: "Americans have claimed the war as a national triumph. Had not the Americans set out to conquer Canada? Their invasion failed utterly" (source) "How Lower Canada Won the War of 1812" Text of a speech to the Stanstead Historical Society at the Colby-Curtis Museum on April 14, 2012" "How Lower Canada Won the War of 1812"). If you can provide a reference where he says the war was a draw, I will remove that from the list above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King I'm not going to ask you anymore for any RS that says the Canadian viewpoint is seen as "non Mainstream" or fringe theory. A motion was moved to have that view raised here, so the onus is on the people that raised it and support that view, you and TFD. Elinruby and I have both asked you to provide an RS to support it. All you can provide is something that says the war "is usually seen as a draw"... but that doesn't specially indicate the Canadian viewpoint is "non Mainstream" or "fringe theory". You CAN"T provide an RS that says that the viewpoint that Canada won the war is "fringe theory" or a "non mainstream view"... *because there isn't one*, so I won't ask for one again. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Morton was explaining what he termed "local mythology." In fact he does not claim either side won. See the section of his book, A Military History of Canada, "Struggle for a Stalemate." He ends it by observing, "The war had gone better in North America than anyone had a right to expect. Without controlling all the lakes, including Erie, no real gains could be made. The only sensible basis of settlement, British ministers concluded, was a status quo ante. On Christmas Eve, the [UK and U.S.] delegations assembled at Ghent, abandoned their ambitions, and signed the treaty....Both sides had had enough." (p.70) There is a distinction between Morton explaining popular opinion or mythology in the former colonies and explaining his own opinions. TFD (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ok, I agree with you, TFD re-reading that article, he is describing the popular view, not his own. I've misinterpreted that. I had a look at A Military History of Canada and he does indicate he thinks it's a draw, there's certainly nothing in there indicating he thinks Canada won. I'll take him out of the list of Historians who say the war was a victory for Canada. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    See? That was exactly what I and others were referring to by you doing original research; you misinterpreted the same sources which were supposed to prove your point and it may not be only one or two; and which is why your supposed list of sources to prove or support your point failed in mine and other users' opinion to change our views (because yeah, unlike you, I am actually willing to change my mind in light to evidence; you simply failed in doing that).
    Again, you are asking us to prove a negative; the onus is on you to prove and show us that the minority viewpoint (which even you and your sources admitted it is) somehow warrants the same weight given to the majority and I believe you have failed in doing that. Why the hell should we say Result Disputed Military stalemate/British Victory [sic] when even you and your sources admitted that the latter viewpoint is a minority view and that Military stalemate is the majority viewpoint? Indeed, it could be argued that your sources admitting that the majority say it was a draw actually just prove my point that we should only state the majority viewpoint in the infobox and the minority viewpoint only in the main body which is where weight applies, not to the infobox which is for key facts; the real issue is of due/weight and the meaning of fringe, but this is showed by your sources admitting the majority view is that it was a draw, hence weight applies only to the main body, where we can state minority viewpoints, not the infobox which is for key facts.
    Your proposed wording also imply there is a disputed among historians when there is none; it is not 50% say it was a draw and 50% say it was a British win; there is a clear majority and minority viewpoint.--Davide King (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    I got one wrong, which I was adult enough to own up to (and of course, you use that against me). I stand by the others references, check them if you want. As for the rest of your comments, sorry, I'm not debating this with you. You're going to continue pushing your view, its just going around in circles, it's a waste of both our time.12:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)
    It was not only that you got wrong and I am not going to repeat The Four Deuces's good points about all the problems of your list, but please try to consider how Google Scholar alone was 75,000 entries that mention the "War of 1812,"[4] unless you have read all of them, you cannot say that however many sources you found have any degree of weight in the literature. Again, stop attacking me or writing I am pushing a view; I am not pushing anything. If I am pushing a view is that of the majority of historians and then so are you by pushing the Canadian viewpoint to make it equal to the draw viewpoint which is held by the majority of historians and is admitted by your sources themselves. You are the one who wants us to say Result Disputed Military stalemate/British Victory. Ever thought that the reason why military stalemate, with no mention of British win, in the infobox has been the long-standing consensus exactly because that is a minority or fringe viewpoint and that we should only list the key facts held by most historians that it was a draw? What I am merely arguing for is in favour of this consensus.--Davide King (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Deathlibrarian, i appreciate your reply. My position all along has been that most historians see the conclusions of the war as a draw, but other conclusions are possible and some historians have come to different conclusions. The question is whether those alternative views have sufficient acceptance to say the outcome is contested. One way to determine that is to look at how tertiary sources such as textbooks and other encyclopedia articles, which summarize the literature, say. Do they say the war ended in a draw or do they say the outcome was contested? TFD (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    It's very concerning to see people not reading sources.....so perhaps a website will be more palatable Read me pls.--Moxy 🍁 21:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Consensus does not mean unanimity, and content disputes don't need to get everyone's agreement. This discussion has become repetitive, and there's nothing new being brought to bear. The article and the Infobox aren't bound by what the very last comment in the discussion is. It isn't necessary to answer every possible objection that might be raised; they can be left here to idle, unanswered; silence is the answer. That would be my recommendation. Afaic, this has been resolved. Let's move on. Mathglot (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Moxy, got an overlap; 'last comment' doesn't apply to you! Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    NPOV Issue - Results in the Infobox only showing one viewpoint

    Latest comment: 4 years ago93 comments7 people in discussion

    The results box indicate the war was a "Military stalemate" - for many Historians, and the people of Canada, the war wasn't seen as a stalemate, it was seen as a victory. The article says that there are two points of view: (1) one that some historians say it was a draw, and (2) other historians say that Canada won the war. The article should have both points of view in the results box, under WP:BAL. The article doesn't state the war was a stalemate, or a draw, it says there are two viewpoints, the infobox should reflect this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    In response to this, that is your own original research and view. We just had a discussion and the consensus was to not support the view there was a national bias. Again, you fail to realise that the minority view represent a fringe viewpoint today and hence it is undue and unwarranted to act like there is an equal weight between the majority and minority. This article indeed does not respect policy; it does not respect the consensus of there being no national bias in the first place, which undermines your whole point to opposing us stating the majority view in the infobox. This is a case of false balance.--Davide King (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? I'm not talking about National bias here, I'm talking about a majority viewpoint, and a minority viewpoint. There doesn't have to be equal weight given to both, but at the same time, *you can't simply ignore a mainstream viewpoint, just because the other viewpoint has more support*. That is WP:BAL. Once again, the article does not say it was a draw. It says the majority of historians say it was a draw, and a minority say it wasn't. Both views need to be represented in the results box. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    You say I'm talking about a majority viewpoint, and a minority viewpoint. There doesn't have to be equal weight given to both [...]. Both views need to be represented in the results box. But that exactly what it is, you want to give equal weight to both views. The main body needs to be improved to make clear the majority views of historians; it talks more about the minority view and the national bias part ought to be removed due there being no consensus to support that, outside you. I also do not understand what the WP:BAL guideline you keep referring too when it is a red link.--Davide King (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    WP:WEIGHT You are including only one viewpoint in the infobox, and leaving out another one entirely. Under Wikipedia policy. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"If you want to continue to leave it out, then rather than us continuing this, it can go to the Neutrality Noticeboard and they can decide. The previous solution had a link, and that linked to the section, people could read it for themselves. That was fair, and inline with the template guidelines. You've decided to remove that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    The problem is whether the minority is significant or not. It does not seem to warrant inclusion. Also, that solution (3–1/2) was no consensus and has been rightful reverted to the long-standing version. You seem to be confusing popular views for the consensus. Current reliable sources show that historians consider the outcome of the war as a draw. [...] None of the authors claim that the war was a victory for either side. Trautsch does however note that popular opinion in the U.S. and Canada saw the war as a victory for their respective sides, that some popular writers repeat these claims yet the consensus of historians is that it was a draw. [...] The result of the war was "inconclusive." [...] Now it could be that the consensus is wrong, and there is no reason why we should exclude dissenting views. But it is a disservice to readers to claim that there is a serious dispute among experts.--Davide King (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Plenty of evidence there, the talk page is full of references to it, and the article currently says that is a significant minority viewpoint that the war was won by Canada(so you seem to be basing a lot of what you are saying on your own opinion, rather than what the article actually says). Additionally, the references to a range of respected historians that support that viewpoint, are all either in the article, or on the talk page. Anyways, as I said - personally I don't believe its right that only your view is in the inbox. I don't think its follows policy, and I don't think its good for the Wikipedia users. I think we have really chatted long enough, and its not getting anywhere - its time for the Neutrality Noticeboard to look at it, or a third person can look at it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    I am not pushing for anything; I am not pushing my view. That is not my view, it is the majority historians' view, which even you admitted. The difference is you want to give the minority more weight than it warrants; and by not writing the majority view in the infobox, implying that there is a dispute. As correctly pointed out by The Four Deuces and others, the list does not actually support your view. Merely listing sources does not mean anything when you engage in original research and misinterpret them as you did, so I am not going to repeat his correct assessment. What you don't seem to understand is that reputable historian may disagree with established convention, but still represent a small minority of the thousands of historians. You are also still failing to read the sources correctly. JCA Stagg and Jim Guy for example are both correct that the Canadian narrative is that they won the war. But they are talking about popular perception, not the views of historians.--Davide King (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    " majority historians' view" exactly - but not the only view in the article. Read the article...there are two views Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    And the majority view represents the consensus. You make the false analogy that there is an equal weight, that both views are mainstream (the minority view may be mainstream in popular views, but it is not in historians views which is what we should based it on for the infobox) but the majority is the mainstream and the minority is the fringe as argued by Rjensen. Either way, I agree Shakescene's comparison with the Korea War; both sides claim win, but in both cases we should say it was a military stalemate because that is de facto what happened (they simply stopped fighting, there was a return to the status quo ante bellum, etc.). There may be popular views that Britain/Canada won, but de facto that is not what happened and it is not the view of the majority of historians. Again, you confuse the popular views (which see the Britain/Canada viewpoint more widespread) with that of historians, whose majority consensus is that it was a draw or stalemate, which is exactly what happened with the Treaty of Ghent.--Davide King (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Majority view and consensus are not the same. That's the issue. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I have listed the issue that only one viewpoint, the US centric view, is mentioned in the results box, as an NPOV issue, on the NPOV noticeboard, here. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#War_of_1812_-_Results_in_Infobox Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    In this case, they are; and it is not US centric as the consensus is that there is no national bias.--Davide King (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    There is national bias, anyone will tell you its the popular view within Canada that they believe they won the war, and there are a stack of references to support it, and they are linked to in the actual article. Do you want me to start listing them here for you????? Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    This was already discussed at length and you were the only one to support that. So please, take this argument back and find another one. The article is currently a mess, so it makes no sense to use that as reference; until 30 June 2020, it still included the national bias section, being added despite consensus not to support it.--Davide King (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Whereas I don't personally support the view that there is national bias, some historians do, including Dr. Tim Voelker and I think (from memory) Jon Latimer.--Ykraps (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    They seem to represent a minority and I assume this was already weighted accordingly when there was consensus not to support the claim there is a national bias.--Davide King (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    According to Wikipedia, [a] fringe theory [...] is "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field." They range from reasoned theories presented in academic papers to wholly unreasonable views. That is why it is fringe. I believe it is fringe in the sense of reasoned theories presented in academic papers rather than wholly unreasonable views but fringe nonetheless. You admit yourself that it is a minority view (i.e. an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field) yet your bias in seeing pejoratively when it is now does not allow you to reach the obvious conclusion.--Davide King (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    The position that either the UK or U.S. won the war departs significantly from the prevailing view that the outcome was a draw. It seems that your main objection is the term fringe, because it conflates alternative theoretical formulations (such as position that either the UK or U.S. won the war) with pseudoscience and questionable science.
    — User:The Four Deuces

    I think this quote still sums up the crux of the matter.--Davide King (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    That has been the non-stop object of DL's desire for 2 decades. And, no there is no consensus for it.Tirronan (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    There may not have been consensus among users, but I believe the consensus among historians is obvious.--Davide King (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I think I misunderstood you. You are saying Deathlibrarian's views have been pushed for two decades and there has never been consensus for it? So why are we even discussing it? If that is true, Deathlibrarian's behavior has been really disruptive and may warrant some sanction or topic ban.--Davide King (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, probably disruptive in trying to disrupt the level of bias on this article, of which there is still plenty. Davide King here you are, please nominate me if you want and Tirronan can back you up. Tirronan... if that's how you deal with people who disagree with you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ever thought... *gasp* ... you may been the one biased? Or, to quote Bastiat, Do [you] not [believe] [...] [that you] also belong to the human race? Or do [you] believe that [you] [...] are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind [so as to imply I and other users the only ones to be biased? Even Elinruby seems to be fine with this proposal (feel free to correct me if I misunderstood), so why not you too?--Davide King (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    It's certainly less wrong. And doesn't turn a blind eye to what happened to Tecumseh. But remember, I think the article is about to change a great deal, so a better (but not quite accurate) entry for the infobox in the meantime is a win. It's a Canadian thing ;) one problem with #2 is that it really only reflects Upper Canada. But I don't have a better suggestion at the moment, and incremental improvement is still improvement. Elinruby (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Whatever the article is going to change, it is not going to change the consensus and majority view that it was a draw/military stalemate; and that having Military stalemate as Result (as done in both proposals) is not going to be changed, nor it should. We may discuss on what to put in the bullet list and how to word it, but I believe as to what the result should be is clear. The various myth and popular narratives are for the main body and does not affect or change the overall consensus about the result in the infobox.--Davide King (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    I feel like it is a mistake to comment in this thread but: look at those sources I posted at the fringe theory noticeboard (or do your own search on the string "Canada won the war of 1812". Of the four I posted, all repeat all said there was a difference in the way the war was seen according to nationality.Elinruby (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    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.Tirronan (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    As far as I understand it, that did not imply there was a national bias, just that historians may emphasise different aspects of the war according to their national narratives per this request of comments.--Davide King (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    These are all reliable sources. Naturally the truth of that statement depends on the definition of "win". But then there is the analogy to World War II where repelling an invasion is seen as a win. Elinruby (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, as per Elinruby there's a stack of references that talk about how the war is seen differently between the US and Canada. Around the 200 year anniversary it was one of the main themes of the articles, "Oh the war we say we won, and the US think they won" that sort of thing. I mean, you can just google it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Note how it says Oh the war we say we won, and the US think they won. It is basically about the two minority viewpoints that Britain/Canada won and the United States won, not about the majority view that it was a draw. This is exactly what The Four Deuces meant when writing The position that either the UK or U.S. won the war departs significantly from the prevailing view that the outcome was a draw. [...] it conflates alternative theoretical formulations (such as position that either the UK or U.S. won the war).--Davide King (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Why do we care about historians? The criterion is reliable sources. There are more American everything than Canadian. So what? Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    I mean, seriously? Why do we care about popular views? The Treaty of Ghent and de facto result was a stalemate.--Davide King (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    The thing is, he is right, you guys.Elinruby (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Then surely consensus would stand by him? If it has been decades that viewpoint has been pushed and there has been no conesnsus for it, I think it is about time to drop the stick.--Davide King (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm going to be honest here. As far as I see it, trying to label the viewpoint that "Canada won" as fringe theory is just a tactical attempt by people that support the US centric viewpoint to diminish a rival argument. Both Davide King and TFD have said the Canada Won argument is not a mainstream theory, even though I've presented articles by *mainstream* historians who support that view. But they continue trying to argue it. Its stupid. If you went up to a Canadian in Canada and said "Your view that you won the war of 1812 is fringe theory" they would probably laugh at you, and say "Well how come this isn't part of America now?" Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    That is an unsupported claim and a personal attack. I am neither American, nor Canadian nor British, so I could care less about it. What I care about is that we reflect the consensus among historians, not the popular views of countries of a few authors who conflict with the mainstream view and hence are fringe per above quote.--Davide King (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    You write I've presented articles by *mainstream* historians who support that view but (1) it has been pointed out they were full of synthesis and original research; some were not even historians; and (2) they may well be mainstream and serious historians but the view the represent in the field is fringe (an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field). You write If you went up to a Canadian in Canada and said "Your view that you won the war of 1812 is fringe theory" they would probably laugh at you, and say "Well how come this isn't part of America now?" but (1) you are conflating the popular views with that of historians; I do not doubt many Canadians think they won (this is no different from North Koreans thinking they and South Korean thinking they won too); (2) both you and Elinruby conflate popular views for historians view (or that they have equal weight) and do not understand WP:Fringe as a result; and (3) you take it as a given the objective of American was to annex Canada, which may well be the popular view among Canadians but not among historians.--Davide King (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Of course I Had to do original research to find them... that's how you find articles. There is like one or two that aren't historians, are you going to wipe them all out because of that? Have you even looked at them or read any of them? I am talking about popular opinion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    That is not what I meant by original research. What I meant was WP:Original research. I agree with the points The Four Deuces raised there and I do not want to repeat that again, so we will just have to agree to disagree. However, even one of your sources (for example, Desmond Morton) says that the established view is that it was a draw; Bryan Arthur says The war is usually seen as a draw and it does not say that historians dispute the outcome. Finally, it is a matter of weight. Just because a few historians (16 or 20), even serious ones, may personally dispute the outcome, that does not mean the historians dispute the outcome. No matter how you may repute them serious or mainstream, they represent a tiny minority that does not warranted all the weight you want to give it. There are about 75,000 entries on Google Scholar about the war, so what you gave us is 16/20 out of that. To quote The Four Deuces, [u]nless you have read all of them, you cannot say that however many sources you found have any degree of weight in the literature. This just goes to show that their views [are] not broadly supported by scholarship in its field and are fringe theories which may include both reasoned theories presented in academic papers and wholly unreasonable views but you conflate fringe only with the latter. Issues of false balance or false equivalence can occur when fringe theories are presented as being equal to widely accepted theories which is exactly what I believe is happening here and why the infobox should held the more widely accepted view that it was a draw/military stalemate.--Davide King (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    Sigh. Please define mainstream view. Doesn't it boil down to "loudest"? Elinruby (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    No, it boils down to the majority view among historians that it was a draw.--Davide King (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Davide King Can you tell me to which of Stagg's books you are referring when you claim he is, "...talking about popular perception, not the views of historians", when he says that Canada won? I have read "War of 1812: Conflict for a Continent" and the impression I am left with is that that is his personal opinion as a historian. The other mistake I think you are making is seeing the Status Quo Ante Bellum as proof of a draw. This was an era when there was no unconditional surrender and there was nothing unusual in returning to pre-war boundaries.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    I am not sure what you are referring to, I was merely quoting The Four Deuces. It is a draw not because of that but because it is what the majority of historians say; and there was no consensus there is a national bias. Either way, military stalemate or inconclusive (which is supported by the parameter) is probably the most accurate result; and indeed, as noted by another user whose username I do not remember now (it was Calidum, who wrote It should be noted that the infobox had described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently), draw or something like that was the long-standing consensus and was changed only recently, in my opinion without consensus and indeed it has been reverted. Status quo ante bellum was not the result but rather about territorial changes.--Davide King (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    So you don't have any insight of your own, you are simply regurgitating what another editor has said? You should be aware that TFD also made the same error about Andrew Lambert's book. I think what is happening here, is that there are a lot of editors with an interest in this subject but very little knowledge, and they are relying on snippet views from Google books to support their arguments. Unfortunately, because they haven't read the entire book, they are seeing these snippets out of context.--Ykraps (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Excuse me, that is a bit ungenerous. My opinion is that the consensus among historians is that it was a draw, I think that is pretty clear; popular and minority views may hold or say that Britain/Canada won or the United States won. We should follow the majority view in the infobox.--Davide King (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Are we still talking about the infobox? Because I honestly don't care what goes in there because it depends on the article and the article is going to change. I insist. In the meantime it can say whatever else can be agreed upon, if anything. But DL is completely correct about how this goes over with Canadians. For crying out loud, the article talks about everything from the shipyards of Bermuda to the comeback of Naoleon (ok, I killed that one). It can spare a freaking paragraph that says that Laura Secord became a national icon and Canada, how to put this politely, became determined not to be American in this war, to the extent of believing that they won, since they didn't lose. Elinruby (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    What is your point exactly? No vein of sarcasm, I am just not sure what you meant by this. That the article has a too much or too little Canadian POVs? Or did I misunderstood the whole thing? Could you please clarify what you meant by that? For example, what you meant by writing But DL is completely correct about how this goes over with Canadians? Ironically, believing that they won, since they didn't lose, I would call that a draw. 😃---Davide King (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ok. If I invade your country and you chase me out, is that not a defensive win? What does the infobox say about world war 2? Elinruby (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    This is a very Canadian concept, sure. This is how you get when your neighbor keeps invading. Note, this isn't even my own view exactly, but it is definitely prevalent, and notable. Really should be in the article. I try to stay away from infoboxes and lists because I think they oversimplify. "Canada gets to not be American" may not seem like a win to you, but Canadians think it is, especially right now. But that's a complex topic for an infobox. But yanno Deathlibrarian as far as I can tell is has been saying exactly this for years, and getting mocked for itElinruby (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Most Canadians learn there is multiple POV on this fact....not sure Americans do and the Brits could care less..The War of 1812: Who Won the War? - Canadian Geographic (Lesson plan).--Moxy 🍁 08:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I think its a logical concept. Someone invades your country, you boot them out - then you win, because you achieved your objective. So if an invading country attacks you, you fight them and they retreat back to their border, you achieved your goal of defending your country. Conversely, they didn't achieved their goal of taking your country. So with the war ending with both countries back at their borders, its a win or a loss, depending on who is invading and who is defending. You would think this would be obvious to most people..... Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    The , with the commanders in disgrace or dead. Rjensen (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide are you Quoting TFD about fringe theory also? Because he refused to understand that its primary purpose is to keep out quacks. To answer your question above my point is that if we are going to get into the American myths on this subject then we should also get into Canada's and the Iroquois' and the Shawnees' and the Creeks'. Or you can take them all out, alternatively. Elinruby (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, because I believe that is a correct reading and that [a] fringe theory, as defined in Wikipedia guidelines is "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field." which is this case. I believe this view is more reasoned theories presented in academic papers than wholly unreasonable views (which is what you and Deathlibrarian seem to understand as fringe, as in a pejorative and pseudoscientific ways, or as you wrote, quacks) but fringe nonetheless because [it] is an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field. It seems pretty simple to understand. We should not give an equal weight to the minority view which is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field. As for the myths et al and as I wrote above, I never talked about them nor I claimed they should be removed, etc. By all means, add them all. My point is that those are popular views and should not be confused, or worst, conflated with the historians views which is exactly what we should base the Result in the infobox on.--Davide King (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    Some people in this thread need to check out Molson's I am Canadian beer ad ;) it's coming around again for Canada Day. It's on YouTube. Here is an article about it. Elinruby (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    War of 1812..not sure all have the time to view a documentary Gives a good view on how Canadians view how others see the conflict. --Moxy 🍁 14:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, and if you go with the oh let's vote on who won the war, it might matter. I do have Canadian friends and more than a few think "they" won the war. It is certainly a point of view. Then again I've more than a few friends that contend that America didn't lose the Vietnam War. Oh well, I don't try and change their minds either. But nothing changes the fact, mind you fact, that both major players in the war wanted out of it. And, if the page reflects anything else, you would be lying to the public and making a joke out of Wikipedia's history.Tirronan (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree that both the US and Britain wanted out. However Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs) has a point; the US did not in fact repel the British in the South. When I agreed with that statement above I was thinking of the attack on Washington, which is the far better-known. Elinruby (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    The Brits were massacred at New Orleans, their top generals were killed & and the survivors gave up on their mission to conquer New Orleans. That's defeat. Rjensen (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    When every major commander on the British side is dead, and 2,500 appox are dead, wounded, or captured. Let alone the fact that they outnumbered the American's 2.5 to 1, and the American's were around 100 total casualties. That is about as ugly as a defeat as it gets. I remember DL's idiot assertion that after waiting around for over a month those forces grabbed a small fort for a day. This supposedly a beginning to a new campaign. Then they learned that the war had been over for sometime. So while discussing the repelled campaigns it was a stupid argument then, and it is equally stupid now.Tirronan (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Please note that some of us have lives. I myself am a novelist with a publisher to report to, and deadlines to meet.

    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.Tirronan (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    RjensenTirronan You both know that the British weren't driven from the US militarily. To say the British were driven out of the US militarily is a bald faced lie. Yes they were certainly defeated quite convincingly at New Orleans, but that was a BATTLE...not the WAR... the British were reinforced after that, and then went and attacked and took Fort Bowyer. They were then moving to attack Mobile, and the Americans were starting to prepare to defend it. The British left the US because the treaty was signed, not because they were defeated at New Orleans. They were still in the US a MONTH later, preparing to attack Mobile. 23:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    keep your cool-the British suffered the worst battle defeat of the war of 1812 by far and completely failed in their objective of capturing New Orleans. And their top generals all got themselves killed. how bad can it get? Well it was worse for them at Saratoga and Yorktown when their entire armies surrendered, and of course there was Singapore in 1942 and Siege of Kut in 1916. Battle of Isandlwana in 1879 and Siege of Khartoum in 1885. Rjensen (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    The reason I was bringing it up was there was discussion about entering the phrase "British Invasions repulsed" in the infobox, which if it was entered, would be a straight up falsehood. Yes, I completely agree, the Brits generally did ok in the war of 1812, but they got hammered at New Orleans, and in some of the ship to ship battles. Battle of Isandlwana was bad, and the Brits sufferred a few defeats against the Boers in particular. Then again, they did some pretty decent stuff at the Battle of Rorke's Drift Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    There were two battles at Ft Bowyer. the Brits were whipped at #1 in Sept 1814 -- they won battle #2 in Feb 8-11 1815 (US surrender; US casualty = one man killed) ...Bowyer and Mobile were Spanish possessions that the US recently captured. The Brits all left on 13 Feb --the never took Mobile. It takes a real British patriot to say the victory on 11 Feb 1815 matches the defeat at New Orleans in January. Rjensen (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Still, no one did OK at land campaigns in the War of 1812. We have had this discussion before. There is not a single offensive campaign on either side that ever went well. Not a single one. Compare that to the Penisular Campaign, or the Mexican American War. As far as battles go this was the sad sack amateur hour. If you want to know HOW NOT TO RUN A WAR, this is the one to study. So let me sumize this idiocy, The Americans ran three campaigns that ended with "oh crap lets run back to the border", as opposed to lets take Baltimore "oh shit lets run back to our ship". Lets burn Washington, which at least they did, "Oh shit lets run back to the ships, Lets take New Orleans, "Oh shit lets run back to the ships." I for one am not going to brag about either national effort.Tirronan (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    RjensenTirronan I'm not sure why you are both bringing up other battles and comparing military performance.... feel free too, but I'm not sure how it is relevant. It doesn't change the fact, the Brits took Fort Bowyer, and were preparing to attack Mobile, still thousands of UK troops and ships on campaign. The Americans were preparing to defend Mobile. You both know that, its in the history books, its not controversial. They were still campaigning in the US at the end of the war. The attack on New Orleans was repulsed, but not the invasion itself. Two separate things. Do we have to keep going with this or can we just leave it? Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    Now we blogged somemore can we vote and get this over with? I have better uses for my time.Tirronan (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    Ok well. I came here as a break from working on articles that I consider rather important at the present time, which, offensive as parts of this article may be, it is not. However, it is now a project of mine, and I really do insist that it must improve. So. I am going to go fix a couple of things I need to get back to, and chip off any biased language I spot along the way. As far as I can tell this talk page is a quagmire and no good comes of posting here. There is definitely an ownership issue. I will note any changes I make that would reasonably be expected to be noted, and if anyone objects, then fine, I suppose I will grasp the tar baby yet again. Meanwhile, the article does have huge issues that nobody is working on. Names of battles and generals were misspelled, people, and you guys are arguing about who said what to whom and what DL really wants, as if he doesn't know himself. I strongly suggest that some editors ponder their behaviour. Ciao. Elinruby (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    Oh and to actually (as if) perhaps advance the conversation, what I see here is people saying that it is NOT a victory to repel invaders (Upper Canada) and yet somehow it *is* a victory to NOT repel invaders. Just saying. Perhaps the proposed language, which was inching towards consensus, should be that invasions were "defeated" not "repelled". Does that resolve anyone's concerns? Meanwhile, I continue to believe that this is the least of the article's problems. Elinruby (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Shortening the article back to reasonable size it something I would like to do.Tirronan (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    And Defeated invasions works for meTirronan (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    re shortening, one good way to do it would be to make the naval battles in the Atlantic their own article, with a summary here, which could be pretty detailed based on the length of some other sections. I would be happy to not be the one who does the summarizing however, and am open to other suggestions.Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Let us break this down into another section. My view is a the single battles while notable, did nothing to change the war on the Atlantic. There is however something that came to light over the era of discussion that is in many books. That subject being the "destruction of American trade." Further investigation proved something else entirely. But we could for instance break this down to one laser focus paragraph or two and provide links to the single ship duels that are well covered in other articles.Tirronan (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    I am good with that and I am pretty sure there is already stuff in the article somewhere about trade, that might be better in the Atlantic section. My only request is that we link to those articles where the battle is well-covered. Elinruby (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Well looking at the original point of the topics, that is the infobox only expresses one view, it looks like the discussion veered off into other issues. I'm not sure the issues is likely to be discussed here successfully, as other issues keep getting tossed in. I may note, this conversation also entails the fact that the infobox doesn't follow the recommended template guidelines that Peacemaker nominated to go in, though as he has noted, they are template guidelines, not Wikipedia policy (which I had incorrectly assumed they were, so my apologies for that). However, I still think that he is correct. Any of those of use that have been on this page for a long time Rjensen, Tirronan, TFD, will have seen the infobox get changed every month. No one can ever agree on it, and its basically a battleground, with people constantnly deciding they know better and changing it fro what it was previously. We could spend a month here discussing what goes in the infobox, come up with the perfect solution, and two months later someone will change it. 6 months from now it will look completely different. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    If someone changes the infobox without discussion or consensus, then it should simply be reverted. I do not see how just because users may change the infobox (without discussing and violating consensus), then that must imply we can not reach an agreement or that we can not simply revert it to the status quo ante. Anyone who changes that, without first discussing and gaining consensus for the proposed changes, should simply be reverted. Military stalemate has actually been the long-standing consensus for years and I see no consensus to change that, so I disagree that we can never agree on it (there is not going to be an unanimous consensus but consensus nonetheless; this is no different from the consensus among historians it was a draw/military stalemate, which is not unanimous as there are minority viewpoints, but they are not significant to change the majority consensus). I think the current infobox, which is a return to the status quo ante before the proposal to link to the section, is perfectly fine and has been like this for years, notwithstanding a few users who may have changed that and been reverted. Many good war-related articles use military stalemate, which is essentially the Inconclusive suggested in the template parameter, so it is not violating anything, not the parameter guideline nor Wikipedia policy. Davide King (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King If you are talking about the recent change to link to the memory and historiography section, it was discussed for a month, voted on and there was only one person who dissented. People were given plenty of opportunity to say something, but only TFD was dissenting. You said nothing. Then after it was changed, as per consensus, you came and changed it back. In my opinion, that's not respecting a consensus decision that was made. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Davide King: please see the section above entitled “bold, revert, discuss” Elinruby (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    There is also more than one thing going on in the info box. I just made two changes to it, feel free to review Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Deathlibrarian, it is not in good faith for you to assume that about me. If I did not get involved earlier was simply because I was not aware there was that discussion. Either way, considering the article has been having something as a result in the infobox for years, then surely for such a big change many more users should have been notified so they could participate and a mere 3–1 (or 3–2 if you add me; or even 3–3 or 3–4 if you add the users who commented in the requests for comments supporting the military stalemate or otherwise opposing the proposal to only link to the section) is not consensus yet. The Four Deuces was right that we should have followed the requests for comments below. That supposed “consensus” is worthless now that more users were able to see that discussion and have opposed to us linking to the section in comments about the request for comments about the infobox. So please stop acting like there is consensus for that proposal; we should follow the request for comments about whether there should be anything as a result in the infobox and follow that.
    Elinruby, as far as I know, you were the one to add that in the first place, The Four Deuces reverted that and so we should return to the status quo ante which does not include your addition since it was added recently by you. Why should we return to the version with the template see also as a hatnote when it was not part of the long-standing version and there was no consensus for it? The onus is on you to gain consensus for having that template at the top. My view is still that The Four Deuces was correct and did not violate BRD as that hatnote was added only recently by you (feel free to correct me if it was there for years) and was not part of the status quo ante. Davide King (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    The is absolutely no requirement that an article remain static. Articles are usually gradually changed over time. As far as the hatnote is concerned, the part you guys are missing is “discuss”. Note, discuss does not mean telling other editors there is a consensus. You do not have a consensus, no matter how often you say that. As for that hat note, it is material to the entire article and should be incorporated into the body. Unless you want to say that it isn’t consensus, but I was kind of hoping to see s review of sources. Seriously, lots of passion, few facts, sigh. I am going back to writing a fascists now ;) Elinruby (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don’t want to point fingers. I want some discussion of Sixty Years’ War Elinruby (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King (1) As far as I know, it's not normal practice to notify various wikipedians active on a page of an upcoming vote. There were a number of us involved, no one else considered that was normal practice, and no one active on the page suggested it. (2) I understand you would have liked to have been part of the conversation, and I'm sorry you weren't, but lets be fair - someone can't expect a decision to be reversed because someone turns up 2 weeks after it was made, when that discussion had been going on for a month, and then is unhappy they missed out. I hadn't seen you on this page before, so I didn't know you were active on here. Its just not practical that decisions are reversed because someone didn't contribute at the time, and then wants them to be reversed because they missed the decision. Please think of the practicalities here (3) Sure, the vote could of been 2:3, or 3:3, or 5:5... but it wasn't. It was 1:4...and only one person dissented. (4) It was a fair vote - Peacemaker proposes the change on the 17 May 2020. A vote was held on the 19th May. It was 3:1. There as more discussion. A SECOND VOTE (just to be sure) was held on the 16th of June. That vote was 4:1. The changes were made on the 18th of June. As far as I am concerned we did everything fair and above board. It was discussed and voted on fairly, and you appear to have reversed what was, I at least would consider, a legitimate consensus vote.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    The issue is that there was also an ongoing RfC and you were overturning that, so I believe The Four Deuces was right. My point still stands that the proposal should have been a RfC; and that since there was a long-standing consensus that has been going on for years to actually have military stalemate as a result, I believe that proposal should have been a RfC, rather than vote; and that more users should have been involved to make sure there would be a clear consensus, whether the result would to keep the status quo or accept the proposal. Furthermore, it was actually Red Rock Canyon, who reverted back on 30 June 2020 with the edit summary reverting infobox to long-standing version while RFC takes its course. Before that, you reverted me and removed all the results, then Red Rock Canyon reverted it back to the stations quo ante. So it was not me. Davide King (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure you were the first to revert it? Weren't you? Also, the RFC was to do with the national bias of historians sections *in the body* of the article... we were talking about the infobox, ae explained to TDC on numerous occasions, they were separate things. Also, "a long standing consensus" means nothing - Wikipedia can be changed at any time, with a vote, the fact that something has been done for a long time, doesn't make it right. As it was, may be it should have been an RFC, but straight consensus votes is also allowed isn't it? Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Deathlibrarian, I did that because it removed the Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante bellum and defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy which are all uncontroversial and undisputed facts; and so I thought there was no reasons to remove them. I thought the proposal was only to link to the section, not to remove everything. Indeed, I kept the wikilink to the section (see here) and I merely added information that was not really disputed or controversial such as the Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante bellum and defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy. Just because you claim "a long standing consensus" means nothing - Wikipedia can be changed at any time, with a vote, the fact that something has been done for a long time, doesn't make it right that does not mean there cannot be a long-standing consensus. Whether you like it or not, as was noted by Calidum, the infobox had described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently so there was a long-standing consensus about that. I believe a RfC would have been more appropriate and that proposal is now being challenged by more than one user anyway, including me.--Davide King (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    The proposal that peacemaker put forward was to follow the guidelines for the infoboxes - which says not to have lists of things in the field, but to link to the section... whether they are controversial or not. Sure there was a long standings consensus... one that we validly *voted to change*. Which, also as a side effect, made the field NPOV, rather than have a list of events/facts in there. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    As the name says, those are guidelines, not divine law to be followed literally and without exception. Pretty much every war-related article include key facts such as result (win, draw, loss, military stalemate, etc.) and aftermath such as treaties, territories changes, status quo ante bellum or not status quo ante bellum, etc., so what are you going to do? Remove them all from each infobox? Military stalemate, Treaty of Ghent, status quo ante bellum, defeat of Tecumseh's Confederacy are uncontroversial and key facts. There was nothing wrong with the infobox to require such a proposal in the first place and several users disagree with it. Note also how NPOV does not mean we give equal weight to all viewpoints; indeed, the infobox you propose is POV because it is pushing the view there is a dispute among historians or that there is no consensus about the result, or worse it is giving equal weight to the majority and minority views.--Davide King (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    Once again, its just impossible to get agreeance on this, we are just going around in circles. I could type my opinions on this, but there's not really any point - I seriously think a third party needs to look at this issues - this talk page just goes on forever, and nothing is getting solved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    Bold, revert, discuss

    Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

    I propose this as a modus operandi here in future, to avoid the article getting further bogged down in edit forever wars. I suggest however that to avoid fraying tempers, in cases where a large block of text is disagreed with, we copy it here for discussion, or comment it out, to avoid retyping if it is going back in. Elinruby (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    Thats seems like a good idea.. given the contentious nature of the article, large blocks of text changed here should definitely have consensus Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah but given the entrenched ownership issues I don’t think asking people politely to consider one’s point of view doesn’t seem to be working, as you know. I just added the name of the Spanish commander btw, which was missing. I would think that would not be controversial , but let’s see. Elinruby (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah, you can make uncontroversial changes like that on here, and I don't think people mind. But anything that people have "ownership" over, and things get a bit...complicated.. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    you noticed that too, huh.Elinruby (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Infobox question

    Latest comment: 4 years ago39 comments5 people in discussion

    Despite what I said above about BRD, given the evident sensitivity of the infobox I would like consensus for the following change. On the British allies list the header should say Indigenous fighters, or something else other than "Native American", because many were not in fact American. Elinruby (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    My position is that the infobox should link to the relevant section in the body, and not list this information, as is recommended by the template guidelines. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Ah so you don't think we should list participants? I am actually trying to stay out of the infobox war, since I think the article is about to change a lot, but I am not necessarily against that. If the list is going to be there though, if should say something other than "Native Americans".Elinruby (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm so sorry!, Elinruby I thought you were talking about the results box, of course yes participants are cool. I personally don't have any issue with Native Americans, but to be honest I'm not up on the latest correct terminology that Wikipedia is using for indigenous peoples. I looked at the French and INdian war article, but it lists the tribes individually, and doesn't hase a collected term in the infobox. May be we can look at various articles from a similar era and see what they say? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yeah or just remove Native Americans? I don't object to it as terminology -- as I understand it, it's the accepted collective descriptor in the US, but the at least some of the Iroquois were from territory claimed as Upper Canada or Lower Canada. There were probably some other; I am not familiar with all of the tribes listed. Elinruby (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I reckon leave it, people understand it, as far as I know it's not offensive.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Deathlibrarian, if I’m not mistaken, I think you may be responding to a different question than the one Elinruby is asking. I don’t think Elinruby is worried that “Native American” is offensive, but rather that it is inaccurate, because they weren’t American. The equivalent Canadian term is "First Nations", but if the Iroquois were from both sides of the border, then either you have an unwieldy expression including both terms, or you find another solution. I would use either Native Peoples or indigenous people or some such. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    ...ah... how about "Native Americans/First Nations" - so it covers both. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I would consider that a bit unwieldy, as Mathglot (talk · contribs) said, but at least not *wrong*, if there is some sort of objection to "Indigenous." Elinruby (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    It is wrong, because it excludes people who were neither, i.e., people who were neither British subjects nor American nationals, that is, did not owe allegiance or come under the jurisdiction of either side. TFD (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    The Indians were their own Nations, thank you very much. God, just what I love to hear a pair of white guys telling us what to call Indians. Fucking irritating.Tirronan (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    This is why I went bold and changed the title of the lists on both sides from "Native Americans" to "Indigenous fighters", since at least some of the Mohawk were definitely in the Canadas, and I believe that some of the other fighters were from west of where the US and Canada existed at the hat point. If somebody has an issue with this, "Native Americans/First Nations" is fine with me, or removing the title altogether per Tirronen. Elinruby (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    Just list them out by nation and place them on the side they fought on and leave it at that. We all have irritation points and you just hit mine with that.Tirronan (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    Sigh, I worked with the Navajo Nation for years as a project engineer for a telecommunications company. Neither of you is an American so you know you don't work with one of the nations without getting to learn up close and personally all the issues that come in tow. Let's just leave it to the fact that I'm hypersensitive to issues with the nations.Tirronan (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

    We can certainly do what Tirronan suggests. I was looking to see what other articles had done, and the French_and_Indian_War article does that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    My thanks, apologies accepted.Tirronan (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Tirronan, I noticed that the Toronto Star article you posted referred to Indians.[[17]] That appears to be the usage in writing about the War of 1812 as opposed to today. While First Nation has been the preferred term in Canada since adopted by the National Indian Brotherhood (renamed the Assembly of First Nations in 1982), the term Indian is still used, for example in the Indian Act of Canada and the Indian Reorganization Act of the United States, which are the respective statutes for recognizing indigenous persons. While I think we should observe political correctness in the wording of articles, that does not mean we should be trailblazers, correcting the terminology used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't mind First Nations. I posted an article on the Toronto Star? Man I get around more than I thought.Tirronan (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    My apologies, it was another editor.[18] The problem with the term First Nations is that it refers to indigenous Canadian citizens who are recognized by the Canadian government under the Indian Act. But Tecumseh for example did not consider himself a British subject or American national for that matter. Even under English and American law, not all Indians living within their borders were consider to be their nationals or subjects. Even when nations or tribes came under the sovereignty of the U.S. or UK, there could be a difference between who the government considered a member and who the nation or tribe did. TFD (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Under American law yes they are still nations, yes I am aware.Tirronan (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    TFD's concern is part of why I favor "indigenous", but in the context of this single issue about the infobox, I think I agree with Tirronen that it is better to to treat them as their own nations. That is preferred, but might get unwieldy in the text, however we are talking here specifically about the title in the list of participants. I actually think it would be better to remove it. I am very strongly against "Indian" appearing anywhere in the text except in direct quotes of the participants where necessary. I understand what Tironnen is saying and fwiw lived for years in Albuquerque where I had Pueblo and Navajo roommates and lab partners. Some of them did use "Indian", but amongst themselves. Meanwhile, the fact that legislation was passed in Canada decades ago that used the word is irrelevant. It would take legislation to change the name of some of these things, and there are other fish to fry. Elinruby (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    You can't dismiss legislation because it was passed years ago. Both the Canadian and U.S. constitutions, which use the terms Indian, are still in force as are their relevant Indian acts. All terms except using the names of actual nations are problematic. But we should follow the lead of reliable sources. See for example American Indian Politics and the American Political System (Rowman & Littlefield, 2011). p. xvii: "the terms Indian and American Indian remain the most common appellations used by indigenous and nonindigenous persons and institutions, and so is frequently used in the text when no tribal name is specified."[19] (So I agree with Elinruby that we should use the actual name of the nation where possible.) The sources for this article use the term Indian. I note also that Indian is the preferred term when referring to legal status, which is how the term is used in this article.
    While I appreciate the experience Tironnen have had with indigenous people (I worked for indigenous organizations myself), there are not a single unit but a collection of disparate groups. We wouldn't for example assume that our experiences in France, Germany or Italy were necessarily representative of Europe as a whole.
    TFD (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    That was my point. In an extreme example the Navajo would have little to nothing in common with the Cheerokee. I am requesting that we list them as nations.If we need a grouping the as the confederation.Tirronan (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree. All the terms used to refer to indigenous people in the Americas collectively, including the term indigenous, define them in terms of their relationship to Europeans and should be avoided whenever possible. And even though different indigenous groups and individuals may prefer different terms, no one speaks for all of them. There are however specific instances where these terms are appropriate, including when referring collectively to the Indian allies of the UK and U.S. before they came under the jurisdiction of the two states. TFD (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, Indian is just not ok as something Wikipedia would say, period. We should not be in the business of telling people what they want to be called. Furthermore, there is an actual policy to this effect, whose name escapes me. Yes, there are issues with using First Nations and Native Americans in contexts where neither Canada nor the US existed yet in their present form. But. I have yet to see the sources I asked for at the NPOV board about why "native" and "tribe" are somehow offensive, though so far AGF has inclined me to believe you. Nor has anyone else actually voiced any opposition to "indigenous". But in this one place the easiest way to deal with this problem is to avoid it and just remove the title. Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    The link I provided to above to "Note on Terminology" in American Indian Politics says that "some argue that the term tribe is pejorative and hints strongly of colonialism." We don't for example use the terms tribes and natives when referring to modern Europeans, although we might use those terms to refer to them before they were "civilized." But their main point is, "there is no single term that is acceptable by all indigenous people all the time." You have to explain why you reject the term used in reliable sources about the War of 1812, including those you yourself have recommended.
    The policy whose name escapes you is in the Manual of Style, which is a guideline. It says, "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources."
    TFD (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    no that isn't it. This came up in relation to Anasazi and a tribe in Africa we were calling by a name in another ethnic group's language that meant something derogatory. It only makes sense. I don't call you "pompous", I call you by the name you gave yourself. Elinruby (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    WP:NCET#Self-identification is the policy. See http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Tchaman#Requested_move_25_October_2016 Elinruby (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes it is. MOS:IDENTITY is part of the Manual of Style. WP:NCET#Self-identification is not a policy, but is part of a guidline, "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)." Naming conventions cover article names, while MOS:IDENTITY covers actual words used in articles. TFD (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    It still says we try to avoid names that may be offensive. Whether or not they are contained in 19th century legislation. Elinruby (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    PS: manual of style is about style not neutrality Elinruby (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    So instead of using a guideline for how to write articles, you say we should use one about how to name them.
    Can you explain why the sources you provided use the term Indian if you find it offensive? TFD (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    I don't want to go down another rabbit hole with you. It was sounding like we almost had consensus for a minute there. The topic here is *solely* the title in the infobox list of participants. Does everyone else agree that in this instance the title isn't needed, and it's probably most correct to treat the Sauk, Shawnee and so on as their own nations? We can get back to this discussion as it arises elsewhere in the text. I agree with whoever suggested Confederacy as a shorthand, in cases where we are talking about members of the Confederacy, but correct me if I am wrong, but the Iroquois were not, I believe. Ideally, I would like to replace "Indian" with the the appropriate name (eg Mohawk) in cases where the correct name can be determined. Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    I changed the title on both sides to "Allies" which I think is an improvement but according to what I am getting from the above, Spain should be also on the same level, but that's a nested clist that will put a bullet in front of the flag. I am open to suggestions and comments Elinruby (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    going to try removing the clist template, will back out or revert if it breaks something Elinruby (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Nothing seems broken, leaving up for discussion purposes. I think it's an improvement but it could be better. Elinruby (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    In particular the same issue occurs a little further down in the infobox in the casualties section. At the moment I do not have a suggestion for this. But I think the change discussed above somewhat improves the article Elinruby (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Tirronan seems to have a good perspective on this, what do you think of the current infobox, post the recent changes, in regards to the issue here? I think it brings it into line with some of the other articles that have avoided using the general term, and just tribal names. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I believe they should be listed by Nation and under the side they fought for. By American and Canadian law they are still nations.Tirronan (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    Categories

    Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    This is notification that I added the article to multiple categories yesterday. Elinruby (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    Lede rewrite

    Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    I made changes to the lede yesterday. I am notifying editors who may wish to look. I believe the changes make the sentence simpler and more readable. I do not think I changed the meaning.

    I am making similar changes throughout the article and will not be noting each one on the talk page. But this is the lede, so editors may wish to look. Elinruby (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

    Revert

    Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

    1. The article for Sixty Years' War specifically says that it includes the War of 1812. Discuss if you disagree, don't just delete ; this is a significant change

    2. Dalhousie is a notable university. I tend to agree that we should concentrate on the war, but this *is* related material, albeit admittedly parenthical. But why pick on this out of all the other parentheses? It's Canadian material in an article that doesn't have enough Canadian material. (?) The length issue will probably be addressed by spinning off an article about the Atlantic theatre, it looks like. Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    I assume you are referring to the hatnote at the top of the article that says, "See also: Sixty Years' War." The purpose of is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. For example, the article Mars, which is about the planet has a hatnote for readers looking for the article about the Roman God.
    While the view that part of the War of 1812 can be seen as series of wars involving the great lakes is interesting, it's more appropriate to the historiography of the war, provided it has sufficient weight.
    TFD (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    I still think you need to brush up on Wikipedia policies. Elinruby (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Instead of offending me, it would be more constructive why you think your edit is consistent with editing guideline I provided above or why you think we should ignore it. What specific policy do you think supports your edit? TFD (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    You're the one who says there is a policy. Produce it. I have put sumilar See also tags on dozens if not hundreds of articles. If you are insulted when I tell you you misunderstand something I can't help that. You still don't seem to be consulting them. And how about you stop patronizing me, hmm? I've been on Wikipedia longer than you have actually, and I have actually done some constructive editing, not just trolled on talk pages. Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    I did not say there was a policy, it's a guideline. I provided a link in my reply. Click the link and it will read, "Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for." (Words or phrases that are highlighted in blue provide links to articles in Wikipedia.) TFD (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

    A general reminder that per WP:BRD, we should not edit the article involving the issue after the first revert; there's only one "R" in BRD. Any editor that does so can be seen as acting disruptively, making the issue to be discussed a moving target. To avoid that, editors should revert any changes they make after the discussion has started. --A D Monroe III(talk) 00:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    which would be the reversion that removed the hatnote, without previously answering the attempt to discuss above. Just restating the position for those who weren't listening...Elinruby (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Bold: Add something.
    Revert: Remove it.
    Discuss with the article in the status-quo before the bold addition. --A D Monroe III(talk) 19:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

    Elinruby, in response to this, what was exactly your point? If it was about the result in the infobox, then you are simply wrong because, as was noted by Calidum, the infobox had described the outcome as a draw (or a synonym) for many years until it was changed recently so there was a long-standing consensus about that. As for the hatnote, the onus is on you for why we should use that template as hatnote. It is you who need consensus for it, not us. Was it you to add that? And when? We are discussing it already and I believe the The Four Deuces has a point and that it should be in the See also section. As was noted by A D Monroe III, you were the one to boldly adding something, it was reverted by removing your addition, so we returned to the status quo ante before your bold addition since it has been challenged. Anyway, I think I fixed the whole issue with this edit by incorporating in the infobox.--Davide King (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    it may astonish you but being wrong for years doesn't mean it's right. Talking to you is like talking to Bolsonaro henchmen, and I would know. I was actually going to suggest partof, but sheer exhaustion overwhelmed me. It's cute that you think you can keep saying there is a consensus. No there is not, because here I am. Exterminating "Indians" is not a good thing, sorry, and it's even worse when you fall it an atrocity when they fight back Elinruby (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Please stop with unwarranted personal attacks like comparing me to Bolsonaro henchmen [sic]. It is you against the consensus of a majority of historians and reliable sources that say it was a military stalemate, what are you talking about? As for the hatnote, you were clearly wrong because the template see also is to be used in a section, not as a hatnote; and I have fixed that anyway by incorporating it in the infobox, so I did make clear the War of 1812 was part of the Sixty Years' War and your attacks on me are completely unwarranted and unfounded. Also, when did I even wrote or imply that Exterminating "Indians" is [...] a good thing? I never wrote anything like that and I support us talking more about the ethnic cleansing against them in the main body, so please stop with that nonsense and calm down.--Davide King (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Use of hatnote: See also: Sixty Years' War

    Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

    Should there be a hatnote at the beginning of the article that says, "See also: Sixty Years' War?"[20]

    The guideline, Wikipedia:Hatnote, says, "Hatnotes provide links at the very top of an article or a section to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for."

    Hatnotes are needed because different words or phrases may be used for different topics. For example, the article Mars is about the planet. But some readers may be looking for the article about the Roman God Mars.

    There is no chance that someone looking for the Sixty Years War would type in "War of 1812." They would type in "Sixty Years War" if that is what they were looking for.

    Also, the correct procedure for adding see also redirects is explained in "See also" section. It does not say that see alsos should be presented in a separate section, which in this case would be War of 1812#See also.

    TFD (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    So your comments are confusing again. You say the policy does not say something which seems to be what you want to do. (?) The use of hatnotes is common; I hate to be the one to break it to you. I don't see anything that says the overlap has to be in the name. We have an entry for the european theatre of the war of 1812, check; this is called disambiguation where I come from. The hatnote was there because Sixty Years' War says that that war includes this one. I don't insist that we believe it necessarily or deal with this using a hatnote necessarily, but we should discuss this and the correct procedure is not waving your hands and telling everyone else they are wrong. The hatnote should currently be on the article, because that is how BRD works. This is me trying to discuss, here and in the "revert" section above Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Incidentally you should have reversed your revert as I understand things, and I notice you haven't yet. I am assuming you are currently busy elsewhere. Elinruby (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    The guideline, Wikipedia:Hatnote, says, "Hatnotes provide links at the very top of an article or a section to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for." Why do you think that readers looking for the Sixty Years War would type in War of 1812? If I were looking for the Sixty Years War I would probably type in "Sixty Years War" rather than "War of 1812." Which of the two would you type in? TFD (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    In my view, The Four Deuces' reading of the guidelines is absolutely correct. I did add it to the See also section, where it is appropriate. Davide King (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    I saw that, and consider it somewhat of an improvement over nothing. Not sure I agree though because nobody is discussing.
    Hello, Sixty Years War believes it is the parent of this article, please discuss Elinruby (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    I think I just fixed the issue with this. There is actually a partof parameter for the infobox.--Davide King (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    I saw that but I thought that would be a fight. If you want to use that, I would be on favour. Elinruby (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    British (perhaps Canadian) bias in the War of 1812?

    Latest comment: 4 years ago29 comments4 people in discussion

    I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, but I have browsed the history of the War of 1812 discussion and and I would like to comment on recent changes made on the War of 1812 article.

    1. Canada (as a nation) did not exist until 1867 as Upper Canada and Lower Canada were still territories of the British Empire.
    2. The United States senate voted against annexation of the British territories on June 25th, 1812
    3. The United States affirmed their decision and rejected the final bill on July 2nd, 1812.

    It is speculation whether the United States would have kept the British territory that was taken.

    The same can be said about the British Empire's involvement and the "stolen land" from Spain known as Louisiana. The Louisiana Purchase (between the United States and Napoleonic France) was perceived as an illegal trade by the British Empire. The theoretical reasons behind the invasion of Louisiana were never discussed in the main Wikipedia article, but the theoretical reasons behind invasion into the British Empire's territory of the Canadas are discussed.

    Wouldn't that constitute a bias towards the British (and Canadian) perspective?

    I am also aware of the argument that the British and Canadians were perceived as different people, but the comparison can be made with Kentuckians and New Yorkers (who were allied under the United States) in the war. Or another example would be Louisianians and Mainers whom are two very different set of people and (given location) would have different perspectives in the outcome of the war. If Canada (which didn't exist as a nation) was considered victorious, should we consider Louisiana victorious as well in the War of 1812? Should we say that (given the over-fifty year time span) the Confederate States of America were victorious and the Union lost the War of 1812!?!?!?

    Sarcasm aside, according to historian Alan Taylor, Judge Nathan Ford (of the Federalists) was involved in preventing the United States from pushing on the boarder of Upper Canada. David Parish (financier of the Madison administration) was a sympathizer of the Federalist cause as well. The Federalists had a fair amount of involvement in trying to cost the United States from achieving victory in the war as it was commonly referred to as "Mr. Madison's War." The Federalists did not want Mr. Madison's war to be successful; there was also a prior dispute between the Democratic-Republicans and Federalists (during the vote) to take Louisiana Purchase. Prior to the War of 1812:

    “The Federalists even tried to prove the land belonged to Spain, not France, but available records proved otherwise.” Fleming, Thomas J. (2003). The Louisiana Purchase.

    The British Empire seemed to have trouble recognizing Louisiana as part of the United States. Ron Chapman in the book "The Battle of New Orleans: But for a Piece of Wood" that the British attempted to divide Louisiana by ethnic lines. The citation by Ron Chapman:

    "He (Colonel Hayes of the Mississippi dragoons) did, however, arrest a slave in the service of the British who carried a proclamation from the British to the French and Spanish citizens of the city. Copies of this printed document had been nailed on fences along the British area of control. It promised security for surrender and read: “Louisianians remain quietly in your homes; your slaves shall be preserved to you and your property respected. We make war only against America.” This was signed by Major-General Keane and Admiral Cochrane. Apparently, they were still under the illusion that the New Orleans population could be divided along ethnic lines."

    Ronald Drez in his book "The War of 1812, Conflict and Deception: The British Attempt to Seize New Orleans and Nullify the Louisiana Purchase" has written that the British Empire wouldn't have returned Louisiana. Ronald Drez cited his theory that the British Empire would not have honored the returned Louisiana as they considered it belonging to Spain. Drez has written:

    "The British reputation for underhandedness when dealing with other governments or adversaries was well known to all."

    The British Empire never pushed for anything related to their allies - infact they scarified all of their allies (all of the native tribes, Spain, and arguably the Federalists and/or Anti-War movement in the United States whom wanted the U.S. to lose the war) to keep whatever they possessed. Alan Taylor referred to the United States control as "continental predominance" and that's exactly what they acheived.

    Would Ronald Drez and Ron Chapman be acceptable sources to cite for the article?

    Also - Andrew Lambert and Brian Arthur (the latter who cited from Lambert) rely on the theory that the United States could no longer fight based on the British Empire's blockade "crippling" the United States economy. Keep in mind that the Foreward inside Brian Arthur's book "How Britain Won the War of 1812" was written by Andrew Lambert. Brian Arthur has only written the one book (as I can find) on the topic and he cites that: "IF, IN THE EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY, defeat in war lay in the inability to continue fighting while an opponent was able to do so, then, despite its victory at New Orleans in January 1815, the United States was defeated in the Anglo-American War of 1812."

    Lambert's (and Arthur's) theory was disputed as Americatcp and Rjensen had this argument (in Archive 21) a while ago. Rjensen cited sources from the Financial History of the United States by Davis Rich Dewey (1915) that conflicts with this theory. And to add (by J.C.A. Stagg) who summarized this with the following quote in an interview: "In terms of military outcomes, “stalemate from mutual exhaustion” is the phrase to use. By 1815 it became extremely difficult to see how either side could have carried on the war for another year. In that sense nobody won." https://www.historynet.com/interview-with-war-of-1812-historian-j-c-a-stagg.htm

    Donald Hickey also claimed British victory but for a completely different reason than Lambert. Hickey wrote in "Don't Give Up the Ship!" that the United States weren't able to change the written terms for impressment and that the British could (on paper) still impress United States sailors.

    George Daughan claim for American victory is counter to Hickey's opinion as Madison gave the order to ignore the entire question of maritime rights. The British had permanently stopped impressing sailors from the United States. The British Empire also never resumed the impressment practice on the United States - even immediately after (and during) the Hundred Days war with Napoleon.

    Ronald Drez has claimed victory for the United States as well; he cited from the Dublin Evening Post of March 16, 1815: "The American War has closed with unmitigated dishonor for England."

    As for the documentary that Moxy posted, I recall that a YouTube user (claiming to be involved in the production) named JazzGirl stated that the documentary was slanted towards the Canadian bias counter the American bias in the History Channel's "First Invasion" 1812 documentary. She acknowledged the slant to the documentary and wrote that the war ended in a stalemate which led to peaceful relations between the two countries.

    The minority of opinions (i.e. American or British victory) don't agree on the result (or even on how they won), but the majority that claim stalemate have a consistent consensus of stalemate by mutual exhaustion...

    Would a military stalemate (that led to a compromise "status quo ante bellum") be accurate?

    Ironic Luck (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

    The current infobox including military stalemate has been the long-standing consensus until it was changed recently without consensus, including a section about national bias despite consensus was to not support that; and was reverted back to the status quo ante. I say that is accurate.--Davide King (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree. I can post further citations and/or address what DeathLibrarian has posted regarding some of his citations (if necessary), but I believe what I posted was enough for now. Ironic Luck (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    I think there is a proposal in process about the infobox Elinruby (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Ironic Luck thank you for this, interesting!..and welcome to the page. I hadn't seen the Ron Prez stuff before, I need to buy his book! - You've posted a lot of different points here, so I'm not too sure if you want us to comment on something specifically (like the infobox), or you have a specific suggestions, or you are just commenting generally on the article. I will add, yes, there are Historians who say both sides won, Lambert and Hickey and others saying that the Britain won, plenty of them say it was a draw, a few say the US won. I would agree about what Ronald Drez said about the UK, from what I have read, if they were taking back Spanish possessions from the US (specifically I'm aware of Mobile, and land in that area) they wouldn't of recognised US claims, and would have returned it to Spain. I mean, Spain was their ally, and had fought with Wellington against the Napoleonic French in the Peninsula wars, so from the UK perspective, it's understandable.
    I don't wish to get into an argument with Davide King, but the current infobox is NPOV and should show the multiple viewpoints, the US centric view and the Canadian centric view at least. Just because it's been like that for a long time, isn't an argument for it being correct.
    As for your comment "The minority of opinions (i.e. American or British victory) don't agree on the result or how they won" - That's not correct, you will find there is in fact probably two reasonings given by the historians that support the view that Canada won (1) a number of historians (eg Stephen Marche, JCA Stagg and Auchinleck) agree Canada won the war because the US aim was to invade and take Canada - the fact that the US in the end took and held no land is proof they lost. (2) The other specific reasoning for the "Canada Won" viewpoint is based on the fact that the US didn't achieve most of their objectives (Annex Canada, IMpressment, orders in council etc), whereas Canada and the UK did (mainly the defeat of the invasions of Canada). This reasoning is stated by Carl Benn, Ron Latimer and Ricky D Phillips. I can provide the references for you, I think most of them are on this talk page in the threads above (which I admit is a bit messy!) Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Also you have a quote here from Stagg saying that he thought it was a draw - my reference for him, in fact says he thinks Canada won - so may be he has changed his mind? Not sure!: "If anyone could be considered the victor it was the Canadians. With the help of British troops and the Royal Navy they were able to repel an American invasion and thus maintain their membership in the British Empire. Had the United States successfully conquered Canada, ‘there could have been no Canadian confederation of the sort that was formed in 1867’ https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1387 Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    There is a double-standard with the modern day Canadian perspective here. The British side is compartmentalized into two factions in order to claim Canadian victory. Should the United States perspective be divided into each individual state for some states to claim victory? Are individual states invalidated but territories accepted (and thus accounted for) when discussing victory? Maybe these questions can be answered, but I ask these questions as (mostly) food for thought.
    As far as the points you brought up:
    Annexation -
    The United States government vetoed annexing the British territories in mid 1812. This decision was made before the series of failed invasions that occurred. It's still speculation that the United States would have kept Upper Canada. There was a great deal of concern (by the Democratic-Republicans) on giving any power to the northeastern bloc (i.e. annexing Canada) that could've swayed voting power towards the Federalists. That is NOT withstanding William Hull and Alexander Smyth commentary - if I recall correctly William Hull actually disobeyed President Madison's orders when he made his proclamation.
    Impressment -
    It's matter of whether someone likes written contracts (Hickey) or judgment by action (Daughan). That issue is entirely debatable on whether the the United States was not "achieving" it's war aims. Impressment permanently ended. That is exactly what Madison wanted. It's the "actions speak louder than words" philosophy. Impressment was left in writing too. That is exactly what the British Empire wanted. Both sides got exactly what they wanted. If the United States hadn't waged war, then it's possible (and speculative) that the practice of impressment (among other British involvements such as trading with natives, etc.) wouldn't have ended. But yes, I am also aware that the practice ended because of the defeat of Napoleon.
    American held territory -
    I initially recall that the United States possessed various bits of territory from all of the British Empire's allies. And Lake Erie was in possession to the United States until the end of the war. Upon refreshing my memory, I checked the "Treaty of Ghent" wiki page and noticed this quote: "American-held areas of Upper Canada (present-day Ontario) were returned to British control, and the American-held territory in Spanish Florida taken from Britain and officially-neutral Spain were returned to Spanish control. The treaty thus made no changes to the prewar boundaries.[23]" They were supposed to return territory to the native tribes as well, but... Louisiana Purchase.
    Stephen Marche (article on the Walrus) is a patriotic piece. "Our national identity was born during the War of 1812—" falls under the defensive war scenario. The defensive war scenario is what Ronald Drez has discussed as an argument (against the British invasion) as well - except for Louisiana.
    I cannot speak for Stagg as I just finished reading the article you sent. He may have changed his mind since he wrote the book, but who knows?
    I have not read Auchinleck. Perhaps I'll read the book in the future, but I have some... concerns on the title. The book is titled, "A History of the War Between Great Britain and the United States of America: During the Years 1812, 1813, and 1814" - where is 1815!?!?
    My earlier point was that there wasn't one set and consistent answer with either side claiming victory as each side (on the minority) has a counter to the other. Answers are divided in the minorities. One example is Lambert who certainly didn't come to the same conclusion as Marche. Hickey's perspective and Lambert's perspective on how the British Empire "won the war" isn't the same. Donald Hickey even stated that the war was fought to a military stalemate, but that the United States still "lost the war but won the peace" in his book. Hickey stressed about losing the war (as best that I can paraphrase by my interpretation) is by a "contract law" standard of not changing the terms; whereas Daughan's book is counter to that mindset with "actions speak louder than words" approach.
    Personally, I don't really care if Drez or Chapman get their words added, but it is appreciated (but not necessary) if they were added to one of the War of 1812 articles or subcategories. My opinion is that the "Canadian victory" perspective of the war is myopic and is popular perception. American victory and British victory perspectives are a minority (and probably Fringe per Wikipedia) when discussing this war.
    Ironic Luck (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ironic Luck, thank you for your well thorough response. That was my whole point too, but you seem much more knowledgeable than me in explaining it, so I hope you can continue that. Good luck though explaining over and over again to Deathlibrarian why both the American and Canadian viewpoint (i.e American win and British win rather than military stalemate) are fringe. That was the whole point of our diatribe, with Deathlibrarian arguing the Canadian viewpoint is mainstream and not fringe, ignoring that, as you pointed out, the Canadian viewpoint is more of a popular perception than the consensus among the majority of historians that it was essentially a military stalemate. Davide King (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Ironic Luck In terms of your rebuttals there for the viewpoints, we don't normally personally debate our own viewpoints on the War of 1812 here on this page, we normally do it on the specific page for the discussion https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:War_of_1812/Who_Won%3F - this is just to keep this talk page on point, because if it gets filled up with debates about people's personal viewpoints about who won the war, it gets messy... and generally talking about it doesn't change people's views anyway! :-) IN any case, I wasn't offering those views as my own, I was just saying they were the views of those historians.
    In terms of your point about the "Canada won" historians - I did point out the two groups of reasonings for the 6 historians I mentioned (1) US failed objectives and (2) US didn't conquer Canada. They aren't actually completely separate, as 1 of the 4 US failed objectives is the second reasoning... that is, to take Canada. But yes, I take your point that certainly Brian Arthur has a third viewpoint (about the US not being able to fight on) which is quite different to those two. From my perspective, I probably look at the two justifications I mentioned as being the main ones.
    If you aren't aware, the Historians viewpoint that say the US won the war is really a tiny minority, only three Historians, and they are all US so they are partisan (whereas there are both US Historians, and British Historians who say that Canada won). Personally, I wouldn't give that viewpoint the same status as the mainstream viewpoints (Draw and Canada won). I think one of them, Budiansky even compares the US to the Vietcong fighting the British, or something a bit odd.
    You mentioned Donald Hickey, and I have a reference that actually puts him in the "Failed objectives" reasoning group of Historians who support the "Canada won" case. He wrote: "By my count, we lost the War of 1812 and we lost Vietnam. That's not a widely held opinion in the United States about the War of 1812. The common view is that the war ended in a draw. But we invaded Canada in 1812 and in 1813, and in the west in 1814, and all three invasions pretty much ended in failure. It doesn't look like we achieved our war aims." https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2012/0608/Why-America-forgets-the-War-of-1812
    I personally don't have any issue with those two historians words being added. The main page is huge and some of the editors are trying to cut it back, so they may be better going into the subpages? Its great you are bringing in new material, nice one.
    Territorial changes: Carl Benn's book "The War of 1812", though it's only an Osprey, has good maps of territorial changes in it - it was good for me as I'm not from the US. I need to read up more about the Louisiana purchase side of things and Indians, I don't know much about that, to be honest. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you very much, Davide King. I will address what I can, but given this is a hobby rather than a full-time job I won’t always be here to address the exchange with him.
    Good morning DeathLibrarian,
    I am aware of the “American victory” position being a minority (within a minority) in the past hundred (or so) years as most people in the United States don’t care about it. That wasn’t always seen that way as the success in the War of 1812 was a celebrated holiday known as “The Eighth until the Civil War.
    https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Eighth_(United_States)
    And I wouldn’t give the Canadian viewpoint the same respect either as the narrative was questioned (without proper rebuttal) over the years. It received wide mainstream attention during the bicentennial in 2012 and more books on the topic were being published.
    Canadian historian Tristan Johnson from Step Back History on YouTube is my reference on the fact that the Harper administration promoted widespread nationalism with Canadian education ads stating:
    “200 years ago, United States invaded our territory, but we defended our land.”
    Tristan Johnson would later state in the video:
    “Oh yes, the Harper government tried to reinterpret Canadian identity behind 19th century nostalgia, British Loyalism, and of course in no small part military Jingoism.”
    As for the result of the war, historian Tristan Johnson stated:
    “The end of the war was a draw.”
    Keep in mind that the “Canadian victory” narrative was also questioned by a news outlet during the 1812 bicentennial on a show called “The Agenda with Steve Paikin” in Ontario, Canada. Here is a brief transcript that I have typed up for you:
    Steve Paikin stated:
    “You know, some people - some people will say, “this is typically Canadian for Canada to get out there and show off about the fact that it fought the Americans to a tie 200 years ago. That war was a tie. I'm not sure that we won, it was a tie."
    Diane Pacom:
    “Yes."
    Steve Paikin:
    “And there we go, celebrating something typically Canadian. A tie. You find that weird?"
    I haven’t read Carl Benn’s book yet. If the maps are useful I’ll be sure to look into it.
    Donald Hickey argued that the United States wasn’t going to annex Canada. Hickey’s primary argument was that the United States lost due to issues of impressment. Now what I didn’t recall (which you thankfully reminded me) was that Hickey has written that the British Empire and Canada won the war.
    And upon reading through Marche’s article again, I can’t help but snicker a little. I briefly read through it the first time and (given the patriotic tone) I thought he would comment on the annexation portion somewhere in the article. Surprisingly, Marche simply writes out that:
    “No matter what military historians say, we won the War of 1812—because we fought to be ourselves.”
    Marche also acknowledges the stalemate in a very patriotic article, writing that:
    “On both sides, acknowledgment of the war dwells not on the victories, but on narrowly averted defeats. Americans don’t care to remember the burning of Fort York; nor do the British celebrate themselves as the army that sacked Washington. Memorializing the War of 1812 has always meant reckoning with an embarrassing stalemate.”
    So you’re correct that on the Canadian defense narrative that Hickey and Marche are in agreement in regards to the defense of Canada. Hickey simply stresses the Maritime issues being the cause over the annexation theory.
    Historians will sometimes say odd things. I have not read Budiansky to judge how he compared the United States to fighting the Vietcong. What I will acknowledge is that Donald Hickey has written some odd things such as an opinion piece written in the latter half of the book, “Don’t Give Up the Ship,” where he makes it quite clear his perspective on the American Wars. Hickey writes (pg.301 of “Don’t Give Up the Ship!”):
    “Is it fair to conclude that because the War of 1812 ended in a draw on the battlefield the conflict itself ended in a draw? Not necessarily. After all, using this same logic, one could argue that the Korean War and the War in Vietnam both ended in a draw, and yet the United States won the former (because it prevented the advance of communism) and lost the latter (because it failed to achieve the same end).”
    My interpretation from reading his book is that Donald Hickey doesn’t like a stalemate. So yes, historians are prone to make leaps in judgment and comparison with the flimsiest of reasons. This might also be why Hickey’s opinion is among the minority.
    Ironic Luck (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, yeah, there are Canadians who saw the war as a draw as well. Leslie Turner, Francis Carrol, Mark Zuehlke.. a number of them have written books on it. But there are also a few US Historians who see it as a win for Canada, like JCA Stagg, Elliot Cohen and Hickey. Sure *more* historians think it was a draw, but there is a substantial body of respected historians who do believe the war was a win for Canada, apart from the ones already :mentioned, and these are respected Historians, including John Grodzinski, Pierre Berton, Peter McCloud and some others. You also have to remember... there are simply *more* US historians than there are Canadian historians, and 95% of the US Historians support the draw conclusion...so that's going to assist its support.
    The "Canada won the war" is not the majority viewpoint, but its a mainstream minority viewpoint. But its certainly not crazy fringe theory, because it has mainstream historians supporting it, and it is aligned with the popular view of Canada (though not everyone, including Steve Paikin clearly! :-) ) It's a mainstream view, it just has less people supporting it.
    I had read there was a great deal of Ra Ra about the 200th Anniversary, and I think a bit of debate about how much money was spent on it as well, I think the Harper administration spent quite a bit on it, and conversely the US I think basically spent *nothing* on it and didn't do much at all.
    That's a good point of Hickeys... two wars may end up in a draw *on the battlefield. I mean Korea, personally I always saw that as a WIN for NATO, because I assumed their role was to intervene and save South Korea. At the start of the war, most of South Korea was overrun. By the end, they'd got it to the 38th parrallel and recovered most of the country, so going by their initial objectives, they got what they wanted.
    But it can gets a bit philosophical.
    That is interesting about the eight... I'd never heard that! Is this the step back history video you were talking about??? He has so many on the channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dZM_A7O7Mk Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Ironic Luck: I really don't want to spend the rest of my life debating whether Canadian history is notable. But as to why some views that are conventional wisdom in Canada might be in a minority when one lists out historians (only): Canada has fewer people ergo fewer historians, and fewer universities. I repeat, polling is not the correct approach. Elinruby (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes good point Elinruby- I mentioned that above too. if you are talking about the body of Historians, the US just has so many more Historians, it has 10 times the population of Canada, so the US centric view is going to be more prolific. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    @DeathLibrarian - Yes, you have found the correct video from historian Tristan Johnson.
    I don’t believe the United States spent much time or resources on the research of the War of 1812 (as far as I know) in recent years. World War II and the American Civil War seem to have taken most of the attention away from their perspective on the War of 1812.
    As far as Donald Hickey is concerned . . .
    The Korean War resulted in South and North Korea sharing a peninsula. Hickey claims that the United States won... but China still successfully defended North Korea as well. The war is still technically ongoing – so “stopping communism” is the only criteria for Donald Hickey to consider it an American victory? How about the flip side of the coin where “stopping capitalism from being at our doorstep” which China accomplished (and saved North Korea)? Would that satisfy the criteria for the North Korean and Chinese side of the war? The double-standard in his opinion is pretty glaring to me. . .
    That’s not even going into the fact that the United States (in the Vietnam War) and the British Empire (in the War of 1812) abandoned their allies to the wolves. When the United States left Vietnam, the country was (eventually) invaded by North Vietnam. When the British Empire left their remaining forts in the west (and ended their trade with the native tribes), the United States began to push westward (Louisiana Purchase territory) and southward into the native tribes (and Spanish-controlled) Florida. They even attacked Colonial Marines (whom waved the Union Jack) that remained in Spanish-controlled Florida. Andrew Jackson infamously hanged two British citizens during this time-frame. Are you familiar with the Battle of Negro Fort or the Arbuthnot and Ambrister_incident?
    https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Negro_Fort
    and
    https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Arbuthnot_and_Ambrister_incident
    I will ask you this too: What does it say in the info box?
    "Military Stalemate"
    That seems to be the fact that is established in a wide majority of historical works. This included the majority of the authors you cited such as Marche, Hickey, and Stagg whom all acknowledge somewhere in their books or articles that this was a military stalemate.
    Now how the military stalemate is perceived from there depends entirely on the historian and how they interpreted the war results from that military stalemate. The majority of historians still see it as stalemate, but some (under the historiography section) will differ. Wikipedia's definition of Fringe would (probably) place “American victory,” “British victory,” “Canadian victory,” etc. into that column. All of the perspectives have a historian to back-up their case (even if I personally don't agree with the perspective) determined from the resulting military stalemate.
    @ElinRuby - Hello, I noticed that you were intending to edit the article info box. My questions to you – is why exactly did two British territories (under the British Empire) claim victory but an individual state (under the United States) that accomplished the same defensive result (that allowed for American expansionism and discredited the Federalists that wanted the war lost under Madison's name) cannot claim itself victorious?
    My personal opinion is that the Canadian narrative is a complete myth - one theater of a larger war that was overblown due to John Strachan's teachings under patriotic fever. But I do not ask to change the Wikipedia article to express my opinion on that matter. I simply offer information that they can use for the article or leave on the talking page. The majority and minority of views are listed under "Memory and historiography."
    That being said - 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.
    Ironic Luck (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Ironic Luck: good luck with that. I have no interest in debating anything so poorly enunciated and ill-founded, which furthermore betrays a fundamental misperception of what the hell I actually said. The change I was talking about in the wiki box is in a completely different section, so I am really not sure why you posted that wall of text? You have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ironic Luck I would say, hey I enjoy our debate, but the talk pages in Wikipedia aren't a great place to debate things, with lots of text - they are really meant for discussion about specific issues. It just makes it a bit difficult for the editors to :come to the page and see what's going on, if there is a lot of text here.
    I will quickly, say about the military stalemate, from I think some historians, and probably from the general Canadian point of view.... if you are defending yourself from an invasion, and you push the invading forces back to the borders and it stalemates at the point... :that's in fact a victory for the person defending, as they achieved their objective. The word stalemate implies its a draw, but... from the Canadian/British perspective, its a win.
    Wikipedia's definition of fringe, as per WP:fringe is "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or *mainstream* views in its particular field". Just to confirm :to you, the view that Canada won the war IS a mainstream view. Its supported by Mainstream Historians, some very famous ones, with their articles published in mainstream scholarly journals and book publishers, all of which are recognised as Reliable Sources. It's also the popular view in Canada. It's not the *majority* viewpoint, but its a *mainstream* viewpoint.
    In comparison, the view that the world is flat is NOT a mainstream view. It's not a view held by any *mainstream* scientists. There is a difference. Flat Earth Theory IS Fringe Theory.
    I will note Wikipedia policy about Balance and weight says: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones". The view that Canada won is accepted mainstream scholarship, its published in mainstream books, journals and by mainstream historians. Flat Earther, Templars with the Holy Grail, Hoax Apollo moon landings.... are not. Arguably, trying to put the Canadian viewpoint, in with *non Mainstream* scholarship, could be seen as insulting by some. If I was Canadian, I certainly would be. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Desthlibrarian, you again conflate fringe for pseudoscience when I, The Four Deuces, Ironic Luck and others, when saying the Canadian viewpoint is fringe, we mean fringe in the sense that it differs from the accepted scholarship in its field, which is true for both the American and Canadian viewpoints. You fail to recognise that the Canadian viewpoints is not actually mainstream because it is a minority viewpoint and you can cite all the historians of this world you describe as respected and mainstream that you claim support your view; that does not change the fact it is still a minority viewpoint that differs from the accepted scholarship, hence non-mainstream and not worth of the same weight we give to the majority view in the infobox. Again, you confuse and conflate the popular views and myths among Canadians with that of scholarship among historians. I think The Four Deuces said it best when he wrote While historians say the war ended in a draw, both sides could claim some success. Some people may misread historians' description of these successes as a declaration that one side or the other won. I believe this is exactly what you did, hence original research and synthesis by using that to claim the historians say one side won, when as noted by Ironic Luck even those whom you claim support your view do not dispute that it was a military stalemate. Ironic Luck, I hope you continue to take part in this discussion and explain to Deathlibrarian why we say the Canadian and American viewpoints are fringe and why the Canadian viewpoint simply does not warrant the weight Deathlibrarian wants us to give it. Maybe Deathlibrarian will actually listen to you. You are likely better at explaining and debating than me. Because I agree with pretty much everything you have written thus far and could not have written or explained it better. Davide King (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King - I was more providing that information for Ironic Luck, as mentioned previously, we've already spoken about this at length, we don't agree, and I just think it best we agree to disagree. Thanks for the comments though. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I am sorry, but the whole contention that Canada is somehow not notable in an article about an existential threat to its emergence, or that we shouldn’t talk a little more about the defeat of Tecumseh, when it was a turning point in indigeous history and probably its biggest defeat... I am sorry, I just can’t have this conversation and be civil. This is a Canadian history article. This is an indigenous history article. Why why why would we not discuss Canadian and Native American history? Elinruby (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Elinruby, you misunderstood the whole point, this is about results in the infobox! It has nothing to do about discussing in the main body all that which I fully support. Ironic Luck and I are saying we should say military stalemate as the result in the infobox while Deathlibrarian wants us to say Disputed military stalemate/British win. Is it clear now? Davide King (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King OK - I will make this one point - Balance and weight says: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones". Look at the examples it gives. (1)Flat Earth theory (2) Knights Templar having the grail (3) Apollo Moon Landings. Do those examples sound like they are talking about Academic Historians writing articles in Peer reviewed journals and books proposing that Canada Won the war of 1812, in line with the popular view in Canada? Seriously? Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Deathlibrarian, I do not see how that exclude my point; they simply made some extreme examples to make it more obvious and clear, but fringe is used in a broad sense, including to describe something that is not crazy or unreasonable but that nonetheless departs significantly from the prevailing views in its particular field (In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field); and a Canada win departs significantly from the prevailing views of military stalemate, do you understand this now? Can we at least agree on this, i.e. that a Canada win clearly departs from a draw/military stalemate because they are opposite and mutually exclusive? Note how what you just linked to me also clearly says Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. That is exactly my point.
    The Canadian viewpoint is a minority view that should not be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity and is not commonly accepted in mainstream scholarship, notwithstanding your claim that it is mainstream (per Wikipedia guidelines, it cannot possibly be mainstream because it significantly departs from the prevailing and actually mainstream view in its particular field, i.e. that of a draw/military stalemate). We disagree on this (Ironic Luck seems to agree with me on this; see My opinion is that the "Canadian victory" perspective of the war is myopic and is popular perception. American victory and British victory perspectives are a minority (and probably Fringe per Wikipedia) when discussing this war) and there is not point in further discussing this here. However, you are free to write me back on my talk page and I would be more than happy to reply you there; I enjoyed discussing with you. Again, no strong feelings, nothing personal, just respectful disagreement.--Davide King (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Davide King The examples they have given aren't of minority views with any scholarly support. They are of actual fringe theories (Flat earth theory, templars and holy grail) that have no basis in mainstream theory, and have ZERO scholarly support. That's the examples they have given, that's what they are talking about. I feel, even mentioning the examples given by Wikipedia themselves for a comparision, you still won't believe it, there isn't much more I can say. But yes, I think it best we just agree to disagree, and no hard feelings, certainly not everyone can agree on things on Wikipedia. We are all here working hard to make Wikipedia a better tool for the users, and in the end, that's the important thing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Deathlibrarian, please see my response here and let's take it there.--Davide King (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Elinruby
    Aww. You cannot even offer a single answer or real rebuttal to one question that I asked you?
    “I just can’t have this conversation and be civil.”
    You clearly cannot be civil – or cite sources. You proclaim annexation was (supposedly) taught in school but you claim this on Wikipedia without citing the textbook!
    I am not surprised at all that you don't know why I posted my "wall of text." It's clear to me that you have no business discussing this topic with me nor did you even comprehend why I asked you this question. You have no answer and you flippantly ignored my last two sentences. I strongly recommend that you stay on topic in this section rather than provide condescending and passive-aggressive responses if you want me to take you seriously.
    You have provided no citations and made a claim that polling is not the correct approach simply because Canada has fewer historians . . . And in the other sections you arbitrarily make the claim for "balance problems" over and over again. Rather than cite from a source you simply state that you feel like your information is correct . . . That would be called awful researching skills.
    I'll end my statement at this: You seemingly cannot address any of the historical facts (written by historians) that I presented in this section of Wikipedia and initially failed to provide any source material of your own. You are free and fully welcome to prove me wrong with citations and quotes from other sources; I enjoy a challenge of the minds, but until then, we can end this discussion.
    My point has been made. I am not going to play chess with a pigeon. You have a nice day and fly away.
    Deathlibrarian
    The Harper government (from my perspective) wanted the War of 1812 to be Canada’s “Revolutionary War” during the bicentennial in 2012. This wasn’t a war that “forged a nation” but one that kept the British Empire’s assets while sacrificing everything else. I already addressed my stance on Canada (which wasn’t a nation until 1867), but I should clarify that the British’s terms weren’t only planning on the defensive, but had some offensive goals as well.
    The British did not want the United States to expand – be it westward or anywhere else. Prior to the War of 1812, British Army general John Graves Simcoe’s vision was that of unifying America under the British Empire. Simcoe was also one of the people that also hoped to form an Indian buffer state as well. He died in 1806, but his ideals didn’t die with him.
    According to "The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies” by Alan Taylor,
    "In late 1807, during the Chesapeake crisis, Henry offered, as a British secret agent, to cultivate Federalist disaffection in New England. He predicted, "By good management, a war will make half of America ours. . . . That wretched republic already totters under its own weight." Intrigued by Henry's proposal, the governor-general, Sir James H. Craig, covertly revived Simcoe's dream of dissolving the American union to reattach the northern states to the British empire. Visiting New England in 1808, Henry reported that the Federalists were prepared to secede and to ally with the empire. But when the Chesapeake crisis passed, his British employers decided to let sleeping dogs lie."
    You can read more about it in the Henry Papers article on Wikipedia, but (in summary) the spy sold fake papers that were supposedly a “smoking gun” to the Democratic-Republicans that the Federalists were trying to betray the United States. The papers were clearly faked and the subsequent aftermath (if nothing else) fractured any unity between the two sides.
    Taylor writes,
    "Far from ineffectual, the Henry revelations further polarized the nation's politics. While the Federalists became more embittered, the Republicans agitated for war with renewed zeal. Henry's documents revived the stalled push for war, but ensured that the war would bitterly divide the nation."
    The modern-day Canadian popular perception simplifies the American perspective in order to justify a victory for itself. The problem is that the Democratic-Republicans got what they wanted – and they didn’t want to annex Canada as that was risking power being handed to the Federalists.
    The Democratic-Republicans preserved what they had purchased in the Louisiana Purchase (native land) as the United States defeated the resistance – be it Tecumseh’s Confederacy to the northwest and the Lower Red Stick Creeks to the South. The Spanish were back-stabbed by Napoleon as he sold their land on his deal with the United States and permanently lost any chance at claiming Louisiana when the British failed in their invasion; the War of 1812 exposed their control of Florida as being highly suspect and (post-war) led to the purchase in 1818.
    The Americans within the United States (who sided with the British or were anti-war) were on the receiving end of 1812 Baltimore riots (i.e. “The Federalist” newspaper) in 1812 and the Federalist Party received significant backlash post-Hartford Convention when the British invasion was repulsed in 1815.
    I’d cite the pages for everything right now, but I’ll have to get to that at a later date. There’s much more to talk about (with the British offensive prior and during the war) and I think most of everything I’ve stated is up on Wikipedia too (not just my books). The key is that every historian (that I’ve read) and including some of the sources you’ve provided list the “military stalemate” as a result prior to giving an opinion and the additional facts behind their stance. And that stance behind it can be varied - most claim stalemate following arguments for the minority viewpoints of victory (American, British/Canadian).
    It’s actually been pleasant debating with you; I always appreciate someone reminding me where key points (that I may have missed in a topic) are as I haven’t read some of these War of 1812 books in years. I heard Donald Hickey dismiss the Canadian annexation theory so many times that (over time) I conflated that with the “British victory” stance rather than a British-Canadian stance. So - thank you, DeathLibrarian. I may switch over to the “Who Won” page and copy/paste after my next few posts. I’m still very new to the Wikipedia format, but (in retrospect) perhaps I should have posted this section over there first. Live and learn ~
    Davide King
    Thank you very much for your support. You addressed some points with DeathLibrarian that I didn’t feel really like addressing this morning (i.e. flat-earther movement, etc.)
    Ironic Luck (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    TL;DR. Perhaps if you focused on specific points rather that grandstanding god help us another section. Meanwhile I see no reason why I should respond to your jejeune remarks about what you think I said somewhere. Improve your reading skills maybe. I know this page is scattered. One more time: you imputed opinions to me that I don’t have. My proposal about the info box was on a completely different topic than your wall of patriotic text. Elinruby (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ironic Luck Thanks, yes its been pleasant discussing it with you, I've learnt some things from, you which I don't often do here.
    The second revolutionary war for Canada, there are other writers that say something like that. It was the war that in some ways, forged Canada, and unified them. I mean, there are US historians who see the War of 1812 as the second war of Independence, even though the US attacked Canada... so some historians from both sides see it in a similar way.
    Yes, I as aware the Brits didn't want the US to expand, but also, there were British who were genuinely trying to look after the interests of the Native Americans. But yes, I think the buffer state was a real thing.
    Yes, when we talk about the goals of the British, they had initial goals to repel the US forces. The military had plans to take mobile, and give it back to the Spanish, as mentioned. But peace was declared. I think in terms of the British Parliament, the overall goal was just to push the US out of Canada and prosecute war generally, until the treaty was signed. The UK public was well and truly over war at this stage.
    Good on you for being involved in Wikipedia, its a great thing, and you sound like a great researcher - perfect person for fixing up articles and finding references. Cheers! Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Deathlibrarian: I admire your patience Elinruby (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    @ Elinruby
    TL;DR? NO CITATION!?
    WHO GAVE THIS PIGEON THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON HERE!?
    I'm contacting the animal and pest control! I want this pigeon shoo'd! D:<
    @Deathlibrarian
    I also think the British government was genuine with the Indian Buffer state for the natives. I know some of the British were looking out for the Natives - Issac Brock and Edward Nicolls - whom both sacrificed quite a lot for the native tribes and/or escaped slaves.
    Thank you, I'll try to from refrain from editing articles too much. I don't want to be a Wiki-vandal. And before I leave for the day, I thought I'd send you a video on the Louisiana Purchase documentary (YouTube):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUgsaWaMu2k
    Books usually tend to cover it more, but it's a solid overview of what happened and starting somewhere. If copyright somehow becomes an issue, check "The Louisiana Purchase (Documentary)" and "44:33" for the length of the video.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironic Luck (talk • contribs) 16:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Getting back to demographics (Upper Canada)

    Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

    The swing in immigration, from American Loyalists to British and European immigrants seems to have taken place in 1815, ie during this war. Does this have anything to do with the promise of land? Or was that in the US? I do think this change reinforces the importance of this war in Canadian history, however Elinruby (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Rjensen: weren't you the one I was talking to about this? Elinruby (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    As I pointed out above, the majority of settlers in Upper Canada were late loyalists, that is, Americans who had emigrated to Canada in order to obtain free land. Following the war, the colonial authorities determined they were insufficiently loyal. Subsequent immigration came mostly from the UK including Napoleonic war veterans. The myth was then created that United Empire Loyalist militiamen had defeated the U.S. The total number of United Empire Loyalists who settled in Upper Canada is estimated at between 6 and 8 thousand, although many of them were born in the UK, many of them soldiers in the Revolutionary War. TFD (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    right. It was "most" that I was questioning. Apparent what you say is true but began to change in 1815 (?) If that's still tagged, the tag can be removed as far as I am concerned. What happened in 1815 not 1814 doesn't need to be in this paragraph Elinruby (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    I can't find the tag, so perhaps you could remove it. Simcoe believed that Americans would become loyal subjects because he thought the English constitution was superior. So some 80,000 Americans were allowed into the province. There was in any case no possibility of British immigration because young men were needed to fight the French. But that all changed after the defeat of Napoleon. So some half million British people then emigrated to Upper Canada. History was then re-written. TFD (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    there was to my recollection some Loyalist movement into other provinc e and no, i haven't researched a source, I am just saying. As I recall this was in a section about Upper Canada so consider the just an aside Elinruby (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    US honor restored

    Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    A lot if not most of this talk, which is a problem when it's in the voice of Wikipedia, takes place in a discussion of the naval battles, which we are going to split off into a subarticle, as I understand it. This is still PoV as hell and will still be a problem over there but lessens the concern about it in this article. Can we please just say, in the references to this that remain, that the Americans felt like their honor was restored, vs American honor was restored, which is a problem, honest. Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    That seems logical and not too controversial (I hope!)... would be good to clarify the US people see it that way, and not Wikipedia itself Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    There are two views here. The lead up to the war lasted some 19 years, which isn't well known. As for the most part, America didn't have a navy to speak of and the Royal Navy pretty much did as it pleased. Note the French Navy didn't act any better. That's going to have to be addressed. It was in part a reason the US went to war.Tirronan (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    We talking about raids on shipping? I am good with anyone's narrative going in, and that was part of the American one, I know. As long as it's clear that whatever 19th century sentiment is being discussed is not the voice of Wikipedia. This can be done why being careful to say who thought what, which is a good thing to think about anyway, right? I said someone other than me should do the Atlantic, but yeah, there's definitely a story there about shipping. I would say go ahead and make the changes you think, just be prepared for challenges. And I would ask that we make sure the the labor of love somebody wrote up about sailing technique be kept in one article or another ;) Elinruby (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

    Semantics: Result, Effect and Interpretation

    Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

    I freely admit that I'm a complete non-expert who waded into this article over a decade ago largely by chance (New York City mayoral elections led to The Bronx which led to Fort Schuyler, leading me to the War of 1812).

    But I think that much of this interminable, decades-long wrangle boils down to talking about different things.

    In my mind the result of a war (e.g. military stalemate in Korea) differs from its effects (e.g. continued division of Korea, regrowth of Japan, entrenchment of the Kim dynasty) and how that result and those effects are interpreted (the DPRK calls it a North Korean victory by forestalling an invasion, many on the opposite side call it their victory by stopping a North Korean invasion, many say both sides lost because of the staggering human costs, and many say both sides won because no major shooting war has recurred in 65 years).

    To give a much cruder analogy suppose that somehow I win a huge amount of money betting against a billionaire. The result is that I won. But the effect might be that I become hopelessly addicted to gambling, fall dangerously into debt, lose all my friends and family, fall into the deepest depression and contemplate or commit suicide. The result of my contest against the billionaire is still that I won. The effects (ruin) and interpretation (e.g. that I was "the real loser" of that bet) are another, distinct matter.

    And the Infobox (like the casual consulter of Wikipedia) really only asks what was the immediate result, which is of course military stalemate, status quo ante bellum (no big transfers of land, people or property), major Indian losses and the Treaty of Ghent.

    The later effects (or lack of effects) are also important, as are the interpretations of historians, and should be discussed in the article. But they don't belong in the Infobox, because almost none of them is undisputed (and even if they were, they probably still wouldn't belong).

    In all humility (and with apologies for stretching out this Talk Page even further — see my new comment above in #This talk page itself is too unreadably long to be useful ) and with the best of holiday wishes —— Shakescene (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

      Like I essentially agree with the whole point. I could not explain it better. Davide King (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    I think the entire article suffers from balance problems, and that needs to be addressed first. I am not, despite terabytes to the contrary, expressing any opinion as to what should go in that field of the info box at the outcome section. Well actually, there is a lot to discuss. I did say that adding “defeat of Tecumseh’s Confederacy” improved the NPOV issues with the article. I have disagreed with saying that both sides repelled the other’s invasion because you aren’t “repelled” if you are still on enemy territory. I suggested mutual defeat and don’t know where discussion went from there Elinruby (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    But see there were big losers and this is notable. Elinruby (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with Shakescene. While historians say the war ended in a draw, both sides could claim some success. Some people may misread historians' description of these successes as a declaration that one side or the other won. Add to that, elites in both the U.S. and Upper Canada encouraged myths that their respective sides had won, since their respective countries had not been conquered, and this mythology has persisted in popular imagination long after its propaganda purposes had been met. While all of this belongs in the article, the casual reader wants key points in the info-box.
    As for big losers, most people in Upper Canada were considered traitors and disenfranchised by the Family Compact.
    TFD (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    —— Shakescene Completely agree, those later affects shouldn't be in there. As I have said before, they are just an invite for people to modify them and argue over them. I have argued that's why it was good to link to the section in the body for people to read that in detail, instead of having them in there. IN terms of the results field in the infobox, however I disagree, it's only supposed to have three things in it "X victory", "Y Victory" or "Inconclusive". They are the three options you are supposed to put in there, according to the template guidelines for what goes in the Milhist Infoboxes - my interpretation of that is that Wikipedia want the field standardised for all articles. And you are right, this talk page is just out of control, to the point of being really hard to find anything, and it probably scares people away! Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    This is why I hate infoboxes and lists. However, with apologies to the length of the talk page, it simply isn’t accurate that nobody lost any territory. So if Deathlibrarian can supply a link for what he is saying about having three choices, the only one that even comes close is “inconclusive”. But that borders on the inaccurate imho. However, I have already said that this is not the hill I want to die on, and this will no doubt still be in discussion years from now, when the article approaches WP:BALANCE. For now it has a long way to go and outcome in the info box is just one of its problems. Meanwhile Tecumseh lost, and the Spanish lost. And I am being told that these things simply don’t matter. Elinruby (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I took a look at infobox military conflict; Deathlibrarian is mostly right, but it also says: “Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.” This strikes me as much better than arguing for another decade about who is a qualified source.Elinruby (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Elinruby: @Deathlibrarian: I have to confess that I haven't looked at the formal documentation for the military infobox template, but my initial feeling was that X won / Y won / Inconclusive probably fits better for individual battles and campaigns than for wars — because Inconclusive (as opposed to Military Stalemate) for a whole war can imply that parties could still break armistice and resume fighting — while Military Stalemate might not really fit many battles (especially in wars that were completed).
    However, I made an inexpert scattershot look at a handful of conflicts where I thought it could be argued that neither X nor Y won, and found that Inconclusive is rather rarely used. See the differing information boxes for, e.g., Korean War, First War of Scottish Independence, Battle of Jutland, War of Jenkins' Ear, War of the Austrian Succession, Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign, Eritrean–Ethiopian War and Yemeni Civil War (2015–present). Editors with far wider knowledge or much better memories than mine could think of other conflicts without commonly-accepted winners or losers, and see how their infoxboxes treat the immediate results or lack of results. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Just thinking. How many of those were cases where one side could be said to have demonstrably won (agree or not, there's an argument for both sides of that) yet their allies lost? But you bring up an interesting point. To paraphrase Winona LaDuke, perhaps we need a different infobox. I can't suggest one off the top of my head, but I don't usually dabble in infoboxes. It's an idea though. Elinruby (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    There actually seems to be all kinds of leeway about making one’s own info box, but I agree that other things being equal uniformity is good. Another thing to consider: outcome is an optional field. We could just delete it and live our lives ;) Elinruby (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    I disagree. I do not see why we should delete it when there is a clear majority consensus among sources, including those who are used to claim win for one side over the other, that it was a military stalemate. We may word it like Military stalemate; both sides claim victory but it is probably not necessary, just like it may not be needed to talk about repelling invasions or the burning of Washington and York in the infobox. The current infobox is perfectly fine.--Davide King (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    there is no consensus. You keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true. Elinruby (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I wrote this when the comment above was still like this. If I am off-topic, then so were you because you were the one in the first place to comment about the outcome in the infobox by arguing we delete it and I simply reply to that. Actually, not only that, but now that I think about it better, it is actually you who is the one off-topic! You must have thought this discussion was the one below titled WP: MOSFLAG, but this discussion is actually titled Semantics: Result, Effect and Interpretation and is about the result in the infobox, with the op essentially saying the immediate result was military stalemate and that we should report this. So you are the one being off-topic when the discussion about the flags is elsewhere below. Also stop saying there is no consensus (there is no consensus about what? What are you talking about or referring to by that exactly?); there is a clear consensus among sources that it was a military stalemate. Period.--Davide King (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Just stop. The test is not a consensus among historians, and it wouldn't be the test even if it was solely a history article, which it is not. The test is reliable sources and you do not have consensus to use any other standard, because here I am. And yes, I did make a mistake, sorry about the confusion. I tried to change it before that happened. Get over it. This is me admitting that I made a mistake. Your turn. All this quality sources you are so proud of -- like the Encyclopedia Britannica reference in the infobox ;) there'd be nothing *too* wrong with that, except it isn't really a "quality" source, is it. And you guys are claiming that all of Canadian history fails to meet that standard. While you guys have been duking it out on the talk page about one optional and inaccurate statement that you feel you must make, names of battles and of generals were misspelled, ethnic cleansing was applauded, nothing was wikilinked, the article still has major structural problems and its infobox doesn't even list all the parties to the war. This is what you and TFD WP:OWN. Hope you are proud. It's really really sloppy Elinruby (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Why the result should not be based on the consensus among historians and reliable sources? Again, I could not care less about you think of me, I care about the consensus among historians; and whether you like it or not, the majority say it was a draw and virtually all, including those who claim one side won over the other, say it was a military stalemate, which is what I support for the infobox. What is this Encyclopedia Britannica reference you are talking about? And what part do you not get about the view of the majority of historians has been that the war ended in stalemate, with the Treaty of Ghent closing a war that had become militarily inconclusive? This is right in the main body at #Historians' views. The American win and British win are minority viewpoints that do not change the immediate result of military stalemate as even those who support either side win, they still say it was a military stalemate and base the win of either side on a list of objectives they claim each side had; like the United States wanted to annex Canada, it failed and so Britain won, despite not disputing the military stalemate conclusion; or like the United States wanted to end Britain's blockades and impressment, they did that and so it was an American win, despite again not disputing the military stalemate conclusion. I am concerned mainly about the result in the infobox because that s what researched and feel knowledgeable the most. You are free to fix the mispelled names of generals and battles, talk about ethnic cleansing, etc. My main interest in this discussion is the infobox. The faster we end this absurd diatribe about the infobox, the sooner we will all be able to concentrate on the main body and improve it. Finally, please stop making personal attacks and false accuses against me and The Four Deuces. It was not the first time, as can be seen from this here.--Davide King (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    it's in the infobox.Elinruby (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    People get mad when you tell them their country doesn't warrant inclusion in a discussion of events that are central to its history. Also, not everyone is ok with excusing genocide and I don't think we should do this in the voice of Wikipedia. You act like I dislike your tie and am mean to you because of it. On the contrary, you seem smart, just a little overconfident about some reasoning that is actually pretty specious. You don't seem to listen well, either. But that's ok, we've all had unexamined beliefs, but listen, seriously, this is me trying to explain something to you. You should listen more. I may not be the best model of patient reasoning -- that would be Deathlibrarian in this talk page, as a matter of fact. Please don't write me another essay on WP: FRINGE. The question is what is right. Elinruby (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Elinruby, please see my response here and let's take it there.--Davide King (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    —— Shakescene Sorry, I meant to reply to this before. Yes, that is a bit of a quandry, on one hand it is supposed to be the guidelines, but on the other hand some battles at least aren't following them. I mean, I can see why they have the guidelines. It's supposed to be a quick scan, X victory, Y victory, Inconclusive - standardised. The issue is, the average punter looks at some of these boxes, and they have some non standard made up term that editors have come up with "German Strategic victory" "Russian Fighting withdrawal/Tactical defeat, and the average person is basically like... what the hell? :-). But yeah, I take your point. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

    The Family Compact, disenfranchisement, and immigrants into Canada

    Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

    I’m having trouble with “most” again. I agree it was true in 1814, but the surge in British immigration began in 1815, so was that still true when the was ended? Also, I still don’t agree that “most” is the right measure, even if it turns out to be accurate. I do agree that the Family Compact is notable and doesn’t seem to be in the article right now. If you don’t want to look up statistics just say “most loyalists” and that will take care of my objection Elinruby (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Sorry, I don't understand. The war ended in 1814. TFD (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I am objecting to “most people” in the following sentence; “people in Upper Canada were considered traitors and disenfranchised by the Family Compact”. The part about the Family Compact is interesting and should be added to the article, but aren’t we talking about loyalists, and were they still “most people” at the time? As for your comments about national myths, this is exactly what I have been saying. Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Most people in the province were not loyalists, but economic migrants from the U.S. who had arrived after the U.S. revolution. The idea that most inhabitants were United Empire Loyalists is a myth. Furthermore, the myth exaggerates the actual loyalty of the Loyalists, many of whom were economic migrants, former British soldiers or ordinary people who picked the wrong side in the Revolutionary Wars. Decades later, they did not care whose flag they lived under so long as they kept their farms. TFD (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Right. It was Canadian immigrants who were promised 50 acres, correct? I know somebody was. But according to Family Compact they were Loyalists picking on loyalists, and not until 1828 or so, so I still have issues with “most people”. But the thing about land is material and should go in. I just don’t agree with the subject of that sentence. Maybe if you have a source, But if Family Compact is wrong, it should be fixed. Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    While all of above may be true, though, and perhaps should be in the article, weren’t we talking about the infobox? It almost sounded for a minute like you were saying that the people who got exterminated didn’t lose out, it was the people who lost/didn’t get the right to vote. The two things don’t equate at all and I am sure I must have misheard that. What you are saying about the right to vote is important, but there is a little matter of genocide and ethnic displacement as well. Elinruby (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Info box issue

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

    We do not have a commander or casualty numbers for Spain in the info box. Note this is entirely separate from “who won the war”; please refrain from writing me long passionate patriotic essays about what you think my position is on that. Elinruby (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    I added the Spanish commander. Don’t have time to find numbers; this remains an issue Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Red sticks 500 to start, from article Elinruby (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Deleting all adjectives

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    I came to a full stop at an uncited statement thatBritain had the biggest and best trained army . Since Britain had a few centuries of experience over the US I suspect this is objectively true, but the statement certainly contains adjectives and I feel like someone might possibly consider this NNPOV. Any thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Get rid of them, unless they're part of a quotation that makes it clear that someone other than Wikipedia thinks so. ——Serial # 05:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I am ok with that unless someone wants to find a reference for it Elinruby (talk)<

    Lede from French

    The English-American War of 1812 faced the United States off against the British Empire between June 1812 and February 1815. This war is also known as the “War of 1812”[1], the 'second war of independence’[2][3][4], and more rarely “American-British War” or “Canadian-American War”, for it consisted of an invasion of the Dominion of Canada by the United States...

    References

    1. ^ "La guerre de 1812" [The War of 1812]. Public Archives of Ontario. Retrieved 27 June 2008.
    2. ^ This name is primarily used in the United States (Second War of American Independence) and has a strong connotation of nationalism, in that it highlights US opposition to BrItain
    3. ^ "Second War of American Independence". Library of Congress. Retrieved 27 June 2008.
    4. ^ Étienne de Planchard de Cussac (2001). Le Sud américain: histoire, mythe, réalité [The American South: History, Myth, Reality]. Paris: Ellipses. p. 33. ISBN 2729802630.

    Why this page is unreadable

    Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Can we please make an effort to comment in the sections on a particular topic? I really think that a lot of the confusion here is caused by people commenting in random threads. Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    A few things

    Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Some things that some people have said they agree with: Feel free to append your own. Trying to sum up before the page gets archived.

    • - accuracy is good. We should be accurate.
    • - we should delete all adjectives
    • - Many indigenous peoples in North America are their own nationa
    • - the section on the Atlantic theatre is too long and should be spun offb
    • - we are tired of this talk page

    a) side question, do they have a flag icon? b) I think Tirronen said he wanted to trim the naval battles Elinruby (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Please archive the talk page

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    If I have to look up how to do it I cannot guarantee the results. I just spent twenty minutes scrolling through essays trying to find a comment where I was mentioned, and finally had to read it in the history Elinruby (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Elinruby:@Deathlibrarian: @Davide King: @The Four Deuces: @Red Rock Canyon: @Tirronan: @Rjensen:
    This Talk page (if I'm copying correctly to MS Word) now has nearly 65,000 words which would fill nearly 900 US-standard pages. So it's clearly well past due for some archiving.
    But (even as an original proposer) I've been hesitant to do the archiving myself because it's been a very long time since I archived anything. And what should be archived? (perhaps threads that haven't drawn any comments for the—say—last 7 days?) How much if any should go into the Who Won? topical archive and how much into a chronological one?
    There are also some technical choices that you can see at Help:Archiving a talk page and the general question of whether or not it's best to set a 'bot in motion (which one?) to archive stale threads automatically as a prophylaxis against relapsing into elephantiasis.
    —— Shakescene (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    hehe this is why I am pretty much begging you to do it. I thought you knew. I am in favor of anything that works, and if we are really stuck I guess I will take a look, but I can't do it right now. Somebody on this page has known how to do this at some point, since the page does have archives Elinruby (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    Please review for neutrality

    Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    From the Long-term consequences section: "Britain's blockade of French trade had been entirely successful, and the Royal Navy was the world's dominant nautical power (and remained so for another century)." Elinruby (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Npov?

    Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    Also from the Long-term consequences section: "After the war, pro-British leaders in Upper Canada demonstrated a strong hostility to American influences, including republicanism, which shaped its policies" -- presumably "it's" refers to the US? Need specific examples of this hostility. Elinruby (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_23&oldid=980034359"