Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:33, 25 June 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War of 1812 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	War of 1812 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 1, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Template:Vital article

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Jensen, Richard. (October 2012). "Military History On The Electronic Frontier: Misplaced Pages Fights The War Of 1812." Journal Of Military History 76.4" (PDF) (PDF). Subject of the Research {{cite news}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / Canadian / European / North America / United States / Napoleonic era This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force Canadian military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Military history / History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada: Ontario / Quebec / History / Military High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec. This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada. This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indigenous peoples of North America This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 18, 2004, June 18, 2005, June 18, 2006, June 18, 2007, December 24, 2010, and June 18, 2018.

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?

Archive index

Archive 1 (2003–2005) Archive 2 (Jan–May 2006) Archive 3 (May–June 2006) Archive 4 (June–Nov 2006) Archive 5 (Nov 2006 – Jan 2007) Archive 6 (Feb–Apr 2007) Archive 7 (Apr–Aug 2007) Archive 8 (Aug–Sept 2007) Archive 9 (Sept–Dec 2007) Archive 10 (Jan–June 2008) Archive 11 (July–Dec 2008) Archive 12 (2009) Archive 13 (Nov 2009 – Jan 2010) Archive 14 (Jan–Aug 2010) Archive 15 (July–Oct 2010) Archive 16 (Sept 2010 – May 2012) Archive 17 (March 2012 - October 2013) Archive 18 (October 2013 - August 2014) Archive 19 (October 2014 - April 2016) Archive 20 (April 2016 - January 2018) Archive 21 (January 2018 - ) Open discussions: /Who Won? (begun March 2008) /Mobile (begun December 2012)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilioluna (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Styer74 (article contribs).

Canadian English

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)

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 Misplaced Pages Policy on English Varieties WP:ENGVAR

TL:DR Basically as far as I recall Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• The article has strong MOS:TIES to three nations, each with its own spelling conventions. None has a stronger claim than the others, so the only guideline that applies is MOS:RETAIN. Perhaps we should add a {{FAQ}} template to the top of the page for perennial questions like this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Good idea! --BushelCandle (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Results box - Change to Disputed Victory/Stalemate

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ], 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." 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

I'd like to propose a vote on Peacemaker67 suggestion that we, in his words, "replace the current contents of the results field with ], 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages pages.... for you to say they are spouting fringe theory is ridiculous. I can reference what they say..like this: 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". ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Support obviously. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment TFD The discussion has already been had, and these points have already been discussed, ad infinitum, including the fact that the RFC isn't being overruled, because your RFC is on a different part of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• SupportDeathlibrarian (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support There isn't agreement among historians and the infobox shouldn't pretend that there is. The proposal is supported by the parameter guidance and seems like a reasonable solution.--Ykraps (talk) 06:21, 17 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

1. Benn 2002 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFBenn2002 (help); Latimer 2007, p. 3 sfnm error: no target: CITEREFLatimer2007 (help).

The Viewpoint that Britain won the war is Fringe Theory

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 Misplaced Pages's guidline, WP:FRINGE. It is defined as "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field....In Misplaced Pages 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"
• (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"
• Desmond Morton (historian)"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" Americans have claimed the war as a national triumph. Had not the Americans set out to conquer Canada? Their invasion failed utterly"
• 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." 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," 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)

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)

Rfc about the outcome of the War of 1812

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages user can read the full discussion. *This is the relevant Misplaced Pages 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". ] --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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Removing text that seems POV

"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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

ToC

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)

British felt backstabbed

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)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use Canadian English
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• C-Class Canadian military history articles
• Canadian military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• C-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• C-Class Napoleonic era articles
• Napoleonic era task force articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• C-Class United States History articles
• Unknown-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Canada-related articles
• High-importance Canada-related articles
• C-Class Ontario articles
• High-importance Ontario articles
• C-Class Quebec articles
• High-importance Quebec articles
• C-Class History of Canada articles
• High-importance History of Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• C-Class United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• C-Class Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• Unknown-importance Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• Selected anniversaries (June 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (June 2018)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment