) 

 ::::::::That's because everywhere else is written by American historians saying "The war was a draw but in effect because of New Orleans the United States won". Its a load of twaddle. If Wikipedia is so unreliable, whats the point of having it online? How do we know that the war was a draw? If I did cite a reference I had in mind, it would be deleted anyway saying it is an unreliable source, so with all these pro-America New Orleans fanatics, its hard to actually get a say in the matter. I never used Wikipedia for a source that the US was strategically defeated on the grounds that their war aim of invading Canada failed because its global-wide knowledge that it DID fail. Therefore they were defeated. There is no denying that claim. They also lost their capital city, an event which was considered drastic by European standards. I say that "Britisih Strategic victory, Tactical Draw" SHOULD STAND as it is in the Result box, since technically it was a draw tactically but a strategic victory for Britain on the grounds that the US war aim failed. I do have a source, but everyone will only go and say its not a good source just to get out of the fact the US was defeated in this war. I'll re-add what I did add to the results box, and cite the reference, if people don't like it then DISCUSS IT before changing it. (