Talk:Battle of Lake Erie

message: I must leave it to someone with better formatting skills to remedy the silly tables listed under, now that I've fixed that much, "Vessels Involved". "USS" stands for "United States Ship", of which there were none on Lake Erie. The Niagara and Lawrence were brigs, so their designation, as indicated in Perry's dispatches, was "US Brig Niagara" etc. Ditto the schooners. This looks rather unimpressive. Czrisher 21:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "silly" tables were lifted almost directly from Roosevelt, "The Naval War of 1812". You are quite correct about the designations for naval vessels; similarly, it should be "HM Brig xxxx" etc. However, the "USS" designations are those used in the entries for the vessels elsewhere in wikipedia; I believe an earlier attempt to drop the prefixes resulted in a revert to avoid redirections. HLGallon 01:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be most surprised to learn that TR made such an error and, indeed, in my e-text of 'The Naval War of 1812' I find the tables identical except for the fact that none of the vessel names begins with US (or HM) anything, to wit, "Lawrence/Brig/480/etc." Further, since "US Brig Niagara" now links to the non-existant vessel "USS Niagara", I fail to see why the relationship cannot be easily reversed by whoever is possessed of the knowledge to form such a re-direction. Wikipedia's search capabilities are far too powerful to justify such an incorrect entry for ease of location. If, however, you would direct my attention to such a previous discussion as you mention which you feel might be convincing, I'd be happy to read it. Czrisher 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brigs Ain't Ships 

message: "[T]he Detroit...was the best built ship on the Lake." This is quite a claim. Do we have at least explication of it, if not citation?Czrisher 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detroit was best built? 

message: Discussions about The Battle of Lake Erie (Put-in-Bay) are being held at the peer review page. Thank you, Comte0 (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: In the paragraph for 1812, mention is made of the Brig USS Adams, which was pinned down at Sandwich, Ontario on the Detroit River and was not ready for action. Upon clicking on the ship's name you are re-directed to another USS Adams (a frigate) that was launched at New York City 8 June 1799, never sailed on Lake Erie because she saw duty on the eastern seaboard of the USA, also in the British Isles, and was scuttled and burned in 1814 on the Penobscot River at Hampden, Maine.
Clarification is needed to ascertain if the US had two naval vessels bearing the name Adams during the War of 1812.
Musicwriter (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Adams 

message: Roosevelt, table "BARCLAY'S SQUADRON" page 261, classifies Lady Provost as a schooner.  DANFS (follow the link) classifies her as a schooner, making Wikipedia call her a schooner.  Brit naval historian William James, Vol VI, page 112, calls her a schooner.  It would appear that Lady Provost was a schooner.  The upshot is that Perry's missives are in error.  Altoff (Oliver Hazard Perry and the Battle of Lake Erie (1999)) remarks on this in endnote 129: "Perry's message was inaccurate. The British squadron was actually composed of two ships, one brig, two schooners, and one sloop."
I propose we align the order of battle (2x) with the primary historians of each side, Roosevelt and James, and footnote Perry's reports, as Altoff did. JMOprof (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but let's not bloat the article with two orders of battle for the sake of a single word. Just change "brig" to "schooner" in the order of battle and add a cite to Roosevelt or whoever, with another cite to Altoff in Perry's note. HLGallon (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi...by 2x I meant once in the infobox and once in the table. Otherwise, that's exactly what I had in mind.  JMOprof (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Order of Battle, revisited 

message: Given the destruction of the British Lake Erie fleet and the subsequent US command of the Upper Great Lakes not to mention the effect that had on the ground war in southwestern Ontario, I don't see how it could be seen as anything other than a decisive US victory (this from a Canadian, BTW)  Natty10000 | Natter  04:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a source it really doesn't matter per WP:NOR. Moagim (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. Shall we amend the Wiki entry for the Battle of Queenston Heights and the Battle of New Orleans accordingly?  Natty10000 | Natter  12:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

text: If you wish to change the outcome based on sources go ahead, but don't do that when you don't have one. Moagim (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is correct - do not change them unless you have a source for the change - I have reverted the additions.23:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You should be kidding. The person which made a claim needs to bring the source with, or will break every wiki police. No matter what is your personal opinion. Moagim (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Any change to articles should be referenced - this is a basic practice here on English Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources for the changes pls present them or use them in the change.Moxy (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So try to understand that you're re-adding unreferenced material. Some ip just added it years ago and no one notice it. You need a source to everything in an article, not to something that isn't there.Moagim (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: O I see what your saying - Should read the articles first then edit is best as the  infobox is just regurgitating whats in the articles (that is sourced). I will move the refs to the box so we dont have this problem again.Moxy (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Moagim says "You need a source to everything in an article" and takes that to mean every sentence has to have a footnote. That's not true-- only material likely to be challenged by a knowledgeable reader needs footnoting. In this case (Lake Erie) all the RS are in agreement regarding a decisive victory and no one reading a RS will be challenging the "decisive" statement. Rjensen (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked at many of his other edits and think I understand what he was doing. About a year ago the word "Decisive" was added to many articles randomly as they were now just removed. Both look like they were editing in good faith -  found refs for 80 percent that back up the claim of "Decisive" in the articles (added them to the boxes as seen  here). In a few case the word was used to stretch the truth a bit - so I reverted my reverts - like here. Believe its simply a language problem that got us here.Moxy (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected as much might be at play but Moagim seemed disinclined to discuss when invited and instead moved on to remove "Decisive" wherever found. Perhaps part of the problem is the use of the word "Decisive". Being a student of the War of 1812, I'm fairly well versed in its various battles and players (not anything like HLGallon but I can hold my own) and while there aren't that many battles that could be described as decisive victories for one side or the other (this battle was certainly one of them), perhaps the use of the word "pivotal" might invite less fractiousness? Certainly it isn't freighted with quite the same potential for nationalistic chest-thumping as "Decisive" is. However, does WP:NOR come into play in either case? Or was that particular instance a case of too-specific reading of a Wiki rule? TIA  Natty10000 | Natter  16:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  American victory: Decisive or not? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Lake Erie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050906105207/http://brigniagara.org/log.htm to http://www.brigniagara.org/log.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Lake Erie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516225636/http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f06/hickey.html to http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f06/hickey.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227195028/http://www.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/war1812/lake_erie/0000.cfm to http://www.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/war1812/lake_erie/0000.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Although Perry won the battle on Niagara, he received the British surrender on the deck of the recaptured Lawrence to allow the British to see the terrible price his men had paid."
I can think of other reasons why Perry might have made the British surrender aboard the Lawrence. Possibly just going back at least ceremonially to what he considered to be his "real" flagship, or possibly because he felt that for all its sacrifice the ship deserved that honor, or perhaps just to remind the British that their short lived victory over the Lawrence had been undone and that Perry could act as if that had never even happened. If it really was about showing the British what price Americans paid for their victory, it would probably have been more about forcing than allowing.
Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  other possible reasons for decision