Talk:Results of the War of 1812

message: Let's not vote.  As long as there are no substantive objections I think we should go forward with the merge.—thames 22:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this going to be moved at all? because it needs to be. As noted below alot of the text is substrated directly from the 'references'. It either needs to be moved or be put up as NPOV / WP:Cleanup. --  talk</sup></font> 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Done Civil Engineer III 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Discussion

message: It looks to me that the references for this article are NOT just references - entire paragraphs have been copied from several of them --JimWae 06:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright infringements?

message: The section provides an extremely distorted, if not racist, description of American relations with First Nations. It contains three references to "Indian threats" when these "threats" may not have existed and if they did, it would have been Native people defending their land from encroachment. 
It also makes the incorrect statement that most Indians were "removed from the Great Lakes region." In fact, many Native Americans continue to live around the Great Lakes on and off reservations in the United States and reserves in Canada. While it would be correct to say they were moved to reserves/reservations in the region, it is wrong to say most were removed from the region.Tingkai 10:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: does Tingkai think the Indian threats existed, or did they not exist and were a figment of the imagination? Rjensen 08:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: after 1815 the British government had little to do with the Seminoles of Florida (Florida belonged to Spain). Of course Florida was nowhere near Canada Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Indian section

message: Why no mention of the sacking of Washington? The burning of the White House? or the American loss at Bladensburg? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.106.90 (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it was easy to rebuild the government buildings; and paint the presidential mansion White. America knew all about losing its national capital--the Brits did it several times in 1777-8. Rjensen 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacking of Washington? 

message: Why is the policy of Impressment mentioned as an outcome of the war, when this was suspended prior to the war and was not an element of the Treaty of Ghent?  This unduly serves to justify & portray the war in a positive light, by incorrectly claiming a positive outcome. Fehrgo 22:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-reading this, it would seem to be a simple victim of bad wording.  It should be emphasized that the policy was suspended independently of the war, and that the war did not play in to this event.  Fehrgo 22:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: impressment was NOT suspended in 1812 -- only after Napoleon was defeated in 1814. (some of the restrictions on trading with France were meant)Rjensen 08:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph 

message: I removed a reference to her as an example of an otherwise uninvolved former American who supported the British in Canada as she was married to a Loyalist who was wounded by Americans earlier in the war, while her actions may have been extrordiary, the reasons for her loyalties are fairly obvious. PreciousRoi (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laura Secord 

message: "The Royal Navy was acutely conscious that the United States Navy had won most of the single-ship duels during the War however it was also aware of the different American classification system; it bent this later fact to its own advantage however."
Single-ship duels only made up one part of the combat, there were many other forms of battle, the different American classification system is irrelevant, and "it bent this later fact to its own advantage however" is a biased statement (in addition to being badly worded), because one can't say that the entire Royal Navy is "bending" facts (i.e. lying) about prior victories. This is just one example of the anti-Britain bias.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krumpking2001 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a significant POV bias throughout the article.  The introductory paragraph alone is phrased in such a way to suggest that conflict was a US victory, when in reality it was a draw for both sides. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Britain Bias? 

message: In the British section the article says that the only battle honour awarded for the war was Detroit.  This is untrue.  At least one other award was made.  The 1st Regiment of Foot was awarded the battle honour Niagara.Shipman7 (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle Honours 

message: I noticed this:
: Britain had stopped impressing seamen, and never again pursued its disputes with the U.S. to the point of risking war
but what about the Trent Affair??Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: uh, gee, and the Oregon Boundary Dispute, the San Juan Dispute, the Alaska Boundary Dispute??  All came close to war, and teh San Juan Dispute briefly was war....Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: nowhere close to war. All those issues were quickly settled. The San Juan Dispute involved a couple small uninhabited islands and the only casualty was one dead pig (albeit a large one)--compare that to the Crimean War at about the same time. Rjensen (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Uh...."never again"??

message: When reading the section on Canada, the article ceases to sound encyclopedic and begins to wax poetic. What's the intent of the section? To objectively explain Canada's role and illuminate their part and point out the repercussions of such; or is it to bring a tear to the eye of many a Canadian? Jersey John (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada

message: Canadian dictionaries say both spellings are ok in Canadian English (eg GAGE DICTIONARY). Note that in dealing with Americans, Canadian government uses "or" version--eg from Trudeau's website: 
::Itinerary for Friday, March 10, 2017 | Prime Minister of Canada for media: Pooled photo opportunity only 10:15 a.m. The Prime Minister will meet with the Governor of Texas, the Honorable Greg Abbott. Marriott Marquis Houston Houston, Texas United States of America Note for media: Pooled photo opportunity only 11:00 a.m. The Prime Minister will meet with the United States Senator for Alaska, the Honorable Lisa Ann Murkowski URL: pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/03/09/itinerary-friday-march-10-2017  Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  honor vs honour 

message: This article states: "Washington wanted Thomas Jefferson to do the right thing and that is end the war with great Britain by a treaty." It isn't clear here if Washington refers to the person (the first president) or the seat of government (located in Washington, D.C.), but in either case, Jefferson wasn't even president during the War of 1812 which presumably is the "war with great (sic) Brtain" being referred to here. Of course, if Washington refers to the former president, how did he communicate to Jefferson (who still wasn't the president) his desire for him to "do the right thing" even after his death?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:4280:A710:544C:55A5:4620:4A5A (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh?