Talk:War of 1812/Archive 5

message: There's some sort of hack in the first paragraph. It's not on the edit page itself, so I don't know how to fix this. Could somebody help? --MrWho100 01:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 3rd paragraph has been vandalized.  I don't know enough about the history of the war to make the necessary edits. DJMoney 15:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Lawrence and Lower Canada 

message: Hello, an over-zealous editor keeps moving the several subcategories located in :Category:War of 1812 people directly to the main +cat :Category:War of 1812, I don't want to go 3RR over this issue, would someone or several someones intervene to clear up this matter.  Perhaps, just speaking to the editor in question would resolve the issue.  Thank you Octopus-Hands 01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, as I repeatedly explained, is that some categories are buried 3-deep and hard to find. That is quite unnecessary when there are relatively few articles as in this case. Rjensen 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category help request

message: It's a good idea to move the long bibliog to its own article War of 1812 Bibliography, where I have now added many new titles. That bibliog is too long for most users. They need a short list of books to find in a local library and therefore I have included a short reading list with this main article. Rjensen 22:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now at List of War of 1812 books.  John Broughton  |  Talk 14:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: This article has detiorated since I last took a look at it, principally in terms of spelling, grammar and clarity.  I realise that the article has a long history of reflecting whatever the perspective of its last editor was, but it would be very helpful if some proper referencing of opinion could get done.  I'm particular amused, for instance, by the idea that it was unwise to discuss democracy, an "American political ideal", in Canada in the early nineteenth century.   I suggest that a knowledgeable editor pick a point in this article's history from a few months ago and do a partial revert, keeping only improvements.  Jkelly 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that most Canadian history books discuss the reaction against Americanism/democracy and republicanism that took place after 1815 (esp in 1837. (and no I did not add that sentence). Some quotes: #Creighton (1957) " And American institutions and American practices had sunk once more into extreme disrepute." #Lower (1958) "whatever a Loyalist's views on political theory, his views on the treatment he and his had received at the hands of former countrymen were clear-cut. These views, reinforced by the War of 1812 and extending to successive waves of newcomers, were the psychological foundation stones of Upper Canada--Ontario--determining in as great a measure as they did in New Brunswick, its basic outlook down to our own day." (p 156)#Granatstein (Yankee Go Home? 1996) argues the War of 1812, as well as border tensions, reinforced and sustained an overt fear of United States aggression. He argues Canada's elites created a "usable past" of mythical reality about the United States and exploited fears among the voters to make anti-Americanism a potent factor to win elections.  Rjensen 23:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of this article 

message: I think someone should rewrite the article on the War of 1812.  The way it is written now lacks style and the sentence structure is poor.  It does not flow well and it is not compelling.
Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.160.146 (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite free to do this yourself.  I suggest revising a small part of the article, then seeing how other editors react. If you get no objections within a day or two, then revise another small part, and wait, and so on, until the article is improved throughout.   John Broughton  |  Talk 16:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Writing 

message: After the war, when were British/Canadian and US relations restored or improved to a better standing? Because relations between Britian and the US surely must not have been good because of this war and the American war of independence, so was it as soon as the Treaty of Ghent was signed that the two countries engaged in regular and friendly contact, or over many years of confidence building when they formed a diplomatic friendship, or even much later on? 
The Anglo-American relations page doesn’t shed much light into this, nor any other page I can find detailing the bettering of diplomatic relations with Canada and the US after (and even before) Canadian independance. When did Canada and the US also begin to talk in good terms? 81.111.213.153 13:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the US focused on Britain and (as always) ignored Canada. There were tensions in the 1830s, 1840s and 1860s involving border disputes and cross-border raids (see Fenians). Good relations came after about 1872 when Alabama claims were settled. Rjensen 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Alabama claims or Alaska claims?Zebulin 08:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomatic After-effects?  

message: Hi, I removed Brock, Scott and Jackson from the commanders listed in the info box, because I felt that in an article about the entire war of 1812, top level commanders would be more appropriate. I think that if we listed theatre commanders and notable commanders in the infobox, we would have to list quite a few people. Brock Jackson and Scott are all linked in the article as well. I wont revert, but I think It's worh a look... Mike McGregor (Can) 17:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commanders listed in info box 

message: The war was an American defeat, why can't everyone just admit it? The Americans started the war, they wanted to take Canada, they failed. So it was a strategic victory; the British held on to Canada and the Americans failed to take it!!! It doesn't god damn matter if Canada was made because the Americans failed to take land from the British!!!Tourskin 22:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's better to keep it accurate and minimize Canadian mythology and POV. Rjensen 01:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, American mythology is much more acceptable. Fehrgo 07:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, if the British had attacked the US and we ended up burning London, but later agree to status quo ante bellum, then it's a draw by definition. Especially if after burning London, we went on to attack Birmingham, get beaten, and have to give up the whole campaign...
That wouldn't be the same thing, anyway. Washington, DC in 1814 was little more than a mudhole construction site with no military value whatsoever. Our own Secretary of War didn't think the British would even waste time with it, which was one of the reasons it fell so easily. When the British then went on to attack something that mattered (Baltimore), they were defeated. It was an embarrassment, but not a major military defeat.
Lastly, the argument about repulsing the invasion of "Canada" is specious. Yes, there were many Americans who wanted to conquer it, but no declaration of war would have passed Congress based on that. The issues of impressment, the British inciting Indians and interfering with our trade were the issues that got the declaration of war passed. If anything, we were hoping to "teach a lesson" to the British and gain respect. In that, we perhaps bit off more than we could chew, but we won enough battles that the British negotiated with us as equals at Ghent, and from then on. Jsc1973 08:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KEEP IT SIMPLE 

message: I have changed the first mention in the introduction from "Great Britain" to "The United Kingdom". The act of Union 1801 formally cements Great Britain's name as "The United Kingdom," in much the same fashion as "The United States" (of America). I think it's more clear to refer to Great Britain pre-1801 and the United Kingdom post 1801.
::I reverted back to the form used by the great majority of historians and reference books: Britain.  Look at the titles in List of War of 1812 books for conclusive evidence. (United Kingdom is not the official name, only an abbreviation, but Britain or Great Britain is the abbreviation used in history). Rjensen 13:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you're right: formal documents use the formal name "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."  Historians shorten that to "Great Britain" or "Britain" (They do not shorten it to "United Kingdom" as the book titles demonstrate). Rjensen 14:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki editors are not allowed to impose their own personal preferences. A check through the bibliography will show that the vast majority of scholars, editors and reference books use "Britain" or "Great Britain". The question is how to shorten the long official name and very few historians prefer the UK version. For example (using Amazon.com for search) Berton (Canadian) Flames Across the Border: 1813-1814 always uses "Britain" (27 pages) and never United Kingdom (0 pages). Benn (British) uses UK 4 times and Britain  32 times. Hickey (US, 1990 book), uses UK once (in a quote) and Britain on 88 pages. Rjensen 11:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Which matters not in the least.  Please follow the arguments presented.Tgm1024 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the British politicians and schoolteachers are worried about losing Northern Ireland hence all this silliness concerning enforcement of the new UK short form.  For years and years, Great Britain was standard.  Churchill used it.  The British people need to stand up for GB, which is much cooler-sounding. Haber 00:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change from Great Britain to United Kingdom

message: I have to say, this article needs proper contribution from people in the know from BOTH sides. I think it's hard to argue this article isn't slightly in favour/biased to American events and perspectives. Whilst I acknowledge the 1812 war had more impact and remembrance in the US than the UK, it doesn't change the outcome. I won't bother listing reasons why I think the outcome recorded for the article is too much in favour of the US, as plenty of people have done that above.
Shouldn't we try to keep this article in the spirit of wikipedia? Becuase it seems genuine concerns on the British side are just being swept under the carpet to be honest.
Kaenei 12:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Observations

message: Are serious?? The first pragraph to this article reads like a jingoistic tale of why the US was justified in attacking Canada, how well they did, despite reality, and how they trounced the evil "injuns".  Who wrote that crap? Seriously, why bother having this article at all on Wikipedia, if you can't write it without such jingoistic bias. 
Deathlibrarian 10:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me see, 1914-1917 and 1939-1941, who was fighting for freedom and liberty and who was bitching on the sidelines?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.34.126 (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: One of the problems here is that the second paragraph has grown beyond a lead anyway. It should summarize the article, not replace it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First paragraph

message: Planetary Chaos has decided to label me as a vandal, indicating that he does not have a clear understanding of what this term means in the context of Wikipedia. The additions I have made to this article were clear objective, factual and done in good faith.
He contends that I did not seek the community's approval before making the changes. Given that I was adding facts, this hardly seems necessary, but nonetheless, I will discuss it now.
The existing conclusion for British North America ignores several long lasting results, namely:
1) The war led to the construction of three forts in Canada designed to defend against an American attack;
2) The war led to the choice of Ottawa as the capital of Canada;
3) While the Britain was able to largely repulse the American attempts to invade Canada, it was not a complete victory as the war left lasting scars (so did WWII); and
4) The war created a rift between British North America and the United States which eliminated the possibility of British North America joining the United States, even during the Rebellions of 1837.
Tingkai 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1-2-3 ok but drop #4 as untrue. The Canadians did not have democracy and had no voice in the matter. Rjensen 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The war of 1812 had little to do with the question of joining USA, so it should not be mentioned as a "result" of the war. The Canadians had little or no voice in the matter of joining USA and demands for a greater voice were suppressed by royal authorities for years. Rjensen 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The point being made was that one result of the war was that, due to antagonism caused by the war, there was never a popular movement for the colonies to join the US even during the rebellions of 1837. The antagonism is the "result". When those rebelling against authority don't agitate to join the nearest other country, you can be sure that it isn't popular even among the disenfranchised. Dabbler 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: let's just drop the bit about "eliminated the possibility of British North America joining the United States, even during the Rebellions of 1837."  that assumes a democratic Canada that could vote on the matter (which was the point of the rebellions) Fact is London made all the decisions and at any time it could have sold Canada to USA, with no regard to Canadian public opinion Rjensen 01:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or a revolutionary Canada, which could have made its own decisions. Lord Durham's Report was a massive concession to Canadian opinion; what it would have read if there had been Canadian sentiment for North American union is conjecture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to consequences of the war of 1812 for British North America 

message: I rewrote the opening to explain American problems and naval issues more fully. What do people think?  Rjensen 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixing the opening