Talk:War of 1812/Archive 4

message: Leaving aside for a moment the great debate about who won, I'm somewhat bemused by the claim in the openning sentence that in Britain it is referred to as "the American War of 1812 to 1815". I'm British. I've never heard the war referred to by this title. Given that the war went on for 3 years, the title "The War of 1812" is rather an odd one, but as far as I know that's also what it's known as in the UK. Or I may just be a victim of "American propaganda history". Paul B 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I have removed from the section on "Effects on Great Britain", an explanation for the American victories in single-ship duels that these were, "mostly due to the superior size and build quality of the American ships"
In the case of the three big American frigates, this was probably the cause. In about a dozen clashes between smaller vessels (American sloops or brigs versus British ships of about the same size), the Americans won eight or nine victories to the British one. In most of these, the ships were almost the same tonnage and strength (in number and weight of guns). The Americans sometimes had a slightly larger crew, though not enough to confer any decisive advantage.
It is clear that size or construction played little part. Sometimes the British ships fought bravely, even desperately, but once or twice they flinched. In some battles, the British gunners managed to miss with almost every shot, while the American guns were devastatingly accurate.
The most probable cause is that the Americans had handpicked and experienced crews, while the Royal Navy was overstretched with the Napoleonic and American wars, and had to make do with a lower quality; sometimes made worse by lack of practice. Roosevelt, The Naval War of 1812, , is probably the most authoritative work, though not very readable; C.S. Forester, The Age of Fighting Sail,  draws largely on Roosevelt for data but is easier to read. HLGallon 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-ship duels 

message: I've just run across War of 1812 Campaigns, which is probably redundant with this article and to a lesser extent with Chronology of the War of 1812. I've marked it for merging, but someone here might want to take a look at it. Shimgray | talk | 10:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate article? 

message: I personally think the info box could use a rework for consistancy-sake.  I put together a proposal here. the current version is at the top and my proposal is at the bottem. I've broken down the force strengths and casualties diffrently. for force strengths, I suggest using peak strengths for each category over the course of the war.  please comment on the talk page there to suggest improvements and I'll bring it back here for approval or rejection. Mike McGregor (Can) 19:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox rework? 

message: Stable versioning is being tested on this article.  This means that all editing will be made on War of 1812/development, and on a regular basis, good edits will be moved onto the consensus page.  If you disagree with the current version, please let me know.  Ral315 (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stable versioning tested on this article. 

message: Shouldn't the British deaths be built upon more?
As it is now the US has numbers for how many died quite well detailed. For Britain though its just a basic number of killed and wounded making no distinction between civilian and military- to be neutral should there not be mention of the Canadian  civilians killed since there is mention of the US citizens?--Josquius 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian civilians? 

message: The "treaty of Ghent" is not standard for the result for the info box.
Standard entries here are win or loose...or strategic victory, tactical loss etc.
Putting the phrase "treaty of Ghent" here is meaninless to anyone trying to get a quick snapshot of the war of 1812 by looking at the infobox.
Threaty of Ghent is a treaty that ended the hostilities, signed by the US and the UK...its not a "result" as is the norm for the infobox. I vote it be taken out. Deathlibrarian 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, make it Status quo ante, which is substantially correct. Septentrionalis 15:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the consensus reached in the past until the latest Canada/USA pissing contest started. Should be  Status quo ante bellum so it doesn't go to a disambiguation page. We should also have a note as a comment telling people to review the discussions on this talk page before they change it. Luigizanasi 16:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with either status quo ante bellum or Treaty of Ghent.  Some moose-lovers out there don't like either.  Unless you want to discuss round n+1, I say leave it the way it is. Haber 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see what happens with status quo; since the Canadian argument is that this was a win for Britain, it may be acceptable as a statement of fact. Septentrionalis 19:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This argument has been made as many times as there have been editors to this article. On a level, I agree with you, but there is no chance of getting this changed and it is a battle that ought not to be fought again. Lord Bob 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's not forget that the Americans beat back British attempts at invasion in late 1814 at the Battle of Baltimore and the Battle of Plattsburgh (and at the irrelevant Battle of New Orleans). The main article should talk about them too. Status quo ante bellum is as good a description as any. Luigizanasi 06:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a pretty picture.  It does say something about the poster's psyche that they're more interested in the unsuccessful American action than in anything positive.  I'm going to change the caption. Haber 11:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually I just did a cut and past of the caption from the Battle of Queenston Heights article. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results info box 

message: Can any one point me towards some sources on the American Raid on Port Dover and surrounding area? Thanks, Mike McGregor (Can) 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  looking for info on Port Dover raid 

message: While generally I think this is a very good article and does well to avoid POV, I do think it slips up in the 'Operations on the Oceans' section. Rather a lot of it seems to be devoted to the (certainly impressive) American ship-to-ship victories (and, where the British win, in praising American courage or exculpating the loss - at one point an American privateer who is captured is praised for his 'audacity'). There's no indication that any of these fine victories were militarily or strategically significant. The purpose of a Navy is to defend the home coast, attack the enemy's and control the sea lanes. The US Navy failed in virtually every way. This may be understandable, given the numerical superiority of the RN, but it's still true. Concentrating on some individual victories is a bit like writing an article on the Western Front and devoting half of it to Arnhem and the Bulge. ~~TMR~~ 4 Sep. 2006
: Have a go at changing it then. NJW494 19:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and Operations on the Oceans

message: Does anyone have a reference for "American War of 1812 to 1815" being the UK English name for this war? I tried searching Google books to no avail, and a Google search largely brings up Wikipedia mirrors. - FrancisTyers · 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed seeing as no references forthcoming. - FrancisTyers · 21:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a page at The Royal Naval Museum that refers to it as "the American War of 1812".  To quote, "... these limits were often ignored and the impressment of Americans into the British navy became one of the causes of the American War of 1812."  It would appear that that nomenclature is currently used in British museums. --Noren 16:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That seems fair to me.  I don't have a strong opinion on this, and am not trying to make a claim about how common this usage is.  I found that reference while looking for impressment information and, well, a reference had been asked for and this seemed the place to mention it.  That being said, the sentence quoted above would not appear to require disambiguation. --Noren 17:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name