Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:38, 1 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War of 1812 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	War of 1812 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 1, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 18, 2004, June 18, 2005, June 18, 2006, June 18, 2007, December 24, 2010, and June 18, 2018.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / Canadian / European / North America / United States / Napoleonic era C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force Canadian military history task force European military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815) United States: Military history / History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance). Canada: Ontario / Quebec / History / Military High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec. This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada. This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Jensen, Richard. (October 2012). "Military History On The Electronic Frontier: Misplaced Pages Fights The War Of 1812." Journal Of Military History 76.4" (PDF) (PDF). Subject of the Research {{cite news}}: Check |archive-url= value (help)

Section sizes Section size for War of 1812 (47 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,610 9,610 Origins 53 53 Forces 13 5,989 American 2,473 2,473 British 2,112 2,112 Indigenous peoples 1,391 1,391 Declaration of war 3,990 3,990 Course of war 595 78,517 Unpreparedness 3,424 3,424 War in the West 22 11,720 Invasions of Canada, 1812 3,417 3,417 American Northwest, 1813 2,780 2,780 American West, 1813–1815 5,501 5,501 War in the American Northeast 39 17,522 Niagara frontier, 1813 5,701 5,701 St. Lawrence and Lower Canada, 1813 2,514 2,514 Niagara and Plattsburgh campaigns, 1814 6,908 6,908 Occupation of Maine 2,360 2,360 Chesapeake campaign 1,511 6,949 Burning of Washington 2,704 2,704 Siege of Fort McHenry 2,734 2,734 Southern theatre 292 14,861 Creek War 6,327 6,327 Gulf Coast 8,242 8,242 The war at sea 21 21,004 Background 1,567 1,567 Opening strategies 1,644 1,644 Single-ship actions 8,921 8,921 Privateering 3,636 3,636 British blockade 5,215 5,215 Freeing and recruiting slaves 2,442 2,442 Treaty of Ghent 5,616 5,616 Losses and compensation 2,854 2,854 Long-term consequences 1,832 13,317 Bermuda 1,094 1,094 The Canadas 1,370 1,370 Indigenous nations 3,151 3,151 United Kingdom 1,737 1,737 United States 4,133 4,133 Historiography 84 84 See also 301 301 Notes 28 28 References 35 35 Bibliography 56,092 56,092 Further reading 11,880 11,880 External links 202 231 40px|Notice]]This article is prone to ]. Please monitor the ] and ] sections. ] markup removed; cannot link (help)||style="text-align:right;background:#F8FAFA;"|29||style="text-align:right;color:transparent;"|29 Total 188,597 188,597

This page is for discussions about changes to the article. There has been considerable debate over "who won the war" (please refer to /Archive 8, /Archive 9, /Archive 14, /Who Won? and Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812 for the most recent discussions). Historians and the editors have various viewpoints on which side won, or if there was a stalemate. For more information, see the section *Memory and historiography, Historian's views*. However, the consensus, based on historical documentation, is that the result of the war was per the Treaty of Ghent, i.e., status quo ante bellum, which, in plain English means "as things were before the war." Please do not use this page to continue the argument that one or the other side "won" unless you are able to present citations from reliable and verifiable sources to support your claims. Per the principle of neutral point of view and due and undue weight, the article can only claim a side's victory if there is a verifiable general agreement.

Algiers

Hello Cinderella157, would it be preferable if i mentionned the implication of Algiers in this war in the body before adding it to the infobox ? Best. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is to summarise key facts of the article. So, yes. Otherwise, we are left wondering, why is Algiers there? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the recent addition

The British would also ask Algiers, the most powerful of the Ottoman affiliated Barbary states, to attack U.S. ships. The regency declared war on the U.S., capturing American merchant ships and enslaving their crews.

This seems WP:FRINGE and I would dispute that Algiers should be recorded as a combatant. Is there any support from reliable sources regarding Algiers having a tangible impact upon the war? Why were they not participants in the peace negotiations at Ghent? Keith H99 (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Algerian declaration of war in 1812, is a direct reason for the second barbary war. Algiers being the strongest of the barbary states is the reason why Britain asked it to join the war against the U.S., since Algiers imposed at that time tribute on the U.S. shipping in the mediterranean. This is supported by multiple sources and doesn't have to be necessarly nationalist in nature. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources i provided seem reliable to me , here's another one Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Two of the most well known American sources on the Regency of Algiers: Wolf p. 313 and Spencer p. 139-140. I would suggest adding to the aftermath of this war some informations about the motives for the second barbary war (Algerian attacks on U.S. shipping, stronger U.S. navy and Congress declaration of war on March 2, 1815. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If I was going to put across an argument about the Second World War, I would not be quoting from books about the First Indochina War. These sources pertain to Algiers. I would expect there to be mention from a reliable source about the War of 1812, in particular the naval aspect, such as the writings of Roosevelt, Toll, Daughan or similar.

Aforementioned Sources:

Barnes, Gregory Fremont (2006) The wars of the Barbary pirates

Wolf, John B (1979) The Barbary coast: Algiers under the Turks 1500 to 1830

Spencer, William (1922) Algiers in the age of the corsairs

I remain of the opinion that the concept that the Algerian corsairs were a partner of the British, in the War of 1812, to be a fringe idea. I do not think this will be accepted as something to remain in the article. Keith H99 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I get your point, and honestly that's how i used to work on the article of the Regency, by stating refs that deal directly with the subject matter. In this case you're free to remove what I added unless i find Algerian participation in RS that deals with the War of 1812. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The impact of the Barbary states had an impact upon the fledgling US Navy and its Corps of Marines, for sure. I don't see this occurring during the War of 1812, though.

The British would also ask Algiers, the most powerful of the Ottoman affiliated Barbary states

Regarding the above (1) the present conditional of 'would also' to be removed, and in principle replaced with 'had asked'. (2) Although that corrected the grammar, the content of page 41 does not document a request from the British to declare war. It was an unhappy coincidence for Madison that an Algerian declaration of war (on an as-yet undetermined date) occurred when war against the British commenced in 1812. It is interesting that any American shipping in the mediterranean were vulnerable to attack, as mentioned on page 170. It becomes clear that these subsequent attacks would lead to the second war in 1815. (The reservation I would have with the book by Brendan January as a reliable source is that it does not contain inline citations, so it is hard to determine the evidence behind his comments.)

The talk page is useful, for the debates that arise. This article has been in existence for over 20 years. I have not come across a concept of Algerian participation in my reading about the War of 1812. I think others will have opinions on whether this is a fringe idea, or whether it can remain.

Thank you for having been polite and clear in your communications on this topic, especially given that I gather that english is not your mother tongue. Keith H99 (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking through these, and I also fail to see a direct reference in these sources to where the British asked the Algerians to attack American shipping. I've also done some extra searching, and I can't see any other references to it - could be there (its not an area I know much about) but I can't see them. There are certainly attacks going on against US shipping at the same time, but nothing I can see to indicate the Brits asked them to. I note that the wiki article on the second Barbary wars discusses contact between the British King and the leader of Algiers, but does not say he was asking them to attack the US. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and belligerents, with Spain on the list

As things as they currently are, I have 3 observations

1. Strength of US Allies is only 125 Choctaw. Surely, there must be more numbers for the various tribes?
2. The Regency of Algiers has been added in good faith, but I do not think this should remain for much longer.
3. Spain is listed. Given the Peninsular War was taking place, it did not have the resources to actively intervene, to launch an offensive, in overseas territories. (Simon Bolivar took advantage of Spain's weakness at this time.) A jittery Governor of Pensacola, Mateo González Manrique had his territory and his neutrality violated by the British officer Edward Nicolls, then Jackson came along and violated the neutrality. When Nicolls left, he took half the Spanish garrison away, which was stranded elsewhere for the remainder of the conflict.

There is no declaration of war on the part of Spain against the US, or vice versa. There was effectively a border dispute with the Battle of Pensacola (1814), but the impotence of the Spanish was not going to see any ongoing conflict on their part.

I don't see the US Navy listed as pro-Arab forces in the Six Day War, and I don't see the Brazilian armed forces, or the Finns, as combatants in the War in the Pacific from 1942 to 1945.

Spain has been mentioned in passing in the past

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_22#Spain

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_20#Infobox

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:War_of_1812/Archive_8#Spain?%60

I think as it currently stands, it is misleading, and implies Spanish forces engaged from 1813 through 1814. I am only aware of the capture of Pensacola on November 7, 1814 as the one time Spanish forces were engaged against the US Army during the War of 1812. I don't think being sandwiched between the fiery and ill-tempered personalities of Jackson and Nicolls was a particularly appealing prospect! Keith H99 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Where one side fights two separate wars at the same time, it does not mean that they are the same war or that the belligerents against a common belligerents are cobelligerents - unless the sources explicitly tell us otherwise. That two things happen at the same time does not mean they are the one thing. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Per sources that I currently have available at hand (I'll find more later), but I've read about the British-Spanish alliance for years now.

"The Slaves Gamble: Choosing Sides in the War of 1812 by Gene Allen Smith (pg156)

"The rising fear that Andrew Jackson's army would soon descend on Pensascola convinced West Florida governor Mateo González Manrique to request British assistance, and within days the entire British Gulf force occupied Pensacola. Nicolls hoisted the Union Jack over the city in mid-August 1814 and declared himself the military commander of the city." Per Smith, the plan by Nicolls at Pensacola was to use the British forces (including the Colonial Marines), native tribes, and any available Spanish forces (with townspeople). The Spanish slaves were recruited from the city and this was a cause of friction because of their alliance.

"The Slaves Gamble: Choosing Sides in the War of 1812 by Gene Allen Smith (pg157)

"Cochrane had instructed Nicholls not to recruit Spanish slaves because Britain and Spain were then allies."

"The Maroons of Prospect Bluff and Their Quest for Freedom in the Atlantic World by Nathaniel Millett (pg47)

"“For centuries Spanish Florida had relied on blacks and Indians to defend itself against the aggressive encroachments of the British and the Anglo Americans. Now the Spanish were forced to rely on the British to defend them against the United States in an alliance that would have mystified earlier generations on both sides of the border." Millett notes that West Florida (Mobile) was mentioned by the British as part of the United States's violated of Article IX in the Treaty of Ghent.

"The Maroons of Prospect Bluff and Their Quest for Freedom in the Atlantic World by Nathaniel Millett (pg88)

“In the same month that the war officially ended, Alexander Cochrane expressed an opinion shared by many British politicians and military leaders when he wrote that Britain must take active measures, "for relieving West Florida from the usurped authority of the American Government (being a colony belonging to Spain) and at the same time to afford to the Indian Nations an opportunity of recovering territories of which they have been so unjustly deprived by the United States." The British feared an American Florida and wanted their Red Stick allies to recover the lands taken from them by the Treaty of Fort Jackson. These two goals were intertwined with the realization that a strong and well-armed Red Stick and Seminole presence in the Southeast represented the most realistic hope for Spain to maintain possession of the Floridas. With this in mind, the British encouraged the Red Sticks to endorse the Treaty of Ghent because of the inclusion of Article 9, calling for the restoration of Indian lands to their 1811 boundaries. Accordingly, Cochrane instructed Nicolls to "tell our Indian Allies that they have been included and that they are placed as to territory as they were in 1811 If the peace shall not be ratified, you will have a large reinforcement sent to you at Apalachicola."

"The Greatest Fury: The Battle of New Orleans and the Rebirth of America by William C. Davis" (pg333)

"In fact, Britain's existing alliances with Spain and the Indian tribes complicated adherence to Ghent's territorial provisions. Spain wanted a friendly buffer state between an expansionist United States and its colonial possessions in Texas, Mexico, East Florida, and that part of West Florida east of the Pearl River." Davis ends the paragraph with, "Returning New Orleans or any part of Louisiana defeated both goals and left the Americans poised to spread west across the Mississippi, and east to Spanish East Florida's doorstep. That could only complicate British relations with its Spaniard allies. It came down to the value Whitehall put on those alliance." Davis noted that forces on the ground (Colonel Thorton and Captain Roberts) planned to ransom New Orleans back to President Madison. Bathurst envisioned the possibility of keeping all or part of Louisiana indefinitely.

"The Greatest Fury: The Battle of New Orleans and the Rebirth of America by William C. Davis" (pg334)

"Whitehall repeatedly emphasized that the United States had no lawful title to Louisiana. It explicitly told Cochrane and Pakenham they could encourage Louisianans to seek independence from the United States or a return to Spanish dominion so long as they did not promise British assistance or alliance. Pakenham was actually told that New Orleans would probably be handed over to Spain, and Spaniards shared that expectation." Ironic Luck (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Britain and Spain were allied against France. I don’t believe there was an alliance against the US and none of the sources you have quoted remotely suggest that there was.--Ykraps (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Did France ever plan to attack Pensacola in 1814? I am aware of the British-Spanish alliance against the French. Jackson tested the neutrality of the local Spanish authorities at Pensacola with a flag of truce brought forth by Major Pierre, but he (Pierre) was immediately fired upon. Jackson additionally charged the local Spanish authorities with "providing shelter to British troops" (per Daughan) for his reasoning to storm Pensacola.

"1812: The War Nobody Won by Albert Martin" (pg142)

"As soon as the war began, the War Department asked Tennessee's governor for militia units to drive the British out of Florida. Florida at this time belonged to Spain, Britian's ally in the Napoleonic Wars. Although neutral in the American struggle, Spain went out of its way to be "neutral" in favor of Britain. The Royal Navy freely used Florida's harbors, especially Pensacola, as if they were home ports."

I would add Ronald Drez's book (which also called out the British-Spanish alliance), but I was informed that he is considered non-RS per the current Misplaced Pages standards.

Here is what I see as a reasonable change: "Spanish Floridas (1814)" instead of "Spain (1813)"

The Spanish military had abandoned the local Spanish authorities, but this was primarily due to their decline. Professor McDougall notes this in his book:

"Freedom Just Around the Corner: A New American History 1585-1828 by Walter A. McDougall" (pg423)

"The War of 1812 settled the matter. Britain held Canada, but failed to arrest the growth of the United States. Spain gripped her empire with no more than one legal finger. All Indians within reach were vanquished."

The sources that I note above clearly have it written that there was an alliance between the local Spanish authorities and the British government. And it seems more than coincidental that there were discussions related to U.S. territory upon that British-Spanish alliance. Ironic Luck (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I was, of course, referring to a formal Spanish-British alliance; an alliance between the governments of Spain and Britain, not a temporary co-operation between local authorities and British troops, against an American land-grab. I don’t see anything in your sources to suggest the former and, in fact, one specifically states that Spain was neutral in the American struggle.--Ykraps (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Martin noted that it was not really neutral, hence he used "neutral" with quotation marks in his book. Spain needed the British support and the local authorities asked for it. The British were driven out; this outcome also hurt their reputation among the allied-Creeks. The books that I cited do not refer to this as a "temporary co-operation." Personally, I see it as fair to change it to Spanish Floridas (1814) as they were the ones whom executed the support for the British. Ironic Luck (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Irrespective of Martin's confusion over what the terms of the neutrality were, he notes that they were neutral. Monroe also considered them neutral, writing to Jackson to tell him to not risk war with Spain. You are of course free to propose whatever changes you wish to the infobox. Personally, I would like to see an end to infoboxes entirely, not just here, simply because they cannot convey the whole story accurately.--Ykraps (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there is more merit with Spanish Florida (1814) than what there currently is. Keith H99 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The Patriot War, which took place at the same time as the War of 1812, appears to be so insignificant that it does not have a corresponding article in the Spanish language!!! Keith H99 (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the references posted here (I admit, I haven't read much on Spain and the war apart from this) it would seem Spain was officially neutral, so should be removed from the infobox as a belligerent. As a comparison, Ireland was officially neutral in WW2, even though it favoured the UK rather than German, but certainly isn't listed as a belligerent against Germany in the WW2 article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, as per User:Cinderella157's comment I had also assumed there must be more US native allies than just 125 Choctaw. I knew the numbers favoured the UK, but only 125???Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

replace "indian" with "indigenous"

in several parts of the artical, it says that indians are fighting in the war, and i think that if it is indeed people from india who are fighting, then add india to the list of nations in the war, but if that is not true then update it to "indigenous", "native americans", or something like that to reduce misconceptions (perhaps instead just specify where they were from?) - some bored kid at school (tell me about stuff here) 19:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"Add India to the nations" good one lol 2001:569:BEB5:AB00:FC81:463C:EE39:4D81 (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's been discussed, many many times before. Have a read of this discussion for a bit of background. This is just ONE of many discussions - for more do a search through the archives. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "house" and "senate"

Em3rgent0rdr, the house and the senate per Merriam-Webster are often used in capitalized form as the shortened name of a specific house such as in the US Congress. Proper nouns are always capitalised - not just often. These are not examples of proper nouns|names. While they may often be capped, this does not mean that capitalisation is necessary per the general advice at MOS:CAPS. Capitalisation of such shortened forms is sometimes done for significance but per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we don't do that. MOS:INSTITUTIONS more specifically addresses this issue and tells us not to cap in such instances. The matter of capitalising shortened forms of formal names has been specifically discussed here and rejected by the community. We have our own style guide to follow. You reversion to capitalise these words here is quite contrary to guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INSTITUTIONS literally says "Also treat as a proper name a shorter but still specific form, consistently capitalized in reliable generalist sources (e.g., US State Department or the State Department, depending on context)." Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Please explain the relevance of your comments to the article. TFD (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The relevance is explained by the edit reversion linked. These are not comparable to a still specific form per example given. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Notified at WT:MOSCAPS. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"Americans were able to end the impressment of their citizens"

I noticed this in the historiography section. Of course, the US didn't end impressment, this is a bit of a misconception - the Brits dropped it because they no longer needed sailors because the war with Napoleon was going well. When the US asked for it to be dropped as policy at the Treaty of Ghent, the Brits refused, and the US ratified the treaty anyway.

If this para is saying that American Historians believe this to be the case, then may be the wording needs to be changed to reflect that, but presently this is basically repeating a misnomer and is misleading. It's also unsourced.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like a case when one should never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's what whoever added it to the article was thinking!Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It stopped simply because the Royal Navy did not want to pay for sailors it did not need. The right to press however was retained until superseded by conscription at the start of WWI. There was a slight change to the law in 1836 to prevent anyone being pressed more than once and to limit the service of a pressed man to five years but the right to press was very much reiterated. It was never the intention to press Americans (which would have been illegal) but of course there were some mistakes. The British compensated and repatriated 3,800 of those taken after they were found to be American citizens. Do you have a suggestion for rewriting that particular sentence? --Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thanks for that extra detail, I knew it was kept on the books for potential use for a while after, but wasn't sure of the details. My point of course is that the US didn't somehow force the UK to end Impressment. Simplest thing is just to remove the reference.

Current wording: With the failure of the invasion of British Canada advancing the concept of Canadian identity, and of Canada as a distinct :: region that would continue to evolve into a nation. Americans were able to end the impressment of their citizens and enforce their sovereignty. Both the restoration of honor and what has been called the Second War of Independence are important themes in American historiography, and are considered significant results by historians. Indigenous nations are generally held to have lost in the war.

Suggested rewording:

With the failure of the invasion of British Canada advancing the concept of Canadian identity, Canada remained a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation. Americans were able to enforce their sovereignty, and both the restoration of honor and what has been called the Second War of Independence are important themes in American historiography, and are considered significant results by historians. Indigenous nations are generally held to have lost in the war.

Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I can get behind that. Seems simplest because no extra sourcing is required. --Ykraps (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Good for me. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll replace it, thanks everyone. I think its a pretty obvious change to make, not controversial. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That section is an excerpt from the Historiography page (it maps the text from there) so I had to change it on that page.All sorted. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove Spain from British allies as no xitaiton so dubious claim 64.189.18.51 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: There are plenty of references in the article's body to back up the claim. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 05:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

There is an ongoing conversation active above about this issue, if you would wish to join that. But as per CanonNi, perhaps read the other discussions held previously before commenting, as there has been a few discussions about this topic over the years. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2024

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at War of 1812. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Spanish alliy Calum requires a citation. 64.189.18.46 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ligaturama (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use Canadian English
• B-Class level-4 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-4 vital articles in History
• B-Class vital articles in History
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• C-Class Canadian military history articles
• Canadian military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• C-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• C-Class Napoleonic era articles
• Napoleonic era task force articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• B-Class United States military history articles
• B-Class United States History articles
• High-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Canada-related articles
• High-importance Canada-related articles
• B-Class Ontario articles
• High-importance Ontario articles
• B-Class Quebec articles
• High-importance Quebec articles
• B-Class History of Canada articles
• High-importance History of Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• B-Class United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• B-Class Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• Low-importance Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• B-Class European history articles
• Low-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests