Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cinderella157 (talk | contribs) at 10:45, 6 December 2024 (→Infobox: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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). Subject of the Research

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.

Flagicons

The flagicons should not be removed from the infobox because, as another user pointed out, per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: "Situations where flag icons may be used in infoboxes include...Summarizing military conflicts" Along with this infobox being a infobox that summarizes a military conflict, the flagicons also serve a useful purpose by showing the flags flown by each of the countries in the war, which is a case of the flagicons conveying "information in addition to the text." Wowzers122 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. INFOBOXFLAG is pretty straight forward that situations like this are the exact moment to use the flag icons. There are multiple factions on each side, the flag icon next to the commanders helps out as well. Its also common for any and all articles on military conflicts to have flagicons, and its seems pedantic to the point of sticking out to erroneously demand that not be used in this article. Friedbyrd (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• While MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS is permissive of flags for conflict boxes, they must still serve a useful purpose when they are used - ie their use is conditional and must not be primarily decorative. As Moxy observes, these are small images most people can't see. They are not sufficiently clear to show the differences in flags that may occur with time and therefore, are not capable of showing the flags flown by each of the countries in the war at the time. This rational is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the guidance.

Flags can serve a useful purpose when there are two or more belligerents on one or more of the sides and they act as a key (shorthand) for information pertaining to the specific belligerents in different sections of the infobox. There are multiple belligerents in this case but most of the belligerents do not have national flags. Consequently, flags are not able to effectively serve this purpose and other devices are being relied upon - eg the names themself are sufficiently distinctive to indicate the allegiance of commanders. The flags are therefore redundant and are not fulfilling a useful purpose here.

Note, the use of the Spanish flag is inappropriate/misleading per the discussion above regarding Spain. I had made a response to this effect earlier but for whatever reason, it didn't actually appear. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Include Reference to Napoleonic Wars in infobox

The previous status quo has been to include reference to the Napoleonic Wars in the infobox, as most historians consider it either to have been a theater of or at least been importantly related to the Napoleonic Wars. However, this seems to have become controversial recently among some Misplaced Pages users. This section is to discuss, argue, and form a consensus as to whether this connection should be present in the infobox of this article or not. I for one Support the continued inclusion of "Napoleonic Wars" in the "part of" section do to the large historical consensus that the War of 1812 was directly related to, impacted by, and had an impact on the Napoleonic Wars (as a most conservative argument, many more ascribe it the status of a theater in itself). In fact, on the Napoleonic Wars article itself, the War of 1812 is described as a subsidiary war. AvRand (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Mere longevity is the weakest and often worst form of consensus. You need to cite a source that describes the War of 1812 as one of the Napoleonic Wars, not merely as being related to or contemporaneous with them. The fact that another article says something is not itself the substance of an argument—cf. WP:BEENHERE and WP:OTHERCONTENT. I also think its inclusion there is mistaken, but it even says on Napoleonic Wars merely that The War of 1812 coincided with the War of the Sixth Coalition. There is no source cited there attesting that it is actually considered subsidiary Remsense ‥ 论 10:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify your position User:Remsense, are you against the inclusion because your interpretation of history differs, or only because you don't feel it's at the moment properly sourced? AvRand (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here—like always, we write articles based on what reliable sources say. Remsense ‥ 论 10:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well from what I understand, most sources acknowledge the important connection between the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars, so I'm asking if your interpretation of history differs, and that's your issue (historians do often disagree) , or if, if properly sourced, you will be satisfied and drop your argument? AvRand (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I stated it pretty clearly above: You need to cite a source that describes the War of 1812 as one of the Napoleonic Wars, not merely as being related to or contemporaneous with them. It is the |partof= parameter, not the |relatedto= parameter. That would get you started at least —we generally only include information in the infobox if it's a critical fact attested in many sources, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Remsense ‥ 论 11:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I also request that you self-revert, as you are mistaken about what WP:BURDEN says. Remsense ‥ 论 11:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The present version is still misusing the |partof= parameter in a way that is nonstandard and thus potentially misleading. It should also be noted that the other editor below would prefer its removal from the infobox also, so if you're willing to assess consensus by what editors are presently saying, you're insisting against consensus. Remsense ‥ 论 11:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Since France was not involved in the war, and the U.S. was not involved in the wars between France and the UK it's not clear that it was part of a war between France and the UK. It's better to explain the connection in the body of the article rather than put it into the info-box. TFD (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this has been discussed before here in 2008 on this article and here in 2016 on the Napoleonic Wars article. I'm not sure that either discussion resulted in what could be considered consensus.

Whether or not to count the War of 1812 as a Napoleonic War seems to be sort of inconsistent across Misplaced Pages:

• The Napoleonic Wars article has it as a "subsidiary war"
• The Napoleonic Wars campaignbox template puts it essentially on equal footing with the Coalition Wars (though this is obviously a bit strange).
• The battle map on the Napoleonic Wars page (not sure how to link it directly) only includes conflicts in Europe, so not the War of 1812.

I think this argument essentially has as much to do with the definition of "part of" as the definition of "Napoleonic Wars" so it's difficult to support with sources. I like the "relates to" phrasing in the current edit, but as User:Remsense mentioned, the definition provided for |partof= at Template:Infobox military conflict doesn't necessarily support this. Overall I'd say I'm currently against including this change in the infobox but I think it could make sense to add more detail on the relation between this war and the Napoleonic Wars in the content of the article itself. Rovenrat (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter what other unsourced content someone else added to another article. Remsense ‥ 论 12:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

True, I don't mean to imply that as a reason to make a decision one way or another here, just that it's not unusual or nonsensical for editors to categorize things this way. And the listing of the War of 1812 as a "subsidiary war" isn't unsourced, though I don't have access to the book to look through the exact language used there. Rovenrat (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I did check the book. (And yes, it was fast, since I perused the index, in case anyone was wondering.) There are no such claims; it is a history of the period that discusses affairs in an interwoven, transatlantic manner as the title would suggest, but does not make any of the claims or characterizations that are at issue here. Remsense ‥ 论 12:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I would dispute that characterization, the book shows a link between the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars AvRand (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• The War of 1812 is related to the Napoleonic Wars but not part of them. The spirit and intent of the template documentation is quite clear as is the inherent wording of the parameter - it is to indicate the parent conflict. So, no related to. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• "part of" and "(importantly) related to" are not synonymous - support exclusion per Remsense. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

While we're here with me thankfully not catching a time-out for this morning's mania, I did triple-check that subtenancy to Sixty Years' War was correct—though that made far more intuitive sense to begin with. (I ought to work on this article with my Canadian peers alongside others with my Vietnamese, Filipino, and Afghan peers—so I can contribute to the entire gamut of blunderful Ls within my country's military history.)— Remsense ‥ 论 05:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

While Remsense has made many errors in the procedure of this, fortunately enough editors have weighed in to form a consensus regardless. As the large majority opinion seems to be in favor of leaving out a connection to the Napoleonic Wars in the infobox, I will defer to this consensus. I still would be in favor of adding a small section to dive deeper into the (indisputable) inter-relatedness between the two conflicts in the body though. Thanks to all who weighed in! AvRand (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we give the americans an image of their outfits?

While the British have an image for their outfits in that era, The Americans don't. can we change that so we can see what the Americans looked like in the war of 1812?

(I'm fine if someone responds with yes or no.) Thomasthetankenginefan123 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

@Remsense

About the revert:

I understand why it was reverted (I'd be guessing likely due to the "Both sides claim victory" and "Native American defeat" parts), but I don't exactly know why everything was removed?

Even though I obviously shouldn't have added some of the information I did decide to add, other things I added such as other casualties surely shouldn't have been removed? Setergh (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The changes to the result parameter are contrary to WP:RESULT. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is not a place for detail. It is there to summarise key facts from the article. The article should remain complete without the infobox. The casualty section is a mess and quite contrary to the guidance. Your edits there only take things from bad to worse. We should be writing such things into the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:45, 6 December 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