Template:Vital article

	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

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia'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. 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) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Military history / History B‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada: Ontario / Quebec / History / Military B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indigenous peoples of North America B‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archive index

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

the American gave head in action is listed at 2,200 which is completely false. The source is Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures which is known to be a terrible book filled with inaccuracies. If you tally American killed on all the pages on Wikipedia as well as other engagements not on Wikipedia the number comes to around 3,300. Bernner (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you are going to make a change on the page, be sure to actually update/remove the prior source you are replacing, because your prior edit changed the content without changing the citation (which would lead to confusion for the reader if they needed to track down the figures).

In saying that, if you have a contention with the cited content, please provide an actual reliable source for said figures (keep in mind, Wikipedia is a reflection of what is published on reliable sources). We do not use other Wikipedia articles as a source/citation, as that would be inappropriate self-referencing (per WP:CIRCULAR). Additionally, we do not surmise our own conclusions by combining figures from multiple soures as that would be considered original research and something not verified by secondary sources (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for details on that). Generally speaking (not just for this article) you should not be combining/synthesizing the figures from different sources (given how there differing standards of what is counted, etc.), let alone from Wikipedia (as that's self-referential). Leventio (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leventio So you would rather false information? From a reputabley terrible source for everyone to see and believe. 198.2.84.25 (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how you've managed to misconstrue a statement that is informing someone to update/remove the source as meaning to use unrepetuable ones, but allow me to reiterate, because you've clearly misunderstood what I said.

If you clearly read my first sentence (Firstly, if you are going to make a change on the page, be sure to actually update/remove the prior source you are replacing.), it's clear that I would rather there be any source to begin with than none at all, as the aforementioned editor provided zero citations, and did not replace the prior "unreputable" source for his new figures (thus leaving readers unable to trace the source for the figure provided... which would make them unable to even discern the credibility of a source to begin with). If you notice I also specifically said "update/remove", so at no point did I say they can't remove the old cited figure, only that they need to update/remove the old citation if they are updating the figure.

And if you clearly read my second paragraph, I am explaining what qualifies as a reputable source. And while we're on the topic of reputable sources, if what you're major contention with my last statement is that you agree with the way the last editor retrieved their figures, then I'd really love to hear your defence of original research and why you'd think an anonymous editor's own opinion is considered reliable sourcing. Leventio (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article states more often than not that the cause of the war was British actions. The historians quoted supporting this view, however, are all American and their objectivity is obviously questionable.

Needs a discussion as to whether this is an American-centric article and should be more neutral as per Wikipedia guidelines. Sheppey Red (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Provide examples, because I don't see a real problem.

There is a wide variety of opinions in the United States on the War of 1812. U.S. historians Ronald Drez and Troy Bickham clearly don't share the same opinion of this war. Same with U.S. historians Donald Hickey and George Daughan.

I would like to know why Benn and Lambert are still quoted on the main article. Lambert is just a Royal Naval enthusiast with very heavy anti-American rhetoric who failed to research the land campaign. Benn's information is better but very outdated; the book is not nearly as informative as Taylor or Toll.

American-centric would be that the United States won. The main article is far from that perspective. I would argue that the article gives too much emphasis to the Canadas based on modern popular perception. Ironic Luck (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is often screamed that this article is tilted. One gentleman took it as a personal crusade to have the article state that the British won for 13 years. Throughout the report, we took pains to present the facts and only the facts without commentary of any sort. While a small war, it is a complex one. Some Canadians would swear on a stack of bibles that American greed was the only reason the war started. Some Americans insist that since we kept the country whole, we won. However, there is ample documentation on both the American Government of the time and the British that maritime trade was the issue.

The object of contention over the last 15 years that I have been involved as an editor on this article has been the outcome section. There are and remain wars that do not lend themselves as a won/lost outcome. This war was one of them. Having read through the letters and memorandum of both governments, it becomes apparent that both sides wanted out of a war that had no chance of ever ending outside of a settlement.

As with the American Revolutionary War, trying to supply and equip an army for continuous operations from across the Atlantic Ocean was all but impossible in the age of sail. Moreover, the lack of a good transportation network crippled any offensive operation from either side of the US/Canadian border. Further, the one edge the British enjoyed in land operations, a professional military, had disappeared when American professional military formations began appearing.

British proponents will point with pride the accomplishments of the Royal Navy. Rightly so. But, America didn't need trade as anything but a profit center. As I have repeatedly stated, neither side ever concluded a successful offensive campaign.

From the long view, the America of 1812 was unwilling to change society to field a large professional army and build a road network to enable a successful Canadian campaign. That same lack kept the British from accomplishing attempts to move forward with such ended in disasters. The two sides were like drunken boxers able to hurt one another but never force a conclusion.Tirronan (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]