Talk:War of 1812#Comment

{{Article history

|action1=FAC

|action1date=21:45, 1 Mar 2004

|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2003 to January 2004#War of 1812

|action1result=not promoted

|action1oldid=2656291

|currentstatus=FFAC|otd1date=2004-06-18|otd1oldid=5183737

|otd2date=2005-06-18|otd2oldid=16335262

|otd3date=2006-06-18|otd3oldid=59282357

|otd4date=2007-06-18|otd4oldid=139049076

|otd5date=2010-12-24|otd5oldid=404073187

|otd6date=2018-06-18|otd6oldid=846376866

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|Canadian-task-force=yes|North-American-task-force=yes|British=yes|Napoleonic=yes|US=yes

|B1 =no|B2 =yes|B3 =yes|B4 =yes|B5 =yes}}

{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=high|USMIL=yes}}

{{WikiProject Canada|importance=High|on=yes|qc=yes|history=yes|military=yes}}

{{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America|importance=Low}}

}}

{{Press

| author = Jensen, Richard.

| title = Military History On The Electronic Frontier: Wikipedia Fights The War Of 1812." Journal Of Military History 76.4

| org =

| url = http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF

| date = October 2012

| quote = Subject of the Research

| accessdate =

}}

{{Tmbox|text=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 Wikipedia: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.

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K

|counter = 29

|minthreadsleft = 2

|algo = old(15d)

|archive = Talk:War of 1812/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index

|mask=/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes

}}

Last sentence of the lead

As of right now, it looks like this:

"In early 1815, American troops led by Andrew Jackson repulsed a major British attack on New Orleans, which occurred during the ratification process of the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, which brought an end to the conflict."

As I was reading the article, I personally found this repetition quite unpleasant to voice in my mind. Hence, I removed the second "which" by separating the last clause into an independent sentence. My edit, though, was reverted for "not improving anything". On the one hand, I am quite willing to contest this notion, but either away, I believe the sentence should revised some way. Daminb 18:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:"The Treaty of Ghent was signed in December 1814, though it would be February before word reached the United States and the treaty was fully ratified. In the interim, American troops led by Andrew Jackson repulsed a major British attack on New Orleans."

:Thoughts? There already are a lot of wikilinks but I do think Jackson deserves the one I propose adding.--Noren (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for replying, @Noren. I personally like it a lot. Daminb 14:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, this reads better and should replace the current version. Anonymoususer95 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Anonymoususer95 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

George Cockburn's role in the War of 1812?

He was involved in commanding a number of Royal Navy operations and also planned, directed, and participated in the Capture and Burning of Washington. Is it worth considering adding him the belligerent list? 9mm.trilla (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd agree it's worth considering, I'm not arguing against him in particular. The trouble is that the belligerents list tends to grow over time as it tends to be easy to add and more challenging to remove. The template recommends no more than seven persons be mentioned in that field, and the recent practice here has been to conform with that. The infobox is quite long and a summary cannot contain everything. So, if you are given a constraint of seven names, which of the current names do you think should be removed to make room for Cockburn? --Noren (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)