Talk:The Results of the War of 1812
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Merger Discussion
Separating the "Results" section from the War article doesn't make sense to me... I would opine that the "Results" article should instead be incorporated into the "War" article. Should there be a separate "Results" article for each and every "War" article? - CHC 6 Aug 2006
MERGE - should be merged but at least a paragraph summary should remain in the War of 1812 article. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 22:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Support --taras 03:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's not vote. As long as there are no substantive objections I think we should go forward with the merge.—thames 22:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Is this going to be moved at all? because it needs to be. As noted below alot of the text is substrated directly from the 'references'. It either needs to be moved or be put up as NPOV / WP:Cleanup. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 13:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Support --chrisgeorge 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Support with attention to the copyright issue raised below. -- Alarob 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hard to see why there should be two separate articles one which includes a section on "Results" of the war and the other one "Consequences." It would seem to me to make more sense to have all together in one place, so I vote to merge them.
Hard to see why they wouldnt be together. Who came up with that?
chris id just like to point out somthing i think that should be changes "The United States had faced near disaster in 1814, but the victories at the Battle of New Orleans" new orleans was fough after the peace treaty
- Done Civil Engineer III 15:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright infringements?
It looks to me that the references for this article are NOT just references - entire paragraphs have been copied from several of them --JimWae 06:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Problems with Indian section
The section provides an extremely distorted, if not racist, description of American relations with First Nations. It contains three references to "Indian threats" when these "threats" may not have existed and if they did, it would have been Native people defending their land from encroachment.
It also makes the incorrect statement that most Indians were "removed from the Great Lakes region." In fact, many Native Americans continue to live around the Great Lakes on and off reservations in the United States and reserves in Canada. While it would be correct to say they were moved to reserves/reservations in the region, it is wrong to say most were removed from the region.Tingkai 10:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- does Tingkai think the Indian threats existed, or did they not exist and were a figment of the imagination? Rjensen 08:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sacking of Washington?
Why no mention of the sacking of Washington? The burning of the White House? or the American loss at Bladensburg? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.148.106.90 (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- it was easy to rebuild the government buildings; and paint the presidential mansion White. America knew all about losing its national capital--the Brits did it several times in 1777-8. Rjensen 09:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opening Paragraph
Why is the policy of Impressment mentioned as an outcome of the war, when this was suspended prior to the war and was not an element of the Treaty of Ghent? This unduly serves to justify & portray the war in a positive light, by incorrectly claiming a positive outcome. Fehrgo 22:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Re-reading this, it would seem to be a simple victim of bad wording. It should be emphasized that the policy was suspended independently of the war, and that the war did not play in to this event. Fehrgo 22:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- impressment was NOT suspended in 1812 -- only after Napoleon was defeated in 1814. (some of the restrictions on trading with France were meant)Rjensen 08:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
