Talk:American Revolutionary War

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Talk:American Revolutionary War is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Revolutionary War article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, an attempt to better organise and expand information in articles related to the British Empire. For more information, visit the project page or check the talk page for on going discussions.
Good article American Revolutionary War was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
To-do list for American Revolutionary War:  · history · watch · refresh

Related articles needing attention:
Archive
Archives
1 2 3 4 5 
   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.128.139 (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice
 This article focuses on the military campaign, while the American Revolution covers the origins of the war, as well as other social and political issues.

Please try to keep this article at a reasonable length. The current approach has been to summarize the war in a way that will be clearly understandable to the general reader, without cluttering it up with too many details. Concentrate on the major figures and actions, and try to leave detailed discussion of war strategies, battle casualties, historical debates, etc. to linked articles about specific battles or actions.

Instead of adding additional detail to this lengthy article, consider adding your information to an article on a specific battle, or to one of these campaign articles currently in development. Additionally, one campaign, Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga (box at right), does not yet have an article specifically about those operations. Perhaps you will start it Miguel!

v • d • e

Contents

NPOV

Reading this article it looks like the US won the war solo, with some assistance (which was mostly inept) from some other countries, one of which happened to be France. This is evident in the introduction and throughout the article. The introduction is particularly blatant, mentioning non-American intervention only as an after thought. Should the WWI and WWII articles mention American intervention as an afterthought too? Am I the only one to think this is a problem? Codik (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the intro so that it is less laughable. Codik (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

I think that the casualty figures in this article are incorrect, as 25,000 Americans died in all, and 24,000 British and their allies.

==Americans naturally fickle and disloyal in 2008==

Do you think it would be fair to suggest that 'Americans' today are fickle and naturally more likely to lean towards being disloyal to their nation because of their descendants ? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that any conclusion of that sort would be strictly original research, as I think you'd be extremely hard pressed to find any reliable sources to back it up, I'd say a pretty resounding no. GlassCobra 08:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All pants and no trousers?

Aka All Victory & No Losses

The opening statement refers constantly to rebel victories but not their numerous losses which themselves were strategically significant, please edit accordingly or I can. Twobells (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Commanders

I am not sure what the criteria for listing commanders in the infobox. While some of the American ones are more famous, they are not necessarily the highest ranking commanders. For example, John Paul Jones was only a Capitan, and while considered father of the American Navy, and more famous than Esek Hopkins, Hopkins was Commander in Chief of the Fleet during the entire war. Rds865 (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Hopkins was not the commander for the entire war, only about half of it. But I do see what you're saying, and I do believe John Paul Jones has no purpose being on the list of main commanders in the warbox. He was no different than the several other Continental Navy captains except in that he was marginally more successful than most of his colleagues. He had no overall command position than that of his own vessel, when he even had one. Auror (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Worldwide View Box"

Americans? No such thing at the time

I have started replacing the term 'american' for 'rebel' and 'insurgent' for 'patriot' as that is how both the US, the UK and the UN describe armed civilians attempting to overthrow the legitimate government. From the UN's point of view they are happy with those descriptions and do not consider the wordage partisan, however, I am happy to change it to 'unlawful combatant' if preferred.Twobells (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true previous to to July 4, 1776 but after that they were Americans. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

I have restored the orignal text changed by Twobells. In fact, terms such as "Americans" and "patriots" are used commonly in reliable, professional historical works of the era. I also changed a few other POV terms employed by Twobells. 21st Century political decisions on terminology are irrelevant to works describing events in the 18th Century -- historians trump government officials on matters of historical scholarship. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Good points. I support your restoration of the conventional, familiar terms. Not only are they accepted by respected scholars, but reinterpreting or rewriting history would not seem to be a proper function of Wikipedia. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually there was such thing as american in 1776. The british themselves called the colonist americans in 1759. On the plains there war the Royal American who were actually german but who were colonist. So the word american was not strange to them. [1] (Plains2007 (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

The problem is that while a valid word in the 18th century "American" also included Canadians and often those colonists from the Carribean as well. The use of American in this article often fails to distinguish between pro-independence and anti-independence factions. To call the rebel colonists 'Patriots' is POV. While the term has popular usage in the United States, it is largely unknown outside. A more balanced compromise term should be used Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, American is widely attested before 1759, at which point it did not include Canadians; Jamaicans and Bermudians are a minor complication. Calling one side in this war Patriots is common usage, and (in Dr. Johnson's sense) comtemporary usage; their opponents called themselves Loyalists, as they are still called. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really object to Americans being used exclusively to mean inhabitants of the 13 colonies, as this is logical if a little simplistic. The two things I strongly object to are the use of the word American to imply the pro-independence faction (as in:

Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans Colonel James Livingston led the 1st Canadian Regiment at the Battle of Quebec (1775) and Moses Hazen led the 2nd Canadian Regiment to support the American cause at the Battle of Saint-Pierre. They both continued to fight for the Americans until the end of the war.

which completly ignores the role of American Loyalists in the war. It hijacks the word 'American' to apply exclusively to the pro-independence cause. The second thing I object to is the use of Patriot, which is POV, and lacks international perspective. Outside of the United States the term 'Patriot' to describe the rebel colonists is almost entirely unheard of and unused. The article needs a better term to describe the pro-indepedence cause other than patriot or American, both of which are highly contentious. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Highly contentious" to whom? Is there some raging debate among historians about the use of the terms "patriot" or "American" as commonly used by reliable, professional, historical sources? Why don't you tell us which leading scholars of the American Revolution refrain from using the term "American" in their works and we can compare those folks with those who do. Do you disagree that the majority of the leading historians of the Revolution are American? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the fact the majority of historians on the subject are American, but it doesn't just make it automaticlly correct terminoligy for an international wikipedia. The use of the term "American" to describe pro-independence forces might seem natural and comforting to some modern Americans, but it ignores the complex civil war-like nature of the conflict. Loyalists were not any less Americans because they did not support seperation. The term Patriot is a POV expression that is essentially used in one country alone. By contrast to many of the British, Irish,Canadians and West Indians they were simply rebels. I am not advocating that the pro-independence forces be called rebels, but rather that a more neutral name is used. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "comfort" -- it is a matter of accurately presenting the views of the leading historians on the American Revolution. Historians are quite capable of using the term "American" in the same way it is used in this article and still address "the complex civil war-like nature of the conflict". You dodge my question which is very relevant to this issue. Let me repeat it -- Why don't you tell us which leading scholars of the American Revolution refrain from using the term "American" in their works and we can compare those folks with those who do.
As I said elsewhere, your use of the tag is inappropriate. If you go to the applicable project page you will see that it clearly says:
"Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that 'Patriot' is modified to a more neutral term in the article. I am not suggesting that it it was not a term used by some of the pro-independence supporters to describe themselves, nor am I disputing that it is clearly the most common term used in the United States today. What I am highlighting is its widespread lack of usage outside the United States. It is also a POV term, which makes it unsuitable for this article.

Your question regarding the listing of books is a red herring. It would come back to the same point you have already made about there being more American books about the subject. Your argument essentially comes down to "the United States is bigger, so it should have its way on this subject", ignoring the fact that this is an international wikipedia that covers the entire world.

With all due respect, many leading American historians use the words English and British interchangibly, seemingly unaware that the two are not the same thing. This does not exactly fill me with confidence when it comes to their abillity in defining the term "American" in the complex civil war context that existed during the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Patriot and Loyalist are equally traditional, and equally neutral; if we dispose of both, we will have to invent our own terms for the two sides, which is contrary to policy. The charge of confusion cuts both ways; I have seen a British life of Lord North which used jerrymander of the efforts to keep Wilkes out of the House, an error alike in meaning and in etymology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Patriot is either traditional or neutral, but I recognise that the place to discuss that is over at the [[Patriot (American Revolution) article. The major point I would still like to make regarding this article is the use of the term American to describe the pro-independence cause which ignores the portion of the population who were either anti-independece or simply neutral. I think the article should change all reference to the "American" cause to something cleary indentifying it to the pro-independence supporters.

  • It is certainly traditional; the OED finds its first quotation, in that sense of "resistance fighter", from Franklin in 1773, and cites British sources for the general sense. It should be intelligible to a Commonwealth reader; it is defined here and widely used; and in any case, this article, being strongly associated with the United States, is properly in American English.
  • It is no less neutral than Loyalist, which we must use, unless we go to the actually traditional Tory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand the jerrymander point as it just re-directs to gerrymander. Thats just a mildly different spelling that wouldn't be contentious (I'd have thought), and to be honest I didn't know there were two different spellings until you pointed it out but like color/colour it doesn't change the nature of the word. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is (like many redirects) an allowance for a common misspelling. The source of gerrymander is Elbridge Gerry; see the OED's first and fourth quotations for the noun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article clearly thats true, which is why the word Jerrymander re-directs to Gerrymander but I don't see how much that affects this article or the debate over the use of the terms 'patriot' and 'american' to mean the pro-independence supporters during the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not to be settled by dismissing the historians of one of the nations involved for blanket inaccuracy; both have had problems. (As for the actual complaint made: references to North, or Cornwallis, or Clinton, as English rather than British are mere accuracy; they were.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I might have been a bit hasty in offering such a blanket dismissal of US historians purely on those grounds for which I apoligose, but I was responding to what I felt was an unfair dismissal of the opinions of non-Americans just because there are less of them. There are many fine American historians on the subjects. While references to the English Army, English Navy, War with England (when they clearly mean Britain) that slightly their credibillity in my eyes, but these are matters of incorrect terminology rather than serious historical dispute.

On a point of interest, Henry Clinton was actually born in Newfoundland and grew up in New York where his father was Governor. When he went to Britain to join the Army aged 13 he was generally considered an American but Cornwallis and Lord North were, as you point out, essentially Englishmen.

I feel we are getting sidetracked a bit, althrough I have learned a bit about gerrymander for which I thank you (I had always thought the term came from Ireland, but I think I was confusing it with boycotting). I am going to start a new discussion topic at the bottom of the page as the points I am raising do not fall under the present title. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Why the colonists weren't "Americans"

All pants and no trousers, sometimes certain groups of people can only see a situation oneway, and not the other.

Example; Let's say you home state or region, which ofcourse you are very proud of, breaks off and becomes an independant nation- due to polictical reasons, (the otehr kept electing GWB types) or taxes, or whatever, think of any unfair situation that stokes your flame, despite wanting this autonomy - you would still be an American, would you not? You just want what is fair to you and yours, and whilst your state gets sucked dry in order to fund already thriving areas hundreds/thousands of miles away, you're left in the crap. So the fight begins, and you get your independence. Are you still an American? ofcourse you are. Think about it. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Use of the term American to describe pro-independence cause

In several places the article uses the term "American" to describe the pro-independence Americans, including in the opening paragraph when an 'American' victory is described at Saratoga. Further on in the article there is a sub-heading "Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans". This represents a hijacking of the term "American" to mean exclusive pro-indepdence. The word American should be qaulified with another such as "Seperatist" or "pro-independence" Americans distinguishing them from the anti-independence Americans who made up a large portion of the population. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, let's ignore the terminology used by (1) Americans during the Revolution, (2) the British during the Revolution, and (3) the leading historians of the American Revolution and make up a phrase to be used exclusively on Wikipedia. Bad idea. Please give us examples of leading historians of the era who do not use "Americans" as a stand alone term in preference for your suggested terms. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What harm is there in qaulifying the use of American on this page to make clear we mean pro-independence Amercicans? I am not suggesting we do not use the term American, but rather that it is accompanied by something to make clear which Americans we are speaking of. The use of the term 'American' seems to imply that the Loyalists were a tiny remnant allied to the British, who had turned their back on the overwhelming majority of their Americans who supported independence and thrown their lot in with an invading army of a foreign country (Britain) which is erroneous. It seems to imply that after the 1776 declaration of independence (and indeed, even earlier) those supporting a break had a monopoly on the term American.

I am not requesting this be changed to something pejorative such as "rebels" or "American rebels", I am simply asking that this article better acknowledge the complexities of the Loyalist Vs Seperatist factions of what was in many senses a civil war within the British empire rather than the "America" + allies Vs British + allies that seems to predominate on wikipedia and in many history books. I don't see how it would hurt. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then would including the Loyalist units in the order of battle in Armies, militias, and mercenaries be enough for now? We should do this anyway, but I don't have a figure at hand. There must be an example that used American as their unit name. I don't think presenting this as an Empire-wide civil war is necessarily helpful; Burke and Dunning and Fox were loyal to the Crown, while opposing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Lord C -- You are the one who wants to change the status quo -- you need more of an argument than "what harm will it do?"
There are over a dozen references to Loyalists throughout the article and they are listed in the summary box as one of the belligerents. The way to discuss "the complexities of the Loyalist Vs Seperatist" is to add, in an appropriate article (there is a separate article on the Loyalists), a documented narative that explains those "complexities" not already in that article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord C, is this an effort to make our British readers feels better? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC) ]

Could this issue not be remedied in the article by use of the term United States instead of American. I understand there has been quite a long running saga over the use of 'American' on wikipedia about whether it should be used to describe those from the United States of America or whether it should be used to refer to those from the Americas as a whole. This would serve as a compromise for that issue as well. Surely no objection could be made to the replacement of "American" with the United States?
It does seem a little too simplistic to brand it as a straight "American" vs Britain conflict as the War of 1812 was), through this is not a big problem outside of the repeated use of "American" to mean pro-independence. The article actually is not too bad on the Loyalists, but could have a little more info. I will try to get some more resources about the Loyalist units who fought - I definetly know the Royal American Rangers were a regiment and remained so after the war, becoming the 60th foot of the British Army.
Althrough I have taken the user name Lord Cornwallis and despite the fact that I was born in in London - I am actually a Canadian Citizen with a great deal of Irish blood. I am genuinely trying to veiw this from an international perspective. I am neutral with regards the outcome for the war. I am not bothered who won, and IMO the two sides should have compromised before it ever reached war. It wasn't worth a drop of blood, British/Canadian/German/Irish or American - but that is all by the bye.
I hope this isn't being interpreted as an anti-US vendetta. I personally tend to sympathise with many of the pro-independence Americans aims (not those to do with slavery or the issue of the Native Americans) but rather that away from the over-the-top hyperbole about freedom they were raising serious points about the nature of goverment in the British Empire. I am admirer of William Pitt the Younger who took a similar line. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The use of United States would often be a positive error, on two grounds:
  • It is certainly wrong for the first fifteen months of the war, before July 4, 1776.
  • It is wrong for the several occasions in which the forces on one side belonged to an individual State (or other unit), not the United States.
It is also seriously misleading. The Government of the United States now extant did not come into existence until six years after the war; it is hard enough now to make clear that the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation were not the present Congress of the United States. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Then I return to my previous suggestion of qaulifying every use of American with an indication of whether it is talking of loyalists or republican Americans. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I should prefer not to. (For one thing, there were some Patriots who were not republicans.) Unless the language is actually ambiguous (and I have not read through, but I doubt it will be so often), this would be a pedantry adding length to the article to no reader benefit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect that is hijacking of the term "American" by one side in the conflict. Calling Saratoga an "American victory" in the opening paragraph is just wrong. To put it in context with another international conflict it is like calling a Nationalist victory in the Spanish Civil War a Spanish victory. It was of course, but it was a Spanish nationalist victory and should, and does state that. This article needs to do the same. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

However, it is exactly like calling, let us say, the Battle of Vittoria an Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese victory. Possibly more so: there appear to have been more Spaniards fighting for Jerome I than there were Tories at Saratoga. If there were a hijacking, it would have been conducted in 1776 and compounded in 1783; but at this point one must ask if there is any support for the Noble Lord's position, and if not, ask him to consider yielding to consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In fact, your grievance, my Lord, is with Sir Edward Creasy, who writes consistently, as this extract shows, of English and Americans. (We link to this; but I believe Burgoyne also wrote of his defeat by the "Americans".) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure when Lord Cornwallis uses the "hijacked" term "American" in his own edit summaries, he doesn't mean to be a hypocrite:

Added Sir Guy Carleton. Commander at Quebec in 1775. Later N.American commander-in-chief. Benedict Arnold was a notable American commander during the invasion of Canada and later at Saratoga.

I think it's clear (and I'm sure this is confirmed somewhere in that gigantic tome of guidelines on these matters) that the most commonly used term is what should be used in the article. Historians agree on this one, it's not Wikipedia's place to try to change respected historical precedent. Llakais (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MOS does nothing so useful; but it's in WP:COMMONNAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Llakais this discussion is not the reason why the page has been semi-protected. There has been no edit war over this. This article has a long history of vandalism which is why I guess that is why it is blocked to newer editors.

I don't feel this is a petty argument. I am raising a serious point about both accuracy and consistency in this article and others on the topic. My position on this is fairly simple the term "Americans" should only be used on its own to describe those from America (the 13 colonies) as in: Benedict Arnold, George Washington and Sir Henry Clinton were from America, therefore they were "Americans". When referring to either the Loyalists or Revolutionaries it should state that. (eg. American Loyalists surrendered at Saratoga. Saratoga was a victory for the American Revolutionaries.

This issue has actually been nagging at me for some time now, but I have always supressed the urge to raise the point before because I didn't want to rock the boat. I could anticipate this discussion would pan out, with people defending the popular but incorrect misuse of the term "Americans" for (common usage) reasons that I mildly sympathise with, but which have no place if the article is to receive a better rating in the future. I don't really understand why this is so contentious, it would make the article clearer without significantly adding to its length.

Examining the page there were only two bit that really stand out to me at the moment as in need of immediate change, perhaps because they appear so early in the article. The reference to an American victory at Saratoga in the introduction, and the sub-heading "Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans". I have made some small edits to the article as a proposed change. Please feel free to re-edit them or discuss them, I am not looking for an edit war - I am interested in establishing a clarification and consensus on this point, at which point I will go off to expand some of the other articles on the subjects, particularly regarding the wider war outside the American theatre.

Regards the use of the term with Benedict Arnold I wanted to qualify the term but ran out of space in the edit summary. I feared it might be pounced on like this. The example of Sir Edward Creasy arrogant and repeated misuse of the term English to mean British is perhaps another example of why the English are not always the most loved amongst their Celtic neighbours. I wasn't particularly impressed by his historical analysis which seemed a bit simplistic, but thank you for posting it. It made interest reading.

Again I hope this does not seem like I am waging an anti-American battle. The people who I am standing up for here were themselves in fact American. It seems to me the American Loyalists received some of the worst treatment during the war, and following it their role and grievances have largely been marginalised or even ignored. Their native land, America, has effectively disowned them, Canada has never embraced them and they have always received a pretty cold shoulder in Britain. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are not looking to start an edit war, you picked a strange way to show it. In both cases I have reverted your attempts to qualify the term "Americans" where it is unnecessary. There is no consensus for your changes -- please don't make further changes of this nature until there is one. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, injecting your own political sentiment about the supposed mistreatment of Loyalists is not the right way to go about having a quiet, unemotional discussion concerning this relatively trivial issue. At the very least, the term "Patriots" could be used - that would certainly clear up any perceived ambiguity. But past "mistreatment" of a group does not warrant any kind of allowances for its depiction in a factual encyclopedia. Llakais (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There was indeed mistreatment of Loyalists, witnessed at length by J._Hector_St._John_de_Crevecoeur and ordered by numerous Patriot organixations (although the Loyalists were by no means alone), but this is not the place to avenge anybody's grievances, or this page will resemble the Gdanzig and Macedonian debacles. Nor is it the place to reform the historiography of the English-speaking peoples. We use, and we are required by policy to use, the terms found in our sources: we reflect them, not amend them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Llakais (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
How about Rebels instead of Americans?[2] Then we can have rebel Americans and loyalist Americans, shorted to Rebels and Loyalists. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems a good compromise - (Webster’s, 2006, p. 1528). Rebel is a combination of the prefix re, which means “again,” and the suffix bel, which means “to make war” (Webster’s, 2006, p. 1528). Rebel literally translates as “to make war again” (Webster’s, 2006, p. 1528). To rebel is to make war over and over again. War is “strong opposition . . . hostility . . . conflict within” (Flexner, 1982, p. 2141). Rebel as a verb refers to making opposition, hostility, or conflict again against oneself and others. A rebel is “one who opposes authority or restraint: one who breaks with established custom or tradition” (Webster’s, 2006, p. 1892). Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The current article represents a compromise on this issue that was reached relatively recently after weeks of discussion. There was no consensus then, and I doubt there will be consensus now, to take the references to Americans out of the American Revolution. If it is your intent to challenge that consensus, then I suggest that a concrete proposal be made in a new section at the bottom of this page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Loyalists

I was hoping the small edits I had made would serve as a compromise, and we would have been able to settle this for the time being. As the article currently stands I feel compelled to continue to raise the point.

Examine the article carefully and you will see serious mention of the Loyalists is omitted in the introduction, the Armies, Militia & Mercanries Section, the Massachuetas section, the Canada section, the Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans section and it is only at the very bottom of the New York and the New Jersey section when they get their first significant mention. Does this not strike you as slightly strange given the size of the Loyalist population and the role they played in the war? Either this is an oversight (which I would like to think it is), or it represents a degree of bias which brings the whole neutrality of the article into question.

This article will be read by many people who do not know a great deal about this war, and as it stands this will simply compound the common misconception in the minds of many that this was simpy a British versus American War. The leading few paragraphs should be very clear to state that there were two types of "Americans", it can do this by the use of qaulifying the term. I hoped the word "revolutionaries" would be acceptable, as it is used in the introduction.

I would like to question the inclusion of the Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans subsection. While interesting it is only a sentence long and if it belongs anywhere should be merged into the Canada section. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Cornwallis' proposed changes, including the current abuse of the term American. This conflict was much too complex for it's current treatment in this article. Note on the Quebec Regiments, I'm removing these right now as the entry is misleading, it's not two Quebec Regiments joining the Continentals, it's two Quebec Regiments raised by them, there is a big difference.--Caranorn (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord C -- As a CONTENT issue regarding Loyalists (or Tories) you may have a valid point. It is perfectly possible to include additional, SOURCED, information on Loyalists where applicable, including the lead section and “Armies, Militia & Mercenaries Section”. This can be accomplished quite easily without tinkering with the word “Americans” -- historians, American and British (have you reviewed the debates in the archives on your issue?), do it all the time.

I suggest you de-link the two subjects and propose some specific language (on this Discussion Page) to expand the coverage of the military role of the Loyalists/Tories. I fact, this has been suggested twice in the earlier discussion as a way to address your concerns. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do think the issues are linked. The use of the term "American" to mean pro-independence is both contentious and ambigous, regardless of the fact that is sometimes used by participants and historians. As a short term compromise, I will again suggest a change from the introduction currently reading:
"In early 1778, shortly after an American victory at Saratoga resulting in the surrender of an entire British army..."
to
"In early 1778, shortly after the American Revolutionaries' victory at Saratoga resulted in the surrender of an entire British army...".
I feel this would help clarify the statement, without making any significant changes to its details.
As regards inclusion of more Loyalist details I will begin to gather some sources and draft some language. My initial instinct is that perhaps the Armies, Militia & Mercanries section is the best place to begin to remedy their omission, but I am tempted to propose a short section early in the article be created to cover the differences between the two types of "Americans" -"Revolutionaries" and "Loyalists" the forces and resources each contributed to the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"Revolutionaries" is not a term typically used to describe the American resistance military establishment. "Patriots" is probably better. But subsequent to the signing of the Declaration of Independence there existed a nation called the United States of America, so the term "American" has clear meaning in the sentence above. It does not need to be changed. Llakais (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Americans is an ambigous term. The United States may have declared independence in 1776 but its independence was not recognised by Britain, her Loyalist American subjects, and many other states until 1783. A complex civil war was fought over the issue, during which Loyalists continually referred to themselves as Americans - see the names of many Loyalist regiments. To refer to the pro-independence faction as the "American" cause does represent a hijacking of the term. Were the Loyalists any less Americans than those who supported indepedence?

The addition of a single word as a qaulifcation in the intro would at least go some way towards indicating the complex nature of the war. I don't see how that this is so unacceptable a proposal? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I failed to point this out the first time, but here's another thing which makes the original sentence abundantly clear and its modification entirely useless: it clearly indicates that the "American" actions resulted in a British defeat. Why would Tories be fighting the British?
For an analogous situation, consider Kosovo. We don't say "the Kosovar revolutionaries declared independence"; we just say "Kosovo has declared independence". That's because the highest legislative body in Kosovo made that declaration, similarly to how the Continental Congress was the highest representative authority in the colonies. Llakais (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first point - the article barely mentions the American Loyalists, at all, particulary in the intro. It is hardly even clear they even exist! As obvious as it may seem to you who is being referred to when "American" is spoken, this page is looked at by many people around the world whose sum knowledge of the war comes from a single viewing of The Patriot.

It does not counter the fact that the current phrasing represents a POV hijacking of the word "American". The Continental Congress was only the self-declared highest representative authority without majority support amongst the populace. Until 1783 the British Parliament remained the legal highest legiaslature for the 13 colonies, and was recognised by the Loyalist Americans, until it relinquished this role following the Treaty of Paris which recognised independence. I think I'm correct in saying that at the time of Saratoga the USA was unrecognised by any other state? France recognised it the following year but most other states did not recognise independence until 1783.

In my view the United States are free to use the term Americans therafter - althrough even this is apparently controversial in Latin America. If type in wikipedia on the search and you'll find that "American" takes you to a disambiguation page for that very reason.

I'm not sure the comparison with Kosovo is entirely helpful. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your spiel is getting tiring, frankly, and you're blaming flaws in the article with everyone else, as if they're to blame because they don't volunteer (and that should be made clear) to write lengthy sections that you yourself want to see. There are numerous articles in Wikipedia that are poorly sourced, filled with wrong information, or otherwise lacking in many facets. I don't go around, however, berating people for them being this way.
Moreover, your argument throughout this whole page has been that a term, recognized by almost everyone, used everywhere, including all the sources on this and hundreds of other pages, is wrong mostly because you find it politically offensive and personally inaccurate. Well, unfortunately, tough noogies. We're not in the business of inventing new terms, as others have mentioned, in order to satisfy personal sensitivities. If numerous indigenous groups can suffer being commonly known by names that are more than likely derogatory, I'm pretty sure a guy from Canada whose Wikipedia name is after a white British officer can suck it up. SiberioS (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... this is an article that deals with the American revolution, no? Perhaps a more diverse perspective could be included, but putting that template at the top of an article concerning this subject matter smacks of something a little darker. Llakais (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are alluding to by "darker"? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed. I think it sufficiently represents a well-rounded world-view. If anyone disagrees, please discuss here before reinstating. Alphageekpa (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how tagging works, I have not been involved in many disputes before - but aren't you supposed to discuss it here before removing it? Isn't there supposed to be a consensus? I have restored the tag, until this point is clarified. I would also still like some clarification from Llakais about what they mean by "darker"? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually believe it is you who owe us the clarification. It is you who added the tag - without discussion (not necessary, given), and it is now you who has twice reverted valid user edits (admittedly, including my own) removing said tag. Please provide your substantiation for including this tag on this particular page. Alphageekpa (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

These are a outline of some of the major problems.

  • At the moment the war outside the American theatre is poorly covered. Much of it feels tacked on, as through the main article is about the British versus the United States, while the rest was just a sideshow. The Great Siege of Gibraltar, for instance, receives only a brief mention despite the fact that it is by some way the largest and longest engagement of the war. Minorca needs expanding, as does the expedition to San Juan, and the League of Armed Neutrality. Really the whole segments on wars involving the British, Spanish, Dutch outside the American Theatre need to be expanded. The fighting in India was also on a large scale, and deserves equivilant mention with the American theatre.
    • This is a justification for including more about Gibraltar and Minorca, which Cornwallis is welcome to do. The inclusion of the Second Mysore War in this article is itself controversial, and should not be expanded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The armies, militia and mercenaries section focuses entirely on troops in North America at present. This should be expanded to cover all the global troops of all the global participants - The Spanish troops, French troops, British troops, Dutch troops, troops of the Indian States.
  • Internationally the war lasted until 1784. Peace between Britain and the Dutch was only agreed in 1784, as was peace between the British and the Kingdom of Mysore (Treaty of Mangalore). The dates in the infobox should be changed to reflect that.
    • This would be like changing the closing date of the First World War on the grounds:
      • that the treaties were not signed in November 1918
      • That incidental conflicts, like the Russian Civil War and the war between the Arabian States, continued after 1918.
    There is a case for both these adaptions, and some historians have followed it; but consensus is 1914-18. So here: 1775-1783 is consensus; the peace with the Netherlands was not finalized until early 1784 (arguably the same is true of the United States, I see), but it was agreed the previous September. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The article needs to be more careful when its uses the term “American” to demonstrate precisely what it means. What this means, and when it meant it from is a contentious issue. The continued use of the term “Americans” to refer to the cause of the pro-independence before 1783 is questionable. It has been correctly in pointied out that the term is widely used as shorthand by British and Americans to mean pro-independence, it may not be so widely understood in other countries. (and is anti-Loyalist POV as well - implying they are not Americans. The Loyalist sections need expanding, but that is another issue)
  • The article does use terminology that is unique to the United States such as the term ‘Patriot’. Patriot is almost unknown and unused outside the US (and the page on wikipedia is a not very expansive stub). This does not suitably make it accessible the whole global community, terms used should aim to be as international as they can. This issue might be helped by the creation of a page Terminology used to describe the American Revolution, or something of that kind. I have read this article several times now, and I am still not clear what “Americans” in the introduction is referring to? The US military, the pro-independence “American” cause, or the inhabitants of America.

I have heard this article described on the talk page as the “daughter” of the American Revolution article when it really should be the “sister” of the Seven Years War and Peninsular War articles as well. I hope this clarifies why I tagged it (I may have been mistaken to, but it seemed the best way of flagging up these problems without doing major edits on the article). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should change the title from American Revolutionary War to World Revolutionary War. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the talk archives I did across a suggestion that two articles should exist one The American Revolutionary War to cover the fighting in Continental America, and another The American War of Independence as a parent article on the wider global war. At first I didn’t favour the idea, but I have warmed to it - particularly having seen the similar excellent arrangment with regards to the French and Indian Wars being part of a wider Seven Years War. That seems pretty cool Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

♠ HEY! Stop the tagging war. Go offline and settle your difference, if you cannot do it here maturely. It looks to me like this tagging has changed three times. If it doesn't stop we may have to request protection. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Section 5

Tag should stay until consensus is found. Cornwallis has stated his case and I partially agree, mostly on terminology. Now is the time to find a solution and not to start a reversion war over the tag.--Caranorn (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please specify what you agree with, and insofar as it is about terminology, please supply examples of usage other than the "Americanisms" of which he complains. American and Patriot are, as far as I can see, conventional usage on this war. We are not in the business of inventing terminology to soothe complaints; we are required to use what we find English using. Tags should not be deployed to compel the inclusion of original research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I am glad to find and add an estimate of the Loyalists in arms, the reason I read Weintraub was this question of language. I find that he quotes Boswell and Burke, who never crossed the Atlantic, referring to themselves as Americans because they supported the colonial cause (we cannot use colonial after 1776; usage again opposes). And Patriot was intelligible to George III, even if he disagreed with it; I should like evidence that it is unintelligible to the far-flung subjects of Elizabeth II before we go any further with this question. (The next step would be to point out that this article is properly, per WP:ENGVAR, in American, but we need only go there after evidence that the Englishes do in fact differ.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The current use of "American" in the article remains both ambiguos and POV (it hijacks the term). "American" is used in the article to mean several different things. On wikipedia "American" is a disambiguation page for this very reason. Type Canadian in, and you will go straight to Canada. Type American in, and you do not go straight to the USA - because its meaning is debatable.
Patriot is not widely used or understood beyond the US, except as McLintock states below - in reference to the Mel Gibson film. I am now starting to suspect that different versions of the same books are published using different terminology. It is hard to produce evidence that a word does not exist in popular usage, because there is no cuase for anyone to ever mention the term. Surely there is a logic to that?
As far as I can see Wp:ENGVAR seems to support using more neutral language under the Commonality section where it states
"Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia"
"Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences. For example, use alternative route (or even other route) rather than alternate route, since alternate may mean only "alternating" to a British English speaker."
Which seems to apply in this case. Please don't remove the tag until we have reached a consensus on this issue, if this is not possible we could make a request for informal mediation, but I have not given up hope of establishing a consensus between ourselves Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you unilaterally put a tag up on a widely read and edited page, without seeking any input from anyone who edits here. While it is true that one should be bold, and that no one author, or even group of authors, has ownership of an article, it is unnecessarily provocative and essentially a shot across the bow. AFTER that was done you have now insisted that everyone else must argue why your unilateral action should be reversed, or face your reversion wrath. This is not only poor form, but one of the reasons why everyone now is obstinate in not budging on the issue. SiberioS (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my initial tagging of the article did upset some people, but there had already been some debate and there appeared to be no effort by some to reach a neutral consensus. I have been trying at all times to reach a consensus, including at one point when my only request was that the "American" victory at Saratoga be qualified with another word to make it more apparent which Americans the article was referring to.

I'd also like to add editors should not be "obstinate" about efforts find a consensus, as this seems to violate the principles of a neutral wikipedia. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Americans" is used in the article on the Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless, we could use the term "colonist" instead of American if that seems more neutral. As far as the discussion of Canada is concerned (and why the Continental Army went there), take a look at the DoI and you might learn something. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I have no objection to "colonists" being used if that is acceptable to others. It is still a little ambiguos, but to me it appears better than the present "Americans", though I have a feeling others might object. If they don't, it seems we have a big step towards a consensus.
I would also like to again propose a glossary of different terms used - either within this article, or in a seperate article linked to this page that might further help to define and explain terminology.
As for the Continentals invasion of Canada, my understanding of it (and my interpritation of the DoI) seems to be they were hoping to capitalise on the Anglophones resentment of the Quebec Act. 1774 is sometimes regarded as the founding of our modern nation, because of the compromise it allowed in recognising the existence of both English law and French law within what constitutes modern Canada. Why the invasion failed is probably as much to do with logistics than politics, Arnold and Montgomery were trying to make the same journey in reverse as Burgoyne did two years later with considerably less troops.
It is an often neglected question of the era, why did the rebellion in the thirteen colonies not spread further? Ceirtanly the British goverment at one point feared it would spread to all their posessions in the Americas, including the West Indies, through I think I might be starting to touch on Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason to compromise on the issue of "Americans". Until someone shows that some significant number of historians have written about the Revolution without using the term "Americans" (and you have indicated that you will not provide such information), there is really not even a basis for an intelligent discussion. The fact that you would accept "colonists" instead of "Americans" suggests that ambiguity IS NOT your concern -- or were Loyalists not also colonists?
If creating a separate article on terminology solves your problem, go for it. Similarly I have no problem with creating a brief paragraph on terminology for this article (and possibly for inclusion in other articles), something like the following:
In this article the colonists supporting the Revolution are primarily referred to as "Americans", with occassional references to "Patriots" or "Whigs" (terms commonly used by the Americans in referring to themselves), "rebels", or "revolutionaries". Colonists who supported the British in opposing the Revolution are primarily referred to as "Loyalists" (this group's preferred term) but "Tory" may also appear."
In fact, it could even be added at the top of the article, indented and in italics. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It would need some slig