Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 12

Due weight within lead section
I pulled this out of the lead:


 * ''..., and in fears that the British would outlaw the keeping of slaves in the colonies following the groundbreaking Somerset v Steward legal case in 1772.



This is problematic because it seems to suggest equal weight with other causes. Due weight should be given to this theory. Fringe? I respect Simon Schama's work but we seem to be giving too much weight to what is possibly revisionism that hasn't been fully accepted by the majority of historians. What do other editors think? — Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Or indeed;

The Hanging of Thomas Jeremiah by J. William Harris (2011) - (How the patriots hanged the richest (freed) black man in Boston because he was suspected of plotting with the British)

The Memoirs of Granville Sharp (1828)

Moving On; Black Loyalists in The Afro Atlantic World (1999) John Pullis

Black Patriots & Loyalists (1999); fighting for emancipation in the war of independence; Alan Gilbert

The Loyal Blacks (1976) - Ellen Gibson Wilson

The Counter Revolution of 1776 (2014) - Gerald Horne

These books all cover the same ground; that while the patriots fought after 1774 to resist British 'tyranny' their slaves fought to free themselves from the patriots. Thats why they sided with the British, who offered them freedom.

This is not revisionism, this is just the stuff that is normally left out. Deliberately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godwhale (talk • contribs) 16:08, 31 August 2015‎ (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I presume this is Godwhale again. (A)Take it to American Revolution not here, and (B) where it will once again be deleted as fringe. Moreover if you are ever gonna make your case why not try in an article section (still not this article tho)....there at least minority historical opinions might (I say might) be acceptable--tho whether to real historians (not me) is what matters. Juan Riley (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where specifically (page numbers) are the contemporary voices of that day offering opinions that fear the outlawing of slavery and that this was an impetus for the war? What has the War of the Regulation to do with your introduced concept? You seem to ignore such existing struggles that have nothing to do with slavery. Southern colonists were generally much slower to lose their loyalty to the crown and turn patriot in the earlier part of the war. How do you reconcile this seeming paradox? Looks like revisionism coupled with sensationalism and recentism. Name drop something about racism/race relations and hey, your book will really sell though.

Very well, then you need to explain why the southern plantation states involved themselves in what was a purely provincial affair at Boston. As is often the case, this article misses this out entirely, and suggests that they did so out of sympathy or a sense of solidarity, which is ludicrous. The legislation affecting Boston had nothing more to do with Virginia and Carolina than it did Quebec or Newfoundland. The earlier taxes were long repealed, so clearly that is not the reason. You also need to give me a source that refutes what I have written, because nothing in the deleted sentence in any way contradicts anything in the article – it is just additional material. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia so please explain your reasons why you think this is incorrect. And as a result you then need to explain why there is no mention of the freeing of the slaves in November 1775 in this article, a pivotal moment in the war and the express reason for the last of Jefferson's stated written reasons for Independence. I would have thought that Simon Schama, professor at Columbia University would meet the requirement for ‘reliable, recent scholarly secondary sources' but evidently not. As for page numbers, its really the entire subject of the books. --Godwhale (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Who says it was "a purely provincial affair at Boston" ???-- I have never seen that idea presented before. As for Nov 1775, the text says "African Americans—slave and free—served on both sides during the war. The British recruited slaves belonging to Patriot masters and promised freedom to those who served by act of Lord Dunmore's Proclamation." Rjensen (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we give due weight to this concept then it should be a minor mention in the body but certainly not in the lead and certainly not as if this were a primary reason for the war. As it was listed, it implied that which would be incorrect. This view is held by a minority of historians and not mainstream.

Hello again Rjensen. What I mean by 'a purely provincial affair' at Boston (my description, not a citation) is that the 'Intolerable Acts' were aimed primarily at Massachusetts, were they not? Therefore, why did the other states become involved in what was a local situation? The article states; ‘The British government punished Massachusetts by closing the port of Boston and taking away self-government. The Patriots responded by setting up a shadow government that took control of the province outside of Boston. Twelve other colonies supported Massachusetts…’ There is no explanation as to why the southern colonies supported Massachusetts in either article. It glosses over this and tries to imply that the war began from some kind of general feeling of dissatisfaction with British rule, and that the flashpoint was the Boston Tea Party.

Berean Hunter, the article you point to is interesting, and not one I have read before, so thank you. However it does nothing to change the reality that the British repealed the taxes in 1770 except for the small one on tea, and yet the fighting began four years later in 1774 in Boston. We are told that this was because of NTWR, and that before very long the southern states were also in open rebellion in support of Boston. In plantation colonies hundreds of miles away from Massachusetts, brothers turned on brothers, sons on fathers, taking up arms and risking death or execution, and suffering terrible hardships and starvation for something that had absolutely nothing to do with them. This is simplistic in the extreme, and unworthy of Wikipedia, IMO.

Other primary and secondary sources explain that the situation was in fact far more complicated than this, and that there were other reasons why the south threw in its lot with those in the north. And yes, they included slavery. The actual flashpoint was the powder alarm, itself a result of patriot fears that the British would take away their weapons and leave them defenseless against their slaves, who in some cases vastly outnumbered them. Fears of a slave revolt gripped the South. There had been rebellions in the past and Dutch settlers were at that very same time being killed in droves on their own Caribbean islands by their slaves, so the threat was very real. Its not like it’s some secret; there are countless online sources that cover this; here is one US educational site that summarises it quite well; http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-revolution/1917

Lord Dunmore's Proclamation has 17,300 Google matches, and belongs right at the heart of discussion of what happened immediately prior to the Declaration of Independence. Yet it is buried away far down the article in just one line – I had to look very hard to find it, Rjensen – why is this? For some reason, which I currently do not understand, while there is no problem discussing slavery in the context of the civil war, where it is almost celebrated, you guys react very badly to any mention of it in the revolution, and seem to go to great lengths to avoid even mentioning it. You seem to feel that I am trying to deliberately antagonise you in bringing it up. I’m sorry you feel like this. But what you are trying to do is make me ignore the primary sources, which I have spent the last twelve months looking at by claiming POV or revisionism whenever I try to add some additional content you don’t approve of. You are basically censoring parts of the story for reasons I don’t understand when the real story is far more interesting that what we have here.--Godwhale (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Dunmore proclamation is given short shrift because it had a very small impact on the war. Most of the new soldiers/ex-slaves got sick and died; they did little fighting. The slaves of the loyalists were not eligible for that Dunmore promise; when the war ended, their owners ship them out, usually taking them are selling them into slavery in the West Indies. As for the other 12 Colonies joining Massachusetts in solidarity, the solidarity was built up over the previous decade, as the British repeatedly rejected the Patriot demands for their constitutional rights ("No taxation w/o representation")--claiming that all the colonials were "virtually" represented by MPs (who had no interest or knowledge or connection with the American colonies.) Note that Massachusetts was enthusiastically supported by the Northern Colonies that had few slaves. The revisionists have the big problem of being unable to identify Patriot leaders who in their hundreds of thousands of words of commentary and protest neglected to bring up this abolition of slavery issue. Of course, it was the Americans who began to abolish slavery not the British.  Independence provided the opportunity for all the Northern states to abolish slavery, Starting in Pennsylvania  (New Jersey was the last one in 1804).[Zilversmit, Arthur. The first emancipation: The abolition of slavery in the North (1967)]   Over a third of the American leaders were lawyers, and they knew perfectly well that the Somerset decision did not abolished slavery in England or anywhere else. Slavery was powerfully supported by the elite in Britain --The Gladstone family is a good example. The British took over a half century to abolish slavery (in 1833-- it still existed in Canada at that date.) Rjensen (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that the colonists did not have some real grievances, not least absentee landlords who owned about half the land & the Currency Act, which took away their right to print banknotes because they were not backed by gold and so quickly depreciated. The result was that many were bankrupted. And that London saw the colonies as one big reservoir for raw materials is amply demonstrated by the Iron Act, which tried to stop the building of rolling mills for manufacturing finished steel – in 1914 it was probably just as well for the British that they failed in this. But today no taxation without representation as the main cause of the war is very old-fashioned thinking. As the British continually pointed out, no taxation without representation could mean little to those who were not represented even in the colonial assemblies, which were ruled by the well off and well-connected colonial elites.

And to imply that slavery was not an issue at the time - if I understand you correctly - is also highly misleading. In 1775 Samuel Johnson wrote ‘Taxation No Tyranny; an Answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American Congress’, in which he commented; “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" You can read it in full on Google Books. During his time in Britain to discuss the taxation issue, Franklin was stung by British accusations that the rebels were hypocrites in claiming to be victims while oppressing others, & so wrote his own rebuttal, the basis of which was that it was British based merchants who first brought slaves to the colonies.

As early as 1773 Dr Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia, one of signatories of the declaration attacked what he called ‘slave keeping’, saying it was not compatible with liberty; “The plant of liberty is of so tender a nature that it cannot thrive long in the neighbourhood of slavery”. Remember, the eyes of Europe are fixed upon you, to preserve an asylum for freedom in this country after the last pillars of it are fallen in every other quarter of the globe. Reverend John Allen of Massachusetts also said; “Blush ye pretended notaries of freedom! ye trifling patriots!... for while you are fasting, praying, non-importing, non-exporting, remonstrating, resolving and pleading for the restoration of your charter rights, you at the same time are continuing this lawless, cruel, inhuman, and abominable practice of enslaving your fellow creatures”. In December 1775, George Washington’s cousin Lund Washington wrote to him that ‘there is not a man of them but would leave us if they believed they could make their escape…liberty is sweet.’ And Jefferson himself posed as an emancipator, but later backtracked when he realised the birth of slaves was his main source of profit on the Monticello operation. (source; Smithsonian) He never feed his slaves. Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, a Pennsylvanian Lutheran pastor wrote that the black population ‘secretly wished that the British army might win because then all the Negro slaves would win their freedom; It is said that this sentiment is universal among all the slaves in America’. In one of his letters, which are freely available online, Washington, who owed plenty of slaves, called Dunmore ‘that arch traitor to the rights of humanity’ for promising to free slaves and indentured servants. Yet you claim the Dunmore Proclamation is of no consequence. The Proclamation was not about slave emancipation, but an attempt at economic warfare, to nip the rebellion in the bud by depriving the plantation owners of their source of revenue while also bringing men into the Royal Navy & army. And it probably backfired, by providing the southern patriots with a major reason for independence the following year. And again you are being selective with your dates. The north didn’t outlaw slavery, it banned the slave trade at the same time Britain did. But by then slaves were increasing yearly through natural means. The Royal Navy set up patrols to intercept ships bringing slaves to America in 1807 even while it was fighting Bonaparte. But if anything your last message regarding the abolition of slavery in the north illustrates just how little they had in common with the south, which spent years extending slavery into previously free territories such as Texas & eventually went to war with the north decades later to keep them. Can you please provide a reliable source for your highly dubious statement that the patriot leaders ‘knew’ the Mansfield judgment didn’t affect them (I’m pretty sure they knew the opposite was the case) and also a source that the Dunmore Proclamation was of little consequence. Plenty of slaves did die, but many survived, fought the patriots, and were taken back to Africa by the British, who founded a new country, Sierra Leone for them. And can you please state whether or not you accept that there were real concerns in the south about a slave uprising. did you read the link?
 * In my opinion, 1) the reason this will always be a fringe theory is that no one has identified a significant number of Patriot leaders who were influenced to start the Revolution by such fears. In fact, I've not seen any member of Congress, or senior Army officer, or other leading Patriot named by the revisionists as acting on these fears. 2) Scholars agree that the Somerset decision did not in fact end slavery in England and did not apply to the American colonies.  Schama says it: "Mansfield had set Somerset free, but had taken plains not to make a general ruling on the legality of slavery in England." The revisionists rely on an anonymous pamphlet from Philadelphia that misinterpreted the Somerset case; but the Patriots had very good lawyers who knew all about English law (Like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, for example.) 3) Does anyone claim that the Dunmore proclamation started the revolution?  The proclamation came after the revolution was well underway-- he issued it from a British warship because he had already been driven out of the capital of Virginia where the patriots were in nearly complete control of the colony. Washington was already commander-in-chief of the American army when he denounced Dunmore.  Most of the 500 armed escaped slaves died of smallpox or were incapacitated, the rest were defeated in battle in late 1775 as Dunmore was defeated in combat. 4) Starting with Virginia in 1777, all the American states made the international slave trade illegal by 1780. Congress followed suit in 1807 which was the first date it was  allowed by the Constitution. Jefferson played a key role at the state and national level. The actual abolition of slavery made no progress whatsoever in England for another half-century. (Canada still had slavery in 1833.)  Rjensen (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"When the news of the Quebec Act [June 17, 1774; royal assent June 22, 1774] reached the colonies, it did indeed cause a furor; and because, far from being trivial or technical, its scope was so wide, it offended men and women in every single province. It was a plot, some would say, not only to bring Catholicism into America by the back door but also to confine Americans to the East, where they would lie at Britain's mercy. Indeed Wedderburn freely admitted this was so. The Ohio would set a limit that settlers must not cross." - Nick Bunker (of Lincolnshire, England). An Empire on the Edge: How Britain Came to Fight America (Pulitzer Prize Finalist). New York: Vintage Books, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC, 2015. Originally published in hardcover New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014. ISBN 978-0-307-74177-6. Page 276. Donner60 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it certainly annoyed the Patriots. However by that time, the organization of the revolution was well underway and this became just one more grievance on the long list. The act was never enforced in the west. note that in Britain, the Quebec Act "aroused the fiercest opposition" (because it promoted Catholicism.) So just when the London government needed the widest public support inside Britain, it alienated the large anti-catholic element there. Rjensen (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Well the desire to take lands already belonging to others was indeed also a factor, something writers have cleverly circumvented. The other day I saw it explained thus; ‘The colonists also demanded the right to govern the lands west of the Appalachians’ I think we know what is meant by ‘govern.’ The Quebec Act is sometimes seen as the fifth Intolerable Act because it was passed in the same legislator session, & it does seem strange that Britain should have been accused of further ‘tyranny’ for giving additional rights to settlers. Incidentally, a recent study of all the documents found the first use of the term Intolerable Acts was not until the 1890s, so thats another myth as well.

1)	I would suggest that there are people who referred to the rebellion, but the thing is people prefer to ignore it. On 14th Dec 1775 Edmund Pendleton, President of the Virginia Assembly responded to the Dunmore Proclamation by accusing him of ‘giving encouragement to a general insurrection’, & that ‘all negro or other slaves, conspiring to rebel or make insurrection, shall suffer death and be excluded all benefit of clergy.’ What about the scores of surviving newspaper reports about was seen as Britain’s unhealthy arming of blacks, like in1768 when Bostonians watched Afro-Caribbean drummers in the 29th Regiment publicly whip their fellow white soldiers as punishment for misdeeds. (Horne P.10) At the same time in Boston, Hancock and other petitioners accused the Redcoats of encouraging slaves to ‘cut their masters throats and to beat, insult & otherwise ill-treat said masters’. It was believed that with the arrival of more blacks, they would soon “be free (and) the Liberty Boys slaves” (Bunker Hill, A city, A Siege, a Revolution. Nathaniel Parker P. 24) Slave rebellions during the revolutionary period supported Virginia Lieutenant Governor Robert Dinwiddie's theory that "any Emergency" that divided the white population could provide slaves with the opportunity to rebel. In New York, a white man overheard two slaves conspiring over how they could obtain more gunpowder for an insurrection plot; in a Virginia county, James Madison described another slave plot led by a man "who was to conduct them when the English Troops should arrive"; and in St. Andrew Parish, Georgia, slaves rebelled in December 1774 and managed to kill four whites before being captured and burned alive.(Woody Holton, Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1999), Page 140) There is stacks of evidence. You just have to want to see it, which I know is difficult for some people.

2) Not sure what pamphlet you are referring to – it might be the one regarding the Boston Tea Party which spoke of ‘baneful chests of tea that contain something worse than death – the seeds of slavery.  In January 1773 ‘Felix’ of Boston submitted a legal petition asking for his freedom. . In April a second petition was signed by four others slaves said they ‘expected great things from men who have made such a noble stand against the designs of their fellow men to enslave them. At the time, three ferocious rebellions were under way in Suriname, St Vincent and Jamaica, heavily reported by American press. (P.28).  The front cover of the 2005 book Slave Nation by Alfred W. Blumrosen & Ruth G. Blumrosen – who are both human rights lawyers - says’ ‘Slave Nation, How Slavery United the Colonies & Sparked the American Revolution.’ Page 35 states; ‘Some historians have questioned the significance of the Somerset decision because in later years Mansfield disavowed the intent to abolish slavery & the British courts held that if a slave brought to Britain did return to the colonies his slavery re-emerged & attached to him again. However the decision was in large measure self-executing as slaves simply walked away from their masters & the masters gave up. Slavery virtually disappeared in England in the early 19th century. The importance of Somerset in the American colonies was the impression that the decision created in the minds of the colonist-planter-lawyer-politicians in late 1772, who could only read the words, not the future."

3)Nobody is claiming the DP started the revolution. But it was a significant event, and deserves to be put in context in the article, not inserted way down in one sentence so nobody notices it, at present. And i disagree with your figures. The Schama book states that between 80,000 to 100,000 slaves left the plantations during the war. 4) And yet slavery continued. It was enshrined in the Constitution in the three fifths compromise which meant blacks were worth 3/5 a white person & ‘all men are created equal’ was perverted into ‘all freemen are created equal.’ And, since you seem to be trying to claim the US record on slavery was in some way better than that of the UK, where was the British Jim Crow, the British lynch mobs, the British Klan, the British Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) under which the US Supreme Court held that a black "whose ancestors were ... sold as slaves" was not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen, as blacks were "beings of an inferior order" and thus were not afforded any rights by the Constitution? Or the British North Carolina v Mann (1830) which ruled that slaveowners could not be convicted for killing their slaves? And best of all, that when the US forces came to Britain in 1942 they brought their segregationism with them, and so across Britain for the first time there were white/black only bars, white/black only dance halls, white/black only buses. There are those who believe the freedom the black GIs found in Britain – like being able to offer his hand to a white man in greeting or being allowed to dance with a white woman kicked off the civil rights movement, since - as the saying went - when they went home they were ‘just niggers again’, and wouldn’t put up with it anymore.--Godwhale (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Patriots at the time denounced "these mighty grievances and intolerable wrongs"--close enough I think to "Intolerable acts". Dunmore's proclamation is included in the text, and there's full coverage in Wikipedia in several articles. As a military factor it was a minor importance involving a few hundred Black soldiers who fought in one small battle Battle of Great Bridge in December 1775, (where they were defeated). Most of them died or were incapacitated by disease. Dunmore was forced out of the colony in 1776, taking about 300 former slaves with him. N=300; They went to Canada where they were not well treated, and most of them moved back to Africa.  The original thread here is the notion that some patriots were motivated toward independence by a fear that Britain would abolish slavery.  I don't think that's true, and as far as I can see the revisionists of not named the 10 or 20 prominent Patriots who are motivated for independence by this fear. Slavery was well ensconced in Great Britain until the abolitionist campaign of the 1820s finally reached fruition in 1833. By 1804, all the northern states had abolished slavery.  So the idea that the patriots in New England and the middle states were motivated by this fear is contradicted by their actual behavior in abolishing slavery all by themselves. Godwhale seems to have all sorts of complaints about the intolerant Americans. He asks "where was the British Jim Crow, the British lynch mobs, the British Klan..."  Perhaps he missed his history lesson in how the English treated the Irish, both in Ireland and in England itself--and until 1998 in The Troubles in Northern Ireland as well. Rjensen (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes they did treat the Irish badly, but we're not talking about Ireland are we? I am attempting to have a discussion with you but you are just filibustering by repeating yourself and deliberately not addressing my points. You keep talking about when slavery was done away with in the north which is not the current topic of discussion. I am referring to the multiple historic sources which demonstrate that fears of a slave uprising in the south was a contributory factor in the outbreak of armed rebellion IN ADDITION to the other grievances. Records of at least 250 separate revolts and conspiracies in the history of American slavery have been identified, the five worst - i.e. where whites got killed by their slaves or the slaves got found out and were hanged being; The Stono Rebellion (1739), The New York City Conspiracy (1741), Gabriel’s Conspiracy (1800), the German Coast Uprising (1811) and Nat Turner’s Rebellion (1831). The Stono Rebellion in South Carolina involved the deaths of 44 blacks and 21 whites - many decapitated with their heads being put on spikes for all to see. A whole area was burned and it took a week to quell the uprising, and the very next year South Carolina executed at least 50 more rebel slaves. --Godwhale (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "fears of a slave uprising in the south was a contributory factor" -- It's a fringe theory because the Revisionists have been unable to name Any leading patriots for whom it was a major factor, or even a minor factor, in their decision to revolt. You mentioned two episodes that happened decades before in 1739 and 1741. But how were they related to the decision of the patriots in the 1774-75 time period????  Rjensen (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Its currently being taught to kids in South Carolina as part of the narrative on the war. There are also excellent online teaching aids such as Shmoop which cover the same ground. You are a dinosaur. I note from the archives that you have now been editing this article for about 10 years, so it’s clear a lot of this is your own work and hence basicaaly your POV, and why you always argue so relentlessly when other editors try to change anything and insist on keeping everything as you want. It isn't just me. By mentioning ‘the revisionists’ you are accepting that there is another side to the story; what you and JuanRiley are really doing is to simply ignore anything that doesn't fit your views. It doesn't matter what 'scholarly' or 'reliable secondary sources' that are provided, you deal with it in exactly the same way - by simply ignoring it and pressing the revert button. This is not being a historian, not even an amateur one. You said in an earlier post that it takes a while for historians to discover the facts. Well they have, and increasingly this traditional narrative you espouse is being shown up as the simplistic & overtly patriotic twaddle it really is, a bit like all the cowboy films that always made the Indians out to be the bad guys, and where now its realised they were really the victims and the likes of Jim Bowie and Daniel Boone were murdering swine. As Vine Deloria, Professor of Political Science at the University of Arizona wrote in 1976; 'Conservatives are always outraged when confronted with the facts of history, as if believing that something did not happen erases the past'. (Spirit & Reason P.206) This 'revisionism' will continue long after you & I are both gone, and ultimately the true facts will come out, in spite of your efforts to stem the tide on on Wikipedia --Godwhale (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No serious scholar or textbook mentions this fringe theory. you will note that unlike Shmoop the university level textbooks (which are revised every 2 or 3 years) do not mention this fringe theory.  The latest Advanced Placement outline of US history (released a few weeks ago) makes zero mention. see https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-us-history-course-and-exam-description.pdf pp 35-42   That's because no one has shown how it influenced any of the decision makers, like Jefferson, Washington, Lee, Henry etc in Virginia, for example. Or Pennsylvania or North Carolina or New York of Connecticut or anywhere. It works nowhere.  Rjensen (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure that Godwhale doesn't drink his own cool aid and believe lack of others actively joining Rjensen in this discussion is meaningful, Rjensen's argument are consensus and Godwhale's are fringe. Juan Riley (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well since you mention text books it is well known that these books are not about telling the truth. Same goes for a lot of websites. You only have to type into Google ‘American Revolution lies,’ ‘American Revolution myths’, ‘American Revolution half-truths’ or ‘American Revolution whitewash’ to realise this. The romantisisers have been –rewriting the story since just after the last of the ‘Founding Fathers’ died. Thus we have The Washington cherry tree story, Paul Revere’s Ride & the Shot Heard Around The World. Someone said there weren’t any female heroines in the story so someone invented Molly Pitcher. Even the Patrick Henry speech wasn’t written down until 42 afterward the event, so was probably embellished.

This is why Professor James Loewen has sold so many copies of his book “Lies My Teacher Told Me.” He looked at 12 history books commonly used in American high schools books and found massive inaccuracies. “They are not even fact-checked because truth has never been their selling point”. As well as not mentioning the theft of Indian lands and lying about how many slaves fought for the patriots, “most history books do not even have the word “racism” or “racial prejudice” in their index. None of the 12 books point out how racism grew out of the practice of keeping black slaves. Not one. In the eyes of most teachers, parents, school boards and even the historians who take part in the creation of schoolbooks, the aim of high school history is not to understand the nation’s past but to create citizens who respect authority and have pride in America. Thus all those eagles and flags on the cover and words like “triumph” and “freedom” in the title. Thus the feel-good history built on lies and silence about the country’s ugly past. What 16-year-old could be proud of America, the thinking goes, if we told him the truth?”. “In America the ugly truth is saved for university history courses. But for eight out of ten Americans – and even six out of ten history teachers – high school history is as far as they ever go.”

While writing ‘Founding Myths: Stories that Hide our Patriotic Past’, Ray Raphael reviewed 22 current elementary, middle school, and high school texts & compared the mythologies of the Revolution. "18 of the 22 texts feature the story of Molly Pitcher. Current texts include some mention of the Native American presence in the war, but their narratives display a serious bias. Right at the moment of the greatest white incursion onto Native lands in US history the Indian presence mysteriously disappears. Discussions of white conquest appear earlier and later in these texts, but not at the critical point of our nation’s founding, when it is most relevant but also most embarrassing. The pan-Indian resistance movements of the 1780s — again, the largest coalitions of Native Americans in our history — are entirely neglected. With nary a nod to the impact on indigenous people, the texts celebrate the ordinances of 1785 and 1787 — blueprints for westward expansion and death knells for Indian sovereignty. More of the myths are perpetuated in elementary and middle school texts than in AP high school texts, but this raises a troubling question: why are we telling children stories that we know to be false? Worse yet: why do we give these tales our stamp of approval and call them “history”? Of all the texts, the one that perpetuates the most untruths about the American Revolution - a whopping seventeen - is Joy Hakim’s immensely popular, A History of US. This is no accident. Hakim is a masterful storyteller, and she has based her account on how stories play to young readers, not on whether they are true.”

What this creates is large numbers of people – like Juanriley - who are unaccustomed to anything other than the romanticized version of the story and get offended when they hear otherwise. I bet he believes in American Exceptionalism as well. Same goes for the blatant sockpuppet YeOldeGentleman, who cropped up briefly a while back before the edit was swiftly removed. I reckon someone forgot which online persona they were being when they wrote that.--Godwhale (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There are many different revisions to history. Here is a good read and take note of the opening sentence, "Interpretations of the past are often influenced by the way people view their own times." It applies to you as a victim of this circumstance. Revisionist (they all claim to know The Truth™), British apologist (can't stand to think that their side of the conflict might actually be guilty as accused and still try to deflect back as fault of the colonists), Sensationalist (they stir crap up so they can sell books, newspapers, tv shows etc....professors and scholars most certainly can fit into this group...those that try to hard to see what they want to see).

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, your arguments are fringe theory and not accepted by mainstream historians and scholars...some of the sensationalist types may accept it. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs so this isn't the place to champion your cause. I concur with Riley and Rjensen. The onus is on you to garner consensus and you haven't done that. In fact, the more you argue the deeper the hole you seem to be digging.

This isn't about righting wrongs or trying to get a perfect article, its about honesty. And its not about the level of weight applied to a particular topic, which i think is what the document you posted is really getting at, its about people deliberately omitting whole chunks of the story for nationalistic reasons; Juanriley has been accused of this by other editors, its not just me. This is a common feature in text books, and is what one US scolar calls the 'lies of ommission'. You only have to watch the recent 'Sons of Liberty' travesty to realise that, and see how the short fat 43 year old failed brewery owner Adams becomes a 20 something Robin Hood/boyband member. During an online discussion I read by a US scholar who dared to point out the many blatant inaccuracies he was ultimayely told; 'Why don't you go and live in England if you hate your country so much'. Thus, in this article we have no mention whatsoever of the Sullivan Expedition (when patriots get killed, its a massacre, when they do the killing its an expedition, or more often not mentioned at all) I'm pretty sure that if a British general was known by the name 'Devourer of Villages' and burned 400 villages and crops, killing countless people it would be mentioned in this article, and it would probaly be called genocide. And the level of involvement by the Dutch French and Spanish is relegated to a few lines under 'other combants'. 90% of the gunpowder used by the patriots came from them, but when another editor tried to highlight this and have it included a while back he was filibustered until he gave up. This seems to be a regular tactic. I am by no means the only person who has pointed this out, merely the most persistent in pointing out what an utterly fruadulent article this is. The editor who started the section 'Expanding into Native American Territory' on 9 April wrote; 'From the very beginning, the American history, our history, that we have been taught is a lie' but was ignored, which i find strange. And another editor wrote 'modern American censorship will not allow this into the article'. He/she obviously knows there is not point trying to fight these fraudulent narratives.--Godwhale (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You do realize that while slavery itself was banned, slave trading by the British Empire was not banned a good 40 years after it was banned by the US constitution? De facto, neither nation had much success stopping it, but the British Empire made good money off it for hundreds of years prior. If someone wrote an alternative history, for example, one could contemplate the slave trade continuing legally long after it was legally forbidden in the real timeline if the revolution had not happened. Monied interests were persuasive on both sides of the Atlantic for a long period. That's speculative, of course, but the truth is that the European empires benefited hugely off the trade. As late as the 1860's Europeans praised King Cotton.


 * There is also the early Catholic decree that Amerindians have souls. A good thing, they are real people. That decree also allowed Spanish soldiers to 1) kill non Christian Amerindians 2) steal land from non Christian Amerindians and 3) enslave Africans since it was known that Islam was a religion known on the African continent (convenient since the trade began to replace the natives who kept dying from European diseases, and Africans were not as susceptible).


 * The revolution did not begin in a vacuum. It did, however, begin in the north among slave holders to be sure, but where a sizeable and growing number of abolitionists existed. Debate the hypocrisy of Thos Jefferson all you wish, but the Declaration of Independence did in fact initially include a charge of slave trading against the king. That paragraph had to be deleted before the southern states agreed to join the happy revolution. Slavery, ergo, was not the causa bellum, since some of the most fervent revolutionaries were already discussing its abolition.


 * It also began in a world already quite prepared to conquer and subdue the Americas, and which had already conquered and subdued most of the Americas. North America was the last piece. And PS: I did not say "govern". I wrote "expand". And yes, expand means conquer and settle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.172.151 (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Style/POV issue re: "patriot"
I noticed that "patriot" was capitalized in the intro here and, while getting ready to change it, noticed that it's capitalized practically throughout the article. Since it's not a proper noun, I am a bit confused. The few sources I have found say this word should not be capitalized (including the Chicago Manual of Style), but I have noticed that in many (particularly American) sources online, the word is capitalized. Is there some justification for this that I am not aware of, or is is a not-so-subtle indication that the authors of this article are writing from an American POV? Pwoodfor (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * it's a matter of style. cap-P Patriot is used because it's the name of an organized group. likewise L for Loyalist..  many books use cap p  eg: 1) Al Young - 1976;  2) Bud Hannings - 2008;  3) James G. Cusick - 2007; 4) J. Norman Heard - 1990 5) ‎H. W. Kaufmann - 2007 - ‎6) Merril D. Smith - 2010  6) John R. Alden - 1989; 7) Terry M. Mays - 2009 etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 15:50, September 17, 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for an organized group who called themselves "Patriots?" I have found British sources from the period referring to revolutionaries as patriots, but at the time this term would have been regarded as derogatory in vernacular English. "Loyalist" is a term that would have been used at the time. In a case where some sources capitalize and some do not, it would seem that a style guide like the Chicago Manual would be a more reliable source than the work of historians (i.e. experts in history, not style, who are permitted to employ whatever style they prefer for whatever reason).Pwoodfor (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * try this: "Patriot organization, weak at the center, was strong at the grass roots, in the local communities throughout America; the Tories were neither well organized nor energetically led." American Military History: The United States Army and the forging of a nation, 1775-1917 (US Govt Printing Office 2005) p 63. Chicago Manual does not include the term. All major publishers have their copy editors who apply the rules. Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You ignored the word "themselves." How historians refer to the patriots has no bearing on whether there was a group that was called "Patriots." If historians call them "patriots" but the patriots didn't use the term themselves, then this is a descriptive term using the usual dictionary definition and not a proper noun, regardless of whether they capitalize it. If there was an organized group that called themselves "Patriots," then "Patriots" would be a proper noun referring to that group alone. After all, British loyalists were obviously patriots as well under the dictionary definition, meaning they fought for their country.


 * Remember that historians are experts on history, not on writing style guidelines. By that same token, publishers, particularly academic ones, give authors leeway in the use of punctuation, grammar, capitalization, etc. when they are trying to make a specific point. A publisher would not try to stop an author from expressing their respect for the patriots by consistently capitalizing the term. Wikipedia, on the other hand, respects neutrality over the patriots of a specific nation. By the way, the Chicago Manual is very clear about capitalization of proper nouns, and you will find their guidelines on the word patriot on their online forum in an entry titled "Capitalization of titles." They reference Marriam-Webster's, which says that, when capitalized, "Patriot" refers to an English parlimentary faction from the 18th century.


 * As an analogy, consider the football team. Players for the team are "Patriots" because that organization's name is a proper noun, but if a player for the team were a veteran then he would also be a "patriot." The two meanings are completely different.Pwoodfor (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Publishers are experts in style. And yes the word was used: "These are the times that try men's souls : The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country" (Tom Paine); Ben Franklin: "It should be no Wonder..if among so many Thousand true Patriots as New England contains there should be found even Twelve Judases." (OED) Rjensen (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if publishers were experts in style (they aren't, experts in style write style guides and dictionaries which are then subject to peer review), their agenda is to publish material that will be consumed, not to police style guidelines. I have yet to see a publisher insist on printing E. E. Cummings according to their style guidelines rather than according to the author's intent. You have also not provided a source where a publisher weighs in on this issue. You merely referenced works printed by publishers and then made an assumption based on the fact that some works use capitalization, even though others do not. If publishers allow both, then which is correct? Your inference constitutes original research, which is not permitted on wikipedia. You need to provide a reliable source from the field of writing conventions specifically regarding this issue of style if you wish to refute the source I provided.


 * If you read the quotes you provided, you will see that both uses of patriot are standard rather than proper noun uses. Paine is specifically not referring to the people we now call patriots (the founding fathers are not generally considered "sunshine patriots" who did not stick with their cause), and Franklin is using the word as a descriptive term for thousands of people who are part of the many diverse organizations that made up the American revolution. Would you also have us capitalize "Thousands" and "Twelves" as he does? Proper nouns are names of specific people, places, organizations, etc., not general descriptive terms used for various objects with similar characteristics. Neither quote refers to any specific group (such as the Sons of Liberty or the Continental Congress) by name or makes any special differentiation between American patriots and other patriots, in fact the opposite is true in Paine's case. Pwoodfor (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with lots of book publishers: they are sticklers for their style. Their experts don't write books, they copyedit books. Rjensen (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Being an expert and being knowledgeable are not the same thing. According to wikipedia's guidelines (specifically the "Identifying reliable sources" page) an expert is someone "whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications," and experts whose work is peer-reviewed are preferred over those whose work isn't. You also still have not provided a source from a publisher (other that your personal experience). Your opinion of publishers' expertise, your surmises about their conclusions on the subject, and any other unsourced opinions are completely irrelevant. I have provided a source from an appropriate field (style, not history) which speaks specifically to this issue. Unless you can do the same, then you need to take your ideas to Notes and Queries so they can be published and peer-reviewed. Unsourced material and original research has no place here.Pwoodfor (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem. We can't use "patriot" because even the Loyalists would have claimed themselves to be patriotic (in the modern sense of the word) to the Crown.  We need terms that differentiate the players in this conflict.  Pwoodfor is invited to propose new terminology, replacing the existing one.  Please also note that these terms are used on literally hundreds if not thousands of articles, not just this one.  Magic ♪piano 12:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, the Loyalists would not have called themselves patriotic or patriots because at the time the term was regarded as derogatory in British English (check the Wikipedia article "Patriot (American Revolution) under terms, where they provide a reference from the OED). The word patriot may have been ambiguous at the time, but it is used by historians today to refer to American revolutionaries, and appears both capitalized and uncapitalized. It is quite clear in the context of the history American Revolution who is meant by the term patriot, regardless of the capitalization.Pwoodfor (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I can tell that some people find this upsetting, so please consider wikipedia's guidelines more carefully in dealing with this issue. Wikipedia bases its material on reputable sources (which I have provided). If I were to suggest another term without a source, this would be my own original idea and thus irrelevant here. Likewise, the fact that other articles capitalize the term patriot is irrelevant (though depending on the response I get here I may address this issue elsewhere). Historians are experts on historical terms and they predominantly use the term patriot, sometimes capitalized, sometimes not, so that is the term wikipedia should use. Authors of style guides are experts on usage, and the only source I can find on this says that patriot should not be capitalized in this context. Unless another source on usage can be provided, then wikipedia should follow the source I have found. Please confine comments on this thread to expert sources on the usage of the term patriot as a term for American revolutionaries. Anything else is either irrelevant (the opinions of experts in fields other than style/usage), original research (the opinions of posters about primary sources), or POV (based on a desire to aggrandize the founding fathers in a rather petty way).

For those of you who find this disrespectful, consider the term soldier. Referring to American soldiers as "Soldiers," would be not only incorrect but absurd. You are not showing respect to American patriots by blindly insisting that the term must be capitalized.Pwoodfor (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not find any reference whatever to "patriot" in the Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed or its online version ) . However I did find at the on line Journal of the American Revolution : "Loyalist, not loyalist. Patriot, not patriot" See Style Guide  Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing a source on the use of the term patriot. Still, if Wikipedia has to choose between the style suggested by the Chicago Manual (a guide specifically about style which is generally accepted among many different disciplines) or the style guide of the JAR (intended for the JARs specific use) which should we use? After all, Wikipedia is dedicated to non-POV information while the JARs mission is to provide "passionate, creative and smart content intended to make history more palatable." It seem in this case that the JAR has a stated point of view that allows for the passion of their largely American authors and readers while the Chicago Manual attempts to provide a wider perspective.


 * The Chicago Manual gives us rules about capitalizing proper nouns, the Chicago Manual FORUM explains that the word "patriot" is not a proper noun in this context, the FORUM references Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Why did I write to word forum in caps? Because you apparently ignored it the first time I wrote it (I also gave the title of the forum entry. A google search for "Chicago Manual patriot" has the forum post in the first few links). If the institution that employs you does not have a Chicago Manual membership, you can get a one month free trial and find the following: "It depends on context. M-W Unabridged states "loyalist" should be capped when used in the following context: an adherent to the constitutional republican government during the Spanish Civil War. It states that "patriot" should be capped when used for the following: an English parliamentary faction opposed to Sir Robert Walpole especially from 1732-1742. And it states that "revolutionary" should be capped when used as follows: of or relating to the American Revolution or to the period in which it occurred. "Rebel" isn't capped for any purpose (according to M-W Unabridged), and the other terms aren't capped for other usage." This is not the first time you have given me a slipshod reply that ignores the specifics of the carefully thought out material I have posted. I would appreciate it if you would show my posts the same respect I have show yours (meaning you should actually read them, and then do some looking around before you reply).Pwoodfor (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with using "patriot" in the 18th century sense is that some readers, most of whom are not versed in the nuances of style manuals, will assume it is used in the 20th century sense, and then claim that we are being POV by implying that Patriots[18C] were patriotic[20C] but Loyalists weren't. Each was patriotic[20C] in their own way, regardless of what terminology they used.  Your recommendation, no matter how well it is sourced, doesn't solve the problem of NPOV language.  Magic ♪piano 12:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I mentioned this in a previous response. There is really no chance that anyone (even someone who had never read a style guide in their life) would misunderstand the use of the term patriot in the context of the American revolution. In this context, American patriots are referred to as "patriots," while British loyalists are referred to as "loyalists." The British were patriotic by the modern definition, and the Americans were loyal to their emergent American ideals. Regardless of the capitalization, there is no confusion whatsoever between the two. Saying that there is is like saying that, if we did capitalize, the average reader would think that the patriots in the American revolution played football. Patriots in the context of the American revolution means revolutionaries, patriots in the context of Irish resistance against the British means Irish nationalists, Patriots in the context of football means players on that team. No English speaker ever mixes these up, regardless of style.Pwoodfor (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The original request was for a style guide: we now have one: at the on line Journal of the American Revolution : "Loyalist, not loyalist. Patriot, not patriot" See Style Guide This is exactly focused on the topic at hand. -- no more problems.  The M-W unabridged of course is over 50 years old--and it does NOT mention "patriot" in the context of the Am Rev one way or the other.  So let's go with up-to-date (2015) Journal of the American Revolution which has explicitly given its judgment. Rjensen (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The original post requested a style source, and subsequent posts provided a style citation. I am sure that you prefer the JAR, because you believe it supports your viewpoint on this issue. It doesn't. The JAR style guide provides style guidelines for the JAR, not for general, non-POV usage. The JAR has a specific viewpoint that they promote (they admit it on their website, they have a "passionate" mission). Wikipedia is not supposed to promote or endorse specific viewpoints. I don't think you actually believe that the JAR's specifically and admittedly American POV style guide is a better source than the Chicago Manual and M-W's dictionary, so at this point you're engaging in a solipsistic manipulation of the facts. The fact that the JAR's style guide is newer than M-W/Chicago is not an endorsement. The JAR is an online journal that has only been around for three years and was founded by an expert in marketing, not history. It's editors include an engineer and two guys with master's degrees (one of which is an MA in history). Why aren't there any doctors of history working on the journal, even though so many people with doctoral degrees in history can't find tenure track jobs? It's because the JAR isn't a real journal, it's a webzine. I'm sure it's very entertaining, but actual historians publish elsewhere.Pwoodfor (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It appears that a content fork of this article has been created entitled Anglo-French War (1778–83). It should be merged into this one, as they cover the same topic.XavierGreen (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A knowledgeable person to talk to on such a subject is Rjenson. Juan Riley (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge to this pagespace, Support merge or redirect to France in the American Revolutionary War, which is where the Anglo-French War (1778–83) pagespace is a direct content fork recently created by an editor here for six weeks. France in the ARW has been the subject of two recent move requests (Requested move 29 January 2015, Requested move 20 August 2015), both of which have failed. Perhaps frustrated by the failure to move, but undeterred from purpose, new User:AdjectivesAreBad chose to build the created redirect into its own article. France in the ARW is a legitimate topic, has existed since 2005, and deserves improvement. Anglo-French War (1778–83) is a clear content fork, and should be deleted and redirected (or perhaps merged) to the France in the American Revolutionary War pagespace. BusterD (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose a merge into the France in the American Revolutionary War page. My primary concern is that the Anglo-French War (1778–83) page is presenting itself as a direct subject matter fork of this page. From the edit history and talk page info you've shown, it appears you are correct in that the creators intention in making the page in question was to subvert the rejected move requests. I do recognize that the European Theater of the war is lacking a page in regards to overview of that theater, however the page in question here is not focused solely on that theater and is so broad as to infringe upon the general subject matter of the American Revolutionary War page.XavierGreen (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with your assessment. Let's get conensus here and solve the problem. If there's anything the new user has added which seems worth merging, let's go ahead and add the material and attribution to the longstanding pagespace. If we do so, it's important to note in the edit summary where the merged material was found. I think it extremely unlikely this will end another way. But I have been wrong from time to time. BusterD (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm notifying relevant WikiProjects. BusterD (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'll repeat what I said on the other article, even supposing that this is the primary topic, it's pretty common to subdivide broad subjects into other ones. As it is this article is totally crowded, and don't support nothing else, don't know why someone would wish to bury valid content into one or two paragraph. About the validity of the subject, a quick search anywhere should elucidate anyone. SuffrenXXI (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War, already covers French involvment in the war, so the Anglo-French War fork is redundant.XavierGreen (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm taking the liberty to quote User:Godwhale here, hope he doesn't care. SuffrenXXI (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

"This article is not before time, and is crucial to a proper understanding that there were many more facets to the so-called American Revolutionary War than merely those that took place on the American continent. The events of this war are only cursorily covered in the main artical on the American Revolutuion so any attempt to integrate them should be rigorously opposed.--Godwhale (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)"
 * I would note, that User:Godwhale did not post the above statement, and User:SuffrenXXI used Godwhale's signature to sign the combat above, which is most disingenuous.XavierGreen (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with BusterD. Oppose merge to this pagespace, Support redirect (merge not necessary) to France in the American Revolutionary War. The notion that there was an "Anglo-French War" separate from the American Revolutionary War is silly. It was all part of the same war. Google the term and the only hit you get is the WP article, which makes it sound a lot like original research (WP:OR), which makes me question the article's existence. WCCasey (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Before making laughable claims that I came up with this, people could at least made a quick search on it to illuminate themselves. As no ones appears to did it, I'll try to help with just a few occurrences:, , , , and the list goes on.

The article needs work. Nobody denies it. Is the article wrong just because "their war against England had little to do with the American Revolution except one of opportunity" during the same period of here? And why can't we call it "Anglo-French War", as many historians do?

Everyone willing to look can found plenty of articles about concomitant conflicts with their articles too, and no one question their existence. The term is not more or less valid because it isn't palatable to some people. I bet that if anyone came here with more than a paragraph about the fight in india here it would be reverted in a blink of the eye. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * AdjectivesAreBad: Please edit your remarks..am having a hard time understanding them. moreover your count of "many historians" is suspect. Juan Riley (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Do most of us agree that, if a merger is a good thing, this already large article is not the correct target? Jim.henderson (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

American POV
This article drastically needs a worldwide perspective. At the moment, it's quite Amerocentric. Like the American Loyalists almost getting no mention at all, although the Loyalists represented at least one-fifth of the population of the Thirteen Colonies. There is a specific reason why including both the British Empire and American Loyalists is not redundant. While Loyalists considered themselves and were perceived by others to be subjects of the British Empire, internationally, American Patriots were also subjects of the British Empire until the Treaty of Paris. For the same reason that we don't say that the American Civil War was a war between the United States and the United States, however, we differentiate between the USA (loyalists) and the CSA (rebels). Here we must differentiate between Patriots and Loyalists. During the Revolution, there were two types of colonists: those who were loyal to the British Crown and those who sought independence from it. We should not diminish the fact that the war wasn't a universally-popular one; the Patriots were considered to be British subjects in rebellion by the international community (and by the Loyalists). The Loyalists were also still Americans, in the sense of being inhabitants of the American colonies. It should be made explicit that there were many "Americans" who did not support the War and who were loyal to the Crown. Hong Tray (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * this is the military article on the Revolution and gives the Loyalist military role its proper small role. No the international community did NOT consider the Patriots to be the king's subjects until 1783. It was George III who thought that. Rjensen (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * All of what you say is mentioned already in this article, and Loyalist activity is mentioned regularly in articles that detail battles and campaigns. What type of material would you add that is missing?  (Specific examples of omissions would be useful.)  Magic ♪piano 11:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone merely read this article, they would get the impression that the war was fought between the colonists and the far away Great Britain. In reality, however, the war was fought amongst the colonists themselves as well as between the rebels and Great Britain. This should be made explicit. Hong Tray (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is already a subsection called "Loyalists", and another called "Loyalist Writings" that deal explicitly with internal opposition in general, and most of the events that prominently involve intracolonial conflict mention the participation of Loyalists (e.g. Snow Campaign, Battle of Kings Mountain, and frontier raiding). Making a vague pronouncement that "something must be added" isn't helpful. In this case, where would you add language that would result in it being "made explicit" in a way that it is not now?  Magic ♪piano 17:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Magicpiano. No need for a merge. Besides, the article does fine in presenting the basic facts. What is a "worldwide perspective" anyways? How does one propose adding the perspectives of China, Iran, Turkey, Brazil, et al?? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

…er, because after 1778 the war became a world war, affecting several continents. That would be the worldwide perspective. I imagine that what User; Hong Tray is getting at is that the article only really covers what happened in the Thirteen colonies, in particular using the word 'Americans' in the context of the patriots or rebels, as if all the colonists were fighting the British, which they were not. This is the case from the very first sentence, which states; “The Revolutionary War in the United States was the armed conflict between Great Britain and thirteen of its North American colonies, which had declared themselves the independent United States of America”

This statement is utterly untrue. The war began as a civil war – because everyone was a British subject – with a minority of colonists taking up arms and declared themselves independent and eventually managing to impose their will on the majority – in no small part by successfully embroiling three other nations in their cause. These are the facts, at least as far as more professional sources describe them. For example, if you go over the History Channel website it states on its main banner; 'The American Revolution, which had begun as a civil conflict between Britain and its colonies, had become a world war.'

And so it continues throughout, with massive emphasis on the land battles but hardly anything on anything else, the involvement of the French, Spanish and Dutch receiving only the most cursory attention and with just the odd half sentence on critical aspects, such as the war at sea. Britain was able to bring only a small part of its navy across the Atlantic to enforce its blockade because of very real concerns of a Franco-Spanish invasion, which took place in 1779, but this is mentioned only in passing, and not even in the main narrative. This is partly why, re; the section above about the Anglo-French Naval War is so important. Rjensen's blatant POV statement 'the Loyalist proper small role' pretty much say its all--Godwhale (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources that give due weight to these ideas then I don't see any harm in mentioning a few of these things if there is consensus, but I don't think a merge is needed here, at all. And I disagree with referring to the American Revolution as a "World War", as all the battles were fought in (the soon to be) America. I am not impressed with TV sources. As a general rule, TV sources, esp ones which lack an author's name, should take a back seat to publications by established and recognized historians. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gwillhickers. Godwhale fails to tell us what RS he is relying upon for his claims, if any. He only mentions a TV show-- or more exactly he mentions one sentence from the anonymous blurb for a tv show. Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the History Channel website, not a TV programme. But as an example of RS, there is The Struggle for Sea Power: A Naval History of American Independence by Sam Willis, which came out this year. It states; "The American Revolution was a naval war of immense scope and variety, including no less than twenty-two navies fighting on five oceans - to say nothing of rivers and lakes. In no other war were so many large-scale fleet battles fought, one of which was the most strategically significant naval battle in all of British, French and American history. Simultaneous naval campaigns were fought in the English Channel, the North and Mid-Atlantic, the Mediterranean, off South Africa, in the Indian Ocean, the Caribbean, the Pacific, the North Sea and, of course, off the Eastern Seaboard of America. Not until the Second World War would any nation actively fight in so many different theatres."

And yet we have basically nothing on it at all. And Rjensen as usual is trying to make out this is some kind of fringe thoery. Any decent history of the RN will include sections on the wide variety of operations fought in the American Revolution. They will sit between the chapter on the Seven Years War and the one on the French Revolutionary Revolutionary War. For example, in Command of the Ocean by NAM Rodger, in The age of the Ship of the Line by Jonathan Dull. Best of all, the two books by David Syrett, The Royal Navy in European Waters & The Royal Navy in American Waters. The last two writers are American authors. Another US book is Naval Bloackades in Peace & War by Lance Davis & Stanley Engerman. There ia a whole chapter called 'The United States versus Great Britain 1775-1815' which describes the two blockades and their affects in considerable detail. There are also plenty of older general studies that have been digitised and are available online --Godwhale (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * an entirely new separate article on the naval history of this war would be a good idea. Rjensen (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The America navy, such that it was, was involved almost entirely in the American waters. The first naval fleet of any consequence didn't venture out across the Atlantic until Jefferson's term -- long after the revolution. Almost all the America naval actions were defensive, fought in waters on the home front. Willis seems to be exaggerating American naval involvement elsewhere around the globe. To go as far as to refer to the affair as a "world war" is academic nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The American navy did have various ships operating in European waters at various points during the war, IE Battle of Flamborough Head, North Channel Naval Duel, ect. Privateers also operated in Eurpoean and other non-american waters. Also american merchant vessels were attacked and engaged in European waters, in the south atlantic, as well as the indian oceaen. And your assertion that Amerian Naval forces were not dispatched outside of the Atlantic prior to the Jefferson Administration is factually false. During the Quasi-War, an American squadron under Edward Preble was dispatched to the Indian Ocean to combat french forces their and convoy American shipping (only USS Essex (1799) actually made it to the Indian Ocean).XavierGreen (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm, Naval operations in the American Revolutionary War already exists. It's not of particularly good quality, but it covers most of the global events.  Magic ♪piano 23:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good--so Godwhale can improve it to good effect. Rjensen (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus and the request was started by a sock of a banned user. Calidum T&#124;C 18:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War → War of American Independence – By WP:WORLDVIEW, avoiding WP:BIAS. This is as WP:COMMON as the current title but without the American POV. Hong Tray (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In English-speaking sources, "Revolutionary War" is far more common. Kelly  hi! 14:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with Kelly. Rjensen (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment why WAI instead of "American War of Independence" ? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the war wasn't justabout the American independence, not just fought by the Americans and not exclusively related to it. Hong Tray (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE MOS:TIES, the two dialects of English directed related to this are British English and American English -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per reasons stated above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. American usage should be preferred here. That's not bias, though finding excuses to Britishize the article would be. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as above.  General Ization  Talk   05:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. WCCasey (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - the nominator has begun a related discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 31. Kelly  hi! 13:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The proposed title is not just as common as the current title. Even if it were, the current title is what's most commonly used in the United States, and keeping it is not an indication of bias but rather a recognition that in articles about American topics, American English should be used (just as in Canadian topics, Canadian English should be used; in Indian topics, Indian English should be used; etc.) per WP:ENGVAR. If anything, the proposed change is what would be biased, though I note that WP:BIAS is an essay and not a policy or guideline. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 11:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If anything it should probably be changed to something like 'Land Battles of the American Revolution,' since that's all it really covers. I find it a bit disturbing that there are so many people who think that the war took place almost exclusively on the American landmass.--Godwhale (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is called what generally historians have called it for years. What would be the point of changing it? Juan Riley (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

War theatres
So it seems there's an edit war going on right now as to whether the war's theatres should be "Eastern North America, Atlantic", or "Eastern North America, Atlantic, Gibraltar, Balearic Islands, Central America, the Indian subcontinent, and Africa". I reverted to the latter and was informed that, unless "the Americans fought for their independence in Gibraltar, Balearic Islands, Central America, Indian subcontinent and Africa", these theatres shouldn't be mentioned. I'm confused as to who this cane the case; the article's lede notes that "The conflict then expanded into a world war with Britain combating France, Spain, and the Netherlands. Fighting also broke out in India between the British East India Company and the French allied Kingdom of Mysore" and the article describes operations in gibraltar,  Mysore and Central America in considerable detail. The presence of these sections in the article makes it logically necessary that we mention those areas as theatres of the war. Rwenonah (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The other wars and conflicts that you mentioned are apart from what was going on in North America. Obviously you're going to mention Britain's hold on India during the Seven Years' War on the French and Indian War but not mention that the war took place in India, since it's another theater. Pointless to mention all these other places in the infobox. (N0n3up (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC))
 * I'd have to disagree there, since the Seven Years' War mentions Africa and Asia as theatres in the infobox. There's no particular reason that something not happening in North America means we shouldn't put it in the infobox. Rwenonah (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that (unlike the Seven Years War vs the French and Indian War) there is no accepted historiographical (?) naming difference for this later global conflict by theater. Thus the global war unfortunately gets pinned with the name American Revolutionary War. This is not my opinion by the way, it is as I understand it from historians here. If so then WP cannot invent more convenient war naming conventions. Juan Riley (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rwenonah But it's not the Seven Year's War I'm talking about, it's the French and Indian War. And even though the French and Indian War was part of the Seven Year's War, the article infobox on the French and Indian War article concentrates on that sole part of the conflict and only that part and place. Because the French and Indian war didn't take place in India now did it? Agree disagree? (N0n3up (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC))
 * The article has long been stable with these place entries. Not sure I am happy with them but they are current consensus. Thus if non3up wishes to bring them up again that is fine. However, I think we should retain the previous version during discussion. Just a thought. I am sure non3up thinks we should have his version while we discuss it. Juan Riley (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Juan Riley You yourself disagree. And as far as I'm concerned, it's only Rwenonah that disagrees. If you disagree or someone else does, feel free to revert my edit. (N0n3up (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC))
 * I must agree with N0n3up here. Even though it may have been on article for a long time, some may have over looked it. Those other locations had nothing to do with the war. The Americans never fought the British outside North America and the Atlantic Ocean. Reb1981 (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a valid point of view Reb1981. However, as I said above I think historians take the ARW as titularly subsuming the global conflict it (re)ignited. We can't decide to change this here in this article without addressing what historians say. At least in my opinion. And I aint a historian. Shall we invite or wait for say User:Rjensen to weigh in? Juan Riley (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Globalized or localized, it's just plain impossible to list every single place in which combats occurred (despite the incoherence of having North America but splitting Europe in a number of places), so I don't see why it shouldn't be simple as it's now. Red Rudy (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you. It is just that past talking points on this article lead to this. I would like nothing more than eliminating Mysore etc.... I am just afraid that if not seriously considered here, the pendulum swings one way...and in another 6 months the other. Is my position clear? Juan Riley (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The other issue is that EXPERT here sometimes becomes a bad word. And I understand that. But when treating history as here it behooves us to get historically accurate consensus. (Which aint me!) Juan Riley (talk)
 * My point is that either option is as much arbitrary as the other. Besides, what's the point of listing places that got no mention at all in the article? Red Rudy (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

What about a link to the "Britain vs. France, Spain, Mysore, and Holland 1778–1783" section, instead of a comprehensive list? Something like "North America, Atlantic Ocean, and elsewhere"? Those battles, though not involving Americans directly, were a part of the same conflict. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me if done with care and linking to the global conflicts. But who am I? Juan Riley (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again I caution that some editors will come in against a perceived too American-centric POV. Juan Riley (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which does sound silly eh? Juan Riley (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * European and Indian theatres are mentioned in the article. It's basic logic that we include them in the info box. If the article only focused on American operations, it would make sense to exclude them, but since they're discussed at some length in the article, and since historians regularly treat them as the same wars, we should definitely include them? The only reason I've seen not to is a vague sentiment that "unless Ameericans were involved, it wasn't really a theatre", which isn't historiographically accepted. Also, N0n3up inserting the French and Indian War link after falsely claiming that the Seven Years War article didn't include other theatres doesn't make you any less wrong. The French and Indian War article is explicitly focused on Americna operations; there is no such historians' consensus that the term "American Revolutionary War" apple solely to one continent. Rwenonah (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do agree Rwenonah. When I first agreed early to exclude them, I didn't look at the whole picture. There were other battles that happened as a result of foreign involvement in the war. I do agree it should be included in the info box.Reb1981 (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Juan Riley, do you understand why there are frequent accusations of Pro-US bias on these pages?--Godwhale (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The overall global conflict between the United States, France, Spain, Netherlands, and Mysore on one side against the UK and allied German principalities on the other is called the American Revolutionary War by the vast majority of scholarly sources. As such this article covers the entire scope of the war and every theater.XavierGreen (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you User:XavierGreen. However, I am being nice after getting warned for an edit war over this issue. Thus at least in the near term someone else other than I will have to restore the more extended location list in the info-box. Juan Riley (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just took care of it, after reading through this thread, there clearly was no concensus to remove any area of the world previously mentioned.XavierGreen (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

British Empire
User recently removed the line about the end of the first British Empire. While I tend to agree with him, there are plenty of editors who don't, and this is a contentious topic anyway. So I suggest that instead of the infobox stating the end of the First British Empire, it stats "Start of the Second British Empire" or other similar language. What other editors think? Red Rudy (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As you note it has been contentious here as well as elsewhere. Though perhaps not so contentious among historians. Follow the links. Juan Riley (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Our job is to follow the RS -- that means historians who keep up with the scholarship and use concepts like "First British Empire" even if they are new ideas to some editors. The end of 1st Brit Empire is widespread theme in RS and not at all "controversial" Rjensen (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say in WP that we must follow RS. which if i understand you correctly means recent scolarship?--Godwhale (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Try WP:RS. Juan Riley (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * the rule is: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it....When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. WP:RS Rjensen (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The section of the policy you've quoted doesn't actually say anything about recent scholarship being preferred, (although it is). The term "First British Empire" has been contentious among historians for centuries. It still is; perhaps certain editors should "keep up with the scholarship"? As such the assertion should be referenced. It is not. However, while references could be provided easily, they could not reflect the balance of opinion evenly. To cover the topic neutrally would require a section explaining why some historians believe it marked a turning point and why some do not believe that. Since there is no further mention of the consequences to the Empire aside from this single unreferenced line in the infobox I think it should come out. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The term has been used by scholars for over 80 years: note thetitle of this major book from 1930: . Wiki-Ed seems to think the term is controversial but I do not see that--can he provide a RS for the claim: contentious among historians for centuries ??? Actually it has been standard usage since 1900: as a leading specialist states: " Since then [1900] concepts of an 'old' or 'first Empire' have held their ground in historians' usage without serious challenge." see Rjensen (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said before, it is easy to provide sources indicating that the terminology is used, but doing so does not meet WP:NPOV. You've selectively quoted from Volume V of the Oxford History of the British Empire on Historiography, but somehow overlooked PJ Marshall's essay which is even entitled "The First British Empire". It may use the term, but it exposes the points of debate (e.g. around dates 1763 / 1783 / 1815 / 1830 etc, policy changes, ideology etc). The subsequent chapter by Bayly discusses different generations of historians holding to different views, espousing periodisation or continuity, and changing the focus as archival material comes to light. Some historians use the distinction, some avoid it, some (e.g. Judd) criticise it. That last bit is important. WP cannot carry a bald assertion that the American War of Independence was responsible for changing the British Empire when there is an ongoing debate about the issue. Sure, it's not OR, but it's not neutral either. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * there is no dispute about how this article uses the term. Bayly accepts the concept of a First British Empire without dissent. (The debate he mentions deals with when was the start of the SECOND empire, which is not at issue here.) If Wiki-Ed thinks there are alternative views they have to be ADDED. Rjensen (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The use of the term in this article reflects its use and discussion in the British Empire article. This I am sure Wiki-Ed is familiar with. Is this the place to bring up the issue? Try there to address your concerns where it is not a nuanced but a more fundamental point. E.g., the infobox also claims as a result: "Shattering of the Iroquois Confederacy". And yet, though notable, the nuances of what this means is left to other (wikilinked) articles. These terms are historically recognized guides to the readers. They are not there to take up sides along some national sympathy boarderline. Juan Riley (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Rjensen: the fact we are having a discussion about it rather suggests that there is a dispute. As you know, the essays in the OHBE discuss the overlap; the fact they need to do so indicates that there is a debate over the end / start of these supposed periods of history. Bayly might well be dealing with the start of the second... but there can't be vacuum between the two...
 * User:JuanRiley: This article doesn't reflect usage in the BE article. While the section titles include the dates and the terms "First" and "Second", these are placed in inverted commas and the coverage overlaps the periods (as a result of discussions in February). More importantly it specifically states that the 1783 is only viewed as a transition point by "some" historians, unlike this article which is asserting that the end of the "First" British Empire was a direct outcome of this war. If you are suggesting that other articles should explain the detail then those articles have to agree with the conclusions suggested here; they do not and should not. Wiki-Ed (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They do agree as I read them. And historiography terms will always have naysayers. Of course. E.g., Athenian Empire, Manifest Destiny, etc.... If they are recognized terms they are fine. The appropriate articles should discuss the nuances of their acceptance and utility. And that article ain't this one! If the article on the British Empire discusses it...well...there you can make your argument with a whole bunch of folks that it should eliminate it as a term. Good luck with that. Though I do think I agree with your recent reversions of Rjensen edits in British Empire. His edits at first glance appear to confuse history and historiography--at least to the readers. Juan Riley (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is difference between naysayers ("significant minority views" in the policy) and a school of thought. If we assert that something happened then it has to reflect the majority of RS. So where is the majority? Some historians view periodisation as convenient - we don't know if that's a majority or not - and of those that do, they do not all agree on the same dates. This could be discussed in the article on the British Empire or even better, in the article on the Historiography of the British Empire. Having just checked I see that there is, in fact, a paragraph on this issue... my first thought was "this is pretty unbalanced, original research, poorly referenced" etc, my second thought was "who wrote this?" Imagine my surprise when I found out. I'll rectify the issues if I have time later and then we can come back to this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fond of the theory that the Duchy of Normandy was the first British Empire, British North America the second, and various mostly 19th century encroachments such British India the third. But of course, none of these empires ended with a single bang; each dwindled away and has remnants today. Besides, earlier ones (Cornwall, Ireland etc) could be added and increment the serial number of each, so no, the definitions are not sharp enough to go in a little infobox. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What you are fond of is not accepted historical terminology. But this fine. You are entitled to your opinions. Juan Riley (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Wiki-Ed: Imagine my surprise when you realized you had to go change recognized historiographical terms in another article so you could then return here and say the term First British Empire is unrecognized historiographically. Don't make a fool of yourself. Juan Riley (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the issue here is not whether this is an accepted historical term so much as whether it is an infobox-worthy result. Generally, info boxes aren't the place to use fairly arbitrary historical benchmarks which weren't really results of the war, except insofar as it provided a convenient place to mark a gradual shift. We don't mark "foundation of principate" as a result of the Third Century Crisis because the term is arbitrary and refers to a gradual and at the time unrecognized change in government in the Roman Empire. However, this isn't wiki policy, just my thoughts. Rwenonah (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * the RS say the First Brit Empire ended in 1783 (loss of American colonies)--who gives a different date??. User:Wiki-Ed is vague. When does he think it ended.  He seems to say "it ended when 2nd Brit Emp formed because there cannot be an overlap." But maybe I misread him. there  can be an overlap with operations starting in India for example before they ended in USA. Rjensen (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some reliable sources say that. Others do not. You appear to be familiar with the historiography chapters in the OHBE; these refer to whole schools of historians examining different periodisaton. They state that different dates have been considered; I don't propose to go and hunt down all the different works in order to prove it. If you're challenging what they say then you'll need to take it up with the authors.
 * How can the "Second" Empire could start before the "First" one finished? Or how it could start some decades later? It was a single continuous (in time and space) entity, unless you're taking a very provincial view in relation to the American colonies, which would not meet WP:NPOV. Wiki-Ed (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rewonah: it is significant..or many people think it is since this article is not solely about the US but the global war its revolution caused. It is true that it is a catch phrase. But one which recognizably summarizes the cost to Britain of the war. Ya know what I think arguably might not belong in the info box? American Victory. Why not just say Peace of Paris, Recognition of American independence, End of the 1st British empire, etc.... Juan Riley (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wiki-Ed: you are descending into what appears to be OR. Juan Riley (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wiki-Ed asks a strange question-- how could empire 2 start before empire 1 ended? answer, they overlapped. This is the argument of Vincent T. Harlow that has been widely accepted: read his The Founding of the Second British Empire, 1763-1793 . The two empires covered different areas and policies. Wiki-ed  makes the OR claim that the Brit Emp was "a single continuous (in time and space) entity" -- he made that up himself.  Wiki-Ed refuses to provide sources for his claims. Keep in mind that the "British Empire" is a mental construct by historians. It was not a decree of any king or a law of any Parliament. [see Adams "On the Term "British Empire"" AHR 1922 p 485] Rjensen (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What about Canada, Jamaica and other areas? Red Rudy (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Meaning? E.g., I'll certainly take Red Stripe over Molson. Juan Riley (talk)
 * Meaning that your POV assertion is misleading. The British Empire did not "end" in 1783: The much more valuable territories in the Caribbean and larger territories (including Canada) remained a part of the same Empire for at least 150 years. But don't let the facts get in the way eh? Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As Rjensen said, the concept of the British Empire is a construct and was never a legal entity, unlike the Roman or other European empires. There was no imperial constitution, no office of emperor, no uniformity of laws. So when it began, when it ended, and what stages it went through is a matter of opinion, not official orders or laws. The dividing line was Britain's shift from emphasis on Western to Eastern territories following U.S. independence. The London bureaucracy governing the colonies also changed, policies to white settler colonies changed and slavery was phased out. But of course there was no official declaration that the Second Empire had changed. 1783 seems the best dividing line, and that is the one that historians use. TFD (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Constructs are analysed in different ways; Rjensen has presented a particular POV. It does reflect the views of some RS. However, it does not reflect the view of all or even the majority of RS, so it should not be presented as fact. Doing so is, of course, a violation of WP:NPOV. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * well that's an unfortunate unfounded allegation. Wiki-Ed shows narrow reading -- he rarely cites the recent journal scholarship.   he has not read widely to be able to assert anything about "the majority of RS". If you look at scholar.google.com you will see 540 citations in the scholarly literature to "first british empire" since 2011. and 164 cites in 2014-15. " "second british empire" gets 69 scholarly cites in 2015 alone. Wiki-Ed can tell us how many of these new RS  he has looked at. . Rjensen (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Narrow reading?! You've just cited Google scholar as evidence. Using your search criteria what does the second result (Kane) say? "So-called First British Empire". We get the same thing again later with quotation marks around "First" or "Second". Anyone wishing to debunk this approach has to quote the term. Secondly your method does not identify the number of historians discussing the period who elect not to use the term at all. How many of them are there? How influential are either group relative to the other? Third, Google also picks up phrases like "First British Empire Games" which are irrelevant. Clearly you haven't read all 540 references either so I'd suggest that you avoid quoting Google statistics.
 * More broadly, as we all know (I hope), historians go through phases. Current trends do not reflect (or may be a reaction to) previous trends and, in turn, we can expect the next generation to challenge existing assumptions.
 * In any case this is a strawman: Your challenge is to demonstrate that the overwhelmingly majority of RS consider that 1783 marked the end of a so called 'First British Empire'. The burden of proof lies with those who want to include this. Presenting this assertion as a fact, without any references or caveats is not consistent with WP:NPOV. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the question is when did the First Empire end? All the historians I have read say the end was the loss of the American colonies. That is what the infobox says. Looking at several dozen RS I see unanimity. In this case "the end" means a sharp turn away from past policies toward a new set of policies esp a geographical shift to the East (esp India, Australia). Wiki-Ed says not so---but he has not told us when it did end--he does not cite any RS that gives a new date. What date does Wiki-Ed think marks the end of the 1st British Empire? Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Another strawman. I note that Rjensen made some selective edits to the article on the Historiography of the British Empire a few days ago, including some commentary on Marshall's work. From that we could assume that he already knows (a) which RS have offered which alternative dates and (b) that there are historians who (i) consider alternative dates or (ii) consider there to have been continuity rather than "sharp turns" and "geographical shifts". Given that he accepts that these views exist does he not think it is biased to reflect only one side of the debate in this article? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Wiki-Ed: You disappoint me. Previously I saw you as an objective editor holding the line against POV on the very article that is referenced here: British Empire. Now you are here at least in my perhaps tainted viewpoint appearing to push an agenda. I will quote from your comments above: "The much more valuable territories in the Caribbean and larger territories (including Canada) remained a part of the same Empire for at least 150 years." Why don't you read thru that sentence in the context of hindsight history--which is what historiography consists of in part. Juan Riley (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wiki-Ed makes the claim that the infobox "it does not reflect the view of all or even the majority of RS,". Wiki-Ed does not cite a source and has shown very little knowledge of the scholarly RS. Yet he writes about "the majority of RS" based on his own ignorance & then claims I'm driven by POV. That's a personal attack. He refuses to give the "real" date the first British Empire ended--it's his little secret. That undermines any remaining credibility. No one says that Canada ended in 1783--only that there was a radical transformation of the role of the Empire.     Rjensen (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling someone "ignorant" (as he has just done) is a personal attack; drawing attention to the inconsistency in an editor's arguments (as I have been doing) is not. User Rjensen has already been put on notice about his editing of articles relating to historiography, in particular that of the British Empire, and he appears to be ignoring arguments made here and, indeed, in the RS that he himself has quoted from verbatim. I've referenced these above and I'm sure he can check again if he has forgotten what they say about dates. However, since it is impossible to make a reasonable argument with someone who will not acknowledge what they themselves have written I don't propose to continue this discussion. We'll need to unpick the BE "historiography" article and come back to this when it fairly represents what historians say, and not Rjensen's singular interpretation of what they say. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To User:Wiki-Ed: Oh my. All those ambitions will require on your part a lot more neutrality as well as knowledge (not opinion) of the evolution and history of historians' writings than you have yet to display. Juan Riley (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wiki-Ed has mentioned only two historians and both of them agree that the loss of the Am colonies played a central role in the end of the First British Empire. For example Marshall writes: These changes constituted a fundamental reordering of the Empire which make it appropriate to talk about a first British Empire giving way to a second one....Historians have long identified certain developments in the late eighteenth century that undermined the fundamentals of the old Empire and were to bring about a new one. These were the American Revolution and the industrial revolution." Wiki-Ed fails to provide any RS for his claim about the majortiy of RS, and refuses to tell us the true date of the end. Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

New Year's Resolution
I would like to propose that during 2016 we collaboratively take steps to add some depth & balance to this article and to the one on the revolution itself, which has largely stalled. To do this it would be good if we could discuss what it missing and ahieve a consensus in adding it in.

To that end, I would like to propose that a new section is added into the current narrative to discuss the Dunmore Proclamation, something to which there is currently only passing reference far down the page and not in its proper context. This article purports to be the one which covers the war in its entirety, rather than being about one particular element of it. There are plenty of good sources which place the DP as being central to the events of 1775 and in forcing many colonists to make up their minds which side to support. I realise that many people are sentitive regarding this topic but since schoolchildren are currently being taught about the DP I can see no reason why it should continue to be left out. I assume that nobody disputes that it actually happenend, so hopefully there will not be dissagreements or claims of POV or that it is fringe theory.--Godwhale (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Eh? I would not propose that this article "cover the war in its entirety", any more than World War I should cover that one in its entirely. Such a policy would make these articles far too big. Particular and illuminative elements, such as Dunmore's Proclamation and Black Tom explosion, are briefly mentioned in the respective war articles. They are covered, as much as Wikipedia does cover them, in their respective linked articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Result
It should be Franco-American or Allied victory isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dona Deda (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC) So? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dona Deda (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Dona Deda, I hadn't noticed that before, but I can't say I'm surprised. I note you are a new editor,; this sort of bias is something you are going to have to get used to, I'm afraid. This article is only marginally more balanced that the Conservapedia article on the same subject. This is because the editor who produced the Conservapedia version has been very heavily involved with this article as well. After Yorktown Cornwallis still had 40,000 men, five times more than he lost and 3.5 times as many as Washington. But the favoured, patriotic version of the war always ends with Yorktown, which was won by French heavy cannon and ignores the final two years of the war Britain fought against France, Spain & the Dutch. This is deleberate, as in reality America was part of a four nation alliance.

As the historian Ray Raphael has written; “Taking the global context in earnest would require the admission that Americans did not control their own destinies. The basic premise of the favoured story – that patriots were able to overthrow the mightiest empire on earth because their cause was so just – would be called into question…only by ignoring the international context can we tell the story we like”--Godwhale (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are they cited in the infobox then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkiji (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Change it--Godwhale (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Patriot Party - clarification
For better clarity may I suggest that the sentence 'Patriot protests escalated into boycotts, and on December 16, 1773' which appears in the second paragraph, read instead 'Protests by supporters of the Patriot Party escalated....'. I suggest this because the words 'patriot and 'Patriot' in this context are so very often confused by both writers, and readers. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Civilian casualites
Are there any sources that state the civilian casualties for the American Revolutionary War ? These would include British loyalists and Americans who supported that Continental Army and Congress. Also, were Indians or slaves casualities of this war too ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

American victory?
Britain eventually won the global conflict against France, Spain and the Dutch Republic. (CoryHilton (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC))
 * That's just factually untrue. Britain lost Florida and some African and Caribbean territories to Spain and France; all it gained was Nengapatnam from the Netherlands. See Peace of Paris. Rwenonah (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Britain won the war in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, Asia and the Pacific. (CoryHilton (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Says which sources?  Magic ♪piano 18:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Dutch were the only ones on the Franco-American side which were defeated. The US and Vermont achieved independence, Spain and France received territory from Britain, and Mysore fought the British to a draw.XavierGreen (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does it say 'American victory' when the US & France had affirmed in 1778 after Saratoga that they would not make a separate treaty with Britain? Why does it not mention France, Spain & the Dutch? Weren't there French troops at Yorktown? Wasn't it French heavy cannon that caused the British to surrender? 'American victory' is a joke. --Godwhale (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cause there's a consensus established to keep the page in the lowest common denominator possible.Uspzor (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What consensus?--Godwhale (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the consensus of rs = US victory with help from France. See 1) Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence (2007) by John Ferling (American). 2) A leading British historian wrote Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire (2008) by Brendan Simms--the defeat of course came in this war.  3) another leading British historian Jeremy Black  writes "The British were defeated in America and also lost Minorca, West Florida and a number of West Indian islands." in Louis XIV to Napoleon: The Fate of a Great Power (2013) p 133   4) from Canada we have: Benoit Prieur,  Atlantic Canada (2005) p  15: "In 1783, after along, agonizing battle, the British admitted defeat." Rjensen (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention of French, Spanish & Dutch involvement? --Godwhale (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Rjensen I'm still waiting for a response; its a pretty simple question. Who no mention whatsoever of France or Spain? Just two words, 'American victory.' Funny how we have to have the lowest common denominator on this page yet over on the War of 1812 page we can follow different rules. By the way; I took a look at the articles covering the same topics on Conservapedia the other day; they were written by a user called Rjensen. Is that you by any chance. Are you also a Conservapedia editor?--Godwhale (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

How about "anti-british coalition victory" instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.208.129 (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Arming the rebels from April 1776 was a joint Franco-Spanish operation
France and Spain formed a company for that very purpose. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:6417:5FDD:3561:8F6F (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC))

Revolutionary War in the United States
The first begins "The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also referred to as the American War of Independence and the Revolutionary War in the United States". I think we should restructure this sentence in some way. It's not clear if we're saying one name for the war is 'the Revolutionary War in the United States' or if we're saying the war is known as the 'Revolutionary War' in the United States. Some guy (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2017
Under the "Test Acts" section, first paragraph, I think "double or treble taxes" should read "double or triple taxes". 74.108.8.77 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 74.108.8.77 - Thanks for the suggestion; since 'triple' is preferred in American English, I will make this change. Quasar G. (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Quebec
Infobox lists Quebec as an ally fighting on the British side. I don't think this was accurate. Some did fight on the Patriot side, and most were uninvolved in either. --JWB (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017
Please re-format reference 32 to say, " ".

95.44.50.222 (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The cause
The Revolutionary War is for one main cause; a series of acts, which request taxes. The colonists despised the acts very much. They created a plague of protests to convince the British Parliament to repeal the acts. Fortunately, King George III repealed the acts except that they added a new tax on tea which angered the colonists more. As long as it was taxed, it was invalid for them. They felt unjust when the British taxed them to pay their debt. When the Boston Tea Party was released, King George got fed up and declared war. The only reason why the British taxed the colonists was that they felt that they fought the 7 Years War for them, not for themselves, so they felt the should pay for their protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvemc (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, right, if you say so --Godwhale (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Some more bare urls
Please edit Jaques (2007), p. 666. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reference 6 to say:
 * Reference 7 to say:
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

victory
For most wars it says under outcome who the victor of the war was while for this one nothing is shown even though the us clearly won, why is this and could someone either explain it or fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:C101:93C0:A97A:A799:4FB5:300E (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite simply because not all of the Franco-American allied powers were victorious. Each power signed a separate peace treaty with the British, while the United States and Spain won clear cut victories over the British, the French victory is seen as relatively minor since they only managed to make relatively minor territorial gains, the Dutch actually lost territory to the British, Mysore fought the British to a draw and neither gained nor lost territory, and the Native American tribes that fought on the side of the UK lost the Indian Reserve territory the british had set up solely for them as the British ceded the area to the United States.XavierGreen (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't personally care one way or the other, but that's not necessarily consistent. The Hundred Years' War is largely viewed as a conflict between England and France resulting in an overall victory for the French (as the article indicates), but was a protracted series of conflicts involving a large number of sovereign powers, each of which experienced varying degrees of defeat and victory. Consider also the French and Indian War (many nations; British victory). I think that your argument would hold more weight if the American War of Independence was viewed more generally as a regional conflict between rival coalitions, rather than primarily a conflict between Britain and its American colonies. Yes, countries like France, Poland, various German states, etc., played a significant role in the conflict, but it was still largely a conflict between Americans and the British crown. And more importantly, one of the more solid and concrete conclusions that one can draw from the history of the revolutionary war is that it was, resoundingly, a victory for the United States and a defeat for Britain. The US gained independence and potential access to an entire continent while Britain lost vast swaths of territory and permanently lost access to the most resource-rich parts of North America. We all know how the story goes from there. Other countries' participation recedes into the background in the face of such a far-reaching and world-historical event. The infobox as it stands does appear to understate things when it lists "Treaty of Paris" as the principal result. While technically true, its placement would seem to diminish the much more significant results listed as mere bullet points beneath it: US independence and the end of the First British Empire. All that being said, it's really a minor issue; it's just fun to chew on. --TimothyDexter (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In my experience, everything you say is reflective of how the war is viewed in the United States. Non-Americans tend, unsurprisingly, to have a less Americo-centric view of the war, and don't see their countries' involvement, and the war's consequences in other regions, as "receding into the background in the face of" American independence. It's not clear to me that they're wrong. Rwenonah (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would assume such a thing. The truth is that it's barely of any importance to them whatsoever, and I'd suspect that plenty of them are only marginally aware of their respective country's involvement to begin with. Are you really suggesting that the international perspective of the American War of Independence is not (where it even exists in any meaningful form) that it was a matter involving Britain and the United States and that its only significance to them is that it resulted in the formation of the United States and, less directly importantly, the end of the First British Empire? I'm all in favor of having a cosmopolitan view of things, but what you're suggesting seems a little far-fetched to me. But like I said above, I don't really feel strongly about how the article is currently presented. --TimothyDexter (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Netherlands and Mysore
Neither the Netherlands or Mysore we're allied with the United States. They we're fighting separate wars (Fourth Anglo-Dutch War & Second Anglo-Mysore War) completely unrelated to the American Revolutionary War. The mere fact that they are fighting Britain at the same time does not make them a belligerent in this war. They should be removed. Charles lindberg (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They were co-belligerents and fought as a result of the war, therefore they should be included. The Dutch "secretly" supported the United States and France since the beginning and were at the Peace of Paris.Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Edit Warring
More pointless edit warring ocurring over the infobox. I added a more comprehensive list of commanders directly involved in the war, such as Dutch and Mysorean leaders, even if they were co-belligerents. I also added a more thorough results section, which included the three very different results that occurred in North America, Europe and India (with approved references I might add). I also altered the combatant nations to be more inclusive, such as adding the British Empire and then including its constituents that fought, such as Great Britain and British America (Canada and the West Indies - could be altered to Loyalist America?) still under its control, and the East India Company in India.

User Charles Lindberg persists in reverting these edits; edits which I believe to be constructive and informative. If I may, I must highlight the fact this is not the first time said user has been involved in near-vandalism on Wikipedia pages; one need only look at his talk page to see the frustration of fellow editors.

The aforementioned user then reverted the page to his edits, then stated that I acquire a consensus before making changes; replete with his own embedded demands in the infobox that all subsequent editors seek approval by consensus!

I did not realise that the Wikipedia community required to obtain a consensus every single time minor infobox editing took place? Nor did I realise that in seeking said consensus, we must adhere to one particular user's interpretation of the edits, and not have the page reverted to a time before either of us began making edits? RockDrummerQ (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * These are not minor infobox edits you made. They we're bizarre and inaccurate. I have attached the current infobox at the top, and your infobox below. You added French Empire, Spanish Empire, and British Empire with no consensus, they have been sufficiently represented by France, Spain, and Great Britain, for as long as this infobox has been there. You also added every single commander you could find and added them to the infobox. Only major commanders are to be listed in the infobox. That is why there is a link entitle "Full list" below, that links to an article with all the commanders. These are not minor whatsoever. Charles lindberg (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The edits you made do not actually make sense. When people use the phrase "French Empire", they are almost always referring to the empire that existed between 1804 and 1815 under Napoleon, they are NOT referring to Bourbon France. Also, instead of unilaterally adding every single commander you could find (which is a major edit), would you not think about maybe starting a talk page section before doing so? Charles lindberg (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Except it was not solely those countries involved, their empires were also involved, as I just pointed out. I did not add "every single commander I could find", as you snarkily pointed out. If you bothered to follow the links, you would have seen they were all commanders in high positions of seniority throughout the war. Alas, no such foresight was evidently exercised.


 * Colloquialisms often do not, and should not, take precedence over historical accuracy. Again, if you actually looked into it with a modicum of perspective on the historicity of the topic, you'd see that the French colonial empire was also referred to as the French empire.


 * Funny; you did not start a talk page discussion to remove every single commander in the list, which, by your own standards, is a major edit, yet you demand the same of others? If you felt a consensus was required, you should have reverted the page as to how it was before, not thrown in your own edits and then called for a consensus. Or, is it that you hold yourself to different standards from the rest of the community?


 * Had the page been reverted to its original state, I would have been happy to debate the issue to a consensus, and then follow said consensus. As it stands, your maverick approach to editing demands a different approach. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC))


 * Very good word salad. As I have stated, I am not against making edits to this infobox, by adding commanders, or changing the titles of the belligerents. What I am against is one person going in and changing them unilaterally. Edits that dramatically change the appearance and information of an infobox on a high traffic article, should not be made by you or myself, they should be discussed and made collectively based on consensus. Charles lindberg (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Very good word salad" - The last resort of one who has little comeback to a line of argument. I noticed you conveniently dodged my points of you clearly holding yourself to different standards than the rest of the community.


 * "What I am against is one person going in and changing them unilaterally" - Which is precisely what you have done by not only demanding that your personal edits stand in lieu of a consensus, but going further and adding to them, rather than reverting it to a state prior to any edits made by you or me. For example, you added Amherst, despite him having no real command authority over the American war, and actually actively declined a command.


 * "Edits that dramatically change the appearance and information of an infobox on a high traffic article, should not be made by you or myself, they should be discussed and made collectively based on consensus." - Except this is exactly what you have done! You have dramatically changed the infobox layout to what it was prior to my edits that you disagreed with. You have not bothered to broach the Wikipedia community for consensus on it; you instead made the edits yourself, and the demanded a consensus. So, I ask you again; is it that you hold yourself to a different standard to the rest of the editors here? If you really practised what you preached, you would have reverted the article to a state prior to either of our edits. Alas, it's quite clear you think your own logic should not apply to you. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC))


 * Don't forget, anyone can look at the edit history and see what actually occurred, you made 37 consecutive edits, without leaving any edit notes. What you should be doing is discussing ways to improve the quality of this article and this infobox instead of complaining. The talk page is not a place to vent grievances. Charles lindberg (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * How many times are you going to avoid answering legitimate questions on your behaviour that you criticise others for, solely to shift the burden of responsibility and pathetically attempt to claim some moral high ground? Given the history of your personal talk page, this isn't the first time you've been called out for essentially thinking the rules don't apply to you, whilst demanding others do. What you should be doing is following the same standards you expect of others. Since you have not, your grievances come off as hypocritical. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC))


 * Instead of snarkily pointing fingers of blame and bad faith at each other, how about discussing the merits of the problem. (Hint for RockDrummerQ: WP:BRD.)  Magic ♪piano 16:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So you say we point the fingers of blame and direct bad faith at each other, yet the hint is solely for me? That seems completely unbiased. (Hint for Magicpiano). (RockDrummerQ (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I agree, discussions should remain civil, and for the purpose of improving the article. I will do my best to fulfill that. Charles lindberg (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

and as the Revolutionary War in the United States
"and as the Revolutionary War in the United States" this qualification is totally unnecessary, as it is stating the bleeding obvious, and as this is not Simple English Wikipedia, it ought to be removed -- PBS (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)