Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 16

Topic header: German auxiliaries
Dear fellow editors.  was right, backed up with his goodwill-helping hand to me with an accessible link to Edward J Lowell | The Hessians and the other German auxiliaries of Great Britain in the revolutionary war (1884).


 * 1) Info Box flags for German principalities should include the six now shown: Brunswick, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Hanau, Anspah-Bayreuth, Waldeck, and Anhalt-Zerbst. They should be labelled "Conscript-mercenaries" after Lowell; NOT "Germans". The negotiator of the "sham treaties", Earl of Suffolk in the House of Lords dismissed any Whig apprehension that they might be binding on UK in any reciprocal fashion, "… the treaties themselves … filled with pompous, high-sounding phrases of alliance … I confess … that the true object of those treaties is not so much to create an alliance as to hire a body of troops …” [Lowell 33]
 * 2) As a matter of wp:balance, the colors in the info box representing the mercenary princelings who conscripted peasants for North America should be collapsed as are the "American Indians" lists. Regardless of moral and legal reservations among Whigs, Edmund Burke argued in Parliament for foreign conscripts as a cost savings of 30% over alternative Indian allies: the cost to the British Treasury to maintain 1,000 American braves bought 1,500 peasant conscripts [Lowell, 30].
 * 3) The Aftermath section in the Financial debts subsection should have less text here  this amount of expansive coverage belongs more appropriately at Continental Congress.
 * Embracing citizenship should be an 'Aftermath' subtopic, including (a) Continental Army deserters, (b) 'soft' Loyalists who did not fight but merchants and farmers who traded with the occupying British, and (c) German-speaking deserters among British forces (i.e. the Hessian settlers post-war, famous in local Alexandria, Virginia history . . . the cobbled streets they laid as prisoners are still a tourist feature in "Old Town Alexandria").
 * Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I like your suggestion to collapse the German principalities in the Infobox. I would strongly discourage the term "Mercenaries."  Over the years, this has caused quite a bit of angst and debate on the many related articles.  I won't revisit all the pro/con arguments here.  "Auxillaries," the term you use in this subheader, seems to be the currently preferred term.  I also wonder about the term "co-belligerent" that is used for the Dutch in the Infobox.  I'm not sure what makes one a "co-belligerent," but I like the term.  The German princes sent their armies, and the Germans marched under their own flags, but the didn't have their own countries and empires at stake as did the United States and Great Britain.  In other words, they stood to gain from the war, but had very little to lose... the old chicken/egg vs pig/bacon analogy, if you will.  For that matter, could the same be applies to Spain? Canute (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "I'm not sure what makes one a "co-belligerent," but I like the term." See main article Co-belligerence: "Co-belligerence is the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy with or without a formal treaty of military alliance. Generally, the term is used for cases where no alliance exists. Likewise, allies may not become co-belligerents in a war if a casus foederis invoking the alliance has not arisen. Co-belligerents are defined in the Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law as "states engaged in a conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not". " Dimadick (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * “Auxiliary mercenaries” best fits RS, the international context, and the mutual terms each party used for another at the time.
 * 1. there is no alliance per guidance at Co-belligerence, only a “ Treaty of subsidy between Great Britain and … : [the princeling, the true “mercenary” in the blood-for-coin arrangement - Lowell]. They are ALL “cases where NO alliance exists” outside the Holy Roman Empire. See | RS Davenport Docs #156-163, 167.
 * 2. there is no casus foederis, no “case for the alliance”. The insurrection is not regarded by either the British Crown or the princelings as Congress attacking the Germanies. It is regarded by UK as an internal insurrection comparable to the Jacobite rising of 1745.
 * 3. the princeling signatories made no common cause with the British. They were paid for services rendered, regardless of the outcome: independence, self-governance, or royal colony. On the British part, there was only the purpose to “hire a body of troops” according to the Crown in the House of Lords. | RS Lowell, 33.
 * Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: RS of the period observe a distinction between the “Treaties of Subsidy” between the British Empire and Germanic princelings to provide “blood for coin” in North America - - - versus - - - the widely practiced networks of “Treaties of Alliance” between two feudalist princes of the Holy Roman Empire that guarantee military assistance to one another’s domains within the boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire whenever they are attacked from outside the HRE.

Info-box

 * The Netherlands and Mysore were listed in the infobox as co-belligerents, as they were both at war concurrently with England without signing any sort of treaty of alliance with any of the other parties fighting Britain. The German principalities each signed treaties of alliance with Great-Britain. Each of these treaties differed in their terms and contrary to TVH's assertion, some of the princes were motivated by more than a desire for cash. Three in particular stand out from the rest. Hesse-Kessel entered into a mutual defensive treaty with Great Britain. In addition for negotiating for the provision of Hessian troops, Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the treaty specifically required each country to go to war in defense of the other if attacked. See pg. 274 to 275 here []. The rule of Hesse-Hanau was King George III's nephew, Hesse-Hanau offered to send its troops to support Britian unconditionally. Thus Hesse-Hanau was motivated to join the war out of familial loyalty in addition to the finanical incentives. Finally, Hanover was a state in personal union with Great Britain that had treaties of alliance in place well prior to the outbreak of the war. It deployed troops to the European and Indian theaters of operations in accordance with its pre-existing obligation to do so.XavierGreen (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: Netherlands and Mysore: Separate and apart from US and its BILATERAL-British war of colonial independence and constitutional revolution, Netherlands and Mysore make war on UK elsewhere, and they BOTH looked only to UK for peace, as reflected in the RS reports of their Treaties with Britain without reference to the US, neither to its independence, nor to its republic . See WP articles on various European wars . . . links later as called for.
 * Re: There were NO treaty obligations for UK involved in the 1776 purchases, according to Earl of Suffolk who negotiated the princeling treaties assured Parliament, despite “pompous, high-sounding phrases of alliance … the true object of these [Treaties of Subsidy] was “to hire a body of troops”. They are titled Treaties of Subsidy, not Treaties of Alliance at | RS Davenport provided by our ‘Lord Cornwallis’.
 * Re: Prior treaty reference of mutual military assistance by one Holy Roman Empire Prince to another, Lord Irnham in the House of Lords, noted Feb 25, 1776, in accordance with his feudal oath as a Germanic princeling, George III, could not constitutionally offer to pay for, nor could any Germanic princeling lawfully send, troops outside THAT Holy Roman Empire in Europe, at | RS Force, 278 provided by our ‘XavierGreen’.
 * Re: For Hanover, a territory in personal union of feudal serfs owned by George III, the troops were limited to European service in Great Power wars, Second Hundred Years' War in Gibraltar, separate and apart from ARW in North America. They were not withdrawn from George III personal service until European peace; NOT released from service at the UK-US armistice early 1783, as were so many other Germanic conscripts . . . 40% of whom deserted, mostly to become US citizens. See | RS Lowell, 292,300 provided by our ‘Lord Cornwallis’.


 * Please read the RS in this post at the citations provided by wp:good faith edits from to confirm my understanding of the RS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Time to move forward?
Canute, (and others) Yes, we do seem to be getting side-tracked somewhat. My concern is not so much over how German mercenaries are listed in the infobox, but rather how much coverage we afford to Britain's other involvements, and of course, the NPOV tag, which there is an overwhelming consensus against. Lord Cornwallis has offered some books with the apparent assumption that they somehow present Gibraltar as an integral part of the Revolutionary War, but I'm not seeing this.
 * In Jonathan Dull, 1987, A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution, Gibraltar is only referred to in terms of negotiations between Britain, Spain and France (pp. 108, 122, 156).
 * In Adkins, 2018, Gibraltar: The Greatest Siege in British History, p. 10, claims the Siege of Gibraltar was part of the war for independence, but this statement is by no means qualified, only that it was fought by Britain in the latter years of the Revolution and if she was not involved with Gibraltar the outcome of the Revolution might have been different. Just a passing reference to the Revolution. That War was initiated by Spain in an attempt to regain Gibraltar, having nothing to do with the struggle across the ocean for independence.
 * In Macksey, 1993, The War for America: 1775-1783, (pp. 311-12, 508), Gibraltar is only mentioned again in passing, with references to Britain trying to finance that war while also funding the war in America, with another reference about using Gibraltar as a bargaining chip with Spain and France.
 * In Middleton, 2014, The War of American Independence: 1775-1783, in a three page subchapter Britain, Spain and Gibraltar, the siege is discussed only inasmuch as how it impacted Britain's resources to fight the war in America.

As I've said, we can and do cover Gibraltar accordingly, in proportion to how these and other sources cover the advent, keeping in mind that most sources on the Revolution don't mention this particular war, or just mention it in reference as outlined here. Currently our article mentions Gibraltar three times: Once in the Foreign intervention section, and twice in the International war breaks out (1778–1783) section. It would seem that is more than adequate. Mysore is definitely out. If Mysore had anything to do with the Revolution hostilities would have ended there after he Treaty of Paris in 1783. The Mysore War continued on into 1784. Again, we have a large section covering Britain's other involvements about the globe. There's nothing here that amounts to a clear POV issue, and since we have that consensus we should be moving on. I'm hoping either XavierGreene or Lord Cornwallis will be gracious enough to remove the tag and work with the rest of us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no overwhelming consensus against the NPOV tag only you and TVH have voiced its removal that is clearly not a consensus and your suggestion that there is such a consensus is blatantly disingenuous. and it is not "time to move forward". Concerning Gibraltar you are also blatantly ignoring the sources i've listed above which clearly state that the end of the Siege of Gibraltar was (along with the Second Battle of Ushant and the Battle of the Saintes) a primary reason for the war finally ending after Yorktown.XavierGreen (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I repeat, there's no evidence of any POV issue, only DUE, which needs to be discussed per item, not in a pointless generality tinged with accusations about editors. The tag was unwarranted, serves no purpose but acrimony, and should be immediately removed so we can move on to actually work to improve the article.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  02:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "Only you and TVH have voiced its removal..."?? Sorry, but as is evidenced on the Talk page here, there is a clear consensus that there is no POV issue, hence, there is no consensus for a POV tag. Further AD Monroe III explicitly said "All the tag has done is waste our time". If anything is disingenuous it's your rather tacky assumption that anyone else approves of your tag, one which you placed with no initial discussion, as was your massive and destructive reversion of last week.
 * Gibraltar is mentioned three times. The surrender at Yorktown on October 19, 1781 occurred long before the Siege of Gibraltar ended on February 7, 1783. It had no bearing on Britain's agreement to end hostilities with the United States. Cornwallis' defeat at Yorktown ended the war for Britain with the United States, save a few skirmishes among troops who hadn't received the news yet, Gibraltar or no Gibraltar. Yes, the end of the Revolutionary War didn't become official until the Treaty of Paris, where Gibraltar was only used as a bargaining chip to deal with Spain. Since you are claiming that Gibraltar was a "primary reason" to end the war with the United States, please cite the source(s) and page number(s) that supports this claim in definitive and in no uncertain terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

RS culling the info box
Using the SAME editorial standard wp:weight in the info box that includes Native American tribes, here listing military allies in North America of Great Britain and the United States, the two principal belligerents signing the Treaty of Paris (1783) ending the American Revolutionary War (War of American Independence),

I will remove all the pennants representing sundry Germanies but the Hessian flag - - unless there is a page in Edward Lowell as cited explaining how a contingent of five Euro principality regiments dispatched to the fortress of Gibraltar as British military allies DIRECTLY hindered the “American War for Independence” (Brit. POV), by making war on the US Congress, territory, citizens or property - - - during their service within the Fortress of Gibraltar, while under siege by land and blockaded by French-Spanish allied fleets, without any US Continental Army or Navy engagement.

With respect, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This type of rhetoric and its inclusion in the article shows why the NPOV tag is necessary. Each of the German principalities signed treaties of alliance with Great Britain, and each of them (except Hannover which I will discuss separately) deployed troops which fought in North America. (See - Atwood, Rodney (1980) The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.) Brunswick and Hesse-Hanau even have Wikipedia articles (Brunswick here and Hesse-Hanau here) covering their troops participation in the war. Hesse-Hanau even offered to join the war and send a regiment to fight along side Britain with no strings attached. (See Page 7 of Lowell, Edward J (1884). The Hessians and the other German Auxiliaries of Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square, New York) There inclusion in the infobox was the subject of a lengthy discussion and RFQ which is located in the talk page archives. There are a multitude of in-depth sources located at Germans in the American Revolution, which is well written and well sourced. As for Hannover, it was already in a treaty of alliance with Great Britain well prior to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. Its troops fought in the Great Siege of Gibraltar, the largest engagement of the war. Hannover troops were also deployed to the Indian theater of operations. (See for sources on Hanoverian participation James Falkner (2009) Fire Over the Rock The Great Siege of Gibraltar, 1779–1783  for sources on Hanoverian participation in the war Eelking, Max von (1893). The German Allied Troops in the North American War of Independence, 1776–1783)XavierGreen (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with TheVirginiaHistorian. The Hessian flag is called for, but the others involved with Gibraltar are not. Thanks TVH for your well reasoned articulations here and elsewhere. It's interesting to note that British Colonel John Drinkwater, who was present at the Siege of Gibraltar, wrote an account of the siege, i.e. A history of the siege of Gibraltar, 1779-1783. The term American Revolution occurs no where in this text. The only time the term American occurs is in reference to a privateer in a Spanish fleet and in other such minor capacities. The entire focus, weight, of this work is on the actual Siege as it involved Spain, France and Britain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You obviously have not even bothered to read the Germans in the American Revolution article cited and linked to in the infobox, if you had you would see your statement is blatantly inaccurate. ALL of the German principalities except for Hanover fought in North America. Your allegation that the Siege of Gibraltar was not part of the American Revolutionary War is ridiculous, a simple google search of the term "Siege of Gibralter and American Revolutionary War" returns over 600,000 responses. . The end of the Great Siege of Gibraltar was a key factor in the Peace of Paris ending the war. See (Falkner, James (2009), Fire Over The Rock: The Great Siege of Gibraltar 1779–1783, Pen and Sword, Pg. xix) and (Chartrand, René; Courcelle, Patrice (2006). Gibraltar 1779–1783: The Great Siege, Pg. 89) Your arguements concerning the campaigns in Europe, India, and elsewhere are akin to arguing that Japan was not a party to World War Two because it never sent troops to Europe and didnt enter the war in 1939 or 1940.XavierGreen (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Aside from grossly misrepresenting my position, the analogy to Japan is ridiculous. Many thousands of Americans fought the Japanese, you know, those fellows who launched a full scale attack on Americans at Pearl Harbor? How many Americans were involved in the fighting at the Siege of Gibraltar? Was American independence the driving concern during that campaign? Obviously not. You have yet to connect the Siege of Gibraltar in terms of having any impact on the outcome of the American Revolution at Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown. Do you really think Gibraltar was on Washington's and Cornwallis' mind at that point? Yes, Gibraltar became a bargaining chip at the Treaty of Paris, which albeit is worth a mention under that topic, but that's it. Out of "600,000" sources, can you show us one that explains how The Siege of Gibraltar effected the actual fight for independence? Do any of these sources give us anything more than the idea that Britain just happened to be involved in Gibraltar in the latter years of the Revolution? Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your personal views as to whether or not a particular event "effected the actual fight for independence" is of utterly no consequence as to whether or not something should be considered to be a part of the war. That the Great Siege of Gibraltar was a key event in the American Revolutionary War is a fact that is supported by practically all sources of repute on the subject. I cited two sources above, but for another example see American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [5 Volumes], Pg. 644, Spencer Tucker, 2018. The British victories at Gibraltar and the Saintes were key factors in ending the war. []XavierGreen (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Revolutionary War for Britain ended at Yorktown, regardless of affairs at Gibraltar. Britain was not about to resume the war in America over Gibraltar. Common sense should have told you that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How can this be  . . . when Gibraltar is NOT mentioned in the UK-US Treaty of Paris (1783) making UK-US peace, but it IS included in the UK-Spain Treaty of Versailles (1783) making UK-Spain peace? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Article Scope
We've been talking all week (months, really) about the scope of this article, so I'm going to go ahead and start a list of what is and is not in scope. I'm under no delusion that this is a complete or correct list, I'm just trying to shift the multiple conversations away from individual debates and towards a more holistic discussion of what the article should and should not be. Feel free to edit / discuss. My ask is that we agree to general scope and guidelines for this particular article so we can frame future debates within a more neutral framework. Thanks! Canute (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In Scope:
 * The American Revolutionary War / American War of Independence
 * Any person, group of people, artifact, place, relationship, development, or event which directly impacted the American War for Independence
 * Causes and initiation of the war
 * The course and conduct of the war
 * The effect these things had on the of the war
 * The conclusion and consequences of the war
 * Wartime events which were significant to world history (new inventions, shifting alliances, etc.)

Not in Scope:
 * Any person, artifact, place, or event, or details about these, in which the effect on the war is unclear, or which has not or cannot be described
 * i.e. an event which occurred during the war but caused no significant impact on the greater war or it's outcome.
 * Details of a person, artifact, place, or event which:
 * a) does not contribute to a broad understanding of the war
 * b) is covered in other Wikipedia articles
 * c) disrupts the flow of the article to the average reader

General Guidelines:
 * Common policies and guidelines
 * Focus on the War for Independence specifically more than related conflicts (i.e. conflict between frontier settlers and Native Americans, international rivalries)
 * Focus on the events that most impacted the outcome of the war (United States independence from Great Britain) rather than events that happened during the war
 * Focus on the war at the strategic and operational levels, rather than tactical details
 * Any topic which requires multiple paragraphs should be reviewed for opportunities to condense and link to new articles
 * Tactical details are best located in specific articles about events and battles
 * Events should be listed once chronologically so their causes and effects can be explained with the least disruption to user flow
 * Non-chronological topics (i.e. impacts on a group of people) should be discussed after all chronological events, in order to minimize reader disruption
 * Look for opportunities to link to more detailed articles (i.e. campaigns, histories of peoples in the war, etc.)

Comments - General Guidelines

 * This article should be mirrored in the same manner as any other wikipedia article covering a particular war. The article should cover the entirety of the war and all of its major campaigns. There should be a section governing the background events that led up to the outbreak of the war and a section on its resolution. The article should include all of the major notable events of the war. Whether or not something "impacted the outcome of the war" is irrelevant as to whether or not it should be included, but rather whether a particular event was notable. For example, in World War One a large number of major battles such as the Second Battle of Ypres had little to no actual impact on the outcome of the war, yet are extremely notable events that are included in practically every book on the war. Furthermore, the notion that an event must be tied to "American independence" in some manner to qualify for inclusion is entirely irrelevant to this page. Their is a separate page, American Revolution that focuses on that aspect of the events at hand. The majority of sources plainly state that the American Revolutionary War was a global conflict, as such this article should cover all the major aspects of that conflict in order for it to have a neutral unbiased point of view. This means including summaries of the Caribbean, Indian, and European theaters of operations. These summaries should include major notable events.XavierGreen (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can help me clarify, then. When I mentioned the impact on the war, I meant that anything which impacted the war should be "in scope," meaning that anything that impacted the outcome of the war should be included, even if it wasn't a military action.  The heat at the Battle of Monmouth, for example, would seem trivial except that it produced casualties and may have significantly impacted the battle.  I would disagree that people and events that impacted the result of the war should excluded.  Conversely, I also mentioned impact on the war in "out of scope," meaning that things that don't affect the war are not in scope.  Naturally, these would each be up for discussion, but our default should be that if there's no cause/effect on the war, it should not be included.  There are plenty of events that happened during this same time period, but that doesn't mean they're directly related to this war.  Similarly, there may be critical events that should be included, but we should avoid a trivial level of detail.  I would argue- for this or any other article- that if we can't articulate the "so what?" of a topic, then it's not notable and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.  If you don't like those two points, how would you re-phrase them?


 * Finally, I really don't want to get into the "global conflict" discussion, here. That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid.  But I don't believe I've proposed anything that would exclude global events, and I certainly never suggested that we should adopt a biased point of view.  We shouldn't be promoting criteria so that it promotes our preferred outcomes, but I also don't think we're going to resolve this "global war" debate until we agree on the scope of this article.  Let's at least try to agree on what this article is about, and then we can frame that "global war" discussion based on whatever general scope we can agree on. Canute (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with Canute. We've been dragged into the "global conflicts" of the war for far too long now, and at the expense of ignoring major players and events that need better coverage. Several of us have agreed to cover events like Gibraltar. Speaking for myself, I agreed to mention that Gibraltar was involved in the negotiations at the Treaty of Paris, yet we continued to be hounded with the idea that the American Revolutionary War should be covered as a world war, and that the fight for independence was only a chapter in that story, regardless that nearly all the battles were fought between the Patriots and the British.
 * Xavier, we've been through this and the issue has been explained for you several times now. The title of this article is the American Revolutionary War. The phrase World War is not in that title.  We cover Britian's other global involvements in proportion to how the vast majority of sources cover them when they 'relate' to the war.  We don't cover Gibraltar in the same capacity as we do e.g.the Battles of Long Island, Saratoga and Yorktown. You've been carrying on as if you were told events like Gibraltar can't be mentioned at all, and now it still seems like you're trying to re-invent the wheel where this article is concerned. The sources decide the scope of this article, not just one or two editors. The Second Battle of Ypres is mentioned in WW One texts because sources on that war generally cover it, regardless of its impact. Once again, Gibraltar involved Spain and Britain, and didn't factor into the outcome of the surrender at Yorktown one bit, or any other battle fought between the Americas and the British. Easy math.  Once again, the fate of Gibraltar, a campaign initiated by Spain, was used in negotiations to appease Spain, and it contributed to the overall settlements reached at the Treaty of Paris, where many issues were considered. Once again, the British were not going to resume the War in America, esp with the Whigs breathing down the necks of the Tories and King George after the defeat at Yorktown, so we really need to stop looking at Gibraltar as something that the entire fate of the war hinged on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still going to avoid the debate over "global war" here, but Gwillhickers you said something that has me thinking. Should we include something about sources in the scope statement?  Something about how a topic may be considered out of scope if it is not cited from a published source on the AWR?  As I type that, I doubt it's usefulness.  We already want our facts cited, and we'd end up arguing over which sources are acceptable.  But maybe someone smarter than I am could improve it? Canute (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, I notice that this article already has a scope statement of sorts. At the top, it states "This article is about military actions primarily. For origins and aftermath, see American Revolution."  Do we at least agree to that statement?  And at the bottom are a whole host of templates directing readers to related articles.  My point is that we've tried to prune this tree before.  I'm just trying to refine that scope so we can stop arguing about the same topics ad nauseam. Canute (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. We have heard from at least seven editors that there is no real POV issue. We already have a large section for Britain's other involvements, and dedicated sections for Howe, Cornwallis and Clinton. TVH has made concessions and I've agreed to mention Gibraltar for a forth time in that it contributed to negotiations at the Treaty of Paris. At this point we should be concentrating on finally getting the tag removed, as we have ample grounds for its removal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Canute, i agree with the statements you made in principal. The basic problem is that Gwillhickers assertion that sources do not consider the campaigns in Europe, the Caribbean and else where to be a part of the American Revolutionary War is blatantly incorrect. The vast majority of sources regarding these events explicitly refer to them as a part of the American Revolutionary War. The name "American Revolutionary War" is used by authors to described the entirety of the conflict between the United Kingdom, America, France and Spain. You can find literature dating back to the early 1800's using the name as such. Spencer Tucker's American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection (2018) and Blue Water Patriots: The American Revolution Afloat by James M. Volo (2008) for example both reference all of these "non-north american" actions as being part of the "American Revolutionary War". Books on the particular campaigns themselves specifically reference them as being part of the American Revolutionary War, see for example the books on Gibraltar i cited above and The Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War by David Syrett (1998). Because this article as rewritten has been slanted towards an American-centric point of view, and has been re-written in such a way (by the authors' own admissions) to diminish (and in the case of India exclude) those potions of the conflict outside of North America, the NPOV issue is still quite present and the tag should not be removed.XavierGreen (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Empty rhetoric. Once again, we have a large dedicated section that covers Britain's other global involvements. Once again, we have dedicated sections for Howe, Cornwallis and Clinton, while there are still none for Gates. Once again, there was once two sections for India, two for Europe and two for the Americas, all devoted with redundant information pertaining to British engagements that most often had nothing to do with the American struggle for independence. That glaring British-centric and due-weight issue, along with the chaotic mess this article was in, has been corrected, and with overwhelming consensus. Please learn to cope with that. You've been attempting to write the article in a way that suggests that Britian is the major consideration, when in reality, both the Americans and British, together, are the major consideration. All other involvements are secondary to the war of independence and should be treated accordingly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article should not be written in such a manner as to reflect ANY particular point of view. The mere fact that you continue to assert that events must have something "to do with the American struggle for independence" to be included in the article itself violates the NPOV standard and creates and Americo-centric point of view to the article. The vast majority of sources plainly state that the events going on outside North America involving France and Spain were part of the American Revolutionary War. Was the struggle for American Independence the intial cause of the war and the primary impetus for the prosecution of the war in Eastern North America? Obviously yes. But post 1778, it became much more than that, and the Spanish and French reasons for prosecuting the war cannot be ignored.XavierGreen (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidently you feel it's silly that an article whose title is the American Revolutionary War must overall focus on events between Americans and the British over independence, the very reason that war was initiated. The sources don't say that all events going on outside North America were part of the Revolutionary War, only some of them. Britain did not go to War with Spain in an effort to fight independence in America, regardless of any remote associations involved. That engagement was fought for control of Gibraltar. That you feel that after 1778 the Revolutionary War became something of a sideshow for Britain is clearly a British-centric POV. I'm sure when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown he, nor Clinton, didn't feel their efforts were a sideshow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * BTW,chronological is just one way to organize the article. We could also go chronologically within theaters, such as Northern, Southern, Seas, Western, and International, followed by other analysis. There are multiple ways we could organize this article, but I think it would help significantly if we're agreed to just one overall method and then stuck to it.
 * Xavier, I've lost count of the number of times you have misrepresented my position. I did not say the sources "do not consider" the global events in question as not part of the Revolutionary War. Again, all that has been asserted is that the majority of sources do not cover these events in nearly the same capacity as they do, Saratoga, Yorktown, etc, and that most of them don't even mention these involvements at all.  Your view about the NPOV of this article is not at all backed by consensus. The reasons why have been articulated for you numerous times now, per the major sections on global involvements, Howe, Cornwallis, Clinton, etc. On top of the false accounts of my position, your incessant talking about NPOV has long since become disruptive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been able to respond sooner. My internet connectivity has been terrible over the past week. There has been a lot added to the conversation since I last looked at it so I will need a while to read over it. Regards, Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Gwillhickers, again I'd ask you, can you set out how the RS support the view that America was the primary theatre after 1778? I've looked through the discussion and I haven't found them. It is a complex and wide-ranging war. Difficult as it is, all this has to be included in a single article. Perhaps there needs to be a wider change, as I've said earlier, I come back to my original comment that your goal seems to be writing an American Theater of the war in which world events are somehow secondary, which I have no objection to if it were split off from the main article.


 * Again I emphasise my support for your general move to improve and trim this article and move it towards FA status.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is exactly correct, if you look up practically any history book about the European, Caribbean, and Indian theaters of the conflict they plainly state that events like the Siege of Pondicherry (1778), Battle of Grenada, Great Siege of Gibraltar, ect were all part of the American Revolutionary War. There are literally no sources which refer to a separate Anglo-French War or call the conflict by any other name than the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The general rule in both scholarship and contracts is that the particular governs the general. So it is wp:error to make the unfounded assertion that "" - - - See Paul Kennedy. | The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery (2006, 2nd ed.) Snippet viewed May 10, 2020.
 * The war of 1776-83 was a stage “in that Anglo-French duel which lasted throughout the eighteenth century [see Second Hundred Years' War]; they involved, in consequence, calculations about the continental balance of power and the mutual need of both rivals for European allies to divert the enemy’s attention [worldwide] ; and [the] origins [of Anglo-French war in "1756-63" and "1776-83"], by coincidence, were all to be found in local struggles in the western hemisphere, which were later transferred to the other side of the Atlantic and merged into existing rivalries there''" - Paul Kennedy in The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery.
 * The GENERAL GUIDELINE contention here is that NEITHER the "continental balance of power" NOR Euro Great Power distractions of "enemy's attention" worldwide described in RS outside North America and its trade routes, are EITHER (a) the primary cause if the ARW initiated by the US Congress; OR (b) central to the conflict in North America to achieve US Congress independence from Britain; OR (c) the primary outcome of the ARW waged by the US Congress.
 * Further, (c) all end-of-conflict peace made apart from, and without any reference to the ARW or to the US Congress, its republic, territory, citizens or their property, is not directly applicable'' to the ARW, but may be included in the article narrative in passing reference and Notes after considering wp:due weight. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lord Cornwallis, When weighing the involvement in any theater, both British and Americans must be considered, since it was the move for American independence which started the war. If you still feel the fight for independence during the American Revolutionary War, in America, was not the primary theme and involvement for Americans and the British, it is incumbent on you to provide a source that says this in definitive terms. Since this is a controversial issue, we will need more than one cherry picked source to support that notion, otherwise it remains a fringe POV. If you wish to cover all of Britain's other involvements during the American Revolutionary War in this article you will need to change its title, which as you must know, will never happen. Once again, simply because Britain became involved in other engagements during the Revolutionary War doesn't automatically make them part of that war - a war which was started for one reason: independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sidebar - 'global war', continued

 * Yes, the 'global war' discussion should go away. Maybe this can do it.
 * First, I'd like to stress I am grateful for RS contributions from XavierGreen and LordCornwallis overall. I FUNDAMENTALLY believe that the naval and maritime military history of the Great Powers surrounding the ARW is CRUCIAL to understanding military outcomes of the ARW: and the scope of that history is the North American Atlantic seaboard, the Caribbean Sea, and the British & Bermuda, French & Spanish, & Dutch trade routes ... between North America and Europe, see John Paul Jones. In my decade of experience, Wikipedia editors generally have a track record of minimizing the naval dimension of military conflict and both our 'Lord Cornwallis' and XavierGreen have served as a corrective here. Thank you.
 * XavierGreen has again misrepresented the scope of the American War for Independence in North America 1775-1783 - - - as worldwide British military history in the Second Hundred Years' War 1689-1815. The ARW ended between the two principal belligerents UK & US formally with the Treaty of Paris September 1783 at | Article VII], or alternatively, at their Armistice between them in North America Jan 1783, see the World War I article example.
 * The ARW is NOT a worldwide conflict among the Great Powers of the 1700s - - - The Great Powers amidst their worldwide Second Hundred Years' War use the ARW of British colonial insurrection to advance their continuing conflict . Misapplications of RS otherwise are the Tail wagging the dog. The "Great Power-US" does not emerge until after WWI - - - the 1823 Monroe Doctrine is actually enforced by the British Navy, etc.
 * Inspection of RS furnished by XavierGreen and LordCornwallis show  Great Power military aid to Congress was useful to distract UK into reallocating its resources and long run to weaken its empire . Those RS show European powers made war and peace in their Euro-centric wars WITHOUT Congress in the ARW. Euros began their wars WITHOUT Congress, and they ended them all WITHOUT Congress: (1) Anglo-French War 1778-1783, (2) Antilles War 1781-1783, and (3) Fourth Anglo-Dutch War 1780-1784.
 * {| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"


 * Call to Editors: conflicts among Euro's Second Hundred Years' War - that are not ARW
 * Editors interested in the Second Hundred Year’s War with its far-flung military campaigns and collateral enterprises should focus their contributions on that C-class article. Or perhaps they wish to follow XavierGreen’s WWI analogy for ARW at World War I, and turn the narrative history THERE on its head.
 * We learn from | RS Cambridge Fellow Edward Paice, British Library publ. 2019: The WWI crisis was begun at the first shot fired in a renewed European ‘Scramble for Africa’ by Alhaji Grunshi, Sergeant-Major of the Gold Coast Ghana Regiment (UK) on 7 Aug 1914 at an Ango-French force invasion of German Togoland. “Germany declared the creation of Mittelafrika – a vast ‘second Fatherland’ in Africa – to be one of its fundamental war aims.” And the war was on. Sir Harry Johnston, a British colonial Government official, believed that “the Great War was more occasioned by conflicting colonial ambitions in Africa” than by German and Austro-Hungarian schemes in the Balkans.
 * In reassessing the British WWI East Africa campaign in its recast “world war” significance, editors revising the WWI article will focus on combatants OTHER THAN Europeans in Europe, and stress newly understood facts as preeminent, such as 50% more East African troops died in WWI than those of Australia OR Canada OR India. One of the most important battles in WWI, comparable to misapplying RS to declare the Anglo-French War’s Siege of Gibraltar an important engagement in the ARW, - - - was the four-day battle of Mahiwa-Nyango in October 1917, at 50% casualty rate among British, Nigerian and Punjab contingents - - - contrasted with the total British Empire casualties of 36% for WWI generally, and perhaps the allied total engaged at the Second Battle of Ypres in particular. |RS Encyclopaedia Britannica. But that might be considered by the EURO-CENTRIC editors at World War I there as Tail wagging the dog by contributor malpractice with wp:disruption.
 * In reassessing the British WWI East Africa campaign in its recast “world war” significance, editors revising the WWI article will focus on combatants OTHER THAN Europeans in Europe, and stress newly understood facts as preeminent, such as 50% more East African troops died in WWI than those of Australia OR Canada OR India. One of the most important battles in WWI, comparable to misapplying RS to declare the Anglo-French War’s Siege of Gibraltar an important engagement in the ARW, - - - was the four-day battle of Mahiwa-Nyango in October 1917, at 50% casualty rate among British, Nigerian and Punjab contingents - - - contrasted with the total British Empire casualties of 36% for WWI generally, and perhaps the allied total engaged at the Second Battle of Ypres in particular. |RS Encyclopaedia Britannica. But that might be considered by the EURO-CENTRIC editors at World War I there as Tail wagging the dog by contributor malpractice with wp:disruption.


 * }
 * Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. Since only Congress can declare war, and since it did not do so where the other powers were concerned, events like Gibraltar, fought for no other reason than its control, fall under their own genre, officially and academically. That the fate of Gibraltar was used to negotiate with and placate Spain at the Treaty of Paris, does not make it part of the Revolutionary War, and any source that makes such passing claims is actually in error on that note. Though America was already at war with Britain it doesn't mean that any other conflict Britain was engaged in automatically became part of the Revolutionary War. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, but that is just OR. We have to follow the sources on this. Sorry, Gwillhickers, I'm also genuinely a bit confused, because your posts seem to keep contradicting each other. Was Gibraltar part of the war or not? I'm not totally sure where you stand. Regards, Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Insert : Why you perceive a contradiction remains unclear. I've never said that Britain's War with Spain over Gibraltar was part of the Revolutionary War, only that it was used in negotiations to placate Spain at the Treaty of Paris. It has been asked that a source be presented that explains how Gibraltar had any impact on the actual war for/against independence. At best all we have are a few sources, out of the hundreds that don't even mention Gibraltar, that only say Gibraltar was part of the Revolution in passing terms. Virtually any coverage on Gibraltar involves the negotiations that occurred at the Treaty of Paris. The closest any source gets to connecting Gibraltar with the American Revolutionary War is that it strained Britain's resources to fight that war. Nothing more. As such, we cover Gibraltar accordingly. We do not outline the War between Spain and Britain in this article. That would be a British-centric and misleading POV in terms of the American Revolution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the basic issue hasn't really changed. The article has plenty of both British and American perspectives for the simple fact that they were the major players in the Revolutionary War and so covered. TVH has offered some good perspective, that only the Continental Congress could declare war, and did so only with Britain. America being at War with Britain during this time doesn't automatically make Britain's other conflicts part of the Revolutionary War, esp in cases where the campaigns in question were fought for their own singular reasons, as was Gibraltar. In any case, and once again, we have a dedicated section for Britain's other global involvements, for historical perspective, and dedicated sections for Howe, Cornwallis and Clinton. Most, if not all of us, have no issues mentioning that Gibraltar, along with many other issues, was negotiated at the Treaty of Paris. I believe this is more than fair. Help getting this issue behind us would be appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Original research"?
Evidently we have a concern over OR in this article. If that's really the case we need to be presented with specific statements in the article that involve OR. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to TVH's posts in the talk page "that only the Continental Congress could declare war, and did so only with Britain". This is a personal opinion defining the scope of the war, when we need to rely on RS. I accept that you and TVH may be in disagreement on this, although you have endorsed this view above. Also "That the fate of Gibraltar was used to negotiate with and placate Spain at the Treaty of Paris, does not make it part of the Revolutionary War". Please provide which RS indicate this, rather than a personal opinion. Countless RS have already been provided that do include it. TVH seems to think we shouldn't have it included at all. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That only Congress could declare war, and agree to end war, is an opinion? TVH provided sources for this, from which he articulated these items quite well. Please review the discussion. We seem to be getting a bit tacky here. Gibraltar had no impact on Yorktown and the end of the war, other than to placate Spain. Aside from negotiations at the T.O.P., the fate of Gibraltar didn't change the big picture, the focus of this article. It would be nice to see you express just as much interest that you have for Gibraltar for Saratoga, Yorktown, etc, events that involved Britain and the Americans. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the Continental Congress had the power to declare war irrelevent, the started at Lexington in 1775 without any input from the Congress on the matter. I already provided very thorough sources above that plainly state that the relief of the Great Siege of Gibraltar was one of the primary reasons why the war finally ended. After Yorktown, the French and Spanish wanted to keep fighting, and the French and Americans had agreed in their Treaty of Alliance that neither country would make peace with Britain while the other was still at war. As such, the war continued until the French were soundly defeated thrashed at the Saintes and Gibraltar and finally decided to end the war, although the Spanish wanted to keep fighting to seize Gibraltar they calculated that they could not do so without French assistance and thus resigned themselves to joining the peace as well under French pressure to do so. Even general encyclopedia's about war in general consider Gibraltar, Suffern's Indian Ocean campaign, and other non-North American engagements at issue here to be part of the American Revolutionary War. See for example: Warfare and Armed Conflicts A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015, 4th Ed. By Micheal Clodfelter, 2017, Pg. 129 [] Clodfelter gives a neutral thorough and well rounded synopsis of the war, touching on all the major campaigns, its a good example for how the article's coverage of the various campaigns could be modeled.XavierGreen (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The fighting began at Lexington-Corncord, but the official declaration of war, per Congress and the Declaration of Independence came later, so your reference to Congress in regards to Lexington-Concord is moot. Yes, the fighting continued for Britain with Spain after Yorktown, but not with the Americans. After the surrender at Yorktown the fighting between the British and the Americans ended, long before the Treaty of Paris. And yes, Spain and France wanted to keep fighting the British, but that was between them, not the Americans. The British were beaten, and as you say, France and Spain still wanted to continue fighting the British, so the British were hardly in a position to continue the fighting in America, esp while they were still engaged in Gibraltar, for their own reasons, having nothing to do with the fighting that occurred over independence. They never would have resumed the war with America at that point, regardless of what transpired during the Treaty of Paris. Your reference to Clodfelter, p. 129 comes under the heading of Spanish Campaigns, where he mentions that Gibraltar was the longest campaign during the war between Spain and Britain. It was Spain who declared war on Britain. It's ridiculous to assume that made their war part of the American Revolutionary War.  No where does Clodfelter assert what you're asserting, that Gibraltar was the most important factor that ended the American Revolutionary War. If anything, an honest evaluation of the situation at that point, with Cornwallis' surrender and the huge loss of ships and military supplies, de Grasse's return to the West Indies capturing British held ports, etc, and common sense, should tell you this. As was said, we can mention that Gibraltar was one of the many issues that were negotiated at the Treaty of Paris. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * wp:error Where to begin, XavierGreen throws up so much “complexity” to support an RS “imperial American Revolution” -- by European Powers – but – without the US Congress.
 * No, the First Congress recommended every colony to begin local militia training and preparedness, including powder houses such as Concord MA. In the event, the local militia had been practicing ambush "fire and maneuver" pursuit of the retreating British column for over four months to exact casualties, win or lose at the anticipated Concord firefight. No, Gibraltar was an element in the UK-Spanish Treaty of Versailles (1783). The Spanish never allied with the US because they had no common cause but to disrupt UK with France.
 * NO wp:reliable source misrepresents the French-US treaty of defensive alliance for US independence from Britain thusly : That sounds like the French backstabbing the Americans in their Spanish treaty that was kept secret from the US ... but that was a French-Spanish treaty provision; that provision was NOT found in the French-US defensive alliance for US independence.
 * In any case, the US did NOT give the French a blank check to agree to fight as Hanover mercenaries under French direction at their service against the British anywhere for the purpose of expanding their monarchical empire all over the globe in the Caribbean, Gibraltar, and India. | US Statutes Feb 6, 1778, Art. I. France and US to “aid each other mutually with their … forces, according to the exigence of conjunctures …” | Art. IV. “[Any further] particular enterprise … in which concurrence of the other may be desired … [they] shall join … as far as circumstances and its own particular situation will permit …”
 * | Art. II. “The essential and direct end of the present defensive alliance is to maintain effectually the liberty, sovereignty and independence absolute and unlimited, of the said United States, [in government and in commerce]”. | Art. III. “The two contracting parties shall … make all the efforts in its power against their common enemy, in order to attain the end proposed.”
 * The French-US alliance is NOT for imperial expansion of European Great Powers, it is (a) for the purpose to make war on Britain for US independence, (b) as its defensive purpose, (c) to effect the independence of the United States … as its essential and direct end.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I would politely remind you of the section from WP:Reliable sources concerning primary sources "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.". My basic question remains can you provide RS that consider Gibraltar part of another war? What is the agreed name of the war? I'm sure if we met in a bar one time we could have a great discussion of this with a variety of opinions, but I think we're all experienced enough to know that isn't how Wikipedia works.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are allowed so long as we're not re-interpreting matters to the extent where we are trying to introduce the square wheel. I don't see where TVH, or anyone else, has done this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A direct quote is not "analysis" or "interpretation". Capriciously erasing document evidence in a history article to rely only on recently published abstractions can be construed as POV "evaluation" or "synthesis". I would politely ask, What words or phrases do you attribute to my personal "analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis" in this direct quote from the Treaty of Alliance between France and the US as found online in the Library of Congress archive of | US Statutes, February 6, 1778: TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Primary theme of this article
As has been discussed before, this article covers the global war of which the fighting in North America after 1778 was just one part, and of secondary importance behind the naval war. If we are going to have an article devoted solely to the campaigns in continental North America then that needs to be spun off this into a separate article, not by purging all "foreign" elements as is currently being proposed. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Did the discussion to which you refer emphasize that this article is about the American War for Independence, starting in 1775, and as such is devoted primarily to that theme? If anything needs to be spun off into another article it would be the lengthy coverage in the sections in question. Having said that, it is my recommendation, and the wishes of at least one other editor, to retain this material, but reduce it, albeit greatly, to more summary proportions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's all the same war. I've produced countless WP:RS demonstrating this in the past, but will be happy to do so again if required. Just as a nice summary we have the recent Smithsonian publication - David Allison & Larrie D. Ferreiro. ''The American Revolution: A World War". 2018, which summarises a lot of the scholarship about this.


 * If there's a section that needs to be split off its "the Analysis of the Combatants", and I totally support some of the other trimming you have done. But the cutting down of the global war to a subordinate status is not consistent with RS on the subject. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is saying that the American Revolutionary War did not take on proportions in or involve other countries, but to infer that the war in America was only a part of the American Revolutionary War is, frankly, a little ridiculous. The greater bulk of the fighting occurred on American soil and involved American militia and the Continental Army against the British. The war started for one central reason – American Independence. France became involved, later, for her own reasons, as a way of dealing with Britain. Same with Spain. The Germans (Hessians) were involved for the money. There are scores of reliable sources that support that premise. I remain skeptical of any one source which attempts to summarize what all the other sources are saying.  To refer to the American Revolution as a "world war" may  have 'some' merit on technical grounds, as it did involve other countries, but to refer to this war was a "world war" is to say that all the world was fighting for/against American independence, and would be a gross distortion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes the fighting began in 1775 (over American autonomy, not independence which was the following year). Canada and America were the primary scene of operations until 1778 after which it turned into a global war, with strong naval emphasis and they declined in importance (the sugar-rich West Indies were much more valuable to London). This was why in 1778 Clinton was ordered to abandon Philadelphia and New York City too, if need be, to reinforce the Caribbean. The biggest operation of the entire war was Gibraltar. So, yes after 1778 only a part. Obviously the prospect of a French invasion of Britain took on a greater importance to London than the campaigns in Georgia and the Carolinas. The common denominator of the war isn't the United States, it is Great Britain.

There is an article that covers the American aspects the American Revolution. However there are a lot of demarcation issues between that article and this. In RS they are frequently used as alternative names for the same thing, here we have given that article an emphasis on the politics and this on the military aspects, but there is stuff in each article that really belong in the other.

Up to now this article has tried to balance the American/Canadian elements of the war, with the wider international war. What you are proposing is a radical restructuring in which the latter is downgraded to a subordinate status. You say "No one is saying that the American Revolutionary War did not take on proportions in or involve other countries" that is actually what has been said in the past, but no RS provided to support that. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like we are belaboring some of the details. This article should focus on the Revolutionary War, in America. I've no objections for covering other "foreign" aspects, in summary, but as I've said, American Independence was the driving force behind the war all along. This article has far too much weight devoted to, shall we say, 'other countries'. For perspective, during the American Civil War, Britain was supplying the confederacy with arms and other supplies in exchange for the much needed cotton that kept the British and French textile industries/economies churning. If you want to get to the bottom of any advent in most of history, follow the money. There are exceptions, but rarely after the 1517 Reformation prompted by Martin Luther. Did that make the Civil War a "world war"? It seems the parameters for calling a war, a "world war" are quite varied, indeed. Imo, the term "world war" should be kept out of this article. Esp when you consider the dimensions of W.W. 1 and 2, real world wars, above and beyond the idea of a technical world war. In spite of our differences of opinion, it's been a real pleasure, my fellow editor across the ocean.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely concur with Gwillhickers on this issue. The Americans were fighting solely for independence from Britain; Britain was initially fighting solely to maintain her American colonies. That war for Britain grew into a larger, worldwide war with other nations——but it did not for America. It is very significant that no American forces were involved in Mysore or Gibraltar. Once the Brits surrendered, the Americans went home. This is a vital distinction to understand: this article is about the Americans' fight for independence; it is not about Britain's global war. If anything should be spun into a separate article it is that: create a separate article about Britain's worldwide conflict at the end of the 18th century.
 * Please also understand an important consequence of this focus: this article will quite naturally sustain a notable American perspective. It has to! That's what the article is about! I've seen countless complaints about "American bias" in this article, and those complaints reflect the very basic misunderstanding on the article's central purpose. The truth is actually the reverse: including lengthy, mind-numbing detail on Mysore reflects a British bias! It is suggesting that the Americans' fight for independence was merely an insignificant little side-scuffle in some larger international conflict. I have no doubt that the Brits saw it that way, but the Americans most assuredly did not. This was a fight to the finish with only one objective for the Americans: gain independence from Britain. That approach to this article is not an American bias; it is simply a central focus on how the Americans viewed the war. —Dilidor (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well said. The American Revolutionary War is, and has been, referred to as a war for independence by too many established sources to even count. Any bias a given WP article may exhibit, (I've seen none here) should not be a content issue so long as we are not cherry picking only certain facts. Given the coverage of other countries besides America and Britain this can hardly be the case here. Also, I'm not seeing anything that amounts to hagiography in the prose.  In some cases editors may use words like 'brave', or 'famous', if this is the obvious truth. e.g.When the British took Bunker Hill, they marched head on into a hail of gun fire, making three attempts, incurring shocking losses,  before the patriots retreated. If a British account of this battle happens to say the British fought bravely, it may be reflecting a bias, but it is the glaring truth. Having said that, it is no stretch of the imagination by referring to the war 'in' America, as one fought for independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sampling of RS
Just a quick sampling RS on this, pretty standard works, but really the tip of the iceberg:
 * John E. Ferling. Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence p.xii "and indeed the War of Independence grew to be a world war"
 * Donald Stoker, Kenneth J. Hagan & Michael T. McMaster. Strategy in the American War of Independence: A Global Approach. p.86 "Now North America was merely part of a global war of the great powers"
 * Andrew O'Shaughnessy. The Men Who Lost America. 2013. refers that from 1779 Clinton "Had to contend with the additional complication of a world war against France and Spain"

No this article isn't and shouldn't be written from the American perspective, that would raise serious NPOV issues. Dilidor, as I've said before the onus is on you to demonstrate that they were separate wars using RS. Which is to be honest as strange as insisting that Japan wasn't part of WWII because its involvement had little to do with the invasion of Poland. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The "serious NPOV issues" relate to misplacing the narrative burden of the Second Hundred Years' War 1689-1815 among European powers onto the shoulders of the American War for Independence 1775-1783 between UK and US. That lesser ARW conflict concluded with a treaty between the principals, UK and US, at the Peace of Paris (1783) with US independence as agreed to by both parties earlier and apart from contemporaneous conflicts among European great powers.
 * See to RS understanding and misapplication in articles.
 * {| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"


 * Ferling, Stoker, O'Shaughnessy - all misconstrued
 * Ferling (2009, xii). "John Adams remarked that the American Revolution had set the world ablaze, and indeed the War of Independence grew to be a world war" - - that means when British colonials stood up against UK empire, others seeking their own interests did likewise around the world - - - apart from equal rights of man and government by consent of the governed.
 * Stoker et al (2009, 86). "Now North America was merely part of a global war of the great powers" - - among the great powers apart from the ARW elsewhere around the globe.
 * O'Shaughnessy (2013, 229). General Clinton "had to contend with the additional complication of a world war against France and Spain" - - in addition to and apart from quelling an insurrection among British subjects on the easter seaboard of North America.
 * O'Shaughnessy (2013, 229). General Clinton "had to contend with the additional complication of a world war against France and Spain" - - in addition to and apart from quelling an insurrection among British subjects on the easter seaboard of North America.


 * }
 * Any possible NPOV issue here relates to misunderstanding of RS and misapplication to an article's topic; UK fighting European powers everywhere in the world 1689-1815 is not UK fighting rebelling subjects in North America with whom it makes a separate peace in 1783. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This article is written based on the basic and overwhelming facts, supported by many dozens of sources, as said. The war started and was over the struggle for independence. That it grew, in some aspects, to remote and international proportions is secondary to the events of the American Revolution. Let's not confuse the Anglo-French War (1778–1783), a continuation of Anglo-French Wars overall, and battles like the Battle of San Fernando de Omoa, as part of the American Revolutionary War. You've seemed to have made it apparent that this is your POV, which, btw, we have respect for, only because we know you're conversely on board with the same sentiment, surely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Please provide the specific sources demonstrating that they were separate wars. I've provided RS and can produce more demonstrating that in 1778 the war expanded into a global conflict. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're making the contention. Show us how the e.g.Anglo-French War (1778–1783) ties in to the American Revolution to the extent that it should be covered any more than with a summary mention in this article. Goodness, it's 10:45 PM here in California. I guess the sun is just coming up 'over yonder'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just provided standard RS works stating just that. You are making the radical changes to the scope of the article. Please provide the RS supporting it. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And we have scores of sources that say the American Revolution was fought for independence, and that securing this ideal is what started the conflict. What went on in Gibraltar, the West Indies and elsewhere has little to nothing to do with that. Britain was all over the map. Trying to lump it all in directly with the American Revolution is pov nonsense. You're giving more 'credit' to America than is due. The effort to try and depict the Revolution as but a chapter in British history has been noted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are the sources that suggest that the American fight for independence and the global war it precipated in 1778 are distinct separate wars? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Some more sources on the subject, covering the global aspects of a single war


 * Lesley Adkins, Roy Adkins. Gibraltar: The Greatest Siege in British History. Hachette UK, 2017.
 * Jonathan R. Dull. A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution. Yale University Press, 1987.
 * Piers Mackesy. The War for America: 1775-1783. University of Nebraska Press, 1992.
 * Richard Middleton. The War of American Independence: 1775-1783. Routledge, 2014.
 * David Syrett. The Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War. Univ of South Carolina Press, 1998
 * Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's like you're asking me for a source that says the sun rises in the east. You're making the contentions. e.g.Tell us how the Spansh-British struggle for Gibraltar has anything to do with the Revolution and why it should be covered at length in this article. Why do we have an article for the Anglo-French War if it's really nothing but an off-shoot of the Revolution? You've given us nothing more than generic overtures and fuzzy references to your select list of sources that all Britain's other conflicts were tied in directly with the Revolution. Why you're insisting that these topics should be covered in such proportions in this article has long since become a bit clear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I've now provided numerous sources showing that the global aspects are treated as a single war. Again there are countless more I can produce. You are making radical changes to the scope of the article with your contention that they are separate wars. If you can't support that with RS then the article needs to go back to the state it was in a few weeks ago when it covered the global war in line with the vast majority of modern RS on the subject.

If it isn't clear, that isn't suggesting the Americans weren't fighting for their independence (post July 1776). I'm not asking you to source that, which is like the sun rising in the east. I'm asking you to source the contention that the Treaty of Alliance led to two separate wars, in which the global aspects didn't have anything to do with the fighting in America.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to add again I don't disagree with all the edits you've made, and the article definitely needed trimming. Apologies if I didn't make that clear. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Britain, as I've said, was all over the map. There are some editors that feel this coverage should be eliminated from the article entirely. For historical perspective I've include these things in summary in the section's rewrite. Here we are, 250++ years after that old world calamity. In the spirit of diplomacy and recognition, Long live the King and the President. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess, stepping back a bit, I'd say that its possible there could be a rethink about the scope of the articles. As I've said, the RS treat the conflict as a single war. However if they were to be separated what would be your proposal about how they are separated. I appreciate your interest in improving this article to good or feature article status, and I'm very supportive of that goal. However, I don't think that is accomplished by sweeping the global war under the carpet. At the moment we have one single article covering the military aspects of the war.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd add, there is a precedent on Wikipedia in terms of the earlier wars where we have separate articles for the American and global theaters, (eg: French and Indian War and Seven Years' War, King George's War and War of the Austrian Succession and so on). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's Lord Cornwallis pushing a fringe POV into this article again. Let's look at his greatest hits.  Calidum   17:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Condensing British global involvements
As mentioned, previously there were some six pages of material covering Britain's other ventures around the globe that had little to nothing to do with the actual battles between the British and Americans. Some of these involvements come under headings of their own, such as the Anglo-French War (1778–1783), Second Anglo-Mysore War, Great Siege of Gibraltar, so there are indeed other articles that cover these things. Once again, I've no objections mentioning these episodes in passing, and only where we can show more than a remote association to the Revolutionary War 'in' America. The focus of this article should be on the causes that led up to the actual fighting, and the battles themselves. Once again, the Final years of the war (1781–1783) section is far too large, more than three pages. Currently this section is much larger than sections like War breaks out (1775–1776) and Taxation disputes, sections which directly involve central themes about the war. Far too much weight is afforded to British involvements elsewhere about the globe. This has created a serious due-weight issue. As such, the Final years of the war (1781–1783) section needs to be greatly condensed in the same manner that the International war breaks out (1778–1780) section was condensed, and with more focus on how the events in question tie in, if they do, with the actual war being fought between the Americans and the British. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The section name has been changed to Other British involvements (1781–1783), because the title Final years of the war (1781–1783) was too general for a section that doesn't mention any American efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Misconstruing the past

 * Ignore the tolling disrupter. It is vain to suppose for trivial WP:POV amusement that there may be any “reliable sources” conjuring any American Revolutionary War by the British other than that solely engaged in making war on
 * a) the United States Government,
 * b) its property,
 * c) its territory, and
 * d) its citizens.


 * So said the British King George III and his government in solemn promise and legal obligation. We may reasonably write an article on the American Revolutionary War that concluded with the 1783 | Definitive Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and his Britannic Majesty.


 * Article I. acknowledges the said United States to be “free, sovereign and independent”, and King George III relinquished for himself, his heirs and successors, “all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof”.


 * Article VII. declares the “firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic Majesty and the said States, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities, both by sea and by land, shall from henceforth cease”.


 * There is NO reliable source that asserts anything to the contrary, and certainly NOT by some artificial construct to disrupt this page by extrapolating British Treasury expenditure on a Gibraltar expedition against the Spanish to mean the American Revolutionary War - - - when British were NOT engaged with either a) the United States Government, b) its property, c) its territory or d) its citizens as referenced in the 1783 | Definitive Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and his Britannic Majesty. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Good Lord. The British clique militantly dominates the entirety of the English language Wiki, but they can't be content with even that. Now they have to obsess over turning an article focused on the American War for Independence in to a diluted, sprawling, amorphous mess. Because apparently it's a threat to life and limb for them if Americans have anything American, and shockingly they have the gall to claim "too much American POV" as a reason! This has been a problem for the en.wiki since day one. The BritClique is obsessed and destructive. Jersey John (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Scope of this article ARW: thrust of 30 RS reviewed

 * The thrust of the thirty RS reviewed above with one exception, have been summarized for the general reader in the English language worldwide in  British academic references published by | Routledge Publishers, Dictionary of War 1999, “American Revolution (1775-83)”, and | “Independence or American Revolutionary War, (1775-83)” search on "American Revolutionary War".
 * The American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 was a conflict between British rebels and the British Empire for the United States independence in North America over British-claimed territory on the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard west to the Mississippi River, from the Great Lakes south to East and West Florida domain claimed by the Spanish.
 * In November 1782 Britain and the US Congress agreed to an armistice and a preliminary peace agreement to recognize US independence, to be finalized AFTER the UK made peace separately with France and Spain relative to their separate Continental and colonial wars. In North America all parties honored the armistice except for that of the ongoing British-sponsored Indian attacks between the Mississippi River and the Appalachian Mountains.
 * In the event, the final UK-US peace was signed at the Treaty of Paris without reference to Euro colonial wars, BEFORE the others. UK concluded peace with France and Spain at their respective Treaties of Versailles 1783, without reference to US independence in either.
 * Conclusion: The American Revolutionary War ended at the Treaty of Paris (1783); it was not the same conflict as the Anglo-French War or the Antilles War ended at the respective UK-FR and UK-SP Treaties of Versailles (1783). The concurrent Anglo-Dutch war ended in 1784, while the British continued sponsoring Indian attacks on the US in the Mississippi River Valley throughout that year.
 * Post-ARW, British and French and Dutch and their allies, surrogates and puppets, continued war-like conflict in Asia, Africa, and Europe over respective imperial and colonial interests after their armistice and Versailles treaties of peace, while the US disbanded its armies, decommissioned its navy, established ongoing trade agreements with all Euro-belligerent parties and smuggled commerce as needs be from among their worldwide colonies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Topic header: article focus and "sister" article
Dear fellow editors:  is right. He has provided all editors present a wonderful reading list in a spirit of collegiality that we should all embrace. I especially appreciate his helping hand with a reference to the RS published at the Smithsonian - David Allison & Larrie D. Ferreiro. | The American Revolution: A World War. 2018, see Amazon “Look Inside” feature, viewed May 5, 2020.

There in the Forward, Smithsonian scholar John L. Gray, notes “The period between 1689 and 1815 was dubbed the Second Hundred Years' War by the British historian John Robert Seeley, and the name has stuck." At Second Hundred Years' War, we have most of our 'Lord Cornwallis' RS for the worldwide conflict that he so rightly wants placed front and center for the worldwide conflict. Nine hits, four misses by my count, now that I've seen a bit of Allison and Ferreiro: Dull, Hagan , Makesey (2), McMaster , O'Shaughnessy (2), Stockley , Stoker , Syrett.

At Second Hundred Years' War (a C-class article), the list of wars nests the Revolution (1775-1783) inside the Anglo-French War (a B-class article). Gibraltar, Mysore, Battle of the Saintes are all addressed appropriately THERE. All sections are VERY abbreviated. Much needs to be done to do the topic justice, as editors here have explained in their frustration that the American War for Independence as presently organized does NOT carry a narrative embracing the entirety of the worldwide conflict over those years, start to finish, among all participants.

But for the focus of this article, British Commonwealth and American editors here can BOTH defer to J.R. Seeley, the noted British historian in our 'Lord Cornwallis' recommended RS. . . and we all can agree to use EURO-centric RS to explain the worldwide conflicts ~ 1745-1815 can be elaborated in narrative at Second Hundred Years' War. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, I counted the articles under the "American Revolutionary War" and "American Revolution" categories and sub-categories. I counted over 4500 in the ARW category and over 2500 in the AR category.  I didn't bother to count the pages in Category:History of the Thirteen Colonies.  Even though there are a lot of duplicates because articles have more than one category, I also stopped counting once I hit the 3rd or 4th levels of subcategory.  Perhaps a more experience editor or admin could get the exact numbers.  My point is that there is a lot of content on Wikipedia relating to the AWR / AWI.  They cover people and groups of people, places, battles and other events, artifacts, flags, documents, monuments and memorials, causes, effects, relationships, rivalries, revenge, etc.  When we're discussing the scope of this article and the due weight owed to individual topics, we have to keep these other articles in mind.  As others have said, this article needs to provide a general overview of the ARW.  We need to tell a clear and concise history- a good story- and leave details to other articles.  It's simply not possible to tell the complete story; two centuries of authors have tried.  So when we discuss, for example, the Boston Massacre or the Battle of Gilbraltar, the honest question isn't whether or not it's part of the ARW.  Of course they are.  But do they fit into the defined scope of this article, or do they disrupt the reader?  I suggest that so long as this article is sufficiently linked so that the average Wikipedia reader can get to those details in 1-3 clicks, we're doing well.  Instead of defining the scope of this article to fit what we want, let's set a neutral scope, build an outline, and then tailor the content. Canute (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Focus

 * Generally agree. The events in question are 'related' to the Revolution to one degree or another. For purposes of this article, we afford coverage in accord with how the sources on the Revolution do. Even the ones that mention events like Gibraltar only cover it in passing. Lord Cornwallis has presented a fair number of sources which also cover Gibraltar in passing. Meanwhile, we have been ignoring a number of the major players and events of the Revolution because of this disruptive POV allegation. While Gibraltar is mentioned three times in two different sections, Lexington-Concord is mentioned once, but not even covered. General Gates is mentioned only twice, and very briefly. Lafayette is mentioned once, in a caption. Benjamin Franklin is mentioned once. Thomas Jefferson is mentioned twice but in two consecutive related sentences. John Paul Jones is mentioned once. Paul Revere himself is not mentioned at all. (Revere has since been mentioned, Gw' 6/5/20) The Battle of Bunker Hill is only covered with two sentences. The Battle of White Plains is mentioned once and is only covered with one sentence. The Declaration of Independence is only covered with one sentence. i.e.It was issued. These are all people and events that were heavily involved in the Revolution and played prominent roles, (very) well covered by virtually all the sources on the Revolution.  ( Some of these items have since been better covered. Gw' 6-11-20 )   Meanwhile we have this NPOV tag because we have been told that events like Gibraltar, already mentioned three times, are not covered well enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Add : The NPOV tag should remain until these isses receive the proper coverage in proportion to the major sources on the Revolutionary War. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Paul Revere himself is not mentioned at all." Why should he be mentioned? While he served as a militia officer for a few years, he never played a major role in decision-making. To quote the main article on him:
 * {| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"


 * 4 items from Paul Revere article
 * *"Upon returning to Boston in 1776, Revere was commissioned a major of infantry in the Massachusetts militia in that April, and transferred to the artillery a month later. In November he was promoted to lieutenant colonel, and was stationed at Castle William, defending Boston harbor. He was generally second or third in the chain of command, and on several occasions he was given command of the fort. He applied his engineering skills to maintaining the fort's armaments, even designing and building a caliper to accurately measure cannonballs and cannon bore holes.  The service at Castle William was relatively isolated, and personality friction prompted some men to file complaints against Revere. The boredom was alleviated in late August 1777 when Revere was sent with a troop of soldiers to escort prisoners taken in the Battle of Bennington to Boston, where they were confined on board prison ships,and again in September when he was briefly deployed to Rhode Island."
 * "In August 1778 Revere's regiment served in a combined Franco-American expedition whose objective was to capture the British base at Newport, Rhode Island. His regiment was responsible for erecting and maintaining artillery batteries on Aquidneck Island. The attempt was abandoned by the French when their fleet was scattered in a storm, and Revere's regiment returned to Boston before the British sortied from Newport to force the Battle of Rhode Island."
 * "The British in June 1779 established a new base on Penobscot Bay in present-day Maine (which was then part of Massachusetts). Massachusetts authorities called out the militia, pressed into service available shipping, and organized a major expedition to dislodge the British. The expedition was a complete fiasco: its land and naval commanders squabbled over control of the expedition, and could not agree on strategy or tactics. The arrival of British reinforcements led to the destruction of the entire Massachusetts fleet. Revere commanded the artillery units for the expedition, and was responsible for organizing the artillery train.He participated in the taking of Bank's Island, from which artillery batteries could reach the British ships anchored before Fort George.  He next oversaw the transport of the guns from Bank's Island to a new position on the heights of the Bagaduce Peninsula that commanded the fort.  Although Revere was in favor of storming the fort, Brigadier General Solomon Lovell opted for a siege instead.  After further disagreements on how to proceed between Lovell and fleet commander Dudley Saltonstall, Lovell decided to return to the transports on August 12, a decision supported by Revere."
 * "Late the next day British sails were spotted. A mad scramble ensued, and on the 14th the fleet was in retreat heading up the Penobscot River.  Revere and his men were put ashore with their stores, and their transports destroyed.  At one point Brigadier General Peleg Wadsworth ordered Revere to send his barge in an attempt to recover a ship drifting toward the enemy position.  Revere at first resisted, but eventually complied, and Wadsworth told him to expect formal charges over the affair.  The incident separated Revere from his men.  Moving overland, he eventually managed to regroup most of his troops, and returned to Boston on August 26.  A variety of charges were made against Revere, some of which were exaggerated assignments of blame made by enemies he had made in his command at Castle William.  The initial hearings on the matter in September 1779 were inconclusive, but he was asked to resign his post. He repeatedly sought a full court-martial to clear his name, but it was not until February 1782 that a court martial heard the issue, exonerating him."
 * }
 * Dimadick (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dimadick (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You've just outlined several good reasons why Revere should be mentioned and covered with at least a few sentences, beginning with his midnight ride to alert patriots that the British were on the march, just before the battles of Lexington and Concord, which is also not covered in this article. We also mention him because all the sources cover his involvements, and we should do so in proportion to the majority of sources. Are we going to get side tracked on Revere only?  Copy-pasting this much material from the Revere page in a discussion about overall coverage and focus is getting off topic. Was hoping we could look at the big picture and discuss how to cover the people and events in proportion to how the sources do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, let's not go down this rabbit hold on Paul Revere. The main point you make is that we're getting hung up on Gibraltar even though it has more coverage than other events which are comparably more significant.  That point is valid.  I really don't believe we're going to solve this on an topic by topic basis, because each of us will have differing opinions on how much due weight each topic should receive.  I genuinely believe we need to independently define what the scope of this article is, and then "trim the tree" according to that scope until this article takes shape.  Canute (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The solution to that overarching issue is to have an RFC with the question to be asked what the scope of the article should be. That's the proper method of moving forward under the ordinary dispute resolution process.XavierGreen (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Canute, yes, the disproportionate coverage for some events is quite glaring. The solution is really simple. We cover any given event in proportion to how the overwhelming majority of sources on the Revolution do. At best, Gibraltar is only mentioned briefly in any source on the Revolution, and always in conjunction with other issues, if it's mentioned at all. Thanks to the sources Lord Cornwallis has offered, along with others, we've seen this first hand. I'm still waiting for someone to present a source on the Revolution that commits anything more than a paragraph on Gibraltar. There is much work yet to be done on this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I provided several sources above which you blatantly continue to ignore such as: American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [5 Volumes], Pg. 644 - 647, Spencer Tucker, (2018). Tucker's section on Gibraltar is several pages long. There are also entire books dedicated to the subject,  Rock The Great Siege of Gibraltar, 1779–1783   and. Chartrand, René; Courcelle, Patrice (2006). Gibraltar 1779–1783: The Great Siege, Pg. 89). There are a variety of other sources I can provide, The Struggle for Sea Power: A Naval History of the American Revolution by Sam Willis (2016) references the events at Gibraltar throughout its text, John Lendrum's History of the American Revolution (1836) references Gibraltar throuoghout its text [].XavierGreen (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As for Gibraltar's impact on the end of the war, the relief of the Siege of Gibaltar was what finally convinced the french to agree to peace. See The War for America 1775-1783, Piers Mackesy (1992), pg. 506 and 507 []. France had delayed peace negotations in a hope that Gibraltar would fall, as its Treaty of Alliance with Spain mandated that it continue the war until such time as Gibraltar was returned to Spanish control. In turn, the alliance between France and the United States mandated that neither France or America could sign a peace treaty with Britain without the others consent. Thus the Great Siege of Gibralter forced the war to continue for some time until Rodney relieved the siege. After Rodney relieved the siege, it became apparant to France that recovery of Gibraltar was impossible and they convinced Spain to make peace with Britain so that France and America could in turn make peace with Britain and finally end the war. See Chapter XVIII of The Diplomacy of the American Revolution, Samuel Flagg Bemis, 2012 [] which discusses this at length.XavierGreen (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Bemis' book is a dedicated account on diplomacy. There are dedicated books on any subject, but Gibraltar remains rarely covered with anything more than a passing mention, if anything, in nearly all the texts on the American Revolutionary War itself. The fact remains, Gibraltar was a major concern of Spain and Britain, a small item in the history of the actual Revolution, and was only used as a bargaining chip to placate Spain and France long after Britain's surrender. Piers Mackesy's account only covers this idea. Same with Bemis' account. No where do they tie Gibraltar in as to having any impact on the overall fate of the British in America, or at the Surrender of Yorktown, which occurred long before the treaty of Paris. The fighting at Gibraltar involved control over Gibraltar, having nothing to do with the actual American Revolutionary War itself, other than to put a further strain on Britain's resources. Do you really think Britain would have resumed the war in America if negotiations involving Gibraltar had failed? I've no objections, however, that mention be made that Gibraltar was used to appease France and Spain at the Treaty of Paris and contributed to the overall peace between the given nations involved. In that event, Gibraltar will be mentioned at least four times in this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the context of this article, I'm not sure there are many events and battles worth more than a few sentences. There's simply too much to cover.  If we follow a solid outline, we shouldn't have to cover the prelude for each battle because it will naturally flow from reading the article.  So all we need to cover is one or two sentences of what happened, and one or two sentences about what happened as a result.  The minor battles and skirmishes won't even get this much; there can be more details in the subsequent theater and specific articles.


 * The question of how much due weight to give any particular event is not easy to answer. I don't think we can simply look to sources because there are a couple hundred years of texts written on the Revolutionary War and they won't agree.  Authors purposefully or subconsciously put more emphasis on different events, sometimes obscure events.  So we're going to have to debate each of these.  Again, though, if the overall article is solid and follows a sound outline with a defined scope, then all we'll really have to debate is what level of detail a given person, event, or battle warrants. Canute (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if we don't determine the amount of coverage a given person or advent merits, per 100's of sources, then all that is left for us is to fall back on is personal opinion, and our preferences for particular sources, and we've seen what that can amount to lately - a recipe for perpetual debate. All the sources on the Revolution cover e.g. Yorktown at great length. All of them. Hence we give that campaign coverage accordingly. Likewise for the other events during the war. If we put personal feelings aside I believe we can cover the events in proportion to sources overall. A simple approach. The focus should be on the British and American people that were in the thick of it, during the struggle, the actual war, for/against American independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I support your effort to find a neutral way to resolve these questions. But I just don't think it's practical to scan so many books on the Revolution in order to tailor this article.  Even if we were to agree on a core set of 5-10 sources, those would have their own biases and would exclude any new scholarly works.  So we'll have perpetual debate no matter what, which is the nature of Wikipedia; we just need to set some left and right limits so those debates are fewer and faster.  BTW, I would argue that even important campaigns like New York, Saratoga, and Yorktown should be no more than a paragraph in this article, because this article should attempt to tell the story of the whole war, and there are other articles that focus on those campaigns and battles within those campaigns.  In that sense, we don't really need to argue over the length that any particular event receives, we really need to decide how much detail any event should have in this article.  Whether major or minor events, this article shouldn't get into details.  We should name the event at an appropriate point (chronologically would be my vote) and stay focused on the effect that had on following events, with our eye on the whole war, not local history. Canute (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Article centricity
On retrospect there is still much work to do in terms of focus and due weight. We have made a fair amount of progress, esp when you consider that this article once had two sections for India over a war that was clearly not part of the Revolutionary war, and which continued into the year (1784) after the Treaty of Paris was signed, two sections for Europe, and two for the Americas, sections with the exact same titles and which were all devoted to Britain's other engagements about the globe, filled with dozens of links, many of which were only remotely related to the Revolutionary War at best. Much of this material was condensed into one section, but it's still quite a bit of coverage for the subject and scope of this article. Meanwhile, we still have very little coverage on a number of topics which are clearly and directly involved in the revolution, while we still have rather large and dedicated sections for Howe, Cornwallis and Clinton. As such this article still remains on the British-centric side, and until this overall situation is remedied the NPOV tag needs to remain where it is. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here! here!, as they say: AGREE.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Those involved in the "imperial American Revolution" Wiki-hoax here, are at a superficial level, riding the same kind of hobby-horse as the Neo-Confederates, who impose their political "Third Flag" that CSA contemporaries called "the white flag of surrender", or "never seen used", in the info-boxes of battles and biographies of both Eastern and Western Theaters of that war.
 * In our case here, for many Anglo-French War battles I've sighted on Wikipedia over the past week, something to this effect is rendered to "| play silly buggers" (Brit.) with 8th grade US middle school students - - - to wit: - - - The antidote for those interested in learning and understanding, is for classroom teachers, parents, and tutors to stress that Wikipedia is meant only as a general introduction, but each student must follow the footnotes , and use only sources (1) published by university presses, (2) held in US government .gov archives, or (3) those from an approved list supplied by the instructor naming reliable scholarly institutes with peer review of of their published copyrighted articles.
 * Perhaps an enterprising wiki editor committed to Jimbo's vision of an online encyclopedia will try to revert all the odd unsourced misdirections strewn through military articles among European imperial conflicts 1777-1784 meant to "complicate" US history at Wikipedia - making them all "a part of the American Revolutionary War - per Matthew Lockwood alone - - whose monograph may be most gently characterized as an "outlier" among contemporary mainstream history scholarship of the period; it does not reflect the preponderance of scholarship on the subject cited by its proponents here. - - - Or maybe it is enough for a small band of editors to clean up American Revolutionary War in the same way as a group continues to monitor American Civil War to ride herd on the wiki-hoax hobby-horse hucksters in their various guises (Neo-Confederate and other), pursuing an ongoing and repeated campaign of the same wp:vandalism . . . letting go the multitude of misdirections among dozens of subsidiary articles . ..
 * Conclusion: So, in this case, the goal would be at American Revolutionary War to reject the imposition any of the various memes related to Lockwood's "imperial Revolutionary War" among the European powers - - - limiting contributions to conflict directly related to US independence in North America [ to include the maritime history of Caribbean and European trade routes to the US, as our 'Lord Cornwallis' and XavierGreen have collegially extended our horizons in this article]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

TVH, thank you for extending the benefits of your extensive education in American history, and for your words of conciliation. In terms of scope, may I remind all involved here, that aside from battles and the like, this article also covers the causes and events that lead up to the actual fighting, and its aftermath, but only in summary, so we have an article that reads and flows like a narrative, not just a verbal outline of the battles. Nuf' said. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"Treaty of Paris" edit.
BOLD EDIT: In the recent edit at "Treaty of Paris" subsection, I have followed the article focus on "The American [constitutional] Revolutionary War" or the "American War of Independence [from Britain]". The consensus here is to find perspectives on the 'war' conflict in North America, rather than exchanges of diplomacy relative to trade, resources or trade.

SUBSECTION: I've introduced a useful distinction between the Treaty of Paris and the Treaties of Versailles, maintaining as much of the original sourcing and phrasing as I thought met the agreed upon editorial criteria.

RS BALANCE: The RS balance is six previous sources, six "Jonathan Dull", an RS recommended by Canadian editors, and six new sources: a RS balance of 6:6:6, or if you are of the Canadian persuasion, 12:6.

MARITIME EMPHASIS: I have taken the comments in recent threads to heart, and added an image of the last USS frigate until John Adams' five-frigate Navy of the Constitution Era, as well as an image of the crucial Battle of the Saintes made possible by the ceasefire, armistice, and peace concluded between the UK and the US - - as RS Jonathan Dull explains.

COLLEGIAL: I'll be happy to discuss the choices, and make accommodations for additional RS, with no edit war required. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
There is still a glaring due weight issue in terms of Britain's other global and remote involvements. Aside from the six flags for German mercenaries in the info-box, the International war breaks out (1778–1783) section is still quite large and is the largest single section in the article. Many of the topics outlined in bold here still have little to no coverage, while we have dedicated sections for Howe, Cornwallis and Clinton, while there are none for Gates or Lafayette, commanders who also played major roles in the war of independence. As such, the return of the NPOV tag, which was recently removed by another non-involved editor, is actually welcomed, as it will also serve to bring attention to the issues with real weight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk page
As the discussions are becoming rather diverse with new sections appearing in the middle of other discussions which likely could go unnoticed, may I direct any newcomers to the latest discussions Here and Here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

LaFayette ?
Where is Lafayette ? 3 little ref of him ? I don't understand. Don't forget, this is for anyone know or don't know history of america... No Lafayette, no french help and no won...

SwaxawS (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This article more than adequately covers French involvement, especially at Yorktown, where without the help of the French navy Britain would likely have won that crucial campaign. Yes, much more could be said about LaFayette, one of Washington's closest friends and comrades. This and other such short comings has already been pointed out. Your user page strikes me as somewhat odd. I've seen no "French bashing" around here, or anywhere. Some friendly advice: You might want to consider not making that the apparent central purpose of your presence here at WP. You are welcomed around here as much as any other editor.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)