Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 2

German Mercenaries/Loyalists as Combatants?
The classification of German Mercenaries/Loaylists as combatants is strange, as it implies that they were a party of war in their own right (which was obviously not the case). Actually all dicisions were made by Great Britain. Mercenaries and Loyalists were integrated into the military organisation of the Royal Army. The above classification contradicts the Wiki style used for other war, too. E.g. the wars of Emperor Charles V were fought by mercenaries from different counties. But the info boxes state only H.R.E/Spain as combatants and not e.g. H.R.R/Spain/Swiss Mercenaries/Italian Merceneries etc.
 * This is true. The Warbox typically lists only political entities. Fixing now. Albrecht 17:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an error, actually. The warbox guidelines currently say this about the combatants entry: "This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding." To list the 13 Colonies as allies of the Britain, and yet ignore 30,000 Germans and 13,000 American Indians who fought for the Brits, hardly helps readers to understand the combatants at a glance. Better to ignore the Eurocentric political bias (i.e. the concept of states) and instead list who actually fought in the war, as this warbox has always done. • Kevin (complaints?) 01:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And? Should it ccontain Prussian, Polish and other volunteers in the United States box? If you get rid of the Hessians and Loyalists you will have to clear virtually all of the compatants from the US box. 81.153.245.153 19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

- ::Just curious, but what role did the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg play in the war, and what warrants their being listed here as opposed to any other state that also recognized King George as their monarch (I assume that is why they appear on the list) ZIM81 (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)User:Zim81, 4 December 2007

The War in America versus the wider war
I note that the current "to do list" proposes reducing the "War at Sea" section in favour of a short summary paragraphs without headings. The section is poorly constructed, but reducing it will relegate the primary war efforts of the most powerful participants (Britain and France) after 1778 to an even lower status than they currently have in the article. I raises the issue of what the war was about (and, hence, what this article is about). In short, if the "War at Sea", or perhaps "the wider war", is not worthy of significant mention in this article on the "American Revolutionary War", perhaps the wider war does deserve an article of its own under "American War of Independence". (For comparison, see the way the French and Indian War has evolved as a separate article to the Seven Years War. JimmyTheOne 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For the Americans, the war was a clear cut revolution and struggle for Independence (with most in favour and some against)
 * For the British, the war was initially a struggle to retain (or regain) the Americans' loyalty. But from 1778 it became a far more complex war with France and later Spain and the Netherlands. The war with France and Spain soon dominated British concerns, with a significant reduction of effort in America (where arguably the struggle had already been lost after Saratoga).
 * Similarly, for France, Spain and the Netherlands, the war in America was something of a side show. France and Spain were principally seeking revenge for their defeat in the Seven Years War, and their strategy focused on taking British possessions in Europe (Minorca, Gibraltar etc.), the West Indies (Dominica, Grenada, Tobago, Jamaica etc.) and the East Indies. While French support for the United States was of great importance, it was not the primary aim of the French war effort.
 * The "wider war" article you're talking about already exists as Naval operations in the American Revolutionary War. That article is still a bit rough, being based mostly on the turgid prose of the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica. But much could be done there, including perhaps a name change, though not to "American War of Independence", since that's a recipe for confusion with this article. (Something like "Naval War of American Independence"?) When revised, this article and that one would be complementary: this one primarily about the land war in North America (with reference to the wider naval war that eventually emerged), and vice versa. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 19:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Here is the place to describe the global war in all its bearings: the American Revolutionary War. An article should not favour one POV over others just because one side has a bigger sentimental attachment. Concerns of purely American character should be expanded upon in American Revolution or other appropriate articles. The description of military operations should give equal weight to all belligerents regardless of geography. The attempt to consolidate a U.S. monopoly over this article and to lump everything else under "Naval operations," I find, is misguided and wrong. Albrecht 22:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As so often happens on Wikipedia talk pages (where comments on a previous version of an article remain long after the article itself has changed), you're beating a dead horse: the article no longer lumps everything outside North America under "naval operations". The article is now structured chronologically by major campaigns, rather than land here and naval elsewhere.
 * Ironically, the previous arrangement (one article on the land war in America and another on the wider naval war) which you call an "attempt to consolidate a U.S. monopoly over this article" was actually British in origin: it was copied directly from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. The original 1911 text slowly disappeared from this article, though much still remains in the "naval operations" article, which was essentially the story of the Royal Navy in the war.
 * There is still much work to be done on campaigns outside North America, to be sure. Two notable examples: the Great Siege of Gibraltar and the San Juan expedition, two major operations involving British, Spanish, and French (but not American) troops, had almost no mention on Wikipedia until I added them very recently. I assume that their lack of coverage on Wikipedia was due to editor disinterest rather than a conspiracy to exert a "U.S. monopoly" over coverage of the war, but your mileage may vary. As John Shy noted in his introduction to Piers Mackesy's classic British study of the war, British historians and readers have traditionally been relatively uninterested in this war, which may explain the sorry state of articles like the Second Anglo-Mysore War and the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War. No one is likely to blame the condition of those articles on American sentimentality for the Revolution, but anything is possible. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 01:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So sorry; I blundered in here while making the rounds at WPMILHIST. I stand by what I said above, as a general principle, but I guess that doesn't really matter now. Cheers to all. Albrecht 03:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 03:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, then I am afraid it is of US origin. Horace Hooper published the encyclopedia at the time. Sigurd Dragon Slayer 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC) I agree the article seems to be written from a US view point. To the British, the war with America was of little significance compared to the war with France and Spain. Even when I was at school the American War of Independence was never mentioned, but the wider ranging war with France was covered. That may be why the war is always covered by American historians - because it is forgotten elsewhere.

The Wealth of Nations
It may be worth weaving in The Wealth of Nations into the "War's end" as the fall from favour of mercantilism meant that those the theoretical underpinnings for holding an empire were weakened. -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Such an issue would be better addressed in the main article American Revolution; this article is about guys shooting at each other. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 05:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Civil War
I've just noticed that the introductory section somewhat tentatively credits Richard Holmes (military historian) with the idea of the Revolutionary War as a civil war within British North America. In my experience, this is the normal and uncontroversial way of viewing the conflict in English Canada. Just my 2¢, QuartierLatin1968 03:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just another routine case of bad writing creeping into the article. Same story, different day... --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 05:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I must have been having a bad day when I wrote that. I blame the government. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 09:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this explanation ought to be inserted into the introduction, rather like a health warning:-

"The War of Independence is often a misunderstood conflict. It has been mythologised as a rebellion of the American colonists against the British, but it was more in the nature of a civil war. Most of the participants initially thought of themselves as Brtish in some sense, identifying themselves with one of the two factions in the British parliament. The rebels incorporated the union jack in the first version of their flag, and referred to the colonial loyalists as 'Tories'. Many loyalists enlisted in scratch British units (some of them serving under the infamous Banastre Tarleton). In turn, there are many instances of loyalist civilians being 'tarred and feathered' or driven from their homes and busineses in a form of 'political cleansing'. In Britain, the governing elite were split down the middle. Some British officers resigned their commissions rather than fight the rebels. The war was so unpopular that the government resorted to employing Hessian mercenaries." --Train guard 11:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The perception of the conflict as a civil war amongst the British played a major role in the collapse of popular support inside parliament itself. The conclusion of the artical presents the British position as one of solid unity, whereas in realitiy it was the collapse of popular support in parliament for the conflict that led to the war ending. The over-empahsis on the military reasons for the British faliure can easily be balanced out with a few lines mentioning the divisions within parliament, the lack of support amongst parliamentarians for attacking their own colonists, and the wavering and collapse of support as the conflict dragged on with no resolution. --Korona 14:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War Campaigns
Could someone familar with this topic and article figure out how American Revolutionary War Campaigns could be worked in/linked to? -Ravedave 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That article, a copy-and-paste from elsewhere, is about U.S. Army campaign streamers that date from the war (like here). It needs a lot of cleanup, needless to say. There's no need to link it in this article, since that's what categories do for us. Plus, it just repeats info already here, and not as well. It should be massively rewritten into something called United States Army campaign streamers or United States Army named campaigns, and linked in the United States Army and Continental Army articles. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 00:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Phrasing in the Introduction
Should the wording really be "...was a war that erupted..."? I'm not an expert, but the actions of both the Continental Congress and George III don't appear to warrant using the word "erupt". -Fsotrain09 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, but what would you have? "Came to pass"?  "Happened"?  I'm having trouble finding a verb that seems to do what you want it to. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How about "was fought"? Mainly, I think the verb should be less abrupt. -Fsotrain09 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It came to me finally-- "was a war between..." Keep it simple. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Title of This Article

 * ''See also Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 1

A search of Wikipedia for the phrase War of Independence brings up titles referring to the Wars of Independence of at least sixteen countries. The term Revolutionary War is applied to just one country. I doubt the United States' war was much different in principle to the many others. In referring to it as Revolutionary are we not just clinging to the patriotic mythology of which we Americans are so fond; which we learned at school instead of history and which we get bombarded with by Hollywood?

I have read the archived discussion concerning changing the title and the arguments against it have a strong flavor of nationalistic bluster: "We won the war so we get to choose the title."

I think objectivity should take precedence over nationalism. Kjb 02:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia articles are named. We don't decide what the correct proper name for something ought to be; rather, according to Naming conflict, "The most common use of a name [in English] takes precedence." The most common name for this war seems to be "American Revolutionary War". For example, a "GoogleDuel" of the various common names gives these numbers of hits:
 * American Revolutionary War (697,000 hits)
 * American War of Independence (363,000)
 * War of American Independence (50,400)
 * War of the American Revolution (19,100)
 * Personally, I prefer the last title, but obviously that's out. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 02:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I suspect that your Google search reflects only that most references on the Web to the War are written by Americans. In Wikipedia, the Spanish, French and German language articles on the first British-American War are titled, respectively, Guerra de la Independencia de los Estados Unidos, Indépendance américaine, guerre de l, and Amerikanischer Unabhängigkeitskrieg, each of which translates directly to American War of Independence. The situation appears to be that everyone outside of The United States refers to the war as a War of Independence. Even within the United States, the American War is uniquely named; every other country's war for sovereignty is called a War of Independence. In summary, everyone refers to this kind of war in general as a War of Independence. Everyone, except those in the United States, refers to this particular war as a War of Independence. The passion with which we Americans cling to our name for it suggests, to me, jingoism, which is out of place in Wikipedia. Kjb 15:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just been reading through the Talk page on the Seepoy Mutiny (aka First Indian War of Independance - depending on your POV). Their consensus has been to name the article Indian Rebellion of 1847 - which is not it's commonly used name anywhere, as far as I know, in order to stop the article taking on a viewpoint that is either NPOV or inaccurate. (The war was both a mutiny AND a (although not national) war of independance.)


 * I would suggest that this is a suitable 'example of good practice' as it were to justify the current naming of this article. The existing Revolutionary War is based upon only fact and inspires no prejudgement about the justness of the cause of the rebellion. In common useage a War Of Independance is most often seen as being a struggle against unjust opressors and the American Revolt is just as bad in the other direction. Leave the current title as is, I would suggest.--88.96.3.206 21:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're doing Google counts, then "American Revolution" is by far the highest, 17 million versus 670,000 for American Revolutionary War. American Revolution is even higher than just Revolutionary War . I think the title is fine as is, but American Revolution would also be fine. --Awiseman 07:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Most schools in the UK, and ergo most of the people "over here" call it the "American War of Independence". But of course, we're a much smaller nation, so on any logic that articles should be named by the "most common" name (i.e. truth decided by majority vote) that arguement isn't going to win.


 * Also note. "revolution" is normally used to imply an internal change of stance within a nation. Russian Revolution, industrial revolution. Whereas this is about a war where a country siezed its independence, therefore {in my opinion} the "American War of Independence" or "War of American Independence" are by far the more sensible, clear choices. 161.73.37.81 17:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Onion article
The Onion has an article spoofing this page. We should probably watch out for vandals. --199.89.64.177 17:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Little did such founding fathers as George Washington, George Jefferson, and ***ERIC IS A FAG*** know that their small, querulous republic would later become the most powerful and prosperous nation in history, the Unified States Of America." Priceless... 72.130.177.246 04:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

German Mercenaries
The Hessians, who are in this article referred to as German Mercenaries, were in fact soldiers not unlike those of any other European army in the 18th century. While some volunteered, most were peasants, petty criminals, and unfortunate travelers who were forced into the armies of several German princes by recruiters desperate to meet their quota. The princes, in turn, offered these armies to foreign powers for exorbitant amounts of money. This is in stark contrast to the modern-day idea of a mercenary as an individual who, of their own free will, offers their dubious services in exchange for personal profit. Thus, it would be much more accurate that Hessians in this article should be referred to as Germen auxiliaries, and not as mercenaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krutherford43 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We use the terms used by the published scholarly works. Boatner's Encylcopedia of the American Revolution, Cowley & Parker's Reader's Companion to Military History, Mackesy's War for America all use the term "German mercenaries", to name just the first 3 books I pulled off the shelf. The only source I know of off-hand which slightly questions this traditional label is Fischer's Washington's Crossing, where he says the Hessians "were not mercenaries in the usual sense" (p. 59). Note he doesn't say they weren't mercenaries, just not in the "usual sense", and for different reasons than what you cite. (Hackett argues that the Hessians "believed in service to their prince", i.e. they were still patriots, even though serving in a war that was not their own.) Because the army was rented as a whole, the Hessians were mercenaries collectively rather than individually, which is why the term mercenary is usually applied to them as a group. If you know of any source which challenges this traditional label, we can discuss it here, but otherwise we use the terms the scholars use.
 * Likewise, recently someone changed "German" to "Germanic" since they said "Germany didn't exist at the time", but not only have they confused the creation of a nation-state with the age-old geographic expression, they are going against standard scholarly usage. As always, sources are needed if one wants to challenge conventional terminology. --Kevin (complaints?) 18:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By the definition of the Wikipedia article on mercenaries the 'Hessians' were indeed not mercenaries and calling them such is in some ways offensive. Lending out armies to other sovereigns was not rare throughout history. And except for that there is very little difference between the recruitment of the 'Hessians' and British troops (for example the newly raised scotish regiments). (Actually, this system is very similar to how the Greek City States armies worked, yet no one would call them mercenaries (actually corecting myself, Alexander the Great did and committed atrocities against them)). Caranorn --85.93.203.82 22:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I notice that this section was removed tonight, it's probably vandalism but ain't sure so I'll place it here for now to make sure it's not forgotten.

''Suppressing a rebellion in America also posed other problems. Since the colonies covered a large area and had not been united before the war, there was no central area of strategic importance. In Europe, the capture of a capital often meant the end of a war; in America, when the British seized cities such as New York and Philadelphia, the war continued unabated. Furthermore, the large size of the colonies meant that the British lacked the manpower to control them by force. Once any area had been occupied, troops had to be kept there or the Revolutionaries would regain control, and these troops were thus unavailable for further offensive operations. The British had sufficient troops to defeat the Americans on the battlefield but not enough to simultaneously occupy the colonies. This manpower shortage became critical after French and Spanish entry into the war, because British troops had to be dispersed in several theaters, where previously they had been concentrated in America. '' --Caranorn 21:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work catching that. When an anonymous user removes a section from an article without leaving an edit summary, it's always vandalism (unless they were removing patent nonsense). Feel free to revert all unexplained deletions. —Kevin 22:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision
I added some stuff to the combatants and generals of the war. Edit at your will if you must. --RedFoxBandit 21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

World War??
From the leading paragraph:


 * "In 1777 the war became a world war, involving Britain against France, Spain and the Netherlands."

This sentence needs to be removed; Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands and the US don't constitute the world and the term world war has a different and defined meaning, namely the wars between 1914 - 1918 and 1939 - 1945.Ironcorona 15:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Historians in fact call it a world war (Black p 2 calls it a "global struggle"). The British, French, Dutch and Spanish empires included important parts of Asia (esp India), Africa and South America. Rjensen 06:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The term "international" conflict would be better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.247.221.217 (talk • contribs).
 * It was obviously an international conflict. But it was also a world/global conflict and readers need to know that. Rjensen 22:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Any war is by definition an inter-nation-al conflict (i.e. between nations). Unless it's a civil war, of course. A 'world war' does not need to include every country, just potentially a sizable chunk of the globe. Concur that the phrase "global confilct" is reasonable. "world war" is unfortunately now a term in its own right, it would be misleading to allow it as a synonym (even though it technically is. 161.73.37.81 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The contention that the war of 1754-63, this war, and the Napoleonic wars were world wars (in exactly the same sense as the war of 1914-18; they were fought in both hemispheres, and involved world-wide combatants in India, Africa, Europe and the Americas) is now not only consensus but tradition. Leave it alone.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversion
I reverted to revision 87437199 dated 2006-11-13 00:30:50 by Llama man because it looked like a lot of information was still left out after a vandalism clean-up. Mufka 02:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinions at the start about wars Britain has lost and colonies given up etc
My statement at the start is being removed unnecessarily. It looks like this, for the uninitiated:

''The conflict stands as the only notable war Great Britain has lost since the Norman Conquest of 1066 and the only time that a colony of the British Empire was taken by military action and not subsequently reclaimed. In other words, it is the only colony the British Empire did not give up freely.''

I have now changed the above to make it more accurate and neutral.

If you want to delete it, then disprove it!
 * I'm pretty sure Britain (OK, England) didn't come out a winner in the Hundred Years' War. 68.40.64.186 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great Britain didn't exist as a national entity prior to 1707. Before that date, Scotland and England were seperate nations with distinct monarchs. At the time of the Norman Conquest of 1066, Wales was independent too, as was Cornwall.
 * Don't forget, England and Scotland were invaded by each other numerous times. Wales was also conquered. And yes, the Hundred Years War (ended 1453) when England lost most of its lands on the continent to the French (exception being the Channel Islands). They could easily be classed as "colonies" (though England was actually a province of Normandy, as the Channel Islanders are keen to tell us). 161.73.37.81 18:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Spain in the American Revolutionary War
It's now it's own page, but it's incredibly stubby. Anyone is welcome to expand it. Scholarus 22:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

assessment
The assessment section is useful. I trimmed it down a bit, added new details, and new evidence. Rjensen 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

thomas hutchens
as a new user of wikopedia ...but a fast study. it is apperant that there are smart guys that will not let a thing go...chop chop the artical. These guys like to do as many chop edits as possible. many encylopedia contain commentary blindly written and commentary to the contrary thus expressing both sides.... sources need not be on the internet...or nothing futher would make to the internet...because it isnt already referanced. A catch 22. So i have used some of the rules for articals in a review of this artical...within the guide lines ect. They are "african americans salve and free"...sites a page...that does not mention anything in support of the statement of fact in the sentance....facts need support especialy when a page or link is sited and no support is present. Thomas Hutchens ...the artical does not provide sources for statements of fact ether cited or linked. In my artical facts were such that they created an opionion in the reader simply because of what they stated...this does not necessary mean they are biased  but rather that the facts if true  and refs and sources were checked...than that opionion would most likley prevale. If your artical retains itg good artical standing and the sections removed are reverted than my artical submissions without internet links...but raw source citing and written without candy coating ...such as council minutes and hearings minutes to convey events...will certainly have to stand. Lets remember one thing...if a person wantedto find out about mel gibson...and wikopediad him...the biased articals,according to some, would be part of the big picture. Its not just the birth date and benigne info.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onekooleskimo (talk • contribs).

The flags
What is wrong to have flags in the infobox? Killerman2 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:MILHIST guidelines say not to. Specifically, see here.--chris.lawson 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio or IP Vandalism?
An IP has now removed the same content twice, several times without an edit summary and most recently with the summary, "it was copywrighted". I've reverted it again, because the IP did not specify who owned the actual copyright, though there's the possibility that it legitimately is copyrighted, so I defer to the judgement of other editors. Hopefully the editor in question will provide more detail soon. --Moralis 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"a war between Great Britain"
The opening sentence reads "The American Revolutionary War....was a war between Great Britain". It doesn't specify a second combatant (the colonies). Is this supposed to mean "an internal war within Great Britain", or did someone just delete the colonies? I was tempted to edit it but thought it wise to discuss it here first. Venicemenace 02:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * that was my mistake--oops--and I just now repaired it. Rjensen 02:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Given the, uh, "quality" of recent anon edits, it seems that semi-protection on this page would be appropriate. A quick glance at the history shows something like 100% of the anon edits in the last two or three days have been reverted as vandalism.--chris.lawson 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

American Indians
I noticed that the article says the American Indians were on BOTH sides. WTF???!?!?!Trar 16:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What about that? Various groups (nations, tribes, bands...) sided with one or the other side. So American Indians were indeed on both sides.--Caranorn 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * in terms of fighting, I'd say the Indian combatants were 5-1 on the British side, maybe even more. Rjensen 09:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd probably agree (certainly that most fought with the British), but for that differentiation one would have to list the various nations/tribes/bands individually for each side... I think the current version works well enough. But I'm no expert of this war.--Caranorn 12:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess is that some historian did the legwork and calculated how many Indians were on each side, but I have not seen it. The histories all devote far more attention to Indians on the British side. Rjensen 10:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article could perhaps explain why so many native Americans fought on the British side? I was under the impression that British governmental recognition of their rights was an impediment to colonial expansion (and thus an underlying cause of the war). Wiki-Ed 10:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone went through and added all the Iroquois Confederacy nations, but the Choctaw, who passionately hated the British and fought them in the Southeast, are still missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.51.241 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Who was NOT involved
there were no significant Polish or Prussian units, and the Oneida Indians were officially neutral ((and unofficially most supported the Americans before 1779 and the British afterwards). None of these are important enough for serious treatment here. Rjensen 13:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats why it says Polish or Prussian volunteers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.237.200 (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Alot of soldiers in the US Army were German and Irish in 1750-1800's --77.96.222.63 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Flags
Sure, we can't have flags in this article because WP:MILHIST but all the other military and war articles do, and as soon as I add flags to some of the nations, they become reverted. So I ask you, WTF?
 * WP:FLAGS also comes to mind.--chris.lawson 07:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
Some words are spelled wrong in the article :Since the artillary now overlooked the British positions. Artillery is with an e. This is in the paragraph about MA in the section War in the North. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.117.168.33 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

British Army casualties missing
“Casualties” gives American losses and then skips to British Seamen. It never gives the losses of British soldiers. Someone should add this. 71.56.236.50 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hilary Clinton?
Um, is this real, or some sort of pun?

African-Americans—slave and free —served on both sides during the war. In November 1775, Lord Dunmore, the Royal Governor of Virginia, issued a proclamation promising freedom to all slaves owned by Patriots who deserted and fought for the British; Sir Hilary Clinton issued a similar edict in New York in 1779.

I'm not american, and I don't know enough of American Revolutionary history to edit this out. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.142.112.169 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC). <!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --
 * There may well have been a person by that name back then, there's a Sir Hilary Clinton living in Sussex right now; he made a news story about the Royal Ascot guest list. See and run a text search. 161.73.37.81 18:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)