Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 23

Hessian subsection needs work
The Hessian sub-section needs more comprehensive information, especially in regards to the roles of London and American newspapers concerning the prospect of foreign mercenaries/auxiliaries coming to America. Below are some items for consideration:

Political status of Hessians in British service

 * I think the Hanoverians, who were British subjects, were sent to relieve British forces in Gibraltar who were sent to America. TFD (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hanoverians were subjects of George II and George III, but they were not "British" subjects. The Holy Roman Empire ruler of the Electorate of Hanover was titled "Prince-Elector". Although the Prince-Elector was made King of Britain by a Tory Parliament in 1714 as George II of Britain, Parliament did not assume jurisdiction of Hanover, it maintained its separate legislature. Britain and Hanover executed formal "treaties of subsidy" whenever Hanoverian troops directly entered the military service of Britain, though always with George II or George III, directly commanding them by treaty articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase it. Hanoverians were considered to be British subjects under British law. TFD (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Great Britain had no authority over Hanover. They shared a monarch, but they had to sign a legal agreement to use Hanovarian Soldiers, and that agreement forbid Great Britain from sending them to the Americas. Canute (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is wholly irrelevant to the fact they were British subjects. TFD (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is an incorrect statement. Residents of Hanover were in no way British.  Great Britain had absolutely no authority over Hanover.  They had a strong alliance because since George I, the Duke of Hanover was also King of Great Britain, but Hanover was never politically united the way that Scotland, England, and Wales were.  If there had been such a union, Queen Victoria would have maintained her hereditary position as the Duchess of Hanover.  I'm happy to eat my words if someone can show me a time when Hanover was subject to British rule. Canute (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See Chief Justice Coleridge, In re Stepney Petition 1886: "It has been long settled that while the Crowns of two countries are held by the same person, the inhabitants of the two countries are not aliens in the two countries respectively. In both they are the subjects of the same person...." Coleridge cites Calvin's Case 1608 which held that a man born in Scotland after the union of the crowns was an English subject as the basis for considering Hanoverians to be British subjects. In re Stepney Petition decided that Hanoverian ceased to be British subjects when they had separate sovereigns. TFD (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were both "subjects" of the same sovereign, but Hanover was not subject to Great Britain. They merely had the same head of state, who ruled Hanover en absentia.  The Kings George had legal authority, but rarely visited.  Hanover was a part of the Holy Roman Empire and was more influenced by the continental powers of France, Austria, and Prussia than Great Britain. Canute (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In other words, Hanoverians were British subjects with the same rights and obligations as the King's subjects born in Great Britain or the American colonies. If they were in Great Britain they had the same rights and obligations as any other British subject in the kingdom and if they were outside the kingdom they had the same rights and obligations as any other British subject outside the kingdom. TFD (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Hanoverians were not subjects of Great Britain and were not part of the British Empire. Hanover was a completely separate entity, but shared a head-of-state with Great Britain due to England's aversion to Catholic kings.  George I was Prince Elector of Hanover before he was King of Great Britain.  Parliament was the unifying legal authority in the UK, but had no say in Hanover. Hanover was governed by the Privy Council of Hanover.  Diplomatic ties were close, but neither was subject to the other.  It's difficult to draw a modern analogy, but consider that Queen Elizabeth II is Queen Regent of both Canada and Australia.  That doesn't make Australians the subjects of Canada, it just means they share a common head of state.  They legal systems are otherwise completely distinct.  I know it's muddy, but we can't make the statement that Germans from Hanover were subjects of Great Britain, because they were not.  They only participated in the war through terms negotiated in a treaty between the two entities. Canute (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Hanovarians ≠ Hessians, any more than Australians ≠ Canadians. Really, we need to stop doing that. Canute (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed Hanoverians were not subjects of Great Britain and neither were people in the British Isles, they were subjects of George, who was King of Great Britain and Elector of Hanover, aka British subjects. I provided you with the sources that explain that. Where are you getting your information? TFD (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The 1886 quote you provided stated that they were "subjects of the same person," not that one was subject to the other. What you just stated, that they were all subjects of King George, is correct.  It is not correct to state that they were all British subjects.  Hanovarians were not British, nor were they subject to British rule.  The Kingdom of Great Britain and Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg (Hanover) were geographically and politically distinct entities who shared a common head of state. Do you understand the distinction I'm making, or do I need to keep trying?Canute (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the fact that Great Britain and Hanover had separate governing institutions is wholly irrelevant to whether they had the same nationality. All citizens of Commonwealth nations for example were British subjects until the British Nationality Act 1981 renamed them Commonwealth citizens even though they were no longer subject to the British government. Subjecthood is based on personal allegiance to the person who happens to be sovereign rather than to the state where they reign. The practical implication is that Hanoverians would not be foreign mercenaries but subjects of George III. I think you are confusing subjecthood with citizenship. But that was not created until after the Second World War. TFD (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If the issue is their status as "foreign mercenaries," then the point is moot because: 1) we've already beaten this topic to death, and "foreign mercenaries" is not NPV since it specifically represents only one perspective (United States) of the German forces in the ARW, and 2) per their treaty with the Kingdom of Great Britain, Soldiers from Hanover were not permitted to serve in the Americas, so even if we adopted the terms used by the rebellion, they would have never been applied to Hanover because they weren't in the Americas. The question of what to call the people of Hanover is a little different.  From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the 18th century union, a "British Subject" would be someone from Scotland, Wales, or England- literally Great Britain- who implicitly owed allegiance to the King of Great Britain.  This would not be extended to citizens of the "British Empire" or "British Commonwealth" until much later.  But even if I'm wrong about that and the Parliament in London considered themselves to be the feudal lords of Hanover, that view would not have been shared in Brunswick-Lüneburg.  So even if there's a legal basis for calling them British Subjects, that wouldn't be advisable on a Wikipedia article.  It would be incorrect at worst, a NPV most likely, and if nothing else it would be confusing to readers. Canute (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems tangential to the article so I will reply on your talk page. TFD (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How much to Hessians in "British strategy"?

 * How much info do we really need in this section, given that Wikipedia has both Hessian (soldier) and Germans in the American Revolution? If we're trying to clean up this article, this would be a prime candidate for reduction, given that there are two entire articles on the topic.  Canute (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, not to re-open an old wound, but referring to all German auxiliaries as "Hessians" is a pretty bold NPOV issue, given that it reflects a modern U.S. misperception of the German forces instead of contemporary views and historical facts. Canute (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The "Hessians" comprised several Germans states i.e.Hesse-Cassell, Hanover, Brunswick and several others. Subsequently they are not referred to with a string of names, but as Hessians, from Hesse, which was the major dealer in German auxiliaries/mercenaries, and is why they were referred to as such by the Americans and by nearly all scholars, past and present. This is explained with a brief statement in the section. The Hessians were an important component of the ARW, without whose help, Britain would likely have lost the war sooner than she did. The prospect of their arrival is what convinced great numbers of patriots, many of whom were sitting on the fence over the prospect of independence, to relinquish allegiance from the Crown, more so than issues of taxation, etc did. The Hessian section is smaller than the British Army. Since the Hessians comprised some 1/3 of the total numbers fighting against the Americans, and played significant roles before and during the ARW, the subject should be covered accordingly, and comprehensively, which imo is what has been done. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * CONCUR with . My agreement extends to two-three paragraphs for coverage, and no more. FIRST: Some narrative text can be placed in the Notes as an accommodation-half-step measure before strategic trimming as a later phase of article evolution --- somewhere on the way from our B-status (Start-status at the Military History Project), to future A-status and Good-Article-status. KEY TO THAT EVOLUTION is achieving a LESS-volatile article, hence the suggested half-step that results in HUGE kb in 'Notes'.
 * - SECOND: Only the first four (4) paragraphs of the subsection British army describes the British army in the ARW. GW proportion recounting Hessians as 1/3 total British manpower factors out to one-or-two paragraphs in the article main-space narrative for the "Hessians". BEYOND THE 'NOTES' STRATEGY OF EXTENDING RELATED DETAIL that otherwise might be lost to the reader HERE on this page, SOME ELEMENTS in the existing section may be better suited for narrative elsewhere in related articles: (1) soldiery equipage in Hessian (soldier), (2) the " German-Americans " of my earlier post in Germans in the American Revolution, and (3) the history of HRE princedoms in their respective principalities. Narrative, HarvRef footnotes and Bibliography references can be moved to the appropriate wp:Talk pages for editors there to integrate as they choose, as previously done for deleted passages sent to wp:Talk at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War, and British Army during the American Revolutionary War.
 * - I do agree with that the British combatants within the catch-all contemporary term, "Hessians", meaning all-British-serving-German-troops, have an important place in their integration into British command, and occasionally their independent commands at the Battle of Trenton. They also deserve notice in a political context that should be highlighted within the article section , especially as it relates the employment of troops among civilian British subjects in the philosophical and political view of both the American Patriots in Congress and the British Whigs in Parliament during the ARW. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Hessians were from Hesse-Kassel or Hesse-Hanau. Brunswickers, Waldeckers, Hanoverians, etc. were not Hessians.  Not even the (contemporary) Americans called them that.  They were known by their principalities.  Not until 19th century did Americans begin grouping them all together as "Hessians," because the war was largely portrayed as something that happened in the NorthEast.  This is a historical error and definitely gives us a decidedly modern U.S. view of the war. Canute (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually the Americans did not refer to each of these groups by their principalities. From what source does this come from? Figures like Washington, Jefferson and others used the term foreign mercenary throughout their correspondence, as was outlined here in Talk before.  Overall they were referred to as foreign mercenaries, for the simple reason that they were hired soldiers who would go anywhere, regardless of cause or any "legal" consideration, because they were hired to do so. Sometimes they were collectively referred to as Hessians, as the greater bulk of these soldiers were from Hesse, and all from the same general area around Hesse, who, btw, was the largest supplier of mercenary soldiers. The term Hessian has been in use since the ARW -- it is not simply a "modern" or  U.S. term. It was and is a common figure of speech. Once again scholars very often refer to all the German mercenaries/auxiliaries as Hessians. Lowell, 1884, uses the term to collectively refer to the mercenaries - certainly not a modern reference. Most of our sources that cover this topic often refer to them as Hessian mercenaries, or German or foreign mercenaries. Rather than telling us what we shouldn't call them, and aside from any generic and misleading terms, like German soldiers or auxiliaries, what term would you use to collectively refer to these soldiers as, per the greater bulk of sources? - Gwillhickers (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As an example, see Ketchum (1997) "Saratoga:Turning Point of America's Revolutionary War." On page 93, he explains why many Americans refer to German Soldiers as "Hessians" (they were the first to arrive, and the largest, especially around the central area of the war in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania).  But he also states that the bulk of Burgoyne's Germans were from Braunschweig, and were generally referred to as "Brunswickers."  We can start digging into correspondence and journals of the time if you're interested... not to dig up "original research," but believe me that you'll find I'm generally correct because I've been down this road dozens of times over the years.  There's no hard and fast rule and you can find all sorts of examples, but calling all Germans "Hessians" didn't become a common practice until 19th century American historians wrote their fanciful versions of their grandfathers' war.  With all due respect to Mr. Edward Lowell, he fits this category; but note that his magnum opus is titled "The Hessians and the other German auxiliaries of Great Britain in the Revolutionary War.
 * As I said, there's no hard and fast rule that all contemporaries followed, but the pattern you'll find is that Germans were often referred to by their principalities if known, and often simply referred to as "Germans." Keep in mind that more often than not, when someone wrote about "Hessians," they were referring to genuine Hessians from Hesse-Kassel or Hesse-Hanau.  Certainly this was the case with Washington and those around him, who would not have fought the Brunswick army in the north or the Waldeckers in the Gulf Coast.
 * I also need to mention again the issue of NPV. The terms used in this article should not merely reflect the terms used by U.S. propaganda.  "Foreign Mercenaries" was a fantastic term for the Declaration of Independence, but that doesn't mean it's the most correct term to use, here.  The U.S. perspective is not necessarily the most objective view on the war for U.S. independence. Canute (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I took a look at some of my old notes, this morning, and saw that "foreigner" is another common term the Americans used for German Soldiers. Again, this would be a NPV violation because we can't merely tell this story from the side of the Rebellion, but you'll see it.  The "Founding Fathers" resented their stereotype as uneducated backwoodsmen and seemed to take pride in knowing exactly who was on their field.  If you scan their correspondence you'll find that they distinguish the "foreign" or "German" troops based on their state, if known.  Yes, you'll see "Hessian" quite often, but that's because the core of the Continental Army faced Hessian armies most frequently.
 * This is an interesting topic and if anyone is interested, we could do a bit of needed research. Not for Wikipedia (due to the Original Research rule), but just for ourselves.  We could search some targeted and random documents from war and see what terms the participants used, as well as who they applied to.  That would give us a way to quantify what words people used to describe the German auxiliaries, and specifically how often "Hessian" was applied to non-Hessian Soldiers.  Then we could share the results and watch as historians tear us apart. If you're interested, leave a message on my talk page and we'll coordinate. Canute (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you know that they were referred to as Hessians during the ARW? The sources I have seen presented refer to them as foreign or German mercenaries. I am not saying you are wrong, just asking for sources. TFD (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Above I indicated that Hessians during ARW were commonly referred to as foreign or German mercenaries, and that it is scholars who widely refer to them as Hessians, as well as mercenaries. The sources vary in that the Hessians comprised some 50-75% of the mercenary/auxiliary soldiers sent to America,, and subsequently are widely referred to as Hessians, as our article should, per the bulk of our sources. A footnote explaining the term's usage is included in the article. Since most of the mercenaries/auxilliaries were from Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Hanau and Hesse-Darmstadt it shouldn't be difficult to understand how the term Hessian came about. There was much criticism in Europe aimed at the sale of soldiers by the German Princes, by figures like Frederick ii, France, and later on, even by Napoleon, and most of the criticism was aimed at Hesse-Cassell, the largest provider of mercenary soldiers, sent out indiscriminately to anyone who would pay for them – even to countries at war with the other. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is sometimes assumed, but never proven, that a Satire written in 1776, entitiled, "The Sale of the Hessians", was written by Benjamin Franklin. Though there is much controversy over that satire it does serve to indicate that the term Hessian was in use during the ARW.
 * [Add] — A detailed pen and ink map of Fort Washington, drawn in 1776, uses the term Hessians, in the battle legend, twice, (items A and D) found on the right side of the map. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because Fort Washington was taken by Hessians, held by Hessians, and renamed for the Hesse-Kassel General who took it. This is part of the confusion I mentioned somewhere up above.  Nearly 2/3 of all German auxiliaries fighting in the American Revolutionary War were literal Hessians, and they were involved in the large, famous battles we find in the middle section of the 13 colonies where George Washington kept the Continental Army.  So you will quite often find the term "Hessian" used, but that's because they were really Hessians.  That doesn't mean that Continental forces were so stupid as to think all Germans were Hessians. Canute (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me try again because we may have gotten confused and perhaps we agree more than we realize. I'm not suggesting the term "Hessian" was never used.  For the sake of Wikipedia articles, I think "Hessian" is the most correct term to use when we're talking about military forces and Soldiers from Hesse-Kassel or Hesse-Hanau.  I believe it is the wrong term to use if we're discussing military forces or Soldiers from another principality, or if we're talking about German auxiliaries as a whole.  For the sake of accuracy, NPV, and reader comprehension, I believe it's better to talk about "Germans" rather than "Hessians," unless we're specifically talking about Hessians.
 * What one person or another called them is really a moot point, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You and I seem to disagree on whether the Congressional forces applied the term "Hessians" in a generic sense to all German Soldiers.  But that's not an issue because NPV demands that we write this article free from those biases.  So even if General Washington himself referred to General Riedesel as a "Hessian" (which he didn't, BTW... don't take my word for it, his correspondence is available online, and he consistently refers to the "foreign officers" or "German officers"), we wouldn't do that here because we're not writing this article from Washington's perspective.Canute (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

AWR international perspective: naming conventions
Re: editor interest in an "international perspective" for the ARW.


 * Throughout the 1700s, surely the most important events in western military history were the Anglo-French wars of rivalry on the European continent and globally for empire. These are styled among most RS historians in the field as the Second Hundred Years' War, the term for Anglo-French rivalry 1689-1815 coined by British historian John Robert Seeley. David K. Allison in The American Revolution: A Global Perspective, these were fought primarily by France and Britain, but also allies on both sides from "across Europe, and even from Asia". Over the course of eight wars 1689-1815, "Americans fought in every one". The state delegates in Congress knew that any fight with Britain to achieve "an equal and separate station among the powers of the earth" as an independent nation "would necessarily involve European powers, most notably France and Spain."
 * - In North America dating from 1607-09 and Santa Fe, Quebec, Jamestown, virtually all conflict among European settlers can be explained as Bourbon-British imperial "calculations" for "diverting the enemy's attention" from the paramount concern for the European balance of power on that continent. Paul Kennedy notes in The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery, that the origins for two of those Euro great power wars 1756-63 and 1776-83, "were to be found in local struggles in [America]". "By coincidence" [ie an overlapping timeline], the Europeans later transferred them "to the other side of the Atlantic and merged into existing rivalries there."
 * - This chart shows the relationship among Wikipedia article naming conventions for the American wars overlapping the timelines of the European wars. To date, the European military historians have not settled on a rigorous application of the established historiography related to the Second Hundred Years' War. The article has a C-class status, with editor contributions spaced out every six month or so, apart from the occasional bot. Relative to the conflicts 1775-1783 of Anglo-French rivalry in the Second Hundred Years' War, there are separate and uncoordinated articles for each of the elements: Anglo-French War (1778-1783) recently merge attempt by French Project editors to merge failed for France in the American Revolutionary War, Spain Project editors recently merged the military history article on the Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783) into Spain in the American Revolutionary War, still standing are the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War and the Second Anglo-Mysore War referenced in Allison (2018) as a part of the Second Hundred Years' War historiography.

Citations

Bibliography

Submitted for discussion - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

B-status met

 * Article progress Apr-Oct 2020 to meet Projects B-status at Wikipedia: article is 99kB and 15708 'prose size' (text only).
 * - B1. Suitably referenced and cited . All paragraphs end with a citation; all direct quotes are attributed; All 588 citations now conform to HarvRef format. Oldest redundant references, usually from the early 1900s without footnotes elsewhere, are moved to “Further reading”.
 * - B2. Reasonably covers the topic . Top hat: "This article is about military actions primarily." Narrative trimmed 20% to “readable prose size”; tactical detail, intimate factoid, future impact, and elements unrelated to the American war for independence is moved to Notes as a stop-gap-gambit for Talk and Article stability - for future consideration by each RfC at Talk.
 * - B3. Defined structure with a lead section . The lead section is a five paragraphs related to article material. The topic core is addressed in four sections: Introduction-Infobox, Background, The war, and Aftermath.
 * - B4. Free from grammatical errors, met by a line-by-line copy edit with the assist of 28 editors and 3 bots.
 * - B5. Supporting infobox and images . Balance is maintained among scholarly approaches: British and American, military and naval, American and foreign assistance.
 * - Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Originally TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC - Which of two (2) titles should be chosen to define the scope of the existing article American Revolutionary War?
Which of two (2) titles should be chosen to define the scope of the existing article American Revolutionary War? The intent is to resolve an ongoing dispute in article editing and Talk posting from early spring, over 200 days of 2020. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * (A) American Revolutionary War.  Encyclopedia Britannica, “Revolutionary War American Revolutionary War”, " insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence ”; fifteen Pulitzer prize-winners use "American Revolutionary War" in their Introduction to orient the general reader to the topic.
 * (B) War of the American Revolution - after Micheal Clodfelter, (Clodfelter 2015, p. 124): "[…] the war that was to expand into a multinational conflict, spanning oceans to singe four continents, did indeed begin as simply a colonial uprising in Britain’s growing empire.” “[…] the entrance of France into the conflict in 1778 and of Spain [in 1779], extended the war to other quarters of the globe. The American Revolutionary War became the global War of the American Revolution."

Governing Wikipedia policy

 * Primarily - At WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, a good title is – recognizable (where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see WP:TITLEVAR, - natural (readers are likely to search for it), - precise scope, - concise, - consistent. Redirects should be used for reasonable alternatives.
 * Secondarily - At WP:TITLEVAR, "If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English." At WP:TITLEFORMAT, Tiles should "Use nouns, rather than other parts of speech."

Governing wp:policy comments
Please note that, contrary to what is written above, TITLEVAR is not the governing concern here. TITLEVAR has to do with varieties of English, and not with country-origin authorship. The only way TITLEVAR would be an issue here, is if the two choices given in the Rfc were the following: If those were the Rfc choices, then TITLEVAR would come into play in favor of #1, because ties to the United States would suggest the use of American English.
 * 1) "War of the Defense of the American Revolution"
 * 2) "War of the Defence of the American Revolution"

There is no such issue here; STRONG TIES does not apply here; editors should ignore TITLEVAR for the purposes of this Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you and adjustment . I've modified the post above to distinguish primary from secondary considerations in choosing an article title.
 * Reply and explanation : A "nation's variety of English" not only relates to spelling, it also encompasses usage. I trimmed a 'middle' proposition in the draft RfC as making it too complex. That would have had editors choose between "American Revolutionary War" and "War of American Independence".
 * I thought to establish the SCOPE of the article first with this RfC, and happily, two editors below believe that to be the FIRST order of business at an article for editorial policy going forward. That "established scope" as one editor below calls it, has been under question by discussion -okay-, and attacks -not okay-, and arbitrary edits changing the sense of sourced material without Talk discussion -not okay-, made here continuously over past nine-plus months.
 * This RfC aim is the primary goal of title selection : precise scope, consistent with other articles, natural - what readers expect. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Instructions : Please choose A. American Revolutionary War, or B. War of the American Revolution. Indicate your response to the "survey" here with a left-justified response without any elaboration: * Support [A,B], or * Oppose [A,B], or * Propose [other] --- THEN BELOW post your rationale in the ‘Threaded discussion’ section. Thank you.   TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Editor Survey -
 * Support A and oppose B - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, weak oppose B -- Eddie891 Talk Work 23:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, oppose B. – See justification at below. Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, oppose B.  oncamera (talk page)  08:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A; which does not imply nor deny support for any of the points in the box below, which I take to be entirely unrelated to this RFC. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, strongly oppose B. This entire discussion has way too many moving parts, so I'll just read and comment on this one, the main question. Of course it's American Revolutionary War. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, oppose B. Kieran4 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, oppose B. Donner60 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A, oppose B. Not that it makes much difference -- both titles say the same exact thing, but we should use the common article title (A) used in nearly all the sources, new and old. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor comment threads

 * Instructions : initiate a discussion of your own by introducing your comment with an asterisk (*). Reply to a thread begun by another editor beginning first with two (2) colons, and adding one until four comments, then use outdent code to continue the thread, only starting your next comment left justified with one (l) colon. Thank you.   TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

TVH - ARW is scholarly ref & not 'worldwide'

 * Re support (A): The Jimbo's two (2) criteria at wp:due weight both support “American Revolutionary War : (1) "RS scholarly [English-language] reference [for mainstream history]". Encyclopedia Britannica “American Revolutionary War”, " insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence ”. “American Revolutionary War” has (2) "prominent adherents": 15 Pulitzer History prizes, the title is used in titles or the introductions use the phrase as the “expected term of reference” for their general readers. Those noted at Talk:ARW remain unchallenged as RS related to the ARW article.
 * Re oppose (B): The American war did not "spread worldwide" for national independence from colonial rule, and constitutional revolution into a republic. Every scholarly source referenced for an “ARW spread worldwide” at ARW Talk on inspection said, only that the Bourbon War against Britain overlapped in time about two years; there is no document evidence shown to connect them.
 * - Britain's "American war" lasted from April 1775 to August 1781 Yorktown (the last major British-Congressional engagement before "Hostilities End" 15 April 1783 [Library of Congress, Primary Documents of American History). The Bourbon War lasted from June 1789 (France-Spain by their Pacte de Famille) into 1783-4 (at Gibraltar and at Mysore, India).
 * - Congress at war with Britain and Bourbon Kings at war with Britain had (1) different casus belli to start war in 1789, (2) for different war aims, (3) made different British peace settlements, (4) stipulated different terms, and (5) resolved at different times: Britain agreed to a preliminary treaty in November 1782 with the Americans alone, and to two separate, other preliminary treaties in 1783 with the Bourbons alone. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This RFC has an awful lot of formatting and complication, and I'm concerned that it is a misplaced effort. You don't pick a title so you can define the scope of the article to match the title.  You're supposed to do it the other way around.  First, figure out what the page is about.  Then pick a title that matches.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the scope at ARW is contested, this RfC addresses editors' challenge to it. At wp:NAMINGCRITERIA, three primary elements in title selection have been under contention for the last nine-plus month here: (1) precise scope, (2) consistent with other articles, (3) natural - what readers expect.
 * - The "precise scope" has been at issue here for over nine months, (a) in discussion, (b) edits extinguishing RS material without discussion, and (c) altering the meaning of sourced material without changing citations.
 * - The disruption all tends to overthrow the Britannica definitional limits of the ARW as an Anglo-American insurrection for and against US national independence, with their respective allies, co-belligerents, auxiliaries, and combatants, linked by document evidence.
 * - The expansions are related to the ARW by timeline coincidence alone, embrace all war conducted against Britain by all parties everywhere, for all purposes through 1784, including two great powers in Bourbon family alliance, US trading partner Dutch Republic, and sphere of influence Kingdom of Mysore, all with separate Anglo-peace treaties without the US. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

TFD - RfC not brief and neutral

 * Comment RfC questions are supposed to be brief and neutral. You shouldn't weight the question by saying one title is supported by 15 Pulitzer Price winners. How many Pulitzer Prize winners used other titles? Why are you using an American award for popular books instead of say an award from an historical society or a European or British source? What specifically is the argument anyway? It seems like the RfC is doomed from the start and should be withdrawn. TFD (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * INSERT - (1) Each of the two alternatives are given a brief historiographic rationale for their use; (2) All sources do not uniformly support both alternative titles, nor their respective SCOPES, which differ substantially; (3) Pulitzers in history are awarded for scholarly histories, peer reviewed by academic publishers, they are not TFD:'popular' newspaper best-sellers; (4) 15-of-15 is all that can be found by the Pulitzer-page 'search' on both 'AWR' and American War of Independence.
 * They all use ARW in the Britannica sense of the Anglo-American conflict over US independence in North America. McIlwaine 1924 alone uses "War of American Independence" in his subtitle, but he uses the term 'ARW' throughout the two volumes, applying the meaning used by the Britannica ARW - limited to land engagements on the North American continent, but not India, Africa, Europe, Caribbean islands. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to TVH, I am not sure what has even prompted this RFC. We should simply keep the title as it has been for the last 19 years, since the article was created, and use the term nearly all the sources use, and which is the familiar term, even among British historians. I would recommend closing this RFC now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any concern about the current title by editors. I think the average persons just conflates it with the American revolution. Anyway, the two titles seem to have the same meaning. TFD (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the article is disrupted by reverts justified at Talk to change the meaning of your "19-year 'ARW' consensus" . This RfC is to get a multi-project consensus to support your inclination as you just stated it here.
 * But the 'Global-ARW' editors of the Clodfelter 'WoAR' persuasion assert: (a) the SCOPE of the ARW was worldwide, (b) the majority of international scholarship says so, (c) among ARW engagements, Siege of Gibraltar is equivalent to or greater than Siege of Yorktown in ARW historiography, and (d) the strategic importance of Savannah as a port in the North Atlantic is comparable to Trincomalee in the Indian Ocean in their "ARW" . But honestly that is Clodfelter's 'WoAR'. Do you not remember 2020 Spring-Summer-Fall on these pages?
 * As one of their number, says here, , which you just said they did not, '"[...] keep the title as it has been for the last 19 years, [...] and use the term nearly all the sources use."'' But the two titles as sourced have two (2) different SCOPES according to a wp:good faith comparison of Britannica and Clodfelter cited. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot have it both ways . If Britannica ARW and Clodfelter WoAR are "TFD: the same meaning", you can have no heartburn over a brief summary of the qualifications for both . Each brief historiographic rationale for their use is impartially documented with direct quotes, links, and follow-on explanatory notes.
 * The entries do not obfuscate, they clearly and specifically illuminate the substantial differences between the two (2) interpretations and the differing SCOPE that each presents for the 1775-1783 Anglo-American military conflict over US independence and constitutional revolution on the North American continent. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the 19 years comment was made by another editor, not me. I just wondered what was the point of this RfC. TFD (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC is malformed, and tries to bludgeon an outcome. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  100%. -  wolf  11:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 
 * the post that pings Gwillhickers uses the address, 'you' for the '19-years' comment. You, TFD, somehow thought both my post to 'Gwillhickers' and my post to 'The Four Deuces' were addressed to you, TFD. I only intended one to go to each one of you. Sorry for the confusion. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot - Commonname via Ngrams
Justification of Support A, oppose B – per WP:COMMONNAME as demonstrated by ngrams:

If there are only two choices, then it should be between "" and "War of American Independence", which are the top two contenders in English books. The option you give, "War of the American Revolution" is over 20 times less common. So if the choic is only between the two choices you gave, then this is a slam dunk. Interestingly, national TIES do not affect the result, as this remains true whether you pick American books only, or British books only.

P.S. I have to agree with that the Rfc formatting is obscure and not very user-friendly; and with WaID that the question is backwards; but I guess this rat will have to run the labyrinth and learn it... Mathglot (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I second this. The event is much better know as the "American Revolutionary War" as opposed to the "War of the American Revolution." The "War of the AR" as well as simply the "War of the Revolution" was common usage during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but not anymore. See here and here. Kieran4 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

wolf - if only two choices, then ARW

 * Agree that this RfC could've been more neutral ("15 out of 16 Pulitzer Winners recommend!" - really?) The format and length are not ideal and, were any other names put forward during all the lengthy debate that previously took place? (eg: American War of Independence, etc.?) Either that, or perhaps request other names to add the choices here. But that said, if it were just these two, then I would support 'A' and oppose 'B'. (that's my 0.02¢) -  wolf  08:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your considered opinion . As referred to in the RfC statement, the first order of business is to reconcile article title and article scope. The SCOPE has been at issue throughout 2020 Spring, Summer, and Fall.
 * Editors on this page have contentiously misstated that the Britannica meaning for ARW as an Anglo-American insurrection over US independence and a constitutional revolution to establish a republic all means something else that Clodfelter wrote, and he has been frequently cited on this Talk page. His term of art, directly quoted, sourced, and linked above for editor inspection is his article entry on the topic, "War of the American Revolution" listed under the "A"'s on the page footnoted above.
 * In the eyes of 'Global-ARW' editors, the ARW title really secretly means what "the vast majority of sources" [by wp:deprecated browser search] refer to as "the colonial conflict spread worldwide, touching on four continents" including taking Gibraltar from Britain for Spain. That element of conflict with Britain DID OCCUR during the "time period of Britannica's ARW", but it was neither Anglo nor American.
 * The war aim for Spain acquiring Gibraltar is specified in the secret Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) under the authority of the Bourbon King Pacte de Famille between France and Spain. Congress was not a signatory. On the other hand, Congress unanimously resolved that its war aims were independence, British withdrawal, territory west to the Mississippi with free navigation to the Gulf, and Newfoundland Banks fishing and beach curing rights. Britain offered a preliminary peace November 1782 meeting those aims, and Congress ratified unanimously 15 April 1783, proclaiming "Hostilities Ended" between US and Britain. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC at ARW as of 6 December

 * Thank you for your patience over the last three days. I feared that talking over things with you before I launched the RfC on title-and-scope would have been seen as ‘soliciting’ to ‘pack’ the results. I hope you can take this evolution of events in the spirit of “All’s well that end’s well.”


 * Of interest to me, although several editors condescendingly noted my ham-fisted RfC was badly conceived because I tried to determine both the title and scope in the same RfC, experienced and wikipedia prize-winning editors gave directly opposing direction with authoritative certainty. One advised that the FIRST thing to do was to determine the title and then the scope, another insisted the FIRST thing to do was to determine the scope and then the title. The administrator non-administrator User:Ryk72 on closing the RfC opened by --- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 4:39 pm, 4 December 2020, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) --- cited wp:snowball. "The 'snowball clause' is one way that editors are encouraged to exercise common sense. […] an issue does not have a snowball’s chance in hell of being accepted […]." And, "The clause should be seen as a polite request not to waste everyone’s time."  - 11:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC). :- Of interest, Kieran4 noted, "The 'War of the AR' as well as simply the 'War of the Revolution' was common usage during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but not anymore."


 * The RfC alternate 'A.' was the "American Revolutionary War" with a scope defined by Britannica, Anglo-American insurrection principally in continental North America. 'B.' was the "War of the American Revolution" with a scope defined by Clodfelter, one war against Britain spread worldwide by other belligerents waging additional war on Britain around the globe. --- The last post to “Support A, oppose B” came from User:UnknownBrick22. He is one of the members of the WP:BEmpire British Empire Project, whom I gave notice of the RfC and a copy-paste of the Discussion Summary Chart early this morning ET. -- His quote is one that I wish I had in my quiver April 2020:
 * Query: What is the link to the closed RfC for future inline reference at Talk, regarding "the established consensus for the title and scope of the ARW article", as understood and expressly mentioned by UnknownBrick22 of the British Empire Project (whose stated interest is “Geographical and military history of the Commonwealth Realms & Dominions; the monarchy; British Imperial flags, arms and heraldry.”)
 * - So. Just for future reference, were there to reappear at the American Revolutionary War, in the article or on the Talk page, references to British battles with others than knowingly underwritten by Congress and carried out by its commissioned officers --- say ---about Gibraltar, Saintes, or Mysore --- the short, straight forward answer is: that the RfC page consensus only admits engagements in the article SCOPE as defined in the Britannica article of RS scholarly reference. --- Now I just need the link to use inline to the closed RfC (?), to turn the page. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update : u|Tenryuu reverted the post by UnknownBrick22 here, noting: “(Reverting edit(s) by UnknownBrick22 (talk) to rev. 992729370 by Gwillhickers: Reverting good faith edits; RfC has already closed hours ago (RW 16)”. It read, "Legibility and familiarity renders A as superior; B phrasing is awkward and implies a greater War separate to the events of the American Revolution, which makes matters unnecessarily complicated." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) Thanks. The correction is made at the strike-out above.
 * (2) There is no rush on a 30-day RfC to close on Day-3 . For editors at the RfC who expressed concern at the RfC about "complexity in an RfC combining title-and-scope", I have agreed on four editor Talks to close the RfC two weeks early on December 20 if there is no consensus attained. Because an editor merely accused me of wp:bludgeoning, I replied at their Talk that I will make no further post in the Comment section until December 10 . All eight interested Projects were given notice per Publicizing an RfC.
 * - To date, I've taken some considerable trouble to give additional notice to all active listed members at (a) WP:MILHIST for 'American Revolution', (b) WP:HIST for 'American history', and (c) WP:BEmpire for 'colonial' and 'military' interests. for one posted at his Talk that he will join anon to investigate.
 * (3) Scope is specifically mentioned at the RfC and by two editors : Scope is in the (a) RfC title, (b) Discussion Summary Table, (c) my editor Comment, and (d) in the post by :
 * (4) It does appear that there may be a difference in understanding regarding the ARW scope between the wp:editor acolytes of "U. Alabama Lockwood-for-'Global-ARW'" (2019), versus a member of the British Empire Project using alternate sourcing. would you like to reopen the RfC on the ARW title-and-scope, and also restore the u|UnknownBrick22 post, or shall I undertake to learn how to do the honors? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update : u|Tenryuu reverted the post by UnknownBrick22 here, noting: “(Reverting edit(s) by UnknownBrick22 (talk) to rev. 992729370 by Gwillhickers: Reverting good faith edits; RfC has already closed hours ago (RW 16)”. It read, "Legibility and familiarity renders A as superior; B phrasing is awkward and implies a greater War separate to the events of the American Revolution, which makes matters unnecessarily complicated." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (3) Scope is specifically mentioned at the RfC and by two editors : Scope is in the (a) RfC title, (b) Discussion Summary Table, (c) my editor Comment, and (d) in the post by :
 * (4) It does appear that there may be a difference in understanding regarding the ARW scope between the wp:editor acolytes of "U. Alabama Lockwood-for-'Global-ARW'" (2019), versus a member of the British Empire Project using alternate sourcing. would you like to reopen the RfC on the ARW title-and-scope, and also restore the u|UnknownBrick22 post, or shall I undertake to learn how to do the honors? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The above was copied from User_talk:Gwillhickers, but omitted my reply, which I include here, below: - Ryk72 talk 21:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can make a brief, and clear, description as to why you believe the close was an inappropriate or unreasonable distillation of the discussion, I will consider its merits. - Ryk72 talk 12:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Close the RfC - discussion
I've moved our discussion to ARW:Talk to centralize discussion here.

Note to all, The following aged entries are copyedited from the discussion at User talk:Gwillhickers, and edited for brevity in an attempt to meet Ryk72 sensibilities, it is hoped. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All eight interested Projects were given notice per Publicizing an RfC . Additional notice is given to all active listed members at (a) WP:MILHIST for 'American Revolution', (b) WP:HIST for 'American history', and (c) WP:BEmpire for 'colonial' and 'military' interests. may investigate. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mentioned here, so responding here to note that a) I am not an admin; b) I have clarified the close to explicitly state that there was no discernible consensus as to scope. RfC respondents did not address this aspect, and it is not reasonably likely that new respondents would. - Ryk72 talk 09:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (a) Thanks. The correction is made at the strike-out above.
 * (b) There is no rush on a 30-day RfC to close on Day-3 . I have agreed to close the RfC two weeks early on December 20 if no is consensus attained. At the claim I was wp:bludgeoning, I agreed to make no further Comment section post until December 10 . - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can make a brief, and clear, description as to why you believe the close was an inappropriate or unreasonable distillation of the discussion, I will consider its merits. - Ryk72 talk 12:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - article SCOPE and article TITLE is the RfC purpose in the RfC title, and mentioned by two editors :
 * - Scope is also referenced in (a) the Discussion Summary Table and its title, (b) the lead editor Comment , and (c) the now-reverted post by of the British Empire project :
 * - "" - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Scope may well be in the RfC title, in the table and in the first response, but: of the nine responses, the question of scope is addressed by only one respondent - you. It is explicitly rejected by 2 editors - Gog the Mild, Randy Kryn - and implicitly rejected by 3 editors - Mathglot, Gwillhickers, Kieran4 - all of whom focus on title. A further 3 responses are pure votes - Eddie891, oncamera, Donner60. I believe that This secondary aspect [scope] was poorly addressed by respondents, who largely focused on title. is an appropriate & reasonable distillation of that. Including the late response does not appreciably change that. - Ryk72 talk 21:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I requested the snow close because it appeared that there was no support for the name change. What makes this RfC unusual is that there had been no discussion about changing the name and editor who set up the RfC opposed the name change. I don't think that leaving the RfC open will change the outcome. TFD (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC was hopelessly drafted, far too long, not neutrally-worded etc, involved bludgeoning. There are simple rules to a successful RfC that results in a net positive for Wikipedia. When you start one, you post a brief para introducing the question at hand, provide three or so diffs to high quality academic sources for each of the two (or three) choices, briefly state what you think about the issue, then step back to allow others to chime in . Let the discussion flow. If you truly want a robust community-based result rather than the result you personally desire, you do not then reply instantly to every editor who responds and write screeds of TLDR text explaining why you are right. That is badgering and bludgeoning, just as it is bludgeoning to write an enormous RfC that scares editors away. This RfC should remain closed and the wording of a simpler neutrally-worded single para RfC drafted and discussed here before posting as a RfC. In any case, the title choice in this RfC wasn't even between the two most common names, which are not American Revolutionary War and War of the American Revolution. The choices given just appear to be an attempt to control the outcome to what the poster wanted, and it is no wonder people responded the way they did. As I explained on my talk page when approached, advice which was completely ignored, the two most common names are American War of Independence and American Revolutionary War (see this, and American War of Independence is clearly the common name according to Google Ngram. I only got involved in this because of a posting on a Milhist project page, and have no editorial interest in the ARW, so I do not want to be further involved in this article or any discussion about it because I do not think this is being done in good faith, so do not ping me about it or post on my talk page about it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian (and others), do you think it would be helpful to have an RFC that specifically addresses only the scope of the article? It sounds like a useful outcome would be a FAQ for the top of this talk page that says something like "Q: What's this article about? A: The scope of this article is X, and if you want to write about Y, then you're looking for Other Article." If you think it would be helpful, then you could ask for help at WT:RFC about how to write a brief and neutral question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)