Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 5

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

Examine the article carefully and you will see serious mention of the Loyalists is omitted in the introduction, the Armies, Militia & Mercanries Section, the Massachuetas section, the Canada section, the Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans section and it is only at the very bottom of the New York and the New Jersey section when they get their first significant mention. Does this not strike you as slightly strange given the size of the Loyalist population and the role they played in the war? Either this is an oversight (which I would like to think it is), or it represents a degree of bias which brings the whole neutrality of the article into question. This article will be read by many people who do not know a great deal about this war, and as it stands this will simply compound the common misconception in the minds of many that this was simpy a British versus American War. The leading few paragraphs should be very clear to state that there were two types of "Americans", it can do this by the use of qaulifying the term. I hoped the word "revolutionaries" would be acceptable, as it is used in the introduction.

I would like to question the inclusion of the Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans subsection. While interesting it is only a sentence long and if it belongs anywhere should be merged into the Canada section. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Cornwallis' proposed changes, including the current abuse of the term American. This conflict was much too complex for it's current treatment in this article. Note on the Quebec Regiments, I'm removing these right now as the entry is misleading, it's not two Quebec Regiments joining the Continentals, it's two Quebec Regiments raised by them, there is a big difference.--Caranorn (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * I do think the issues are linked. The use of the term "American" to mean pro-independence is both contentious and ambigous, regardless of the fact that is sometimes used by participants and historians. As a short term compromise, I will again suggest a change from the introduction currently reading:


 * "In early 1778, shortly after an American victory at Saratoga resulting in the surrender of an entire British army..."
 * to
 * "In early 1778, shortly after the American Revolutionaries' victory at Saratoga resulted in the surrender of an entire British army...".


 * I feel this would help clarify the statement, without making any significant changes to its details.


 * As regards inclusion of more Loyalist details I will begin to gather some sources and draft some language. My initial instinct is that perhaps the Armies, Militia & Mercanries section is the best place to begin to remedy their omission, but I am tempted to propose a short section early in the article be created to cover the differences between the two types of "Americans" -"Revolutionaries" and "Loyalists" the forces and resources each contributed to the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Revolutionaries" is not a term typically used to describe the American resistance military establishment. "Patriots" is probably better.  But subsequent to the signing of the Declaration of Independence there existed a nation called the United States of America, so the term "American" has clear meaning in the sentence above.  It does not need to be changed.  Llakais (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

I'm not sure the comparison with Kosovo is entirely helpful. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your spiel is getting tiring, frankly, and you're blaming flaws in the article with everyone else, as if they're to blame because they don't volunteer (and that should be made clear) to write lengthy sections that you yourself want to see. There are numerous articles in Wikipedia that are poorly sourced, filled with wrong information, or otherwise lacking in many facets. I don't go around, however, berating people for them being this way.
 * Moreover, your argument throughout this whole page has been that a term, recognized by almost everyone, used everywhere, including all the sources on this and hundreds of other pages, is wrong mostly because you find it politically offensive and personally inaccurate. Well, unfortunately, tough noogies. We're not in the business of inventing new terms, as others have mentioned, in order to satisfy personal sensitivities. If numerous indigenous groups can suffer being commonly known by names that are more than likely derogatory, I'm pretty sure a guy from Canada whose Wikipedia name is after a white British officer can suck it up. SiberioS (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

These are a outline of some of the major problems.


 * At the moment the war outside the American theatre is poorly covered. Much of it feels tacked on, as through the main article is about the British versus the United States, while the rest was just a sideshow. The Great Siege of Gibraltar, for instance, receives only a brief mention despite the fact that it is by some way the largest and longest engagement of the war. Minorca needs expanding, as does the expedition to San Juan, and the League of Armed Neutrality. Really the whole segments on wars involving the British, Spanish, Dutch outside the American Theatre need to be expanded. The fighting in India was also on a large scale, and deserves equivilant mention with the American theatre.
 * This is a justification for including more about Gibraltar and Minorca, which Cornwallis is welcome to do. The inclusion of the Second Mysore War in this article is itself controversial, and should not be expanded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The armies, militia and mercenaries section focuses entirely on troops in North America at present. This should be expanded to cover all the global troops of all the global participants - The Spanish troops, French troops, British troops, Dutch troops, troops of the Indian States.


 * Internationally the war lasted until 1784. Peace between Britain and the Dutch was only agreed in 1784, as was peace between the British and the Kingdom of Mysore (Treaty of Mangalore). The dates in the infobox should be changed to reflect that.
 * This would be like changing the closing date of the First World War on the grounds:
 * that the treaties were not signed in November 1918
 * That incidental conflicts, like the Russian Civil War and the war between the Arabian States, continued after 1918.
 * There is a case for both these adaptions, and some historians have followed it; but consensus is 1914-18. So here: 1775-1783 is consensus; the peace with the Netherlands was not finalized until early 1784 (arguably the same is true of the United States, I see), but it was agreed the previous September. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article needs to be more careful when its uses the term “American” to demonstrate precisely what it means. What this means, and when it meant it from is a contentious issue. The continued use of the term “Americans” to refer to the cause of the pro-independence before 1783 is questionable. It has been correctly in pointied out that the term is widely used as shorthand by British and Americans to mean pro-independence, it may not be so widely understood in other countries. (and is anti-Loyalist POV as well - implying they are not Americans. The Loyalist sections need expanding, but that is another issue)


 * The article does use terminology that is unique to the United States such as the term ‘Patriot’. Patriot is almost unknown and unused outside the US (and the page on wikipedia is a not very expansive stub). This does not suitably make it accessible the whole global community, terms used should aim to be as international as they can. This issue might be helped by the creation of a page Terminology used to describe the American Revolution, or something of that kind. I have read this article several times now, and I am still not clear what “Americans” in the introduction is referring to? The US military, the pro-independence “American” cause, or the inhabitants of America.

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


 * Maybe we should change the title from American Revolutionary War to World Revolutionary War. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 11:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Section 2

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

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


 * The current use of "American" in the article remains both ambiguos and POV (it hijacks the term). "American" is used in the article to mean several different things. On wikipedia "American" is a disambiguation page for this very reason. Type Canadian in, and you will go straight to Canada. Type American in, and you do not go straight to the USA - because its meaning is debatable.


 * Patriot is not widely used or understood beyond the US, except as McLintock states below - in reference to the Mel Gibson film. I am now starting to suspect that different versions of the same books are published using different terminology. It is hard to produce evidence that a word does not exist in popular usage, because there is no cuase for anyone to ever mention the term. Surely there is a logic to that?


 * As far as I can see Wp:ENGVAR seems to support using more neutral language under the Commonality section where it states


 * "Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia"


 * "Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences. For example, use alternative route (or even other route) rather than alternate route, since alternate may mean only "alternating" to a British English speaker."


 * Which seems to apply in this case. Please don't remove the tag until we have reached a consensus on this issue, if this is not possible we could make a request for informal mediation, but I have not given up hope of establishing a consensus between ourselves Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you unilaterally put a tag up on a widely read and edited page, without seeking any input from anyone who edits here. While it is true that one should be bold, and that no one author, or even group of authors, has ownership of an article, it is unnecessarily provocative and essentially a shot across the bow. AFTER that was done you have now insisted that everyone else must argue why your unilateral action should be reversed, or face your reversion wrath. This is not only poor form, but one of the reasons why everyone now is obstinate in not budging on the issue. SiberioS (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Thank you for your suggestion. I have no objection to "colonists" being used if that is acceptable to others. It is still a little ambiguos, but to me it appears better than the present "Americans", though I have a feeling others might object. If they don't, it seems we have a big step towards a consensus.


 * I would also like to again propose a glossary of different terms used - either within this article, or in a seperate article linked to this page that might further help to define and explain terminology.


 * As for the Continentals invasion of Canada, my understanding of it (and my interpritation of the DoI) seems to be they were hoping to capitalise on the Anglophones resentment of the Quebec Act. 1774 is sometimes regarded as the founding of our modern nation, because of the compromise it allowed in recognising the existence of both English law and French law within what constitutes modern Canada. Why the invasion failed is probably as much to do with logistics than politics, Arnold and Montgomery were trying to make the same journey in reverse as Burgoyne did two years later with considerably less troops.


 * It is an often neglected question of the era, why did the rebellion in the thirteen colonies not spread further? Ceirtanly the British goverment at one point feared it would spread to all their posessions in the Americas, including the West Indies, through I think I might be starting to touch on Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to compromise on the issue of "Americans". Until someone shows that some significant number of historians have written about the Revolution without using the term "Americans" (and you have indicated that you will not provide such information), there is really not even a basis for an intelligent discussion.  The fact that you would accept "colonists" instead of  "Americans" suggests that ambiguity IS NOT your concern -- or were Loyalists not also colonists?


 * If creating a separate article on terminology solves your problem, go for it. Similarly I have no problem with creating a brief paragraph on terminology for this article (and possibly for inclusion in other articles), something like the following:


 * ''In this article the colonists supporting the Revolution are primarily referred to as "Americans", with occassional references to "Patriots" or "Whigs" (terms commonly used by the Americans in referring to themselves), "rebels", or "revolutionaries". Colonists who supported the British in opposing the Revolution are primarily referred to as "Loyalists" (this group's preferred term) but "Tory" may also appear."


 * In fact, it could even be added at the top of the article, indented and in italics. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would need some slight tweaking, as below, but the general idea is not unreasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Colonial is used only for the situation before 1776, because it is itself inherently POV; it is only appropriate in representing the British position, and dubious there after 1778: the Howes' terms were what we would now call Dominion status, and therefore it would be as odd as using colonial of modern pre-repatriation Canada. It is therefore unacceptable as a general term.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We should probably add Continental. It is slightly ambiguous (does it include units in the service of the Continental Congress not in the Continental Army?) and it should not be a blanket term (it excludes, for example, the Americans at Lexington.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a pretty good idea to me. I think Lord C is partially correct when he highlights some problems - even in this article the word american is used to mean several different things. We should try and restrict it to one usage (I'm not sure which type though) and use that as consistently as possible. McLintock 71 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Section 3
I agree with North Shoreman's proposal of an indented and italic paragraph at the top of the article, the wording seems fine to me, as it seems broadly to cover all bases.

My only point would be a clarification in the article of the term "American" when used in the context of describing all the inhabitants of the 13 colonies (in a non-political sense) so as not to imply they all offered their allegiance to the US by using the term "American inhabitants" or some other term if someone has a better suggestion. If that makes sense?

A separate article on terminology would also be useful, and I will try and start that in the near future (I have some university exams coming up, unfortunately, which will limit the time I can spend on wikipedia) but obviously it will need to be a collaborative effort as I am largely only aware of the non-US terminology.

I am still not entirely clear as to Patriot (I, like I guess a lot of people initially read it more as a statement than a faction - as in a patriotic American wheras I now think it is in fact used as a reference to a faction (in the same style as "Loyalist"), correct?. I think that might need some further elaboration on the Patriot article by someone better qualified than I on the subject for the benefit of non-US readers.
 * Of course that's correct; that's why we capitalize it, as our sources do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Having looked through a number of books on the war, and found the use of Patriot only once - bizarrely in a book by Simon Schama, who I think is a British author, it has now dawned on me that they issue different editions, with different terminology, and possibly even some of the content changed to tailor it to the respective audiences. Regards. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that Patriot (American Revolution) is being used, I fail to see the issue. Doesn't this article make it clear? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 02:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am actually warming to the use of Patriot, having done some more reading on the term. As I say I feel it needs to be expanded slightly at the Patriot article, and on any terminology page, because its usage is often unknown or misunderstood outside the US and it is currently only a stub.


 * A more widespread use of "Patriot" would allow the article to remain neutral on the issue of whether the United States came into existence in 1776 or 1783. I think use of "American" should be restricted to describe people coming from the 13 colonies (and Vermont, Tennesee, Ohio territory.etc) in a non-political sense (as in: George Washington, Benedict Arnold and Sir Henry Clinton were Americans). Does anyone have any objections to changing the "American Victory at Saratoga" to the "Patriot victory at Saratoga"? and similar changes throughout the article?


 * In many ways this would seem to solve both the POV and ambiguity issues at once. The problem with "American" remains that it can still appear ambiguos and potentially partisan in its current usage. "Patriot" and "Loyalist" give more of a nod to the fairly complex "civil war" issue.


 * Admittedly there is an issue of a similar ambiguity problem with the use of the word British (it can be used to mean the British Goverment, the Great British people, the Great British and Irish people, the British (and Irish) army, or the subjects of the British Empire) but that seems a less pressing issue, because it is more likely to be understood and less contested in its current usage. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable! Now suddenly, in your mind, "Patriot" is an acceptable term, and you want to concentrate all of your attacks on the term "Americans'.  I am opposed to any piecemeal change in the text relating to these terms, including my own earlier proposal, since you apparently view this only as a new starting point for your own agenda regarding "Americans".  There is no problem with the use of "Americans" as it is currently used in this article since it is used EXACTLY as historians use it.  We have made efforts to meet you halfway, but you are back exactly where you started.  You still are unable, even after your recent readings, to demonstrate that there is any significant number of historians of the era who use of "America" in the manner you propose. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

North Shoreman, I would like to point out that this is an international encyclopedia not a history essay. We have to make terms as clear and non-controversial to all readers as we can. I will not state again why the current use of American is both ambiguous and POV. Whatever you seem to feel - my proposal to use Patriot was an attempt to meet you halfway. As I have said this term is not much used outside the US, but if it is properly explained it seems to provide a solution.

I had hoped this would serve as an effective compromise and I leave it on the table - I would like to hear what others feel about it before we cast the suggestion aside. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on, Tom! -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lord C -- As far as your POV claim, I will present the first sentence from Neutral point of view:


 * “Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.”


 * AT THE VERY LEAST, there is no doubt whatsoever that “reliable sources” use the terms “America” and “American”. Therefore it must be used in this article to the extent it is used in those reliable sources.


 * As far as your “ambiguous” claim, all ambiguity is removed once we provide the statement I suggested at the start of the article.  Everytime the word "American" is used, it refers to the folks fighting the British.


 * Once again you fail to demonstrate any significant number of historians of the era who use of "America" in the manner you propose. Your response this time:


 * “North Shoreman, I would like to point out that this is an international encyclopedia not a history essay.”


 * A total non sequitur. This certainly is an “international encyclopedia”, but on matters of HISTORY the preferred source for the facts, interpretation, and terminology must be HiSTORIANS.  There has been no evidence submitted that the use of “Americans” does not reflect an international consensus of historians.  Until you provide some sources that  everyone else seems to be totally unaware of, I see no reason to change the artcle simply because you say so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. Are you now saying you object to the term "Patriot"? I genuinely made this suggestion as a form of compromise, I thought you were in favour of Patriot? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to arbitrarily mandating the substitution of one historically appropriate term (as determined by historians) for another historically appropriate term. This article has a mix of "American", "Patriot", and "rebel", and you have presented nothing, other than your "feelings", suggesting  that the mix needs to be adjusted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * His Grace is reading, albeit "with the easy negligence of a nobleman". We should not discourage this; if he reads enough, he may well notice the number of sources, contemporary and modern, British, Canadian, and "United Statesian", which use American for the American side of the war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't sneer at me. It is not civil or constructive.

"American" was an ambiguous term in the period the article describes. I still also haven't heard a convincing argument why the current use of "American" isn't anti-loyalist POV? Why are they not American? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That much seems clear. Neither our arguments nor established usage will ever convince you; your Cause is too dear to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can state them again? Why are Loyalists not Americans? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they chose not to be; those who remained and had not levied war against the United States became Americans again.
 * But a better justification is that American, like Loyalist or Patriot (or Whig or Tory or Confederate), is a group name which later writers have accepted as the name of the group and call its members by. Whig and Tory were originally attacks; Loyalist and Patriot are terms of praise; American is geographical. So what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since apparently neither you nor I are aware of any reliable historical sources that accept your "hijack" theory, including it in a Wikipedia article would be a clear violation of our policy. As I showed you earlier, ignoring a position held by a reliable source would be a violation of NPOV.  Ignoring the unsubstantiated opinion of an individual editor, regardless of how sincerely felt, is the clear expectation of the Wikipedia community. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So instead of answering my question, you've started resorted trying to start a tagging war? What does "Remove. Let's show him a consensus" mean, Pmanderson? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That tag is disruptive, and remains unsupported by evidence. I am the third or fourth editor to remove it; several more have objected to it. If Lord Cornwallis cannot yield to consensus against him, Wikipedian consensus does have the power to enforce itself. I encourage others to join in removing this tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PManderson your behaviour tonight is entirely unacceptable. You have at least twice made a personal attack against Cornwallis tonight. In addition you have proven by a couple of statements (your definition of American) in this discussion that you have no place around this article. I recommend you take a break of a day or two from this article at least and think some more about these matters. I also strongly recommend you stop reverting the article on the basis of a non existing consensus (I still consider the tag appropriate, though Cornwallis has not convinced me he has a useable solution, if we were to have a vote I would probably abstain at this time, in any case nothing negative happens if an article is thus tagged for a while).--Caranorn (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh please, stop the hysterics. Cornwallis has been obnoxious from the start, busting onto a page damning everyone and wanting to change the instance of a word in dozens, if not hundreds of articles, because he doesn't like the word "American". He has little to no experience, from what I've seen in his user contributions, to any non-football related historical article, compared to the recognized experience of many of the editors here. Moreover, he still hasn't argued why it is, like everyone else pointed out, scholarly articles use the term "Americans" and why we should rewrite the whole article to flatter his personal proclivities. SiberioS (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PM has not offered a "definition of American" that is at odds with reliable, historical sources. I would suggest that anyone who is not aware of that has "no place around this article."  Since Lord C is either unwilling or unable to upport his contentions from ANY RELIABLE SOURCE, perhaps you would step in for him.  What historical works on the American Revolution are you aware of that do not use the term "America" as used in this article and throughout the other articles relating to the Revolution?


 * If you fail, as I suspect you will, to provide this information so essential to making Lord C's case, then I feel there is no reason to delay eliminating the tag for any longer. What do you expect to change?  Lord C's first post on this discussion page was at 19:47 on May 28 -- he posted the tag at 22:16 on the same day.  Compared with his example,  I think the rest of us have been damn patient. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a tag can be disruptive, it simply flags up an issue - but I have no wish to keep replacing it all night, so I will not do so and instead suggest we make a request for informal mediation. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * North Shoreman I point you to this diff . It is my opinion that by its first statement PM has discredited himself conderning this debate and actually made a pretty strong point for the current tag.
 * America designates a continent, Americans the inhabitants of said continent. In a narrower sense it's also used for US-Americans, but that use in and of itself already merits the use of the world-wide tag. But, this article deals with a matter before the creation of said state (yes obviously the war was essential to its creation), it also deals with a number of distinct categories of Americans. 1) Patriots or Rebels, 2) Loyalists or Torries, 3) Those who did not chose sides, 3) Canadians who could be seen as yet distinct from 1) and 2), 4) West Indians (same as Canadians, some could be seen with 1), most with 2) and logically quite a few with 3)). A member of 2) is as much American as a member of 1)... That is the entire point of this discussion.
 * And note again, there is nothing intristically bad about this tag, it means the article could use improving, that's all. Many articles have had this type of tag up for months and no harm has come of it. Lastly, I can assure you that as a simple user (I was in wikiretirement for a year or so and only irregularly editing during that time, but regularly researching here, so I've come to see the project from both sides, (note I'm still retired here on en.wikipedia, though I expect to return to some activity once my current project on commons and fr.wikipedia is completed)) tags like this are not disruptive only informative.--Caranorn (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I offered a proposal that would have made it clear right up front that the use of "American" under in this article had a specific, narrow definition. This proposal was not sufficient to meet Lord C's needs. Are you seriously arguing that when terms have both broad and narrow meanings that even after clarifying that we are using a specific, narrow definition of the term that it is still wrong to use the term as defined?


 * It is your OPINION that Loyalists are as much Americans as anybody else. The problem is that by the article's operational definition (a definition not determined by a Wikipedia editor but determined by RELIABLE HISTORICAL SOURCES for use within the context of the American Revolution), "American" is a common, acceptable term for referring to the people who were fighting the British.


 * The issue is not whether the tag is "intrinsically bad" but whether the tag is relevant to the article. Have you gone to the site for the group that originated the tag -- a work group Lord C does not even belong to?  The site clearly says concerning its purpose:


 * "Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented."


 * Clearly this dispute does not fall within that group's guidelines. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)