Talk:Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War

2004/2005 comments about article
I noticed the fact that the article ws taken verbatim from the cia.gov webpage on spies during the revolutionary war. I was concerned, as that would usually be considered plagerism, but realized I shouldn't be because of the comment below. THanks to whoever made that comment.

The initial version is a verbatim copy of "Intelligence in the War of Independence" a work of the Unites States Government, CIA. As such, it is in the public domain worldwide.

Original source: https://www.cia.gov/csi/books/warindep/frames.html

Probably needs some NPOV'ing particularly at the end: "Famous Agents" used to be "Martyrs & Heroes". Also needs wikifying. Wolfman 04:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are some nice drawings linked in the CIA book, which could be uploaded, if someone is interested in doing so. I already grabbed the nathan hale and joseph warren ones. Wolfman 05:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Someone's GOT to get the old intelligence seal ( https://www.cia.gov/csi/books/warindep/photo-11.gif ) ! Thanx 68.39.174.150 05:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Update
I'm going though this article and making some changes, which I'll talk about here. I was going to just submit it all but then oDC crashed my machine up and I have to start over, so now I'll be submitting it piecemeal so if I screw something up it will be less major. Thanx 68.39.174.150 05:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1st update, what I'd saved before the crash
 * 2nd update, moved the former Intelligence Operations section off to Intelligence Operations in the American Revolutionary War.

Questions

 * Should the links to the states after the congressmen link to the general article (New York), or the one that relates more to the state that they knew (New York) (Click it)?

Rationale

 * I tried to severely cut down on the use of the term "Patriot" to refer to those siding with the revolution as it sounds a bit POV and gets annoying after awhile.
 * I moved out the whole section as it was very long, could stand on itself, and makes it alot shorter and easier to read (IMO the last one).

I feel I should note that the term "Patriot" in reference to American colonial rebels is a widely accepted and non-biased term, like the term "Loyalist" to refer to American supporters of the Crown.--75.105.64.38 (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Wayy too many people from Pennsylvania in the Secret Committee, and for that matter probably in the Congress itself!
 * The 2nd paragraph of "Covert Action" sounds just like something the CIAd say, although it may be true.

Bias
Having read incidental comments on some of the things mentioned here (From reasonable reputable sources), the difference and emphasis shifts are so strong I feel someone should check this over (I tried and evidently didn't do so well). Also, the source is not the most uninvolved either. 68.39.174.238 03:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be massively overhauled and divided up into sections by country. It seems to imply that Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War was only used on one side. I know this is clearly wrong - there were British agents active in pre-war Massachuetas, and the British continued to be active throughout the war both in America and across the globe. It is commonmly stated that the British had agents in the rebel American high command. Major John Andre was a leading British spymaster and persuaded Benedict Arnold to defect back to the British. Benjamin Franklin has been widely reported as selling information to British spies in Paris. The British made extensive use of African American servents and slaves to overhear their masters conversations. The article is missing all these things but I suspect it is an oversight rather than bias. I will try and write more on the British perespective (and possibly French, Spanish and Dutch if I can find the sources) and perhaps cut the American entrys a little bit. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect edit in Committee on Spies section
In this text: It was resolved further that the act "be printed at the end of the rules and articles of war." On February 27, 1778, the law was broadened to include any "inhabitants of these states" whose intelligence activities aided the enemy in capturing or killing British forces.

Shouldn't "killing British forces" be "killing American forces?" This would make more sense since we wouldn't have been as concerned of British deaths during the Revolutionary War. I didn't want to edit it since I don't have a source. Do the editors agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.89.241 (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct. Thanks for catching this. A vandal changed "revolutionary" to "British" in October 2011 and got away with it until you caught it. I have changed the word back to the earlier version of "revolutionary." Donner60 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100204094532/http://www.history.army.mil:80/reference/revbib/intel.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/reference/revbib/intel.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Perspective
So, were the Americans the only ones who engaged in spying and intelligence operations during the American Revolutionary War? I think not.  Magic ♪piano 02:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409002201/https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/intelligence/index.html to https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/intelligence/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War and Intelligence operations in the American Revolutionary War. There seems to be a lot of overlap between the two articles' subject matter and readers would be better served by a single article that is much better written, sourced, and structured. Thoughts? Ledalion (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I plan to work on improving this article and bringing it up to Wikipedia manual of style standards. It is almost exclusively taken from the CIA website and focuses on the American vice British side of espionage during the war. I welcome other editors' contributions and corroboration on this as I work to improve this broad article. Ledalion (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge. I concur with.
 * In the section below, I will add some material that is being excised from the American Revolutionary War. I've incorporated four paragraphs with direct application to the ARW overview, and I did not want to loose the research and citations from previous contributions there.
 * Double-check on the wp:merge guidelines. I think that it is customary to post a template from the article to be moved to the article to receive the contributions? I've never been a part of the total process yet ... Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that both pages have been displaying the template appropriate for some time, and have received no objections, ✅ Klbrain (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Narrative moved from ARW
I've moved the following narrative of some topic detail here to preserve the multiple-editor contributions in copyediting, research, footnotes and HarvRef citations.

Prior to moving this passage, I copied four paragraphs into the more general narrative at the American Revolutionary War, using six of the eight references noted here.

Please consider an assist to in getting this article up-and-running. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC) - At the onset of the war, the Second Continental Congress realized that they would need foreign alliances and intelligence-gathering capability to defeat a world power like Britain. To this end, they formed the Committee of Secret Correspondence which operated from 1775 to 1776 for "the sole purpose of corresponding with our friends in Great Britain and other parts of the world". Through secret correspondence the Committee shared information and forged alliances with persons in France, England and throughout America. It employed secret agents in Europe to gather foreign intelligence, conduct undercover operations, analyze foreign publications, and initiate American propaganda campaigns to gain Patriot support. Members included Thomas Paine, the committee's secretary, and Silas Deane who was instrumental in securing French aid in Paris.
 * Intelligence and espionage

Facing off against the British at New York City, Washington realized that he needed advance information to deal with disciplined British regular troops. On August 12, 1776, Thomas Knowlton was given orders to form an elite group for reconnaissance and secret missions. Knowlton's Rangers became the Army's first intelligence unit.

Among the Rangers was Nathan Hale. When the British landed on Long Island with overwhelming force, Washington's army narrowly escaped and retreated across the East River in dozens of small riverboats to New York City on Manhattan Island. Washington directed volunteer Hale to spy on enemy activity behind their lines in Brooklyn. After the British attack on September 15, Hale was captured and with sketches of British fortifications and troop positions. Howe ordered Hale summarily hung without trial the next day (September 22).

Once Washington was driven out of New York, he realized that he would need more than military might and amateur spies to defeat the British and earnestly made efforts to professionalize military intelligence with the aid of Benjamin Tallmadge. They created the Culper spy ring of six men. Washington promised members of the ring that their identities and activities would never be revealed. All name references had a number code, and the spies used vanishing ink for their messages.

Among the more notable achievements of the ring was exposing Benedict Arnold's treasonous plans to capture West Point, along with his collaborator John André, Britain's head spymaster,  and later they intercepted and deciphered coded messages between Cornwallis and Clinton during the Siege of Yorktown, leading to Cornwallis's surrender.

By 1781, the amateur shortcomings of British intelligence had been corrected, enabling Clinton and Cornwallis to predict patriot movements and capabilities. However, the improvements came too late to reverse British misfortunes. The American commander spent more than 10 percent of his total military funds on intelligence operations. Some historians maintain that, without the efforts of Washington and the Culper Spy Ring, the British would never have been defeated.


 * Notes


 * Citations

- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Bibliography

Considering the sources

 * Sorry for the delayed reply. I have been offline for several days, which has been more common for me this year.
 * I think that The Virginia Historian has a good suggestion to keep some information from being inadvertently omitted from the merged revised article.
 * However, I would not cite Kilmeade and Yaeger for anything. I find that book, which I own, because it was bought for me, and have read, to be speculative and fictionalized. Among other things, it has made up conversation and people's thoughts. Worst of all, it contains what I view as opinions presented as facts contrary to more reliable sources such as Rose. When I get more time and energy, I plan to revise or change back the changes and additions made to the Culper Ring article and to the Anna Strong article which cite this work. For any valid additions, I think more reliable sources are available. (I reluctantly admit that revising revisions that are passed on a source, though as it turns out a bad one, can be tedious for me. I also have had somewhat less time this year after I noticed the problem.)
 * This may be becoming a rant but I think I should cite as especially egregious Kilmeade's opinion that Anna Strong was a fictional construct. That is wrong and unsupported. Maybe this speculative thinking is meant to be controversial or different or is in supposed support of speculation about another woman agent identified only by code number. Her different identity has been suggested by other, better sources. Anna Strong's existence and contributions to the Culper Ring are verified by several more reliable sources. Again, for example, see Rose. I wrote the Anna Strong article initially so I am convinced of her existence and work for the ring. I cited several sources in support. I suppose it will be up to me to do something about the poorly support revisions based on Kilmead, with support and reasons given, of course.
 * The information to be preserved or added in The Virginia Historian's suggestion doesn't need citations from the Kilmeade and Yaeger book. Others are given in the draft above for that information. If other citations are needed, I think they can be found easily enough among other books or articles, including ones that I have. I will look for them if anyone thinks they are needed for specific points. I will revisit this within a few days (I hope) to see other suggestions and perhaps to see if I can add anything of value.
 * Good work, Ledalion and Virginia Historian. Donner60 (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your considered editorial discussion . I regret I did not take the time to vet the references, I'm trying to promote the American Revolutionary War article from Start-class . We are kindred spirits, it seems. Among American Revolution articles there is quite a wp:editor movement to expand it into a "worldwide conflict", including American Revolutionary War (now subsided), and Anglo-French War (1778-1783) (ongoing to MERGE with France in the American Revolution, as has been done with the Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783) to Spain in the American Revolution.
 * The sources or their application to support the 'worldwide ARW' thesis are almost always one of two sorts of references that are INADMISSIBLE in a well written encyclopedic article. Where is this coming from? From what I can gather with an online search or two, the proposition echoes one article (Shaw 1952) describing the worldwide "bourgeois-nationalist" American Revolution on every continent, and more recently an assistant professor at the University of Alabama (Lockwood 2019) describing the worldwide "imperial American Revolution" that was responsible for disruption and despair in the lives of Andean Mountain Indians and Aborigine Australians. The explicit purpose of the book in its Introduction is to demolish the "gingoistic" American excuse in its purported "exceptionalism" that has led to modern wars and global suffering.
 * (a) The source for 'worldwide ARW' is not a wp:reliable source . (i) The authors are amateurs (retired engineers, school teachers [I am one], park rangers); (ii) the publishers are not academic, they are 'popular presses', or 'self-published' without scholarly wp:peer review; (iii) the publications are not reviewed in academic journals, only in newspapers, sometimes only the newspapers owned by the publisher; (iv) awards are limited to newspaper 'best-seller' lists, without any prizes for history, etc., such as Pulitzers.
 * (b) The support referenced to support 'worldwide ARW' is indeed a reliable source, but misinterpreted . On inspection at the linked reference, the author explains that the events described are overlapping, coincident in time, but not to the purpose for or against American independence. Most explicitly is Mackesy at his introduction, "This book is not about the American Revolution", but about the worldwide conflict Britain had with France and Spain over empire, "the last war with the Bourbons as the enemy"(sic).
 * - But also Clodfelter, his American "colonial war" is about the "American Revolution", the war worldwide that Britain fought "overseas" from America with the French, Spanish, and Dutch for empire, was the "War of the American Revolution", the title of his encyclopedic entry. And Mahan , who titles chapters before Yorktown, using "American Revolution" to describe the conflict, then chapters 'after Yorktown', using "Bourbon War", and "War of 1788" to describe worldwide contest for empire in Anglo-French and Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-Dutch conflict after Yorktown October 1781. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is a measure of my time and energy being eaten up by chores, a few unexpected, and some fatigue that I am just replying. I assume others who are interested in this article may check back so I limit my ping to TheVirginiaHistorian and Ledalion and address these comments about reliable sources in reply to TheVirginiaHistorian's comments.
 * I too am concerned about the various bizarre theories being posited in recent years, including linking of events, which have little if any relationship, especially cause and effect relationships. These are particularly troubling when the purpose seems to support political purposes and distorted views of the past. Those distorted views include combining topics or conflating discussion of events simply because they occurred at the same time or soon thereafter.
 * I am suspicious of self-published sources, in line with Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. I have rarely bought a self-published book. Even then, it was one about an obscure topic of interest not likely covered in depth otherwise and, hopefully, by a recognizable author. I suppose it is fair to say that all such books are not totally bad, but one needs to be careful about accepting them at face value. I think the Civil War and railroad historian Scott Mingo has self-published or independently published a few books. I would not knowingly cite such a source except perhaps as an additional, cumulative reference if otherwise seeming trustworthy. Otherwise, amateurs who clearly are over their heads and those who have an agenda should be viewed with suspicion, at least, in my opinion. Of course, much of the novel work of today's "professionals" needs to be critically appraised as well.
 * This is not to say that all simultaneous events in other areas or conflicts should be ignored in a different article about another topic or event. It might be relevant that they are taking place at the same time. Simultaneous conflicts or events could limit resources or attention, for example.
 * The problem that I addressed is similar. Celebrities "author" books about topics which they probably know little about. Ghost writers, actually often identified in recent times, go along with the celebrity's view. Perhaps they also know little about the topic and only do some modest checking just to fill in the blanks. Either author may feel the need to add a few differing or controversial statements. The obvious fictionalized conversations and frequent speculations are a clue that these people are simply out to write a peppy book on a current, or familiar, topic and (gasp!) to make some money doing it. Much better would be to write the book as a novel, perhaps "based on actual events" or simply to make the overall setting and background as factual as possible. The "Killer Angels" is a great example in my opinion.
 * I am not adding anything to help the article here, just to add my concurrence and a few more words about sources. So I won't go on at further length. Thanks for the response. Donner60 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is very comforting to find another editor who agrees with the elements of wp:reliable source. Somewhere in the period military battle articles amidst one wiki-fencing over Global-ARW (an American battle?, Gibraltar? British re-supply of Gibraltar?), I stumbled onto a suspect factoid-interpretation about the period history attributed to the 'West Point Institute'. On inspection, I found nothing related at USMA or USA pages. I did trace (a) its 'board' were self-identified company-grade Ukranian and Russian 'attendees', and (b) the self-identified author of the 'institute' page linked to Facebook with a pic of an attractive young man framed by a 1500s building on a cobblestone street. Fresh from a wikipedia-bludgeoning by multiple Global-ARW editors for questioning sources (ad hominem ridicule, "now you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel"), I passed over the citation to pursue the point at issue on a Talk-page, but I suppose there may be more like it. Just FYI imho, something to recall whenever scanning Bibliographies to cull not-wp:rs. In a similar vein, I was wp:bold and deleted the ARW footnote to an Apple app for tracking a stock-exchange. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem ridicule seems to have become a staple argument for those without facts or reasonable inferences or conclusions from those facts when confronted with not just criticism but quite obvious facts and reasoning that do not support their position. Of course, their position does not fit within the reliable source guideline to begin with. Unfortunately, I think, the proliferation of "verifiable" sources, which are nonetheless not reliable or accurate, makes it easier for these users to give a veneer of support for their position even though they feel compelled to use ad hominem arguments as well. At least some may realize their edits are objectively unsupportable and merely propaganda. I fear that Wikipedia articles in addition to current event, current biography and politics articles will be overwhelmed by this trend which can already be found in the types of articles just mentioned. Maybe the world is moving in that direction and there will be little that can be done to contain and stop the corruption of Wikipedia articles of all sorts, including the history articles we are both interested in. Nonetheless, I will take the position that the type of sources that you note, in addition to such sources as celebrity opinion, semi-fiction tracts, should not be accepted. In my opinion the interpretations these suggest, or even put out as facts, also are no better than fringe theories that also need to be treated in line with guidelines. Thanks for your further thoughts. Donner60 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)