Talk:Women in the American Revolution

Canadian Women
I don't really understand why there's no mention of Canadian women on this page whatsoever. It's not as if Canada wasn't effected by the American Revolution what with the Invasion of Canada (1775) and what not. Fallenangei (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans
"With British rights westward acknowledged back in Europe, most Native people faced increasing encroachment by settlers and a greater military presence of British troops." If I'm not mistaken, the Proclamation of 1763 (Link) limited colonial expansion to east of the Appalachians, so I don't think that this is as much of an issue as the author is making it out to be. Instead consider the implications of having a new country where this Proclamation no longer holds sway. Regardless, such a discussion really belongs on a page about Native Americans in the American Revolution. All I have to say regarding this nit-picking is simply a request to clarify and specify the content of the article. IXIdenisIXI (talk) 22:09 3 October 2012 (PST) Whats up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.122.255.187 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That whole section is unsourced. I think the text should be replaced with an "empty section" tag for now, until someone can rewrite it. See User:MopTop/Unsourced text. --MopTop (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable making huge deletions, but...
I'm thinking of deleting the entire section on "Migration to the North," which was added in 2008 by Jackson06, who added a ton of unsourced text to this article and doesn't seem to have contributed anything since then. See. The section is about what happened after the war, not the women's role in the war. Even so, it's interesting and arguably relevant, but how can we verify it when we have no idea who Jackson06 is and no idea where this information came from? Googling, I find the following in the New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture:

"The first significant migration of black southerners followed the American Revolution and the subsequent opening of the trans-Appalachian West to settlement by slaveholders..."

West, not North, and a forced migration of slaves, not a voluntary mass migration of black women to Northern cities.

Also, what do people think of deleting the section on Native Women and replacing it with an "empty section" tag? Maybe someone from the Women in Red group (who knows more than I do) can write something. --MopTop (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * One gives citations to avoid conflict.
 * Period, end of story and well, conflict of contrarians.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

me
that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.219.39 (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Phillis Wheatley & the Women in the American Revolution page: Organizational and Consistency Issues
[Note: This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, content-wise, and I'd appreciate your understanding and patience as I learn the correct terminology and other norms. Thank you!]

I was spurred to sign up today to point out that the manner in which Phillis Wheatley appears on the Women in the American Revolution page is insufficient, and that remedying that issue would seem to require some review and reorganization of the content overall.

Currently, Wheatley is referenced only once on this page, in the subsection "Migration to the North" of the section "African-American women." But her acclaim as a poet warrants a mention alongside other "Female poets" already included here. Per the existing Wikipedia page dedicated to Wheatley:

"In 1768, Wheatley wrote "To the King's Most Excellent Majesty", in which she praised King George III for repealing the Stamp Act.[4] As the American Revolution gained strength, Wheatley's writing turned to themes that expressed ideas of the rebellious colonists." 

The problem I see, however, and the reason I'm posting here rather than suggesting edits to the article itself, is that the "Female Poets" subsection is part of the "European-American Women Patriots" section. This leads to larger questions around why so much of the content here is organized by race in the first place, what sort of changes--structural and otherwise--would improve its accuracy and completeness.

Using race as an umbrella here has other problematic aspects. For example, why does the title of the section concerning European-Americans include the word "Patriots" while those on Native- and African-Americans don't? It seems to me that for consistency, "European-American Women Patriots" should be changed to "European-American Women." And further, the content presently under "Anglo-American Women Loyalists" seems better suited as a subsection of a newly-renamed European-American Women. Kjimas97212 (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)