Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Introduction rewrite

I propose the following rewrite to the Introduction. It aims to refocus the passage towards an overview of the American Revolutionary War. I have tried to capture EVERY comprehensive element of the existing introduction, leaving less New England-centered detail.

I've separated out paragraphs as sections to aid editors in contributing comments, with the existing passage first, indented in smaller font for direct comparison.

Elements in both versions are listed after the proposed change. Where convenient, changes in each version are underlined, text omitted in the existing, text added in the proposed.

First Intro Paragraph

Pre-existing and proposed text ::The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was fought primarily between the Kingdom of Great Britain and its Thirteen Colonies in America, resulting in the overthrow of British rule in the colonies and the establishment of the United States of America.

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was fought primarily between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States comprised of thirteen original colonies in North America. It resulted in their independence from Britain and the establishment of the United States of America as the first republic over a large territory.

Common elements: opening phrase, and the same note for the same six terms.

ADD: fought between "the United States comprised of thirteen original colonies" in North America. (This seems to be contentious, but Continental Congress was begun before, for, and after the Declaration of Independence, and twelve states ceded sovereignty by acts of state legislature within fourteen months of proposed Articles of Confederation, 92% for over 50% of the eight-year duration of the war, 100% with Maryland for 30% of the war.)

ADD: the United States of America "as the first republic over a large territory". (MOS:INTRO: "The first sentence should tell what the subject is" ... The "American" war is between Great Britain in America and the United States (of) North America. Its principle significance to the general NPOV reader is the experiment to undertake a "republic over a large territory" in a world of Great Power monarchies.

- (a) This war as primarily between two nations should not be an editor platform TO DENY the role of the US central government and its Continental Army in securing independence from British rule . . . TO PROMOTE of the "colonial militia" myth scrambling as minutemen to "overthrow" the best field army in Europe. The focus of this article must not be allowed to become the debate over subsequent ethical concerns about derivative and subsequent US nationalism, expansionism, imperialism, international bankers, or international corporations. They are not properly within the scope of this article.

OMIT: The war primarily by "thirteen colonies". (The colonies became states in 1776-77, the US was formed at the Declaration, states ceded their sovereignty 12/13 for over 50% of the war, unanimously for 30% of the war, and unanimously at the definitive Peace of Paris (1783) for internationally recognized independence.

OMIT: War by "thirteen colonies resulting in the overthrow of British rule in the colonies" and replace with the war "resulted in their ['US comprised of thirteen original colonies'] independence from Britain".

- Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

AGREE. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Second Intro Paragraph

Pre-existing and proposed text ::After 1765, growing political differences concerning mounting taxes without colonial representation in Parliament strained the relationship between Great Britain and its American colonies and fueled the resentment that led to the American Revolution. Patriot protests against taxation without representation followed the Stamp Act and escalated into boycotts, which culminated in 1773 with the Sons of Liberty destroying a shipment of tea in Boston Harbor. Britain responded by closing the harbor and passing a series of punitive measures against Massachusetts Bay Colony. Massachusetts colonists responded with the Suffolk Resolves, and they established a shadow government which wrested control of the countryside from the Crown. Twelve colonies formed a Continental Congress to coordinate their resistance, establishing committees and conventions that effectively seized power.

Early British policy for empire in North America was one of salutary neglect. It largely left the settlers there alone to govern themselves. After 1763 with a greatly expanded British Empire, Parliament turned to the Navigation Acts to increase revenues. That provoked an unrest among the Thirteen Colonies that continued into the next decade. To punish the 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament’s Intolerable Acts closed the port of Boston and suspended their colonial legislature, as Royal Governors had done elsewhere. Twelve colonial lower house assemblies sent delegates to the First Continental Congress. It coordinated a systematic boycott of British goods, then called for a second congress. The Second Continental Congress appointed George Washington in June 1775 as its commander in chief to create a Continental Army and to oversee the Siege of Boston. Their July 1775 Olive Branch Petition got no response. King George III answered with a Proclamation of Rebellion. Congress then passed the Declaration of Independence in July 1776.

Common elements: (1) "punitive measures" --> "Intolerable Acts" (same link), (2) 12 colonies formed a Continental Congress" --> "12 colonial assemblies sent delegates to the First Continental Congress", (3) "Patriot protests" --> "provoked unrest", (4) boycotts, (5) Boston Tea Party, (6) Intolerable Acts, (7) Washington as commander-in-chief, (8) note on Georgia.

ADD: Salutary neglect, ADD: Treaty of Paris (1783), ADD: 'lower house assemblies' v. 'shadow government'; ADD: Olive Branch Petition, ADD: George III, ADD: Proclamation of Rebellion;

OMIT: slogan: "taxation without representation"; OMIT: Sons of Liberty, OMIT: Bay Colony, OMIT: Suffolk Resolves, OMIT: "shadow government"

Note: Declaration of Independence in this Proposal Para #2 v. existing Para #3.

- Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

AGREE. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Third Intro Paragraph

Pre-existing and proposed text ::British attempts to disarm the Massachusetts militia in Concord led to open combat and a British defeat on April 19, 1775. Militia forces then besieged Boston, forcing a British evacuation in March 1776, and Congress unanimously appointed George Washington to command the Continental Army. Concurrently, the Americans failed decisively in an attempt to invade Quebec and raise insurrection against the British. On July 2, 1776, the Second Continental Congress voted for independence, issuing its declaration on July  4. Sir William Howe launched a British counter-offensive, capturing New York City and leaving American morale at a low ebb. However, victories at Trenton and Princeton restored American confidence. In 1777, the British launched an invasion from Quebec under John Burgoyne, intending to isolate the New England Colonies. Instead of assisting this effort, Howe took his army on a separate campaign against Philadelphia, and Burgoyne was decisively defeated at Saratoga in October 1777.

After evicting the British from Boston in 1775, Congress then sponsored an attack on British Quebec, but it failed. The British commander in chief Sir William Howe then launched a British counter-offensive, capturing New York City. Washington retaliated with harassing attacks at Trenton and Princeton. In 1777, the British launched an invasion from Quebec to isolate New England. Howe’s 1777-78 Philadelphia campaign captured the city. But the British lost an army at Saratoga in October 1777. At Valley Forge that winter, Washington built a professional army. The American victory at Saratoga convinced the French to enter into treaties for trade and to defend US independence from Britain in 1778.

Common elements: "militia besieged Boston" as "British evicted from Boston", Battle of Quebec, Howe as British CiC, Second Continental Congress, Declaration of Independence in 2d para. with political setting, NY-NJ campaign, Trenton, Princeton, Burgoyne, Saratoga, Howe, Philadelphia. Noted French treaties here v. existing 4th para.

ADD: Valley Forge for Continental Army professional transformation --->> led to (caused) general set-battle successes against the British among American regiments at Monmouth, INCLUDING the notable black Rhode Island regiment that turned back a British bayonet charge for the first time among any American formation to date...subsequent to tactical drill and bayonet training under the direction of General von Steuben at Valley Forge.

OMIT: linking modern NYC; OMIT: discussion of up & down Am. morale; OMIT: critique of Howe & Burgoyne generalship.

NOTE: Declaration is previously included at Proposal Para #2.

- Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

AGREE. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Fourth Intro Paragraph

Pre-existing and proposed text; discussion ::Burgoyne's defeat had dramatic consequences. France formally allied with the Americans and entered the war in 1778, and Spain joined the war the following year as an ally of France; by the end of September 1779, Spanish troops had cleared all British forts and settlers located in the entire region along the Mississippi. The British mounted a "Southern strategy" led by Charles Cornwallis which hinged upon a Loyalist uprising, but too few came forward. Cornwallis suffered reversals at King's Mountain and Cowpens. He retreated to Yorktown, Virginia, intending an evacuation, but a decisive French naval victory deprived him of an escape. A Franco-American army led by Washington and Comte de Rochambeau then besieged Cornwallis's army, and he surrendered in October 1781.

Spanish Luisiana Governor Bernardo Gálvez cleared British forces from Spanish Louisiana. This allowed supplies from the Spanish and American privateers for the 1779 Virginia militia conquest of Western Quebec (the Old Northwest Territory). He then succeeded in expelling British occupation forces from Mobile and Pensacola, cutting off British military assistance to their Indian allies. The British mounted a 1778 "Southern strategy". After initial success taking Savannah, their losses at King's Mountain and Cowpens led to a retreat to Yorktown. The decisive French naval victory brought the October 1781 surrender of the second British army to be lost in the Revolution.

Common elements: (1) French treaty in 3d proposed paragraph, (2) Spain as ally of France, (3) Spanish clearing Mississippi R., (4) Brit. southern strategy, (5) Kings Mountain, (6) Cowpens, Yorktown, (7) "French naval victory", (8) footnote reference to O'Shaughnessy.

ADD: American Privateers, ADD: Spanish at Mobile, ADD: Pensacola, ADD: Brit. gain Savannah,

OMIT: Cornwallis, OMIT: unmet expectations of Loyalists, OMIT: link to tangential diplomatic history of Fr. & Sp. for relevant treaty named directly, OMIT: joint siege commanders naming both Washington & Rochambeau.

- Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

AGREE. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Fifth Intro Paragraph

Pre-existing and proposed text; discussion ::Whigs in Britain had long opposed the pro-war Tories in Parliament, and the surrender gave them the upper hand. In early 1782, Parliament voted to end all offensive operations in America (although Britain continued to war against France and Spain in Europe, the Caribbean, and India). On September 3, 1783, the belligerent parties signed the Treaty of Paris in which Great Britain agreed to recognize the sovereignty of the United States and formally end the war.

In early 1782, Parliament voted to end all offensive operations in America. December 1782 George III spoke from the British throne for US independence. In April 1783, Congress accepted the British proposed treaty that met its four demands for independence, sovereignty west to the Mississippi River, free navigation on the Mississippi to the sea, and fishing rights at Newfoundland. On September 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris was signed between Great Britain and the United States, recognizing the United States, making peace for commerce between the two nations, and formally ending the American Revolution.

Common elements: (1) Parliament ends offense in America, (2) Treaty of Paris (1783).

ADD: US 4 treaty goals, ADD: George III for independence from the throne, ADD: Congressional ratification of preliminary British proposal meeting the 4 US goals.

OMIT: political history of Whigs and Tories, OMIT: British war apart from the American Revolutionary War, engaged as they were in imperial jousting for Continental Balance of Power and imperial colonial trade elsewhere - - apart from the ARW issue between GB & US over independence & territory....

- Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Agree. History of Whigs and Tories is not exactly appropriate for the lede in this 'war' article, but should be mentioned in brief in the body of the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

end proposal

14:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit: "Background Taxation & Legislation"

The copy edit here, (a) cut 50+ words without losing any citations; (b) includes some British perspective; and - - - (c) broadens the narrative perspective beyond the previous emphasis on Boston Harbor. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

The article has recently expanded to 110k of readable prose, which is considered over the limit set by guidelines. In the past I've resisted reducing the article size for exceptional articles when the information is well summarized, but there is a limit to everything and it seems that 110k is well past that limit. Would recommend moving and summarizing some of the aftermath material to the American Revolution article if it's not already there. Currently I have been reducing, rewriting and moving material in the dedicated biographical sections for Washington, Howe, et al, to the given appropriate sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I had thought to follow in your wake and see what else might be trimmed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. As said before, this article should cover the actual war for independence foremost, while we summarize the events that occurred before and after the war, for historical context and narrative flow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The Treaties of Versailles

This section is quite tangential to the war for independence, is almost a page long, is entirely devoted to trade and remote issues involving Britain, France Spain and the Netherlands during the aftermath of the actual war, while America is only mentioned in passing reference. It would do much better in the American Revolution article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree.

However, it is worth noting, that the information and references within that section are nevertheless useful for the ongoing WIKI-WARS here, facing off with editors who insist that in a slippery GB-centric way, all contemporaneous British warfare, with every belligerent anywhere around the world 1775-1784, was caused by the natal-imperial Americans pulling all the strings among the clueless EUROS, both among the Court of France and among the Court of Spain, - - - this AT THE SAME TIME Congress could not jawbone its "requisitions" from the respective state legislatures (though Massachusetts and Virginia were the BEST-responders, with over 50% of the formula paid into the US treasury as of 1783 - - the formula UNANIMOUSLY agreed to in Congress).

point-by-point discussion :This disruptive editor campaign is justified by a derivative thought process using a conceptually reified American Revolution (made concrete into an historical event), which in turn acquires the AGENCY to "cause" something in the hands of the advocate-historian. HOWEVER, that is now a logic, which when made explicit, is historiographically discredited as an explanatory theory of events. The replacement for "cause" in their argument is the wp:weasel "led to". See previously cited and linked Historians' Fallacies by David H. Fischer.

They make the assertion by reference under the authority "everybody knows, whether you do or not", viz the American Revolutionary War "led to" the expansion of the Second British Empire, which in turn "led to" the destruction of the indigenous aboriginal civilization in Australia, among many others listed. That is only one element of the "imperial American Revolution" in their "RS" introduction by Matthew Lockwood at his To Begin the War Over Again: How the American Revolution Devastated the Globe, as referenced and linked in an earlier post here at Talk.

posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well said actually. I would recommend moving the entire section to the American Revolution article while still giving brief mention to this treaty in the Treaty of Paris section. The references to which you refer can be listed in the Further reading section if they are not being used in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Historians' Fallacies, by David H. Fischer
  Viewing is limited but the Table of Contents gives some insight to the content and scope of this work, for those of us who didn't know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

point-by-point discussion :::::1. I was startled to see the book reissued as an online book by Harper & Row at their Wiley Online Library in 2006. I am sure there are other handbooks just as authoritative as Fischer published over the last fifty years. The ideas are summarized at WP: Historian's fallacy. We can also access 300 logical fallacies enumerated in the pithy Fallacious, the Ultimate Collection of 300 Logical Fallacies (100 by the F's).

2. History journals often judge monographs on historical narrative, whether they convey the "contingency" of events at the time - - - this to avoid the curse of "presentism" (less elegantly, "retrospective determinism"). Also at WP: Historian's fallacy, we see that military historians use a "fog of war technique" to avoid historian fallacies. Decisions and actions of the commander are evaluated by "what that person knew at the time" at each instant, not by the unknown developments in the future. Fischer referred to the pioneering work of Douglas Southall Freeman in his biographies of Robert E. Lee and George Washington. Both Pulitzer Prize winning David McCullough and Doris Kearns Goodwin have endorsed the writer's contingency technique for successful books during TV interviews on writing and history.

3. For the immediate purpose at hand, at David Hackett Fisher we see he wrote WP (book): Washington's Crossing, which in turn offers another lead for my draft Aftermath Section narrative on post-war Veteran citizenship and enfranchisement: "The Americans' policy of humanity to their defeated opponents was so attractive that large numbers of the Hessian enemy stayed in America, and more returned with their families following the war." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

- p.s. Philip Jenkins here, describing nine of the juiciest fallacies, nominates Historians’ Fallacies as a classic to be re-read, and he also recommends David Henige, Historical Evidence and Argument (2005). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• The 'Treaties of Versailles' section has been summarized and markedly reduced in size. We are now down to 107k of readable prose. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit: "Colonial response"

point-by-point discussion here]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

2. MOVE two paragraphs from “Colonial response” to “Analysis of combatants” #United States/ce, one para to #George Washington’s roles/ce, one para to #Soldiers and sailors “/ce. here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

3. ce remaining two paragraphs here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

4. ce “Background” section subtitles, minor ce here.

posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Without loss of any citations, total cut of over 400 words per Word documents, including the ce to paragraphs moved. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit: "War breaks out (1775-1776)"

Copy edit to clarify and trim 350 words here, without loss of citations. Right justify image for viewers with disabilities, ce captions to 1-2 lines. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit: "Colonial response"

point-by-point discussion here]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

2. MOVE two paragraphs from “Colonial response” to “Analysis of combatants” #United States/ce, one para to #George Washington’s roles/ce, one para to #Soldiers and sailors “/ce. here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

3. ce remaining two paragraphs here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

4. ce “Background” section subtitles, minor ce here.

posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Without loss of any citations, total cut of over 400 words per Word documents, including the ce to paragraphs moved. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit: "War breaks out (1775-1776)"

Copy edit to clarify and trim 350 words here, without loss of citations. Right justify image for viewers with disabilities, ce captions to 1-2 lines. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit "Political reactions"

Copy edit for clarity and trim 60 words without loss of citations here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Formatting error

There is a formatting error in the middle of the article that I am not experienced enough to fix. I wanted to call attention to an editor more experienced than I am to fix.

I think that may have been caused by the capricious and indiscriminate disruption in the article earlier this week. I have three more RESTORE posts to repair the wp:bully's deletions, which I hope to complete by Sunday...sorry, real life intervenes, and it takes precedence over, the hobby. Thanks for your interest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

For new arrivals and returning editors

Once again, the discussions continue to take on new topics which often occur in the middle of existing discussions. Some of the latest discussions can be found here, here, and here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV tag

From the beginning there was no consensus or initial discussion for the NPOV tag that was twice deposited in this article by one individual editor. However, at the time there was still little to no coverage for a number of central American figures in the article, and as such the NPOV was actually appropriate, in spite of the intentions of the depositing editor. Since then adequate coverage has been afforded to figures like Lafayette, Paul Revere, Jefferson, Parker, et al, and as such the NPOV tag is no longer appropriate. The entire article should not be tagged because of the misgivings of one apparently disgruntled editor who has largely ignored the well reasoned and sourced explanations. The issues at hand have been addressed at length with an array of sources brought to the table to back them up. Over the last few weeks a good number of editors have chimed in who expressed dismay over the previous British-centric leaning to the article. Other editors were notified at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history about the disagreements, but none of them have chimed in since the appeal was submitted more than a month ago. Seems it's time to remove the ill inspired retaliatory npov tag and move on, as, at this late date, there is only a singular consensus for it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The NPOV issue is still present, given that the article is now even more slanted against events in the war that occurred outside of North America than it was before.XavierGreen (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus or literary substance in the article to support that notion. Many events that occurred outside the mainland are indeed covered -- certainly not all of them, as was once the case when this article had two sections for India, two sections for Europe etc. We've been through this time and again for you. The article is about the war for/against independence. Hence, we cover the war, with brief mention about the events that occurred before during and after that war. It's a wonder that the International war breaks out section is still as large as it is. It seems you've made it clear that you will never be happy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your and TVH's vision of this article's scope directly conflicts with the vast majority of scholarship on the subject. For example, your instance that no events in India or the Indian Ocean were part of the American Revolutionary War, that the campaign in the West Indies was not part of the war, your assertions that Spain was not a belligerent in the war ect. Your collective multitude of comments on this talk page make it plainly evident that there is an NPOV issue, and simply stating over and over gain that there isn't one will do nothing to resolve that problem. I don't know what you two are trying to achieve through your rework of this page, but is pretty plain that the article as you two envision it will fail the GA standard, let alone FA status.XavierGreen (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Blur... There is no consensus for that notion. And your notion that this article was once closer to GA status than it is now is ridiculous. TVH and myself are not the only ones who have made edits in the article, with overwhelming consensus. Let the readers be reminded of your POV/quote: "American independence was merely just one issue..." The idea of American independence was the central issue and why the American Revolution was started. That you fail to grasp such basics only exemplifies how unreasonable you've been all along. Sorry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Nuts!. A month ago I surveyed the thirty RS from your side and challenged every one. There is no answer in over a month in any instance. There is none to make. As one misconstrued author put it, “This is not a history of the American Revolutionary War.”

Citing him, you cannot posit that the British naval strategy in a WORLDWIDE Anglo-French contest for empire meant that the ARW American revolt against Britain for independence in America "spread", "lead", or "caused" a worldwide conflict before and after the ARW in the Anglo-French Second Hundred Years' War 1689-1815, which had seven wars without the help of the ARW. So, NOT.

no RfC link for WP "consensus" here against Britannica In six weeks, NO ONE CAN FIND YOUR “consensus” for GIBRALTAR as the defining moment to determine US independence. The final assault on the British is February 1783, by which time George III announced for US independence December 1782, and the deal was done. Congress formally accepted British offer of territory to the middle of the Mississippi River, in April 1783, and Congress defunded the Army and Navy, disbanding its armies on furlough to be completely decommissioned at the "conclusive" Anglo-US Treaty of Paris (1783).

At Wikipedia, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS that can stand a successful challenge for wp:FRINGE, wp:ERROR or wp:HOAX. The ARW ended with the Anglo-US Treaty of Paris (1783) between them.

- The Ango-French & Spanish War or “Bourbon War” in British RS (1778,9-1783) was contemporaneous with the last two years of fighting in the ARW, but they were (a) NOT caused by the ARW, (b) they were NOT a part of the ARW per se, and (c) the PEACE TREATIES made in the Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles (1783) and the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles (1783) make no reference to US territorial sovereignty to the Mississippi, nor is the US an "equal sovereign nation" signatory to them. Nuts!

You have no RS, you have no reply to my month-old critique. I have tried to find the RfC establishing a consensus here that “Gibraltar is the pivotal event that ended the ARW”, but I cannot. Have you @XavierGreen: tried to find your supposed RfC consensus over the last six weeks.

ADMISSION: With only one or two administrators YES, YOU CAN maneuver a block on this article from attaining an FA rating. But you will fail to blackmail honest editors here to accept your unsubstantiated wp:FRINGE, wp:ERROR and wp:HOAX on the authority of wp:BULLY alone.

Drop your campaign here for the centrality of Gibraltar here at ARW, and stop the wp:BULLY, deleting hours of my research and contribution about “Colonial reaction” etc. because you want more Dutch flags in the Infobox. @XavierGreen: You should use: Spain and Dutch Republic Dutch Republic ,

- and do so WITHOUT further disruption of the article by indiscriminate wholesale deletions of my contributions. You do not enter into reasonable collaboration to advance the article here.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

British Denigration, Harassment, Vandalism, and Revisionism

There are an assortment of pages on Wikipedia in which British editors have been deliberately removing or revising American influence and coverage from the article. I'm simply appalled but sadly not surprised to see that this is one of them.

Why does this page have no mention whatsoever of the ideological reasons for the Revolution? 021120x (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

A separate page exists for the political aspects of the American RevolutionXavierGreen (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@021120x:. Actually, this article briefly covers the reasons and events that led to the actual war for independence, but only in brief summary, as this article primarily lends itself to the battles and such. As pointed out here above there is a dedicated article for the politics, ideologies, etc, that were involved before and during the war. Appreciate your concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@021120x: Your opinion about "British Denigration", perhaps over stated, is not without merit, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

RE: Spain and the Netherlands

I'm actually quite OK with them being listed as belligerents. Though their involvement DIRECTLY to the 13 colonies cause was minimal, they were still tangentially involved nonetheless. My basic US education always made mention, though reduced in importance to France, and speaking anecdotally I have never really seen much resentment towards that. Note that I am aware of the, and careful to avoid the Middle Ground Fallacy (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Argument_to_moderation) however I feel where justified we can make some concession. While I would never support such things as making action concerning Gibraltar integral to the ARW, I could be comfortable with tangential mention of Spain and the Netherlands, while still keeping mind that their issues with GB at the time were concurrent with the ARW, pre-dated the ARW and outlived in some form or fashion the ARW. I appreciate the primary goal here is to both reduce bloat and to excise revisionist history agenda pushing, however if mention of Spain and the Netherlands can be handled succinctly and kept only within the scope of how it related to the subject matter I feel it would have a place. Jersey John (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Well said. As for referring to Spain and the Netherlands as belligerents, I am somewhat flexible at this point, just so long as we are indeed clear about the capacity of their respective involvements. Context and due weight is the key. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

AGREE with if mention of Spain and the Netherlands can be handled succinctly and kept only within the scope of how it related to the subject matter I feel it would have a place . . . if placement in the article narrative "subject matter" is military operations "related to", and NOT "derivative" or "tenuous" to, US independence and sovereignty.

DISAGREE with "quite OK with [Spain & Netherlands] being listed as belligerents in the Infobox BECAUSE they were, as Jersey John, Jros83 says, "tangential" to the ARW when they BOTH failed to join the French-US defensive alliance to guarantee US independence, either when they were invited in 1778 or thereafter . . . and "tangential" does not belong in the Infobox, IMO . . . AND . . . Canute warns of too many qualifying notes in the Infobox violates the MOS . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Whatever looks best I'm all for. Jersey John (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think rather too much weight has been given to the Chávez book. Its biggest flaw is tunnel vision about what Spain was doing to the exclusion of the bigger picture. Chávez has almost nothing to say about the Netherlands, for instance. I'm all for telling the reader that Spain was helpful, but we're making it look too big. Binksternet (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox housekeeping

Dear fellow editors: while we are all here and collegially exchanging ideas to improve the article, I'd like to report some few "housekeeping" Infobox edits that I hope that you will all find uncontroversial. I've placed my hoped-for-uncontroversial intent in bold at each report. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Issue: Copy edit an Infobox note clarify & trim 39 words per Canute, here:

point-by-point discussion :- “The American Revolutionary War was primarily fought by the Thirteen Colonies that became thirteen states independent of British Parliament. June 12, 1776: Virginia allegiance to the Crown was maintained, but in compliance with “the General Congress”, the political rule by “King-in-Parliament” was DISSOLVED. It was replaced by a new Virginia state constitution, “… unless some regular adequate mode of civil polity is speedily adopted”. The new states adopted the "Grand Union Flag" of Congress , taken from the British East India Company, but with its canton turned 90-degrees. Those thirteen states joined in Congress to become the US, declaring independence as "one people", now separated from Great Britain and the British Crown.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Issue: Preexisting Infobox can extend into the article main space, visually disrupting the Introduction. - - See previous discussion by Canute above.

- Partial solution: Infobox ce here to create a one-line Infobox entry for each item,

- by employing three methods. HOWEVER, maintaining the pre-existing edit whenever possible, and without disrupting any citations:

- (1) ce text within existing parentheses; applying standard abbreviations, such as replacing “and” with ampersand “&”, or removing superfluous articles, “the”, etc., or within parentheses text replacing “United States” with “US”, or replacing “(in British West Florida)” with “in Brit. W. Florida”, to meet space requirements for a one-line entry;

- (2) remove (parenthetical) non-essential Infobox text already found in existing note.

point-by-point discussion : - - (a) at aggregate ship losses, removed all parathetical reports of aggregate guns lost already found in cited notes;

- - (b) removed “casualty” text throughout (casualty meaning ‘dead, wounded, and missing’) - the Infobox is titled “Casualties and losses”;

- - (c) removed “lost” in Infox section titled “Casualties and losses”;

- - (d) ce all troop and ship numbers FROM “(total served)” , TO “(total)” throughout;

- - (e) removed date of Infobox data report throughout, which is found in existing citations;

- (3) Additional considerations:

point-by-point discussion : - - (a) used “dead only” consistently throughout, removing “killed" for consistent style.

- - (b) aligned the lengths of the respective Infobox sections to the extent possible.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Restore disruptive vandalism of June 11

To begin documenting forward for any future administrator use:

Following unwarranted personal attacks on me, with repeated accusations in the edit summary again, "Revert disruptive edits by TVH" (sometimes alternating with "blatant NPOV") -- this time concerning my removing the disputed wp:error Infobox flags of foreign war belligerents unrelated to the British-US war over US independence and territory, - - - - discussed at Talk and supported by Britannica but without a reply for a month, other than repeated appeals to "all RS" and an unnamed and unlinked RfC "consensus".

Wholesale deletions of my contributions in the article narrative were made without notice or discussion under the pretext of restoring Infobox flags by the editor in question at 21:29 11 June 2020.

Four linked deletions here] restored with this (no cite changes). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

RESTORED narrative ce at 06:18, 11 June 2020 2. Copy edit here restored with this (no cite changes). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: RESTORED narrative ce at 06:25, 11 June 2020 3. Copy edit here; restored with this (no cite changes). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: RESTORED narrative ce at 16:24, 11 June 2020 4. Copy edit here, - (a) without altering or deleting citations; (b) ce to clarify and trim 350 words; (c) relocating TWO paragraphs previously in “Background”; (d) right justify image for viewers with disabilities, now here.

posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply & discuss

You deleted spain and the Netherlands from the infobox, to which there is plainly no consensus here to do. You are well aware of this, as you've been active on the talk page here.XavierGreen (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait, so I deserve wp:bully? Hey, "Who sent for you?"

(a) Adding Spain and Netherlands as ARW belligerents is wp:FRINGE at best.

The preponderance of reliable scholarship on the topic is reflected in mainstream BRITISH references: Encyclopaedia Britannica at "American Revolutionary War", AND Routledge Publishers, Dictionary of War (1999), “American Revolution (1775-83)”. - - - They do NOT describe the American Revolutionary War as encompassing the geography and battles of other wars in other places - - all concluded in territorial settlements between Britain and belligerents OTHER THAN those engaged in the ARW for or against US independence and sovereignty in America 1775-1783, settled in a GB-US Treaty of Paris (1783), solely between GB and US in America.

(b) Over the six-weeks discussion, repeated reference to an RfC "consensus" without any link to the outcome is unsettling. The "consensus" seems infinitely variable and expandable to refute every argument supporting the BRITISH Encyclopedia Britannica entry, "American Revolutionary War" 1775-1783, between belligerents are (1) US Congress & French alliance for US independence in America, & Indian allies, VERSUS (2) Britain & HRE German auxiliaries to suppress Thirteen Colony rebellion in America, & Indian allies.

Box point-by-point discussion ::1. You did not choose a wp:good faith RESTORE for Spain and Netherlands flags in the Infobox, INSTEAD you chose to delete several hours’ of my work over the course of three days by wp:vandalism and wp:bully. - - - NO NOT delete all my article narrative posts on “Colonial response”, etc., @XavierGreen: use: Spain and Dutch Republic Dutch Republic , without disruption by indiscriminate wholesale deletion.

2. Worldwide, the two premier scholarly references in the English language write articles reflecting the preponderance of mainstream scholarship on the American Revolutionary War.

point-by-point discussion Routledge Publishers, Dictionary of War (1999), “American Revolution (1775-83)”] do NOT describe the American Revolutionary War encompassing the geography and battles of the Anglo-French/Spanish War for Gibraltar, Minorca, India, etc., NOR the Anglo-Dutch War for trade with the US. Those conflicts happen "coincident to", DURING the PERIOD of, the ARW. They were not caused by it, they are not a part of it. - - - The purpose for the belligerents in the ARW is for or against US independence and sovereignty in North America. OTHER purposes served ELSEWHERE are not a part of the ARW. Any contrary proposition is wp:fringe, wp:error, or wp:hoax.

3. In over eight weeks, there is NO link to a mystery “consensus RfC” to support any article wp:fringe, wp:error or wp:hoax, viz:

point-by-point discussion ::FALSE: the AWR had battles at Gibraltar until 1783 and in India until 1784.

But, TRUE: The US sent its armies all on furlough in 1782, and decommissioned its navy, after September 1783, then defunded and formally disbanded the US armies. They were deployed NEITHER to Gibraltar, "the most important outcome for ARW peace" ("all RS say so", not), NOR to India "to establish the Second British Empire". See ... this is where we may be ranging into a wp:hoax, "playing silly buggers" with our kids, as the Brits say on their TV mystery series (UK, Canadian (MURDOCH !) and Australian cultural imperialism in the US).

(1) March 1782, Parliament recommended no offensive action in America; (2) George III ANNOUNCED FOR: US independence and peace December 1782; (3) April 1783, Congress ACCEPTED BRITISH OFFER conceding the four US goals in a peace treaty; (4) CONCLUSIVE PEACE at Treaty of Paris September 1783 and US army & navy defunded & disbanded; (5) NOT wp:notable, diplomats exchange their governments' respective ratifications of previously entered into conclusive peace ratifications sent along by routine sail and courier to Paris by May 1784. It's a "non-event".

4. Undocumented wp:fringe, wp:error or wp:hoax is not "Wikipedia article consensus" nor RS. My 30 RS review four weeks ago here goes unanswered still. Of those put forward by editors to support ARW in Gibraltar and India, only ONE clearly does: Matthew Lockwood (2019).

ON THE OTHER HAND, Mackesy, an RS who is MISCONSTRUED as a "worldwide ARW" source, actually says, “This is not a history of the American War of Independence”, it is a history of British naval strategy in CONFLICTS OF THE SAME PERIOD worldwide, between Britain and the navies of (a) the US, and (b) France, and (c) Spain and (d) Dutch . . . a British naval historian’s distinction that is lost here among editors with personal attacks of NPOV American-centric bias, which is unsupported ad hominem and cumulatively over weeks, WP:BULLY.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

TVH has brought many sources to the table and has expounded at length why Spain and the Netherlands are not actual belligerents as were the French and Hessians. Though I support these edits, no consensus is needed to make edits that reflect well sourced and discussed topics. Moreover, there is no consensus to ignore this material and block it from the article. Besides, there is a general and clear consensus to remedy this hitherto acutely British-centric article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

wp:HOAX, part I

INSERT: I've attempted to remove personal attacks against XavierGreen in this previous posting. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Per "XavierGreen" post above at 15:04, 12 June 2020: [INSERT revision to remove personal attack], XG said US could not make peace with GB until FR & SP let it. - - Well, NOT.

[INSERT revision to remove personal attack], The two principle scholarly references in the English language worldwide do not include Dutch, Spanish or French wars with Britain elsewhere at different times in different places from the US in America AT ALL in their coverage of the "American Revolutionary War (1775-1783)", see (1) Encyclopaedia Britannica, and (2) Routledge Publishers, Dictionary of War 1999, “American Revolution (1775-83)”. .

Congress was not funded by France so it could conquer Gibraltar for Spain. (1) The US as a sovereign nation could wage war and make peace of its own accord in its own time: it did so at the Peace of Paris (1783). The US sought and accepted from the British, territory to the Mississippi River, WITHOUT awaiting French permission, whose US western border ended at the Appalachian Mountains. US sovereign territory did NOT await a determination by the Court of France, ... the GB-US peace treaty was signed BEFORE and WITHOUT the French, as a matter of verifiable historical fact,.

(2) France was likewise sovereign, apart from Spain. France made peace separately with Britain in the Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles (1783) BEFORE the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles (1783) ... the sovereign French did so WITHOUT conquering Gibraltar as it was treaty-bound do do BEFORE making peace with SPAIN ... as a matter of verifiable historical fact.

INSERT - withdrawn: A Wikipedia administrator should investigate whether XavierGreen is simply promoting his 2019 book as a sock-puppet or stalking horse or something for Matthew Lockwood self-promoting this wp:FRINGE flight-of-fancy, suggesting that the ARW "led to" (caused) the destruction of the aboriginal civilization in Australia BECAUSE the ARW "led to" (caused) the Second British Empire. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As Mark G. Spencer observed in his Lockwood review at Modern History, For all the book's story-telling strengths positing unintended consequences coincident to the times, “Lockwood risks creating links rather than uncovering them.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have never written a book of any kind, and the only published work I have any sort of credit in is on the subject of criminal law which has literally nothing to do with this article. I have cited a multitude of different works above, making asinine baseless allegations that I am somehow promoting a particular author or a sock puppet is quite plainly disruptive behavior.XavierGreen (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen, A D Monroe III, and Gwillhickers: I withdraw my suggestion for an administrator to look into any XavierGreen connection to Lockwood, who likewise "may be creating links rather then uncovering them" as the reviewer says.

Nevertheless, despite his last post here, as a point of personal privilege, I would like to observe rather more dispassionately, that (1) I have not found any XG reference to an RS at all in six weeks, using only the term, "all RS". (2) In six weeks XG HAS NOT found a link to the RfC at this ARW Talk to overturn my BRITISH scholarly references linked at Britannica and Routledge defining the ARW as between GB & allies v. US & allies, 1775-1783 in America, and them alone. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)