Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Belligerents

Since the United States is the successor of the Thirteen Colonies, can we merge them together in the infobox, like "Thirteen Colonies/United States", or just omit Thirteen Colonies as the rest of the infobox does, as having them listed separately seems kind of awkward, as if the article is suggesting that they were not related.--Roastedturkey (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The Thirteen Colonies are listed separately because they were called that prior to the war, called U.S. after they declared independence. It is customary to make that sort of distinction in infoboxes; cf. England vs. Great Britain. Apart from that, I am not clear on what you are requesting above. —Dilidor (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't understand why you are confused; I think my argument speaks for itself. The infobox should either list "Thirteen Colonies/United States" or just "United States". Since the Thirteen Colonies banded together to form the United States, they are basically the same belligerent, so they should be listed together. Can you provide links to support your claim that they should be listed separately? --Roastedturkey (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Telling me that "my argument speaks for itself" is not the slightest bit helpful. If someone says "I do not understand what you mean", you most certainly do not help that person understand more clearly by saying "I can't understand why you are confused".

It appears that you want the infobox to say "Thirteen Colonies/United States" instead of "Thirteen Colonies before 1776" and "United States after 1776". I explained above why it is conventional to list both titles by which the belligerent was known. They were never known as "Thirteen Colonies/United States".

And your final sentence in your original post just leaves me stymied. Sorry, but I really don't understand what you mean there.

Finally, you should not keep reverting your edit until there is some discussion here. And I mean discussion including others, not just you and me. —Dilidor (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, let me try to rephrase my argument; I am saying that since the United States is the successor to the Thirteen Colonies, it would be incorrect to list them as separate belligerents. If "Thirteen Colonies/United States" sounds awkward, we can simply omit "Thirteen Colonies" from the infobox, leaving only "United States", and perhaps include a note that mentions that before July 4, 1776, they were known as the Thirteen Colonies. You might as well ignore the top post by now.

You did not provide any links for your argument like I asked you to. Please do that.

How long exactly am I supposed to wait for discussion? I waited for a day, but you must have in mind a week or something. Wikipedia progresses much slower if we wait that long. The edit stood for days without objection, but you somehow came to the absurd conclusion that no one objected to my argument because they could not understand it, and they decided to not bother with it.

Somewhat unrelated, but I noticed that you, apparently accidentally, reverted an unrelated(that is, unrelated to the edit we are discussing) edit of mine by using Twinkle. Please be cautious when using tools like this and restore that edit(unless you have a problem with that too). --Roastedturkey (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't mind the quick change (though I agree that it was maybe a bit too quick) as being bold is something we do at WP. However, now that Dilidor has raised his objections this needs to be discussed.

If I'm reading this right (and correct me if I'm wrong) Roastedturkey is arguing that having the Thirteen Colonies listed as a belligerent in the infobox is somehow extraneous or awkward. I disagree with this, as it took some time after the first shots were fired before the Declaration of Independence was created, essentially creating the US. So as it currently stands, with "Thirteen Colonies (before 1776)" and "United States (after 1776)" seems to me to be appropriate. Given the fact that Thirteen Colonies was chosen to be included in the lead in the above discussion, it makes sense to leave it in the infobox, imo. Vyselink (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

You don't have quite the right idea i'm afraid. I am not arguing that listing the Thirteen Colonies is unnecessary, but that they should be included alongside the United States, not separately. This is because the United States is the successor to the Thirteen Colonies, and listing them separately would make it seem that they had no real relation to one another. Also, simply saying before and after 1776 is rather vague, because who would be fighting during 1776? I think my second proposal is better; we should only list the United States since it was the political entity for most of the war while including a note that specifies that before July 4, 1776, the Thirteen Colonies were the belligerent instead. This is done similarly on the War of the Spanish Succession with Great Britain and England and Scotland. --Roastedturkey (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to find an example of a listing re: Great Britain where it lists both "England" and "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" or whatnot. I'd thought that the American Revolution article had it that way, but it uses a different template. I'm out of time today but will endeavor to find an example when I next have time. You'll notice that the article on War/Spanish Succession uses it both ways, providing an explanatory note and using the "until XXX" and "from YYY" format. Given all the recent discussion above re: United Colonies and 13 Colonies, I do think it's worthwhile to list both. However, if we can't get both in, I'd not object to just "United States"—just not "Thirteen Colonies/United States" which I took to be the meaning of the original question. Apologies if I have misunderstood. —Dilidor (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

If you fail to find an example by Friday, I will simply make the edit as no one seems to care about this and I am getting tired of waiting. Also, your assertion regarding the WotSS appears to be false, unless you are referring to the other belligerents, in which case this article already uses a similar format, though it probably should not be hidden. --Roastedturkey (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Vyselink position and Dilidor first statement. They should both remain listed as they are now.   // Timothy :: talk  20:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a debate or make any edits, but I've always found it quite awkward and less readable to list both. In part this goes back to the discussion over what to call the 13 colonies (see above), but it also has to do with essentially naming the same entity twice. Yes, formal independence was declared a year into the war, but it was the same 13 colonies that did so, plus some Mountain Boys from Vermont. Making the distinction between pre-independent United Colonies and the post-independent United States seems like too much hair-splitting for an infobox. There's plenty of space for that in the article, it doesn't need to be in the Infobox. As a comparison, the American Civil War article doesn't split up the belligerents into different categories every time a state (or group of counties within a state) switched sides. It's enough to simply summarize and say it was the USA vs CSA. I'd prefer we did that here, too; but like I said, I'm not going to bother getting into long arguments about it, I'm just speaking my 2½￠. Canute (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The war began before the Declaration of Independence and before United States came into being. They were 13 colonies in 1775 and the Declaration did not create the United States. It says:

and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

The Declaration created 13 free independent individual states. They were united, but what "united" actually meant took a long time to agree on. If there is a change to be made, I would be in favor of changing the date to when the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union went into effect instead of 1776. This was the point they agreed to a union, not before it. They were 13 separate belligerents when the war started and became a single belligerent at some point afterward, I think that point was when the Articles of Confederation came into effect,   // Timothy :: talk  02:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, that's hair splitting we don't need in the Infobox. If the average person said the war was between the UK and the US, they'd be correct. That's all we need in the Infobox. The details can be explained in the article and debated elsewhere. For example, the US dates their origins to the July 1776 declaration. You can make sound arguments otherwise, but that sort of historical debate isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. We need to focus on generally accepted history.Canute (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

We should stay with WP:RS not opinions about what is "generally accepted history" or what the "average person" believes. What the "average person" believes or what is "generally accepted" is very often wrong. The point about "hair splitting" is begging the question. Yopienso offered a reasonable compromise below.   // Timothy :: talk  16:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me, I didn't say that you're wrong. The question is not about opinions or reliable sources, it's about the level of detail appropriate for the Infobox.Canute (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarity. Please add your input on YoPienso suggestion below.   // Timothy :: talk  20:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I like the cleanness of just saying "United States," and LOVE the footnote that explains that the United States started out as Thirteen Colonies. Here's the diff of my preferred format. YoPienso (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the footnote suggestion is a good compromise. I would prefer "...that would unite to form the United States of America during the war." It is accurate and avoids the differences about when the United States came into existence. I think Roastedturkey, Dilidor, and Vyselink should have a chance to comment before a change is made.   // Timothy :: talk  04:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes and yes. The footnote could be tweaked into a periodic sentence: "...that would unite during the war to form the United States of America." YoPienso (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I like the footnote idea. If I could throw in my two and a half cents, I think it should say something to the effect of "The war was initiated and fought by the Thirteen Colonies before 1776, when they would unite to form the United States of America." Vyselink (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The reasons I think "The war was initially fought by the Thirteen Colonies that united during the war to form the United States of America" is best are: (1) The war was arguably initiated by the British at Lexington and Concord. (2) The infobox doesn't need a precise date, which we don't have, anyway. (When did the colonies unite? The Constitution wasn't written until several years after the war, but the colonies were at least loosely united long before that. The Albany Plan of Union was an early attempt. Then there was the Stamp Act Congress, followed by the First Continental Congress. I would credit the Second Continental Congress with unification since it produced the DOI and the Articles of Confederation. En fin, just when and how the colonies united is way too complex an issue for a brief footnote. They united sufficiently "during the war" to win it, and that's what matters. All the uniting wasn't done by politicians, either, but by the military experience of lumping men together to obey officers from other colonies. Etc., etc.) YoPienso (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I may have been tired when I wrote that as I know full well the colonies didn't initiate the war. Your suggestion works for me. Vyselink (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Footnote works for me. Please say "...that united during the war..." rather than "...that would unite...". Minor quibble, I know. Otherwise, I'm on board. —Dilidor (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've moved Thirteen Colonies into the footnote suggested by YoPienso, as it appears that we've reached consensus on this. —Dilidor (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

_______________

Why are the Netherlands and the kingdom of Mysore listed as co-belligerents rather than belligerents? Wandavianempire (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Separation or independence

@Dilidor:, please reconsider your changes to what I still consider my improvements of Feb. 9 in the "Political reactions" subsection in the "Course of the war" section.

I wasn't party to any discussion on secession, which must be in the archives. Here I inserted the term "Declaration of Independence," which, surprisingly, did not appear even once in the article (although there's a link to it at the beginning on the subsection). For the sake of style, I felt replacing the common noun "declaration" with "separation" was better. Using the terms synonymously is supported by good sources; see the DOI itself: "should declare the causes which impel them to the separation" and "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation."

I can find no source that says Washington himself read the DOI to his troops, which your wording suggests. Fischer, the source given, says Washington ordered it "to be read with an audible voice," and, "The Declaration was read at the head of each brigade." (In the same paragraph Fischer notes,"every one seemed highly pleased that we were separated from a King. . ." My underscore.) It doesn't specify who read it. All other sources I've consulted say GW had it read, and some say townspeople joined the soldiers for the reading. Maier, p. 156, implies each brigade heard it read separately from its own copy. Likewise, one Mary Stockwell, Ph.D., in a piece at MountVernon.org. (not the highest quality source) says "brigadiers and colonels" read the DOI to their men. On p. 137 of 1776 McCullough refers to the "formal readings," plural, to the troops on July 9.

I won't fuss about deleting "citizens" from the auditors of the readings, even though I believe there were, in fact citizens present; the event was quite unorderly. But we should note the soldiers equally participated in tearing down the statue, per Fischer, McCullough, and many others.

John K. Jessup, in a 1943 issue of Life magazine, wrote of the Tories' denunciation of American's failure to apply the DOI to slaves. Not the best source, but not the worst, either. I prefer to use "citation needed" rather than delete a fact. Someone could find a better source. That statement could perhaps be moved to a more appropriate place in the article.

Thanks for your consideration, YoPienso (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Yopienso: I was attempting to mediate what appeared to be a dispute twixt several editors concerning the wording there. It seems to be a bit of a hairsplitting whether Washington literally sat atop his horse and read the Declaration himself, or simply ordered that it be read to the troops. In many contexts, an order given is treated as though the party carrying out the order is the one who gave the order in proxy. Thus, "Washington read the Declaration" can mean that he literally read it, or that he ordered others to read it. Nevertheless, rewording it to "Washington had it read" is perfectly acceptable. I seem to recall that someone was arguing that it wasn't read at all, which is not accurate. But perhaps I misunderstood the contention on that point.

There is no doubt that citizens were in the area and heard it read, also. Yet I had the impression that someone was suggesting that no private citizens were in the audience. Again, I was merely attempting to smooth the wording to resolve what I perceived to be a contention. Once again, I might have misapprehended the situation.

There was a lengthy and heated debate concerning whether or not the War of Independence could be considered a civil war, a war of secession. I'm not sure if it was this article or the other American Revolutionary War article—though I rather think it was this one. It would be in the archives someplace, a dusty region with which I have no familiarity.

I'm not averse to putting in the thing about Tories and slavery. There certainly were voices pointing out that contradiction. I might have been hasty in removing it, not allowing enough time for others to provide a citation. —Dilidor (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Average vs Peak

Quick question, in the stats column under belligerents, why are we seeing a lower, average number for the rebels but peak for the British? Surely it should either be ‘average’ for both sides or ‘peak’ for both sides? Roland Of Yew (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Content of american revolutionary war page

A portion of the information concerning Washington's N.Y. campaign is open to debate. The article states that on October 28, 1776, Howe, rather than attack Washington's center, concentrated instead on a small inconsequential hill. This was the battle of White Plains. The hill in question is called Chatterton's Hill and it overlooked the left of Howe's line. The hill had been reinforced early in the day when Washington recognized its strategic importance. With the bulk of Washington's forces concentrated slightly northeast of the hill, Howe realized that a direct assault on Washington's center would leave his left exposed to a flanking maneuver and made the decision to clear the hill before attacking Washington's center. The 3 pronged attack on Chatterton's Hill began at around 1 pm and, after fierce action, the hill was taken sometime between 3 and 4 pm. Estimates put total casualties at around 250. Howe then decided it was too late in the day to attack the main of Washington's army, and made preparations for early action the following day. That evening heavy rains began that lasted for several days. Washington used his good fortune to fall back into the hills north of White Plains and dig into a well fortified position. When the rains ended, Howe tented the position for a few days, then, finding it too difficult a proposition, moved back south to take the two forts he had left in his wake. RCelentano (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

What are your proposed changes? Vyselink (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Native Americans/American Indians

Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but should the infobox read "Native Americans" rather than "American Indians"? I'm not discussing this in a PC way (just to shut down that argument) but rather because the PAGE that it is linked to is "Native Americans in the United States". I'm of the opinion that we should try to follow the naming convention of the page whenever we can. Also, on a side note, I've changed the link so that it directly links to the "18th century" subsection of the page, which is where the relevant section on the ARW is. Vyselink (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"Native Americans" would probably be less confusing, so I believe it should. --Roastedturkey (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a lot of strong opinions on the Native American name controversy and we won't solve it here. I agree that it's easiest to simply follow the naming convention of the article you're linking to, especially in the introduction and infobox. There's a counter argument I've seen in some books that purposefully use the common terms of the era, but we don't need to get that deep in a Wikipedia article. Canute (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Info Box: add British West Indies, and The Floridas to belligerents like Quebec

Per the request when you open the editing box, any objection to adding British West Indies and The Floridas in the belligerents list, like Quebec is? For West Indies, see eg. Encyclopedia of the American Revolution: Library of Military History for Floridas, see eg., [1] [2]. If they are put there, with or without an inline cite? My suggestion is just add without inline but either way is fine, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

We should be careful about how much we cram into the infobox. I don't think we can or should list every British colony; it should be understood at some basic level that this was an imperial war, and Great Britain would naturally bring the force of their empire to the fight. By the same token, we don't list the individual colonies that rebelled, we just list "United States." I do agree with you that we need to be consistent, I just want to err on the side of succinctness in the infobox. I'm not sure what exactly makes an individual colony worth listing, but it's a good question. Canute (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Canute that we should err on the side of succinctness. I also question what role the Floridas actually had in the war. Perhaps the better solution would be to cull out some of the lesser ones that are presently listed, including Quebec, whose role was largely defensive and who would fall under the British umbrella anyway. —Dilidor (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I was wondering if there was a page for the list of belligerents for the Revolution? I noticed in the "Commanders and Leaders" section the link to this page. Is there not a similar page for belligerents we could link to? And if not, should we maybe create one? Vyselink (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done This discussion has been idle for more than a week, and it appears that consensus was reached. Therefore, I have edited the infobox to remove lesser combatants. I also realized that this impinged on other areas of the box, such as strength of forces, and thus removed those which corresponded. If anyone is disgruntled, please do not revert; resume this discussion if needed. —Dilidor (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

While I do agree that dependencies (like Quebec) should be removed from the infobox, independent belligerents should not, even if they are minor. Articles need to be comprehensive with their subject in all areas, except areas that have their own sub–articles. People can determine that Quebec belonged to Great Britain by viewing a map or just reading the article, but belligerents like Vermont or Mysore would not be so obvious; it would be difficult, if not impossible to determine that they were in the war. Thus, unless you want to create a page about the belligerents of this war, we should leave these belligerents in the infobox. --Roastedturkey (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles need to be comprehensive, infoboxes do not. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but there should be some easy–to–access list of all the belligerents. --Roastedturkey (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggested that we create such a page up above. I have never created a page and therefore would not be the best person to do so. Can any of you create it and then I can help edit? Vyselink (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Creating a page isn't all that different from regular editing, but I may do it if you like. --Roastedturkey (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here it is: Belligerents of the American Revolutionary War. Let me know if you need any help. --Roastedturkey (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Roastedturkey. The page has been moved to a draft page by an admin. Here's the link now: Draft:Belligerents of the American Revolutionary War. Vyselink (talk)

Just to be clear, I am fully on board with the idea of creating an article to catalog the belligerents. --Roastedturkey (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Mysore?

I just read the Mysore page (they are listed under belligerents in the infobox). While they obviously had a war (the Second Anglo-Mysore War) that was in part sparked by the ARW, I don't believe that they should be included in belligerents of the ARW in the infobox as they appear to have sent neither soldiers nor money to either of the belligerent sides. The fact that they decided to war independently with GB during the ARW, essentially taking advantage of the fact that GB was already fighting one war, doesn't mean they should be included here. Vyselink (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

And by "here" I mean the infobox as a belligerent. Their war is notable enough to be included in the International War Breaks out section, as it already is. Vyselink (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that seems to be a separate conflict entirely. --Roastedturkey (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the reason why I removed it previously, along with the Floridas and other impertinent inclusions. I have previously argued, in fact, that "international war breaks out" is an entirely misleading header, and much of the content of that section is actually not pertinent to the American Revolution. Yes, England found itself at war with other nations around the world, but those conflicts are not related either to the United Colonies/States or to the American Revolutionary War. I know, another topic for another discussion, but emphatically endorsing its removal from the infobox. —Dilidor (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The American Revolutionary War is primarily about the Kingdom of Great Britain fighting against the Kingdom of France and its allies. A connection to the United States is not needed. The Americans were minor players in the war. Dimadick (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow. That is the most ludicrous statement I've heard in a long time. So.... what? The Kingdom of France started a war against Britain in Concord and Lexington? And the American spectators thought it looked like great fun and decided to join in? —Dilidor (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of Dimadick's completely nonsensical assertion that somehow the United States were a "minor" player in their own war, Mysore is not a belligerent and does not belong. Vyselink (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm or something like it. But yeah, there's some grey area. There are state actors that directly supported the United States or the United Kingdom with their own military / people. There are states that supported one or the other financially or by some other non-military means. There are those that took advantage of Great Britain's situation to launch their own effort (only tangentially related to the ARW). And then there are those conflicts that just happened to exist around the same time, with no relation at all to ARW. Canute (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps it was intentional irony and I was just too obtuse to detect it. I hope so, anyway. —Dilidor (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, I do not believe there is any sort of sarcasm going on here. If you check the archives, you can find another editor who wanted France to be listed above the United States in the infobox. --Roastedturkey (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2020

Change 'Indians' in caption of Boston Tea Party to 'Native Americans' due to the racial insensitivity of the derogatory term 'Indians' as historical terminology not relevantJONOnonoo (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Maintain consistent and historical terminology. —Dilidor (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the request, but I'm with Dilidor on this one. See the conversation above. People have been arguing about this for a long time, but it's not a "derogatory" term as much as a geographical error. I'd support the use of "Native Americans" simply because it's more in line with other Wikipedia articles, but "Indians" was the normal (and one of the nicer) terms at the time, and some American Indian groups still prefer it. I wouldn't semi-protect this article over it. Let's stay out of that controversy as much as we can. Canute (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Dilidor and Canute. Besides, many Indians resent the term "Native American", a term given to them by white politicians in an attempt to look good in front of their constituents. Most Indians prefer to be referred to by their tribal names. Since that is not practical for purposes of this article we use the common term that most of the sources, throughout history, have used. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Three editors have objected to this change which means it cannot be processed in an edit Request. Edit requests are for non-controversial changes only. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources and citations need much work

If this article is ever to become a Good Article, and ultimately, a Featured Article, (which at this late date should of occurred to this corner–stone and major–subject article long ago) much work will have to be done organizing the citations and sources. Currently there is approximately 130 Cite Book, Cite Web, Cite News and other such templates mixed in with the text, not to mention more than 200 website addresses, also mixed in with the text. The article is using several types of citation conventions, while other cites are completely 'free-style'. Some of the citations are really footnotes and belong under the Notes section. There are more sources, by far, listed in the middle of the text than there are in the Bibliography. Needless to say, it is very difficult to navigate through and distinguish the text from the mark up, as it's all run together. We can begin the cleanup by moving the citation templates from the text to the Bibliography, and adding and linking the citations to them by adding the |ref= parameter to the templates. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Klbrain: Thanks for your interest. Work is being done so that all the citations follow one convention, or style, where each citation will link up to the source listing in the Bibliography. Previously, and still, many of the citations employ different styles, some are completely 'free-style' as is explained above. If the article is ever going to reach GA or FA status, all citations need to adhere to one convention. See: consistent citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of this discussion; I had noticed that the formats were inconsistent, and I don't agree with your choice of coherent style, but am satisfied that if you're putting the work in then it's better to use this consistent style rather than maintaining the mix. What confuses me about the format you're using is that by linking directly to the bibliography you remove the relevance of the reference list ... this redundancy doesn't seem to be helpful. Klbrain (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The citation links to the source listing so that a reader can go directly to the source. I'm not seeing how this would remove the relevance of the reference list. The Citations gives us the simple info, i.e.author's name(s), year and page number(s). The sources in the Bibliography gives us the basic stuff but everything else. This makes for an easy to read citation listing. Before, and still, there was, and still is, much of everything tucked into many of the citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No citations in the lede?

Many articles employ the 'no citations in the lede' convention on the grounds that their topics are covered in detail in the body of the text with citations.  e.g. Articles for George Washington, Admiral Nelson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Benjamin Harrison, all Featured or Good Articles, have no cites in their ledes. Since most of the statements in the lede for this article have no citations and similarly have their topics covered in the body of the text with citations, and since only a few of the lede statements have citations, it would seem we should simply employ this convention here. If there is more than a marginal consensus for this I'll remove the citations in the lede, while making sure lede statements are covered in the text with citations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur with this. One of my pet peeves (in my Peeve Zoo) is an intro that is cluttered with citations. Another pet peeve is spelling it "lede". But please do remove them. —Dilidor (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I also concur, so long as the information is cited elsewhere in the article. We'll need to confirm that as part of the cleanup. Canute (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

What about refs and footnotes in the infobox? I recognize that some need to be there for clarification, but the one on this article has an over-abundance. Can those be thinned out in the process? —Dilidor (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha, I wonder if that's because we all argue so much about the infobox?Canute (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a minimum (it not zero) citations should be used in the lead unless somehow that information is not cited in the body. Infobox as well I would like to see trimmed a bit. Vyselink (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Any statement made in the lede, or lead, should be expanded on in greater detail in the body of the text. If there's nothing said in the main text about a topic mentioned in the lede there's a fair chance the statement/topic is not lede worthy in the first place. — Cites in the info box? That's sort of a tough call, as many of the details should be cited, however, that there's so many of these details it does beg the question. Seems we would be creating a major citation issue if we simply got rid of all the cites in the info box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• After waiting a bit longer and making sure all lede (lead) statements are mentioned and cited in the main text, I'll remove the cites in the lede, that is, if someone doesn't beat me to it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Have hidden the citations in the lede, still present in the markup for reference. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate off topic section

The Final years of ?the? war (1781–1783) section has a title that's completely inappropriate. "...the war..."? What was America doing between 1781-1783? This section, with its subsections, Europe, Americas and India, doesn't even mention America. Not once. It covers engagements that have nothing to do with the American war for independence. On retrospect I am compelled to change my position and now am in complete agreement with @Vyselink and Dilidor: that the section should be removed in its entirety. Either that or it needs to be completely rewritten inasmuch that it should only cover events directly related to the American war for Independence, and in brief summary. Currently the section makes no connection between the Revolution and the events that are covered, which I suppose is par, because there is no connection to speak of. Most of the material in this section would do well in an article entitled British naval exploits (1781-1783). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Another off topic section

The International war breaks out (1778–1780) section should be renamed British involvements outside of America. (Tongue in cheek) This section has the same identical subsections i.e. Europe, Americas and India, as does the section discussed above. This section also does not mention America once. These two sections largely cover the same British and Franco-Spanish naval involvements and other British engagements. Currently this article has approximately six pages devoted to British naval involvements outside America, with no mention of America, let alone the American Revolutionary War. This section also needs to be removed or completely rewritten in terms of the American Revolution. Any topic not directly connected to the Revolution needs to be put in context or removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I have just rewrote and condensed this section, while tying it in with the subject of this article with this opening statement – "By 1778 Britain's resources to fight a war in America became compromised when she became involved in the Anglo-French War and other conflicts around the globe, especially with France and Spain. " complete with citations and sources, now listed in the bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

American Indian v Native American

• @JoeWiki1969:, Thanks for your concern, however this issue has been discussed before, last month. It's really sort of a narrow assumption that the term 'American Indian' automatically is some sort of offensive term. Most Indians prefer to be referred to by their Tribal names anyway. Also, the term 'Native American', a term invented by apologetic white politicians, is also sort of offensive to non Indian peoples who were born in American and whose parents, grand parents, etc were also born in America. To not include these people is to say they are native to no country. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Food for thought: Michael Yellow Bird, whose ancestors go back centuries on the American continent, wrote an essay in the American Indian Quarterly that Indigenous peoples do not consider themselves one monolithic racial society that can be coined with one label, much less a naive modern day label, and identify with their Tribal names foremost. He too considers the term "Native American" a politically correct invention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

The issues on this Talk page have been addressed and rebuffed, repeatedly, by a good number of editors, yet we now have a neutrality tag. It was asked several times that any items involving Britain's other global involvements outside America during the American Revolutionary War which need further coverage in this article be specifically brought to light here on the Talk page and backed up with sources that substantiate any such issues in definitive and no uncertain terms that connect such conflicts directly to the actual American Revolutionary War. This has yet to happen. In light of that, and at this juncture, outside opinion is welcomed, after a thorough examination of the 'talk' that has transpired thus far. On the Template removal page it says, in the When to remove NPOV tag section -- "When the issue has been adequately addressed" the tag may be removed. The issues in question have been addressed repeatedly and reasonably. Yet we've seen no proposals, or sources, that substantiate, in definitive terms, any proposals. The tagging of this article appears underhanded for lack of any explanation that goes beyond repetitive conjecture, which has routinely skirted the points outlined. e.g.Nearly all the major and established sources on the American Revolutionary War have little to nothing to say about Britain's other involvements about the globe during this war, yet it seems we are expected to cover the e.g. Mysore War with the same weight and coverage as we do for the Battles of Long Island, Saratoga and Yorktown, battles that were explicitly fought for American independence, which led to Britain's surrender at Yorktown. This article already has a large International war breaks out section that covers in summary Britain's other global involvements, but apparently this is not good enough for a couple of editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

These issues have not been adequeately addressed, and in fact they've gotten worse. User:TheVirginaHistorian has made several recent edits which have removed more references to events outside North America, and has removed most of the remaining references to the war in India. The tag should remain, as the dispute continues.XavierGreen (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: These issues have been thoroughly discussed in the section above.

This is apparent by the natural light of reason in editor wp:good faith: There is no war when the armies go away and there is no fight. There is no American Revolutionary War with no American army extant anywhere in the world. After American independence was secured from Britain, imperial armed forces withdrew from US port cities, the commander in chief of the Continental Army resigned with no replacement, and all field armies of Congress were disbanded.

All hostilities that CAN be characterized as "war" cease between Britain and the US at American Independence in the Treaty of Paris (1783) between them. That is, PRIOR to cessation of hostilities among the armed forces of Great Britain, France, Spain, Netherlands, and their allies, surrogates and puppets, worldwide.

RS do NOT write of the 1783-1785 raids between Iroquois (British ARW allies) and Onieda (US ARW allies) as "part of the American Revolutionary War", nor any frackas in subcontinent India that takes place between British and French allies, surrogates or puppets elsewhere in the world after the disbanding of the Continental Army . . .

BECAUSE those conflicts ARE NOT aimed at the US Congress, territory, citizens or property, to further or to hinder the cause of American independence by war, the subject of this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Unaddressed issues

Xavier, providing adequate citations is not a POV issue. Why didn't you simply add the citations, or at least address them specifically? The issues were addressed at length before your recent and abrupt arrival. Please review the talk involving Lord Cornwallis. If anyone has not addressed, and outright avoided, issues it would be the pair of you.

Issues that have been repeatedly avoided :

• The theme of any article is established in the lede, esp the first and opening sentences: i.e."The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was fought primarily between the Kingdom of Great Britain and her Thirteen Colonies in America ..."

• Mysore War. At the Treaty of Paris (1783), Sept. 3, 1783, the Revolutionary War officially ended. If the Mysore War was part of the Revolution, why did fighting in India continue into the next year?

• Before the cleanup there were two sections for India, two for the Americas and two for Europe, some eleven pages (!), as discussed, all devoted to Britain's other global involvements, which were filled with dozens of remote links.

• The lede mentioned an event like Gibraltar, twice, while major events like the Battle of Bunker Hill, Valley Forge, Battle of Long Island, Battle of Saratoga, and others were not mentioned.

• The titles of many major battles were hidden in piped links. e.g.the Battle of Fort Washington was hidden in a piped link and was merely referred to as an "American fortification".

• Any event should be covered in proportion to how the vast majority of sources cover them. Certainly there are a few sources on the Revolution that mention Gibraltar and Mysore, in passing, but they do not mention all such events as this article attempted to do.

• We have a very large section already devoted to Britain's other global involvements. In fact I suspect it won't be long before another editor sees this huge section as a serious due-weight issue.

We were reminded by an uninvolved editor that there was "nothing that justifies a charge POV editing". Yet on top of that, and in spite of all the issues you have avoided, we're still listening to accusations about an American pov and have to endure your rather hostile and abrupt edits, first with your massive reversion and now with your unjustified and disruptive tagging. It would have been much more considerate to all if you simply pointed out any sources/citations you feel are needed, along with any other fair suggestions and moved on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

My involvement in editing this page is neither recent nor abrupt, as I stated before i was involved in several prior discussions relating to these same issues, as part of those discussions various sources and citations were added to the article supporting the consensus that was reached. Those sources and citations have been removed by both you and Virginia Historian.XavierGreen (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Your recent massive and undiscussed reversion was abrupt and destructive, to say the least, as was the recent tagging of this article, and you're still avoiding the issues outlined above. Once again, lack of citations is not a POV issue. Given this (lack of) response I suspect you're just scurrying through the thread at this juncture. Once again, if you feel there is inadequate sources and citations, please add them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: page revision April 30.

It is admirable that @XavierGreen: has made us aware of the PRE-American Revolutionary War efforts by Congress to reconcile with the Crown. “The Congress were willing to consent to trade regulations for the benefit of the empire,” - - that is, they adopted a flag with a defining field of alternating red and white stripes like the East India Company, as opposed to the imperial colonial flag with a defining field of solid red that would appear on the horizon flying the self-same colors as a British man-of-war. British Imperial colors would alert the garrison of a Caribbean port to prepare for assault rather than trade for wheat and cattle, which the American vessels were meant to do.

It is LESS useful that @XavierGreen: in the excitement of adding the info box flags of a slew for German principalities, XavierGreen wrote, “and Spain joined [1779] but not as an ally of the United States”, (1) denying Spanish clandestine aid directed by the Crown PRIOR to its declaration of war on Britain, (2) ignoring support of Clark’s Illinois successful expedition, and (3) dismissing the strategic Spanish removal of British forces from the Mississippi River and Gulf Coast - three elements of a POV that is clearly an unsourced and ahistorical anti-Spanish bias - - meant to minimize and marginalize the Spanish contributions to the American Cause (Spanish Governor Galvez is an honorary US citizen for his contributions to the American Revolutionary War).

Therefore, using the SAME editorial standard wp:weight for Native American tribes represented in the info box, I will remove all the Germanies but the Hessian flag - - unless there is a page in Edward Lowell as cited explaining how a contingent of five Euro principality regiments dispatched to the fortress of Gibraltar DIRECTLY hindered the “American War for Independence” (Brit. POV), by making war on the US Congress, territory, citizens or property within the Fortress of Gibraltar - -

This is done reluctantly, because I personally delight in the riotous fun flags of all, every one of the German principalities that so joyously festoon every Octoberfest worth its beer steins; they are just not relevant to this article. Prost. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The "Long War" POV examined

Let’s begin examining each of the RS references that our @Lord Cornwallis: imagines supporting his thesis. Essentially his “Long War” argument it has two parts, as previously discussed in separate Talk sections:

- (a) the American War for Independence does not end with American independence and peace between UK and US, and - (b) the Wikipedia article on the subject the American War for Independence will be denied “Good Article” status until it comprehensively accounts for wars elsewhere by others, in violation of treaties that US is not signatory to, and that do not make reference to the US or its independence.

The end of this article’s chronology is to be determined by our @Lord Cornwallis: such that it has:

- (1) NOTHING to do with (a) acknowledgement of US independence by UK Parliament in March 1782, (b) the acceptance of UK peace terms and diplomatic timing by US Congress April 1783, and (c) a final treaty of peace between UK and US on September 1783; and - (2) EVERYThING to do with “the world war” apart from the two principals contesting US independence from UK that continues elsewhere.

The protracted conflict violates separate treaties between UK and France at Treaty of Versailles (1783), and another between the UK and Spain at Treaty of Versailles (1783). Neither treaty refers to US independence; neither treaty refers to each other in the separate settlements, the US does not sign either one. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

In the Glickstein RS, the introduction makes an explicit, narrowly defined thesis statement in the usual scholarly manner. RS Glickstein. The book is all about “the war” broadly defined among Europeans apart from any shared interest they may have had in the American War for Independence. “This is the story of the people who fought after Yorktown for nearly two years because they had no orders to stop.” However, in the AWI itself, there is no RS record of the January 20, 1783 armistice broken by the signatory powers in North America, not the US nor UK, not the Great Powers of France, not Spain.

RS Glickstein discussed :Glickstein observes, “The British and Americans reached a preliminary treaty on November 30, 1782.” and, “France, Spain, and Britain signed their preliminary peace treaty on January 20, 1783, when they also agreed to an armistice.” p.6.

In the 20th century literature of military history there is a widely accepted convention that has the end of World War I at Armistice Day, when all parties cease hostilities in Europe, regardless of continuing conflicts among Allied and Central Power military allies elsewhere around the world.

Note: This is NOT American-centric. British and Europeans pause for a moment of silence on November 11 each year. Any video from UK that day every year will show large numbers of subjects with red poppy boutonnieres for their “Remembrance Day” (Brit.POV).

Editors here should acknowledge that peace in the ARW breaks out at the armistice, some ten months after the UK Parliament formally recognizes US independence by law, with NO royal veto by King George III.

The US reciprocates two months later by accepting UK terms for peace and the UK diplomatic timetable for bringing an end to UK hostilities with the French and Spanish. The UK does somewhat less successfully, resulting in our 'Lord Cornwallis' "Long War" thesis that should be rejected as editorial consensus to govern the scope of the Wikipedia American Revolutionary War article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of participation of the discussion on this page

As this is a very high profile page, i am pinging, @Magicpiano, Eastfarthingan, Canute, Acad Ronin, and Rama:, several editors who have been involved in editing this page or other American Revolutionary War articles in the past seeking their opinions on this issue. I am also placing a notification on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject History since this article clearly falls within its scope.XavierGreen (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's not forget to direct them to the issues you have repeatedly avoided, here and here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: says there are a "significant number of sources" ... that state the Indian campaigns were a part of the American War for Independence. He supposes on this Talk page that "There are multiple historical points of view" about the scope of the American War for Independence. "Regarding Mysore, I listed two sources above" but they were blatantly ignored, says XavierGreen, May 4, 2020. But on inspection, that is not so at every claim in his disruption.

Passages #1 does NOT say "allies" of US, it says NO military or trade ties between Mysore and the US Congress.

Passage #2 does NOT say "a part of ARW", it says ARW was one of three developments among European powers that motivated Britain to conquer all of India after US independence.

both passages at links provided & observation The first says], Without any military alliance or treaty, Mysore had recognized the US in hopes of trade, but “received no formal ties of trade or diplomacy.” This is not a statement that the Indian campaigns were a part of the American War for Independence, or that they were connected to the American cause for independence from Britain, only that Mysore sought North American trade it did not have access to at the East India Company, while it was at war with Britain.

2. The second says, “India was shaped by the permanent presence of the British on the subcontinent, ... three factors resulting from the American Revolution . . . moved Britain to complete its conquest of India.” This is not a statement that the Indian campaigns were a part of the American War for Independence. It indicates that after leaving the United States, Britain doubled down in India for expanded empire.

I'm not sure what to say. How does wp:good faith apply to edits made in Wikipedia articles and Talk pages as a matter of repeated and pervasive disruptions . . . exactly. RFC away. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of sources which plainly acknowledge that the hostilities between Mysore and Britain were directly related to the American Revolutionary War. In particular Specncer C. Tucker states in his Encyclopedia of the American Revolutionary War, that Mysore began hostilities as a means of assisting France in its conflict with Britain (the American Revolutionary War). Tucker goes into great detail about the Indian theater of operations in multiple sections of his book, covering such notable events as the the Siege of Pondicherrey (1778), Suffern's naval campaign, and the Siege of Cuddalore. Tucker specifically notes that the war in India continued on for so long after the peace had been signed, because word the war had ended didn't reach there until at least 5 months after the peace was signed. (See pg. 772. )[3]. Another source that plainly includes the indian theater of operations within the American Revolutionary War is "he Major Operations of the Navies in the War of American Independence" by Alfred Thayer Mahan, 1913, isbn# 978-1-60303-259-9 [[4]].XavierGreen (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Xavier Green May 4, 2020 says, “Each of the German principalities signed treaties of alliance with Great Britain”, sourcing Edward Lowell’s book on the Hessians in the American War for Independence. But here again, misrepresentation is blatant POV on inspection of the RS link. Let’s see. We learn from Lowell, that the British employment of princeling conscript peasants to subdue its American subjects was "vile and dishonorable", "morally deplorable", "men-selling princes" in their "dirty selfishness", "to coin money out of other people’s blood” . . . "as one sells cattle to be dragged to the shambles". Lowell's conclusion: “Most of these poor fellows did not fight for pay at all, but fought because [conscripted against their will] they could not help it.”

As to the "treaties", Whigs in Parliament said "the devoted wretches thus purchased for slaughter are mere mercenaries", and Tories for the Crown said, the agreements were "not so much to create an alliance as to hire a body of troops", NO REAL TREATY but merely a contract to hire a body of troops, "filled with pompous, high-sounding phrases of alliance".

6 Lowell citations :# In Parliament, “Lord Irnham doubted the competency of the princes to make such [conscript-mercenary] treaties … the Empire … must be rendered vile and dishonorable in the eyes of all Europe.[29]

1. “[Emperor and General] Frederick the Great, [had] … contempt for the men-selling princes ... [who] sold [their] subjects to the English as one sells cattle to be dragged to the shambles … Such conduct is caused by nothing but dirty selfishness.” [24]
2. Lowell’s first conclusion: “Most of these poor fellows did not fight for pay at all, but fought because [conscripted against their will] they could not help it.” [35] It was their rulers who were the mercenaries.
3. Lowell’s final conclusion: The policy of sending subjects involuntarily off to foreign wars to the highest bidder was “morally deplorable”, for a prince to be a “soldier of fortune by proxy, to coin money out of other people’s blood”, the “mercenary” transaction in blood was “sordid”.[292]

As to the treaties themselves,

1. Whig Lord Camden in the House of Lords, “the whole is a mere mercenary bargain for the hire of troops on one side, and for the sale of human blood on the other; and that the devoted wretches thus purchased for slaughter are mere mercenaries ...” [34,35]
2. Tory Earl of Suffolk argued there was NO treaty obligation on Britain, refuting the objections of Whig Lords: “the treaties themselves … [are] filled with pompous, high-sounding phrases of alliance … I confess … that the true object of those treaties is not so much to create an alliance as to hire a body of troops …” [33]

Were we to accept Edward Lowell as an RS, as I am inclined to do, How does this page reach a wp:good faith consensus that the info box should NOT label the German auxiliaries of the British “mercenaries”. Both contemporary Whigs and Tories agreed: The conscripted feudal peasants were conscripted, “blood for coin”, in a sordid transaction as conscripts that the German princes may not have been legally competent to do as an alliance among Christian nations? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Auxiliaries

Since we're re-hashing the same arguments we've had for months, I wonder if it's more appropriate to section these discussions off by individual topic headers? We're covering a lot of different individual topics over the past few days. As to the Germans, it seems appropriate to me to list them in the infobox because even though we may scorn the treaties today, they were a critical part of Great Britain's strategy for winning the war. In a real sense, yes, the German auxiliaries were largely conscripts thrown into a conflict they had no business in. On the other hand, they were put under German commanders and fought as whole units following their own drill, often under their own flags, and sometimes completely independent of British officers. In other words, they weren't merely lead sponges filling gaps in the British line, they represented and corresponded with their own princes back in Europe. In rare cases, there were even British Soldiers under command of German officers. Did Congress declare independence from Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel? No. Did Independence require Washington to fight General Wilhelm von Knyphausen? Yes. But we can have this discussion separately without reverting all the recent progress made to this article. Canute (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Note that the specific discussion of Hanover Soldiers is slightly different because they didn't serve in North America, so that's really a question about the scope of this article, not the manner in which they participated. Canute (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

War ends when belligerents mutually say so

To put bookends on the formal agreements between UK Parliament and US Congress that (1) the American Revolutionary War (Am.POV), or the American War for Independence (Brit.POV) was ended, and (2) the United States was a separate and equal nation with the right to make a treaty of peace with Great Britain, we look to March 1782, UK Parliament proclaimed United States independence by law, and to April 1783, the US Congress proclaimed acceptance of British terms for peace.

Discussion a uk website], that about March 1782, the British Parliament under the leadership of Prime Minister Charles Watson-Wentworth, second Marquis of Rockingham, passed “The formal acknowledgement of American independence, despite quarrels between Fox and Shelburne over America's status and to whose department it belonged - Home or Foreign Affairs.”

That factoid is confirmed in the Wikipedia Good Article Siege of Yorktown#Aftermath at note #85, in March 1782, "the British Parliament had agreed to cease hostilities." Idzerda, Stanley (Autumn 1981). "Indispensable Allies: The French at Yorktown". The Wilson Quarterly. 5 (4): 166–177. JSTOR 40256531, p. 176.

I do regret the additional loss of life suffered worldwide on three or four continents, due to Dutch diplomat negotiations with British, French diplomat negotiations with British, and Spanish diplomat negotiations with British. And it is true Britain required of the US that the formal peace instruments would not be FINALIZED among themselves, French, Spanish and United States until AFTER separate treaties between Britain and France, and Britain and Spain.

Conclusion: Nevertheless - - - interesting side bars of French and British, and Spanish and British armies, navies, along with allies, surrogates, mercenaries and puppets at other times, in other places, among other contests - - -

This article cannot be held captive to a peculiarly idiosyncratic notion held by disruptive editors that dismiss the UK and US 1700s nation-state legislatures. That is no longer held in RS as a compelling interpretation of the histories of English-speaking peoples, at least since the coronation of King William and Queen Mary in the late 1600s (1689). When UK Parliament by law, and US Congress by law, determined that their war was over, it was over. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wars end when reputable sources say that they end. Political statements made at the time matter little. What do historians say here?--Vici Vidi (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The Treaty of Paris (1783), ends the American Revolutionary War (Am.) or American War for Independence (Brit.) at the formal signing between Great Britain and the United States. That war over US independence with European and Native American allies on both sides took place in North America, off its Atlantic Coast, in the Caribbean Sea, and along trade routes to Europe (i.e. John Paul Jones).

- It is NOT prolonged by violations of the British treaty with France, "Treaty of Versailles (1783 France), NOR from violations of the British with Spain, "Treaty of Versailles (1783 Spain)". One RS put it this way: the ensuing worldwide conflict that took place among European powers and their allies AFTER those two peace treaties were signed in Versailles continued because "no one gave them orders to stop." [the army and navy commanders of each European power].

- Generally, that continuing war among European powers after US independence from Great Britain is historiographically placed within the Second Hundred Years' War by prominent scholars who follow the British historian John Robert Seeley. Often in modern book sales promotion, "American Revolution" is added in a title if the monograph overlaps 1775-1783 in any way, touching on anywhere in the world the European Powers were militarily active - - - wherever an indirect connection can be made for the sake of dust cover blurbs and publicity. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Tag removal

Agree with TheVirginiaHistorian. We have more than enough grounds for removal of the NPOV tag. On the When to remove NPOV tag page it says:

1. "When the issue has been adequately addressed;"

The complaint about removed sources have been addressed and the tagging editor was invited to replace them. Since nothing specific was ever forthcoming, and no issue has been made with the existing sources, the complaint doesn't seem to be sincere.

3. "If it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed or was added in error. Consider first discussing the matter with the original placer of the template (unless this user is no longer active on Wikipedia). In any case, if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page..."

The Template obviously does not belong, esp since we have a very large section covering Britain's other involvements about the globe. Also, as is evident on the Talk page, there are at least six editors who feel there is no POV issue, including a non involved editor, so there is more than enough consensus that says there is no real POV issue. Going against consensus will simply create another issue.

6. "...strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed"

The tagging editor did not initiate a discussion or substantiate any basis for the alleged POV issue. He has been asked to address a number of specific issues here and here and has yet to even acknowledge them. More than enough opportunity and patience has been extended, so it's time to remove the tag, end the disruption and move forward.

Before the tag is removed we can give the tagging editor one last opportunity to chime in, and add any sources he feels are needed, and/or make known any other specific items that need attention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't comment in full tonight but I can respond in more detail tomorrow. Again articles have to be based on RS, not on editor's personal opinions. Gwillhickers, it would really help if you could roll out a few RS which support your position. Obviously I think we all know Wikipedia well enough to know that is the best way to proceed. And that is the only way to get towards FA status. Regards, Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the tag was unwarranted in the first place. A call for due weight is valid, and can and should be discussed (though it should be itemized, not discussed as a generality with no way to conclude anything), but there's nothing supporting a separate biased viewpoint here. All the tag has done is waste our time. Let's quickly skip this and move on to discussing actual specific improvements on balance of coverage. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Lord Cornwallis, no one says that the article does not have to be based on reliable sources, so your recital that they must seems a bit odd and implies that only you are aware of such basics. This foot dragging needs to stop. The focus of this article has been explained for you, in detail, above this section, and below, while you continue to avoid all the points raised, starting with the Mysore War extending to 1784, the year after the Revolution. All items in the International war breaks out section are well sourced. All of my edits have citations from RS's. Once again, and I really hope this is the last time, if you want to cover matters any more than we have, the onus is on you to be specific and provide the RS, down to the page number, so we can see exactly how much weight is given to a particular topic. At this late date neither you or Xavier have done this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• A D Monroe III, thanks for weighing in again. We have well established that Britain's other global involvements have been covered well enough, perhaps too much, that there is no real POV issue, and that we have a clear consensus to back it up. The repetitive Talk continues to avoid the points raised, is becoming a bit rife, and is now becoming disruptive. The tag needs to go and we all need to move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The NPOV issues has not been addressed, you and TVH posting massive numbers of comments here in an incredibly short period of time and expecting answers in a day to all of them is unreasonable and insincere. I am not the only editor who has raised these concerns and as I stated before, there have been multiple discussions regarding these issues in the past that reached a consensus that you and TVH are now trying to overturn. If you think such changes (like asserting that the article should be focused on only those events effecting America and eliminating references to the campaigns in India entirely from the article) are warranted you should open an RFC, as a significant number scholarly sources available do state that the Indian campaigns were part of the war. Creating an American focused article is BLATENTLY NPOV, there are multiple historical points of view on the conflict and these must be balanced. Regarding Mysore, I listed two sources above, but you blatantly obfuscated that by alleging that i have posted no sources at all. I will endeavor to respond more fully in the coming days as time allows. But as Lord Cornwallis stated, these NPOV issues are so blatent that there is no way the article can ever reach FA or even GA status of it continues on the path you and TVH have moved it towards.XavierGreen (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

One, many editors besides myself and TVH have taken exception to the obvious due-weight issues, per the previous eleven pages of coverage about Britain's global involvements, and the two sections for India, Europe and the Americas - eleven pages worth, as pointed out several times now. Two, the articulated "massive numbers of comments" were prompted by the continued refusal to acknowledge simple and glaring points, as pointed out here and here, once again. Three, and once again, the scattered affairs prompted by King George, sending troops and ships all over the globe, do not constitute anything that directly connects most of the events in question to the fight for/against American independence. This is at least the fourth time this has been spelled out. Any association to the American Revolutionary War made by your particular selection of sources are no doubt made in passing, and no one has yet to show any example that says otherwise, per specific sources and page numbers. Once again, nearly all sources on the American Revolution do not mention events concerning Gibraltar, India, etc. Those that do mention them only in passing, not at all in the same capacity that e.g.Bunker Hill and Yorktown are covered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way we can put this to a vote and get on with it? That's a sincere question, I'm not sure on procedure. If there are legitimate NPOV issues, let's get them fixed and move forward. If not, let's revert the article back to the last good version and continue improving it. I propose that 6 days of "is not" and "is so" is more than enough debate.Canute (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Secondary statements in the lede

In the last two paragraphs of the lede there are a number of statements that cover items that are not really the "most important". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.

Here are a few items that really don't measure up to this:

• Whigs in Britain had long opposed the pro-war Tories in Parliament, and the surrender gave them the upper hand. In early 1782,
• France made few gains and incurred crippling debts..
• Spain made some territorial gains but failed in its primary objective of regaining Gibraltar
• The Dutch were defeated on all counts and were compelled to cede territory to Great Britain.

These are secondary details that are tangential to the idea of the American Revolutionary 'War'. Imo, these statements don't belong in the lede and should be moved to an appropriate section.

Also, France's "decisive" involvement is mentioned twice:

• ...but a decisive French naval victory deprived him of an escape.
• French involvement had proven decisive.

Last, these details, in bold, should be removed from this lede statement and covered elsewhere.

• "Spanish troops composed of Puerto Ricans, Venezuelans, Dominicans, Salvadorans, Nicaraguans and Mexicans had cleared all British settlers located in the entire region along the Mississippi." These groups are not mentioned in the body of the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Have removed the national names above, in bold, from the lede. Will wait for other editor's opinion before going further on the other items. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This touches upon a larger issue that has been debated for a long time: just how relevant to this article is the greater worldwide conflict twixt Britain and France? The most obvious example is the material on Mysore, a conflict that occurred in India which had absolutely nothing to do with the American War for Independence. This is reflected in the mention of Spain and Gibraltar: what does that have to do with the American Revolutionary War? My contention is that these topics are inappropriate to this article altogether—but they most assuredly are inappropriate in the introduction. So my vote is to remove them thence. —Dilidor (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Coverage of foreign aspects

Yes, there does seem to be a disproportionate amount of coverage for countries like Spain, India, etc, esp in the International war breaks out (1778–1780)  and  Final years of the war (1781–1783) sections. The latter section starts right off with Europe. This India section, (there are two) is almost a full page and is rather over done also. The Americas section is also a full page long. I've no issues with trimming these sections down to just general summary statements. In fact, I'm wondering if dedicated sections for these topics is at all appropriate. e.g.We may want to simply cover each of these things with just a short paragraph and place them all under one general section. However, I'd wait for further comment before we embark on any major changes to well sourced good faith edits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur completely. This article is much too long as it is, and a good portion of its verbosity is due to this unwarranted coverage of the worldwide conflicts—conflicts absolutely unrelated to the war for American independence. This article is intended to cover the struggle of the Thirteen Colonies to divest themselves of their subservience to England. The moment the British surrendered, the war was effectively over in the Americans' minds. They did not care in the least whom Britain was fighting overseas, and that is what this article should be focused on.

Alas, there are others who insist that the American Revolutionary War was somehow merely "the North American theater" (or "theatre", as they would have it) of some gigantic global conflict. I contend that this is not the case; Britain managed to piss off most of the world while she was busy trying to keep those damyankees in submission, but that is of no concern in this article. The other conflicts that erupted overseas can be neatly summarized, as you suggest, in one paragraph. I vote wholeheartedly for a draconian excision of most of the overseas material. —Dilidor (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur as well. There is far too much information regarding the other wars/conflicts that Britain was fighting at the time in an article that is supposed to be about the AR. Here are my thoughts:

The "Final Years of the War (1781-1783)" section can be excised completely and without reservation. It has nothing to do with the AR, and doesn't belong. I don't even think that the information there needs to be summarized. Just remove it.

The "International war breaks out (1778–1780)" section I believe has a place as it helps highlight what other fights the British were engaged in that didn't allow them to literally use the full force of their empire against JUST America. However, it can definitely be trimmed, and the focus should just be on the fact that a portion of the potential available resources (troops/money etc) were engaged in other areas. As long as these other conflicts are "Main Articles" linked under the section header, I think we are good there. (By the by, who the hell decided to include so much information about Mysore??). Vyselink (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Generally agree with removing most if not all the contents of the Final Years of the War (1781-1783) section. This section, however, needs to cover what actually happened in America. e.g. There's no coverage of Washington returning to New York and overseeing the British evacuation in the entire article. The only place this is at all mentioned is in the caption of the image under the Treaty of Paris section, nothing more. The Treaty of Paris section itself should be a subsection to the Aftermath section, as this officially ended the war. Currently the Aftermath section is placed before the Final years ' section. Before we start removing content wholesale I'd recommend we get the sections better organized and then go from there. A plan? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• We have dedicated sections for British officers like Clinton and Cornwallis and William Howe, yet no dedicated sections for General Gates, Lafayette or Comte de Rochambeau, among others, not that they're needed. Coverage of Howe, Cornwallis, et al, should occur when warranted and on a per episode basis. First things first – the sections need a little reordering. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The Treaty of Paris section is now a subsection of the Aftermath section. The Aftermath section and its subsections have been moved towards the end of the article. The 'Final years of the war' section has been moved to just above the 'Aftermath' section. No content changes have been made. See TOC. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

These so called "conflicts", were a part of the American Revolutionary War. France declared war on Britain as part of the American Revolutionary War, the entirety of the war in the Caribbean, Europe and India was a part of the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

XavierGreen has stood history on its head. US Congress did not run the Versailles Palace. The French king did NOT ally with the US Congress “as a part of the ARW” for American independence. No RS can be misinterpreted to suggest that King Louis signed on for mankind's "equal rights" and government by "consent of the governed" as "a part of the ARW" --- the French government ONLY made war against UK interests for FRENCH purposes.

- The peace among the Europeans in September 1783 was structured through separate treaties between (a) Britain and France and (b) Britain and Spain - - - both signed at Versailles (not Paris as with the US). The US was not a signatory to either of them. ALL European conflict after the British-US armistice was removed from the ARW. RS show the European conflicts continued among themselves elsewhere “because no one ordered them to stop”, NOT as an extension of the ARW for American independence, which had been achieved there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Summarizing the India section

The contents of the India section have been summarized below, with the most important and general components mentioned and linked. This lengthy section simply has too many details, dates, links, etc, that that are out of place in an article of this scope. It is proposed that the below summary be added to the International war breaks out (1778–1780) section, replaceing the India section.

Summary :
Britain was also heavily involved in India and France in conflicts involving its East India Company during the Second Anglo-Mysore War, beginning with the capture of a Dutch port during the Siege of Negapatam, and with the Siege of Mangalore and the Siege of Vellore following. After two years of fighting Britain and the Kingdom of Mysore signed the Treaty of Mangalore, in 1784, ending their war.

If there are no objections I'll make the change over. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Misconstruing the past, some more, yet again

I fear I must repeat myself for the sake of the good order of the Wikipedia community. Ignore the trolling disrupter, simply revert the spam. THERE ARE NO “reliable sources” conjuring British combatants in the American Revolutionary War unless they were solely engaged in making war on a) the United States Government, b) its property, c) its territory, or d) its citizens.

So said the British King George III and his government in solemn promise and by legal obligation. We may reasonably write an article on the American Revolutionary War that concluded with the 1783 Definitive Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and his Britannic Majesty. The treaty makes explicit reference to "the two".

Article I. acknowledges the said United States to be “free, sovereign and independent”, and King George III relinquished for himself, his heirs and successors, “all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof”.

Article VII. declares the “firm and perpetual peace between his Britannic Majesty and the said States, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities, both by sea and by land, shall from henceforth cease”.

There is NO reliable source that asserts anything to the contrary, and certainly NOT by some artificial construct to disrupt this page by extrapolating British Treasury military expenditures in the 1780s against the Spanish to mean the history topic the American Revolutionary War - - -

or indeed for ANY event the British were NOT engaged with two or more of these four: a) the United States Government, b) its property, c) its territory or d) its citizens as referenced in the 1783 Definitive Treaty of Peace between the United States of America and his Britannic Majesty. The USG sought and gained its independence in the conflict with Great Britain, that is the reasonable scope of this article as it relates to the two sovereignties.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

TVH, thanks for your candid and informative assessment. Credentialed editors are certainly a great help here. Most of us are pretty much on the same page. Perhaps I've been too compromising. At the least, however, we should mention that Britain was all over the map in the final years of the war, with a few definitive examples. We still have two sections committed to British involvements other than with the fight for/against American independence. (i.e.International war breaks out (1778–1780), and the Other British involvements (1781–1783) sections.) Obviously this is a due-weight and an off topic issue, mostly. We should keep the former section and be done with the latter. How much we should condense the former is a matter of consensus, and perhaps hard-cold WP policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@ TheVirginianHistorian. I'd politely ask you to maintain civility. I don't understand what your point is about the text of the Treaty of Paris is, which was one component of the Peace of Paris ending the war?

@Gwillhickers. It feels like we're now going in circles in spite of what you said above. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: One component ending the war, Article 7th: "There shall be a firm and perpetual Peace between his Britannic Majesty and the said [United] States … all Hostilities both by Sea and Land shall from henceforth cease ..."

The US of the American Revolutionary War is signatory to no other treaty than this Treaty of Paris (1783), and no other treaty among belligerents world wide addresses the American War for Independence. Transcript of Treaty of Paris (1783), US National Archives. @Lord Cornwallis and Gwillhickers: TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We still have two sections committed to Britain's other engagements. I've been trying to combine the two sections but it seems we will still have a rather disproportionately large section given the topics covered. Most editors want to see most if not all this material removed, and, esp lately, have been rather articulate and reasonable as to why. As I've said all along, I'm willing to compromise and cover this material in summary, so the reader has some historical context as to what Britain was also dealing with in the last years of the Revolutionary War. However, I am only one editor and it's becoming increasingly difficult to go along with the idea of giving Britain's other involvements anymore than a paragraph of summary coverage, esp in light of recent developments in the discussion, and given the number of dedicated articles committed to these other wars and battles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, I think we aren't going to get anywhere near Featured Article status despite your valiant efforts. I thought we were making some progress. Back to basics, which RS treat it as a separate war. And what is the name of the other war? Regards, Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC).

Isn't the more accurate question – what were the names of the other wars? I believe TVH hit the nail square on the head also: i.e.Unless the events are directly involved in "making war on a) the United States Government, b) its property, c) its territory, or d) its citizens", it's really difficult to consider any of the events in question as part of the effort for/against American independence - which is the central reason why the war started, and ended. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, what was the name of the other war? The RS talk of one war, called either the American Revolutionary War of the American War of Independence which in 1778 spread across the globe with the entry of France into the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

We've been through this it seems. While some historians, like Ferling, mention that the war spread to other areas, other historians still refer to these things as their own wars, fought for other reasons having nothing to do with the idea of American independence, like the Anglo-French War (1778–1783), Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, Anglo-French War, Second Anglo-Mysore War, etc. And once again, what RS covers these events in or near the same proportion as they do the actual war for independence? Ferling's reference was made in passing, and he doesn't get into the details of these events, at all. Once again, all one has to do is look at the TOC in almost any work on the Revolutionary War to see where the bulk if not all of the coverage lies. This article should follow suit. We still have two sections devoted to Britain's other engagements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you give some specific cites please? Which RS refer to these different names? Which refer to them as separate wars? Regards, Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• I provided links to articles directly above, where you will see which historians refers to these events as such. Again, I acknowledged Ferling's passing reference to some of these events. Again, what work on the American Revolution covers these events in the same proportion as they do the actual fight for/against American independence? American independence is the central theme, all other events are tangential events, at best, that Britain was involved with for her own reasons. e.g She was still fighting the Mysore war the year after she surrendered in 'the' American Revolutionary War.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Do you feel any of these events should be covered in this article in the same proportion as the Battles of Lexington-Concord, Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Yorktown? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you give me specific RS links that refer to them as such, rather than Wikipedia articles? 21:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

All the articles have citations. Are you suggesting that calling the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War as such is some sort of error? Once again, we can mention Britain's other engagements for historical context, and in the same proportion as any other work on the Revolution does. However, there is nothing I can do about the growing consensus that most if not all of this material be removed. I've been trying to compromise, but you still haven't provided one noted RS on the American Revolution that covers events like the Great Siege of Gibraltar or the Mysore War in the same proportion as the famous revolutionary battles are covered. Most of the sources don't even mention these events. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

All the articles have citations describing events involved in the war. My question was which of them specifically consider them entirely separate wars?

"Most of the sources don't even mention these events". Which sources don't mention these events? Even those that are focused specifically on the American theater mention the ongoing global war. They talk of a war singular not wars plural.

We had seemed to be working towards some kind of compromise and consensus, today you seem to have completely reversed this.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• If I "have completely reversed" my position I would have opted for no coverage of these things. Please watch the claims made on my behalf. My position has been essentially the same: A compromise that covers Britain's other engagements in summary, and in proportion to the coverage the greater bulk of the sources gives to these tangential events. If you wish to cover these things in any greater proportion the onus is on you to come up with more than one noted RS that does so, and one which connects these events directly to the fight for/against American independence, the primary focus of this article, which has yet to happen. We have been more than fair with you on this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• This is an article whose focus, per nearly all the sources, is on the fight for/against American independence in the  American Revolutionary War, not an article about all of the British wars of the 18th century. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Lord Cornwallis, you are missing the point. We don't have to prove you wrong, for as Gwillhickers and others have said RS's talk about the fact that other events broke out, but still stick to talking about the events of the ARW when talking about the ARW. None of them veer off into a wider discussion of a greater outbreak. If you want this article to be MORE than about the ARW, you must provide sources that prove your point, not ask us to prove you wrong. Vyselink (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The ‎Other British involvements (1781–1783) section has been removed, per due weight. I'd welcome a list or article we can link to that covers all of Britain's other involvements in the final years of the war for American Independence. The Great Siege of Gibraltar and Mysore War, major engagements for Britain, are already mentioned in a section. These, and all other involvements, are secondary, and in many cases, minascule, compared to the major struggle for/against American independence, which is what initated the Revolution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"Other" British imperial expeditions are not germane

@Lord Cornwallis, Gwillhickers, and Vyselink: It seems some unnamed reliable sources cannot find the text of The Treaty of Paris of 1783. There are elements that EXCLUSIVELY have to do with the American Revolution (Brit: War for Independence). They (unlike the 'Lord Cornwallis' tangential reference to provisions ceding the French an island in the Gambia River), have a substantial influence on worldwide outcomes at the time and on future international history: Britain ceased making war directly on the United States Government, its territory, its citizens and its property. However, in the next year, the newly minted UK did turn to Native-American alliances in a thirty-year campaign to deny the USG and its citizens access to the Mississippi River, as noted in small print below . . . and that failure of policy brought about the success and ascendancy of the famously Anglophobe Andrew Jackson . . .

The 1783 Treaty of Paris also relates to the internal matters of British politics regarding British Imperial Treasury war expenditures during the reign of King George III. That treaty put an end to the expenditures for retaining the 13 colonies as the US. Now comes the disruptive editor crying “civility” to address UK Treasury war expenditures in the reign of good King George III ELSEWHERE as he slipped further into dementia [genetic or acquired per our 'Lord Cornwallis' below].

Previously to the Treaty of Paris (1783), British expenditures were made to quell the “American War for Independence” [Am: Revolutionary War], that lasted from the Lord North ministry beginning January 1770 through to the Fox-North coalition ending December 1783.

Brit. Const. distinctions among (a) English Colonies, (b) Principality Hanover & (c) Gambia R. tading post natives swapped by UK and France. :The fundamentally flawed policy treated the North American colonists as though they were the Jacobite Rising of 1745, rather than loyal subjects guaranteed English Rights under the Stuart Kings, "as though subjects living in England", rights of actual [not 'virtual'] parliamentary representation previously guaranteed to all Englishmen in the Bill of Rights to Parliament by King William and Queen Mary.

The Americans did NOT ever attempt to unseat George III as had the Jacobites. They humbly petitioned their lord-king in the English tradition for the German-born sovereign to stop mistreating them [reference the multi-count bill of indictment in the Declaration of Independence]; the colonized lands were the English realm, but NOT royal acreage, the North American colonial subjects were British with English rights, NOT German peasantry held in feudal bondage as serfs.

The specious connection put forward is an unsubstantiated link among British Treasury notes going to different war expeditions undertaken by the failing imperial policy. The Fox-North coalition did settle sundry affairs among parties other than the USG at the Treaty of Paris 1783. But the only connecting link is the uses the English Pound Sterling had been put among its imperial wars. That tenuous thread highlighting the late 18th century pound-note is found among disparate paragraph-articles, but that link does not serve as a coherent thesis statement for an encyclopedic article on the American Revolutionary War.

The war expenditures in North America against former British subjects were NOT expenditures made to further British imperial goals among 'indigenous populations' along the Senegal River, the Gambia River, India, and the island of Minorca. It seems that our contributing editor saw the miniseries Roots (1977 miniseries).

It is true that we Americans accept the descendants of the Senegalese tribal Fula as our own citizens with equal rights in the 21st century. It is NOT the case that the rebelling North American English colonists in 1783 stood in the precise legal equivalence before the Crown, as the inhabitants along the Senegal River that were turned over to French rule in the Treaty of Paris (1783). Any editor acting under that misapprehension needs to find reliably-sourced references to make it so in this Wikipedia article.

The 1783 peace held except for the conflicts ended at the Treaty of Greenville the British efforts in the Anglo-French War, the Anglo-Spanish War, and the Northwest Indian War to capture the headwaters of the Mississippi River, territory from the Great Lakes to the Ohio River, and the Gulf Coast of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and New Orleans.

The British effort to close free navigation of the Mississippi River and occupy New Orleans relented with the Treaty of Ghent, abandoning their Tecumseh Confederacy allies. [An occupied New Orleans would have remained British in precisely the same way of international expedience as has Gibraltar remained British into the 21st century by 'right of conquest'. Once it was physically occupied by UK imperial forces, no one could remove them while supplied by sea.]

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

TVH, thanks once again for your insightful and learned analysis. A couple of days ago I removed the (former) Other British involvements (1781–1783), section, per consensus, and have incorporated the most significant items into the existing International war breaks out (1778–1783) section. It's assumed, at least by me, that your edits to the existing section are most welcomed, and encouraged. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

TVH, thanks for your recent edits. As said before, there's no issue if the coverage ties in with the American struggle for independence, and in some remotely related theater's, with the appropriate coverage, for the sake of historical context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent non-NPOV Edits to the Page

User:Gwillhickers and user:Dildor have made a large number of edits to the page, some of which have removed elements which were specifically included in this page per consensus and long term discussions. These edits have the result of eliminating most of the text relating to portions of the conflict outside north america, and as such have slanted the article towards an American point of view. This is a major change to the article that goes against all prior consensus reached on these issues as can be seen in the talk page archives. As such i have reverted, and encourage all editors to discuss these changes.XavierGreen (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Weeks were spent discussing changes, which were addressed on a per item basis. ( 1, 2, 3, etc ) — All topics are still covered, only in an appropriate summary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to create an article focusing solely on the North American aspects of the conflict, than you should do so at North American Theater of the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• "North American aspects"?? You make it sound that the war in America was just some secondary chapter. Notice the first word in the article title. The war was initiated for one reason: To achieve American Independence. If you wish to create an article that gives more weight to Britain's other involvements you are free to create British campaigns, 1775 - 1784. The so called consensus you speak of was discussed three years ago, and I'm seeing a lot of opinion that is not in line with yours. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Just because the war started in North America does not mean that the campaigns in the caribbean, europe and India were not part of it. Each belligerent had its own aims in carrying out the war. Your yourself acknowledged above that various authorities consider the war to be an international conflict. By narrowing the scope of this article to just what happened in North America, you are creating a clear NPOV issue.XavierGreen (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That has not happened. As I've already pointed out, we have a very large section mentioning Britain's other campaigns about the globe, most of which did not involve the fight for/against independence. Just because these events involved Britain during the latter part of the American Revolutionary War doesn't automatically make them a part of that war. Once again, the war was initiated by the patriots for the express purpose of securing independence. What happened in e.g. India has got little to nothing to do with that struggle, except for giving Britain another thing to worry about, she was all over the map, which the patriots had little to nothing to do with. Most of these campaigns come under their own heading, as we've pointed out, (Anglo-French Wars, Mysore War, etc) several times now.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Canute, Dilidor, TheVirginiaHistorian, Lord Cornwallis, Vyselink, Rjensen, and Calidum: — The changes were the result of weeks of discussion and consensus, starting here. The changes were not made by one editor all at once with no discussion as we've just witnessed. Previously there were two large sections, with the same set of subsections (i.e.Europe, Americas, India) devoted to Britain's other campaigns, (Two sections for India??) many of which come under their own heading, like the Anglo-French War and the Mysore War and are remotely or not related to the war for/against independence. These two sections were, and are, largely redundant.This was discussed at length.
  In the process of reverting back you have eliminated many weeks of cleanup, involving citations, sources and all the errors and dead-links involved. We have adapted a 'no-citations-in the lede' convention because only a few items were cited while the rest of the lede was not, which was discussed first. Now we have an article that's one chaotic pile of redundant sections all over again. Most of the names of famous battles, like, Lexington-Concord, Battle of Long Island, Fort Washington, etc, were buried in piped links, not allowing a reader to scan the page for key battles, etc. The Intelligence and espionage section was completely empty. Meanwhile sections like Colonial response were, and still are, very small. "American POV"?? The changes do not amount to an American POV simply because we observed WP:weight, and they were made by more than two editors. Prior to your edits we already had a large section devoted to Britain's other involvements, and was one of the largest sections in the article. If this article is to ever become a GA or FA, we need to adhere to one citation convention, observe due weight and get rid of all the redundancy. If you feel the article is lacking in certain respects please contribute accordingly and discuss the changes as we've done for weeks before any significant changes were made, without trashing all the the contributions and work that has been done with sources and citations in the process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Just because the war started in North America does not mean that the campaigns in the caribbean, europe and India were not part of it. Each belligerent had its own aims in carrying out the war. Your yourself acknowledged above that various authorities consider the war to be an international conflict. By narrowing the scope of this article to just what happened in North America, you are creating a clear NPOV issue. You also are pinging only a handful of editors who have supported your point of view, the prior scope of the article was formulated through multiple RFCs and months of discussion.XavierGreen (talk)

In this very long article, trimming (not removing) parts of the article that focus outside of America has no relationship in any way to POV edits. I suggest this discussion be effectively SNOW-closed. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

But entire references to major events have been completely removed, like the Battle of the Saintes which was the decisive battle that lead to the end of the war, also the removal from the infobox of Mysore as a co-belligerent and Hanover.XavierGreen (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not that this needs to be said, but I'll say it anyway. User:Gwillhickers and User:Dilidor were not just making random changes to suit their personal preferences. They were good faith edits and were the results of weeks of discussion on this talk page. They deserve gratitude, not belittling. User:XavierGreen, you apparently missed all of those conversations, and that's fine. Wikipedia is not a full time job. But changes were agreed upon- not easily- and a lot of editing work was done to improve this article. I don't think it's fair to simply revert to an old version and unilaterally undo all of those discussions and edits. Why can't we start from the most recent edits and move forward? If you think important content is missing, add it back, but perhaps in cooperation with (not against) the cleanup that others are working on. It appears as though we've wasted the last 5 days reiterating the same discussion we've had all year, and the article is stuck in the mud after having finally made some progress. Canute (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I agree the Battle of the Saintes should probably be mentioned. Still nothing that justifies a charge POV editing. Anything else? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing matters. Any source that is missing, more importantly, and statement that is not cited, can be remedied. The citation for the last statement (re:Treaty of Versailles) lacked a page number, which I've just provided. (Bailey, 1994, p. 120) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Regrets. I did not mean to lose Battle of the Saintes in this article. It is in North America. It is a part of the British feeling confident enough to make a side deal with the US Congress for American independence without concessions that the French were demanding.

recent edits discussion :I have restored the sea battle in context to help "bring Americans up to speed", less nautically, to better "orient the American reader". British crushing defeat of French Admiral DeGrasse in the Caribbean is very germane to the American negotiated settlement with Britain in the Treaty of Paris (1783) apart from their French allies and prior to the British peace with the French and Spanish Treaty of Versailles (1783).

I am animatedly opposed to land-only accounts of military history, and that includes the American Revolutionary War; two of my previous combined navy-army operations articles have failed Good Article nomination for lack of sufficient "military" emphasis [?!?!?], see American Civil War Siege of Fort Pulaski [four out of the five decisive Parrot guns manned by sailors] and the [naval] Bombardment of Cherbourg in WWII.

The Hanover belligerents get a nod in the recent narrative "mercenaries from German principalities", we don't want to leave anybody out in North America making war on the US Congress, its citizens or its property.

Not to put too fine a point on the argument, for fear of becoming uncivil, but neither the "Mysore Expeditionary Force in North America (1780-1785)" nor anything like it, is referenced in reliable sources for the military scope of the American Revolutionary War.

But I do hope you and all contributing editors here see that you and @Lord Cornwallis: have substantially improved the article by advocating for including a European context. A context that one of my history scholar heroes, Pauline Maier expanded substantially in American literature on the Revolutionary War over the course of her long career. With regards, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Sorry I haven't responded sooner. I've been busy with projects both off and on Wikipedia, but thanks for pinging me. This is a complicated and wide-ranging subject. At present we have one article that covers both the North American theater and after 1778 the international war, which were closely intertwined and are treated by RS as a single war. This isn't an article about the American theater alone. The European, Carribean and Indian theaters aren't context, they are part of the war. We do need to follow the way RS treat this (eg. could you list ten or so major works). Sorry if I'm repeating myself but I'm a bit of a stickler for following RS. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@The VirginianHistorian, sorry but I've failed to follow some of your points. However just for reference I'd gently point out that George III was born in England not Germany, by the best historical consensus suffered from porphyria not syphilis, the UK was created in 1801 not in 1784, And I think you've confused Hanoverians with Hessians (which itself is bit of a lump term to describe several duchies and principalities which had a history of supplying troops to the Electors of Hanover and subsequently the Kings of Great Britain in times of war).

I hope we can all work together on this, because Wikipedia does thrive on collaboration and consensus, and we all want to improve the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lord Cornwallis, Gwillhickers, and XavierGreen: Thanks for the update on the latest historiography on the weeks-long episodes of confusion and mental incapacity suffered by King George III in his later years. He was by all accounts, a good sovereign to his subjects for the first decade or so of his reign, unless one were enslaved of African descent.

– in that case, he extended a doctrine of hereditary slavery against English Common Law in the first place, and in the second place, he implemented law in his American colonies arbitrarily enslaving freeborn subjects of color without trial by jury to convict them to lose rights guaranteed to all inhabitants by the Stuart King charters. See Massachusetts, Jennison, Commonwealth v. Jennison, “there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature, unless his liberty is forfeited by some criminal conduct ... “

Regardless, as a rule throughout human history, demented monarchs are not best governance for a people, slave or free. Whether a ruler’s dementia is acquired by syphilis, or inherited by porphyria, just government is derived in all cases from the consent of the governed. So far, nothing you say in this regard overturns the main thrust of Tom Paine’s argument in Common Sense advocating American independence in the Revolutionary War 1776-1783. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Observing WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV

As indicated before this last round of Tak, I've no objections covering Britain's other involvements in cases where it directly impacted the struggle for/against independence, however, at one point there were simply too many events mentioned/linked for the scope of this article. I strongly oppose the sentiment that the war in America was a minor aspect of the Revolution -- a statement to this effect was made in the consensus Xavier referred to of three years ago. When you consider that the war was started in America, over American independence, and one which Clinton had to send ships and troops from the West Indies and New York to deal with matters at Yorktown before the British surrendered, I can only wonder what's really behind that POV. Consider also, that the Mysore War didn't end until 1784, the year after the surrender, so it's sort of amazing that anyone can consider that conflict, in India, as part of the American Revolutionary War. The greater bulk of sources on the revolution, new and old, don't even mention Mysore and other such remote events. In cases that they may, mention is only made in passing, as we do here also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I genuinely appreciate your efforts to improve this article (as I hope I've made clear), but it needs to be based on RS if its to be a GA or FA. There have been a lot of editor's opinions about why non-American events are not important, but we need to work off RS. And I've stated several times (and this emphasises its complexity, and maybe why we have so much difficulty covering it in this article) the war was not started for independence. It also almost continued a further year into 1783 not over American independence, but the Gibraltar equivalent.

For Mysore it deserves a mention, but it is not a major aspect of the war. RS, even focusing on the international war, do not give it major prominence (although there seems to be a greater trend towards including it in the last couple of decades) However, India was a key battleground between Britain and France the longer the war went on, and it was envisaged for an even more key role in the 1783 campaign, aborted by the Peace of Paris.

By "other remote events" could you supply the RS that have led you to your views as I think it would help us develop a consensus. Thanks. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems we've been through this more than once. The article is indeed based on RS's, too many to count, and we lend the same weight to any event as the RS's do -- collectively. We don't select one or two sources and ignore the greater bulk of sources. And if the war wasn't fought over independence, then what, and by what source is this POV being advanced? The opening statement in the lede, from day one, has always read:

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence ...

At this late date I'm a bit miffed that this has to be recited for any individual. Please excuse the curt tone, but this is simply ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I've asked you more than once and you've always been rather vague. Again I'm going to ask, which RS? There are a lot of sources cited in this article, which do you refer to in particular? Can you give specific cites? I really want to work with you to improve this article, but yes your tone sounds very hostile. I'm not really sure why. I hope we are all working together, as we all give our time for free. I've already provided a lot of RS on this both in this discussion, and in previous ones. I am happy to provide others, but please could you do likewise. I think it would help if we could see where we all do agree as well as disagree.

Just to be clear, and it's possibly just me being dense, but I'm not entirely certain of the thrust of your argument. Is your contention that Gibraltar, Minorca, Pensacola, the Battles of the Saintes (etc.) aren't part of this war? Should there be two articles or one? Which RS is this based on? You seem to have expressed different views during the discussion. Again I really don't want to cross swords as I'm really grateful for your efforts to improve the article. Regards, Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start with something simple. What reliable source(s) say the American Revolutionary War didn't start over and wasn't fought for American independence? We've already agreed to mention events like the Siege of Gibraltar and the Mysore War in India. We also mention a number of other such events that have varying degrees of association with the actual fighting in America, even ones that have zero impact on the outcome of the revolution, fought for their own separate reasons. If you wish to expand on the coverage and the weight we give to these events, it's incumbent on you to provide the sources that warrant such coverage, and in proportion to the sources that don't, if you expect anyone to accept the idea that e.g. the Mysore War had just as much impact on the revolution as did the battles of Long Island, Saratoga and Yorktown. For every source that happens to mention e.g.Mysore, I dare say I can show you twenty that do not, or at best, only mention the event in passing, just as an example of showing how Britain was preoccupied with her other interests all over the globe. Again, we've been through this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

But thats where your, NPOV slant comes in, that the assumption is that all events must have had "an impact on the revolution" in order for it to be of relevance to the article. There were events in Europe and elsewhere in the world ongoing that were part of the overall war and had little impact on the "American Revolution", such as the naval battles in the indian theater and the Battle of Jersey. To frame the article in such a manner clearly gives it a American centric viewpoint which violates the NPOV rules.XavierGreen (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"The overall war [with] little impact on the American Revolution" is the Second Hundred Years' War among European powers worldwide 1689-1815. That is not comprehended in the American War for Independence 1775-1783, although elements of French and Spanish interest in distracting UK and weakening its empire long term do coincide for almost eight years. @Gwillhickers and XavierGreen: TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

DOI

Although its a side issue, just to be clear, the Declaration of Independence was in July 1776 not in April 1775, therefore the war did not begin over the issue of independence (see the Olive Branch Petition for instance). David McCullough's 1776 covers this in great detail. It was fought primarily in the [former] thirteen colonies (although fighting did take place in Florida, Canada (etc.) until 1778 when France entered the war. After that America did become a secondary theater, much to Washington's chagrin. (already provided RS above, can provide more) The exception being Yorktown when the convergence of a variety of forces led to the trapping of Britain's second largest army in America. However this did not end the war. Washington waited in vain for French assistance to take New York, but the focus had shifted to Jamaica and Gibraltar. Good RS on this are Thomas Fleming The Perils of Peace: America's Struggle for Survival After Yorktown, Don Glickstein. After Yorktown: The Final Struggle for American Independence, Jonathan R. Dull, The French Navy and American Independence: A Study of Arms and Diplomacy, 1774-1787 and Orville Murphy Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes: French Diplomacy in the Age of Revolution, 1719-1787.

I've already made clear my view on the lack of RS on Mysore, although India was a developing battleground between Britain and France.

I really do ask you to provide you the RS you've used to form your view on this, because it would help us make progress. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Mysore was listed as a co-belligerent power, which is where is should be restored to in the infobox. The situation you are both describing is exactly the definition of what a co-belligerent is. Mysore was fighting a common enemy to France, Spain, America, ect., but it did not formally ally itself with America, Spain, ect. The Indian theater of operations was a part of the American Revolutionary War, the British and French fought in the theater well prior towards Mysore's entrance into the conflict. For example see the Siege of Pondicherry (1778). As for sources, here are a couple that pop up with a simple google books search. [[5]], [[6]]XavierGreen (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Let’s see if we can stop talking past one another.

“Insurrection”, or rather colonial insubordination and felony assault on a squad of the British garrison at the Boston Massacre is NOT the “American Revolutionary War”. The American War for Independence begins at the Declaration of Independence. It ends when Great Britain declares by treaty with the United States as an equal independent nation, (1) all allegiance to the British Crown is absolved, and (2) all political connection with Great Britain is dissolved.

At the Treaty of Paris (1783) the UK acknowledged the independence of the United States. NEITHER France NOR Spain is signatory. NO mention is made of French or Spanish territory, anywhere in the world. No OTHER belligerent is named, on the Indian subcontinent or elsewhere. Where are the RS that say otherwise?

The Treaty of Versailles of Britain with France (1783) [text in English] or the Treaty of Versailles of Britain with Spain (1783) [text in English, NEITHER OF WHICH mentions either the “United States” or its “independence” anywhere in their texts are NOT the instruments ending the American Revolutionary War, even if Wikipedia editing wars have conflated the three among article titles and administrator coding.

discussion :::On the face of it is as our ‘Lord Cornwallis’ says, in April 1775, North American English colonies appealed to their King as loyal subjects to restore legal protections and rights guaranteed them in royal charters from the Stuart Kings – after the Elizabethan-chartered corporations of private stock failed in their colonization efforts to expand empire; the success of the East India Company notwithstanding.

They petitioned the currently serving monarch George III, referred to in British Whig press and throughout the contemporary English-speaking world as the “German King”, a German-speaking king in an English-speaking nation, born of a German family, and related to rulers of German principalities in a way that gave him conflicting international interests publicly argued by Whigs in the British Parliament. (though George was not born in a German principality).

The British North American “conflict” of the 1770s began as an insurrection against a tyrant-king to restore English Rights guaranteed all Englishmen at the assumption of William and Mary to the British throne. Thirteen adjacent colonies joined politically in a First and Second Continental Congress; Canada and Bermuda demurred. The Olive Branch Petition to King George III failed.

The “American War of Independence” began on July 4 [5][6], 1776 when at the first paragraph of their Declaration, the “one people” in the former British North American colonies declared themselves politically “independent” of the people of Great Britain, and “assumed among the powers of the earth [a] separate and equal station”.

The paper demonstrated that the rights of Americans had been compromised in their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by George III in a 27-item bill of impeachment defining a tyrant unworthy to rule a free people governing. By arbitrarily withdrawing his protection of the colonists as their Sovereign, the colonists were no longer bound to give their consent to be governed by him as his subjects - - a reasoning argued in British Whig philosophy, politics and statute for over fifty years of legal tradition in the United Kingdom.

The “war” that was the “American Revolutionary War” was fought over the conclusion of the Declaration at its last paragraph: that the United States were “absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved …”

At the Treaty of Paris (1783) the UK acknowledged the independence of the United States. Reference to secret deals between French and Spanish relative to their worldwide assault on the British Empire - - apart from the American War of Independence (American Revolutionary War) - - led to a delay of some time before the Treaty of Versailles (1783) with France (text in English) ended the war among the British and French, without reference to the United States, and regardless of its attaining independence from Britain or not. And the Treaty of Versailles (1783) with Spain (text in English) ended the war among the British and Spanish, without reference to the United States, and regardless of its attaining independence from Britain or not.

The three are not to be confused or conflated by editors of good faith. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

edit break

• TVH— Thanks for outlining some of the finer points, along with ones that should be long since familiar among editors here. Yes, up until 1775 King George (the "German King") was considered a tyrant king by most colonists and many in England, and one whose efforts to hold up English Rights came under considerable scrutiny. After being subjected to an assortment of different Acts, and one new tax after another, the idea of independence became more and more desirable among the colonies. When the Olive Branch petition was rejected the line in the sand between Britain and the Colonies became quite defined. Moreover, though the Declaration of Independence didn't occur until 1776, the colonists had already made it perfectly clear at Lexington-Concord, in 1775, that they wanted nothing to do with British rule. Before that the colonies formed a Patriot provisional government known as the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, calling for local militias to train and ready themselves for possible military conflict with Britain. The Colonial government exercised effective control of the colony outside of British-controlled Boston. The idea of American independence was in the forefront beginning with the Suffolk Resolves of 1774. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Xvaier — As pointed out, the first sentence in the lede defines the primary theme and scope of this article with this statement:
  The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence .... — I'm not the one who is attempting to include events like Mysore as part of the revolutionary war, this is your hope. As such, we will need more than one lone source that says so, and in clear and no uncertain terms outlining how this war was part of the American revolution. Simply because Britain fought this war in the last years of the Revolution - and in 1784? Again, if the Revolution ended in 1783, how is that a campaign which lasted until 1784 be a part of that revolution?  Are you now saying we should list the Revolution as ending in 1784? Clearly the Mysore War was its own war, fought for reasons that had nothing to do with American independence, regardless if a source may lump it in with the Revolution in passing terms. As for any "slant", you've pretty much established yours by attempting to advance the idea that the war wasn't really fought for American independence. Once again, you've given us no source for that. It is incumbent on you to provide sources if you wish to advance any of theses idea here. You should simply post here in Talk what you would like the article to say and provide the sources. Since this has become something of a controversial issue, not supported by the greater bulk of sources, you should provide us with more than one source which gives us something more than a fuzzy and passing general statement with nothing to qualify these views. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No where have I said that the war "was not about American independence", but American independence was merely just one issue (albeit the most notable issue) in an wider global conflict. Was the war prior to the entry of France and Spain solely a struggle for American independence? Yes. But after the entry of France and Spain into the conflict, it became much more than that. For example, for the Spanish, the primary goal in carrying out the war was the recovery of the territories it had lost to Britain in previous wars (like Gibraltar and Minorca). Any attempt to present an american centric point of view to the article creates a clearly impermissible and unhistorical slant to the article.XavierGreen (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

mark2

Once again, this has not happened -- we have a large section that covers Britain's other involvements, while observing wp:weight, in accord to the coverage, if any, in nearly all the notable sources. Previously we had two sections for India, two for the Americas and two for Europe. Once again, most of the names of famous battles were hidden in piped links. The Siege of Gibralter was even mentioned, twice, in the lede, while Valley Forge and the Battles of Long Island and Yorktown and others were not.  "american centric"?  Once again, the war was initiated over the struggle for independence. Once again, the Mysore War ended the year after the Revolutionary War had ended. Obviously that war had nothing to do with the struggle for independence. Simply because Britain got wrapped up in other wars later on is secondary to the American Revolution, per the title to this article. Thanks for at least acknowledging that the war for independence is the most notable. After all, it gave birth to the United States – or is that just a footnote for you?  "American independence was merely just one issue..."??  It would be nice if you ceased lecturing us on an American slant, not after what the article has just gone through and the comments we've witnessed here on the Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Armistice holds, armies leave or disband, final formal peace signed

@XavierGreen: While RS referenced by @Lord Cornwallis: do speak to the histories of British diplomats and French navies. We can look at them each in my next post.

To be clear: There is no war when the armies go away and there is no fight. After the Treaty of Paris (1783), or technically with the armistice that no signatory belligerent violates, there is no American Revolutionary War with no American army extant anywhere in the world. After American independence secured from Britain, their armed forces withdrew from US port cities, and the US Continental Army is disbanded. All hostilities that can be characterized as "war" cease between Britain and the US at American Independence at the Treaty of Paris (1783) between them. That is, PRIOR to cessation of hostilities among the armed forces of Great Britain, France, Spain, Netherlands, and their allies, surrogates and puppets, worldwide.

Discussion #1.This article has a topic sentence referring to the American Revolutionary War as the American War of Independence.

#2. The geographic scope of the article is focused on the war in and around the North American continent prosecuted by a British colonial insurrection for independence from Britain 1776-1783 under the authority of the United States Congress.

It is appropriately expanded to include significant events related to war waged relative to American independence made on (a) the US Congress & (b) its territory and (c) its citizens & (d) its property, principally in North America.

#3. A state of war exists between the US Congress and Great Britain at the signing of the Declaration of Independence July 4 [5][6], 1776. It continues until peace is agreed to between the two principal belligerents, Britain and the US agree to treat one another as equal sovereign nations in April 1783 at Congressional acceptance of the Treaty of Paris (1783). It acknowledged the end of war hostilities AND the independence of the US.

The earlier armistice among European belligerents worldwide became final in treaties signed in September 1783 at the Treaty of Versailles with France (1783) and at the Treaty of Versailles with Spain (1783). Each treaty made by Britain is made separately with each sovereign belligerent: France, Spain, and the US. No reference is made to ancillary belligerents among the European allies such as the Mysore Sultanate, Hanover Principality, or Iroquois Confederacy in any of them.

#4. This is apparent by the natural light of reason in editor wp:good faith: There is no war with no armies and no fight.

The commander in chief of the Continental Army resigned with no replacement, and the field armies of the Congress were disbanded. RS do NOT write of the 1783-1785 raids between Iroquois (British ARW allies) and Onieda (US ARW allies) as "part of the American Revolutionary War", nor any frackas in subcontinent India that takes place between British and French allies, surrogates or puppets elsewhere in the world after the disbanding of the Continental Army . . .

Other European conflicts amongst themselves are NOT aimed at the US Congress, territory, citizens or property, to further, or to hinder the cause of American independence by war - - - the subject of this article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)