Jump to content

Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

ARW scope and scholarly references

At the first sentence of the Introduction, I’ve added a Note on the ARW scope iaw TWO mainstream BRITISH scholarly authorities here.

It reads, “The scope of the American Revolutionary War between the US Congress and Great Britain is dated 1775-1783. It began in 1775 at Lexington's "The shot heard round the world", or formally at the 1776 Declaration. That war ends formally at the Treaty of Paris (1783), signed exclusively between Britain and the US. It cedes British North American territory to the sovereign control of the US as an independent nation. For further clarification, reference two mainstream scholarly references that are used throughout the English-speaking world. The first is published by Britannica[1]; the second is published by Routledge.[2]"

  1. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, “American Revolutionary War”
  2. ^ Dictionary of War, “American Revolution (1775-83)”, p. 13

Although there has been some opposition referencing a multi-purpose RfC “consensus” on this page to overturn the scholarly authority of both Britannica and Routledge in their ARW-related historiography, in over two months of discussion here, NO LINK to any such “consensus” procedure can be found for this article in its Talk archive.

I propose that WHEN WE DO DECIDE to initiate a series of RfCs at the Military History Project, one of the elements in the package should be to establish the scope of the article and the editorial authority of these two mainstream BRITISH scholarly references.

The results of the RfC series should be published at a permanent leading section at Talk:American Revolutionary War, under a prominent header: “FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions about this article and its topic.” Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

p.s. "[The French] proved an indispensable asset in the revolutionaries’ victory at the Siege of Yorktown (1781), which ended the war. - Encylopedia Britannica, “Franco-American Alliance”, or for ARW purpose: "ended the war, militarily". - TVH TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

The overall scope of the article is easily established by the article's name, i.e. the American Revolutionary War, or the American War of Independence.  The key words are American and Revolution and Independence. The colonies/soon to be America went through a revolution. Most of Britain's other global escapades had little to no bearing on that, as both you, others and myself have well articulated, repeatedly. Many editors have been pinged by Xavier and myself with little response. Trying to keep optimistic, at this late date it seems that most involved editors are thoroughly tired of rehashing the same issues to one or two editors who refuse to get it, or at an RfC, but we'll see. Seems there's still more work to be done before we go through an RfC. In any case, the criteria for removing the NPOV tag has long since been met. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

thoughful-1. Does it follow at the NPOV tag removal, that the current Infobox posting OUTSIDE of the ARW military scope, presuming to expand the article by extending it into Euro Great Power diplomatic history, can NOW be removed ?
thoughtful-2. Does it follow at the NPOV tag removal, that the current 'Great Powers' section can be moved and re-edited to fit into Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War#Treaty of Paris ?
Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The NPOV tag was inappropriately added for the entire article, with no initial discussion, twice, involving a fair number of issues, most, if not all, of which have been thoroughly addressed, several times. A consensus over the idea that the article did not merit the NPOV tag has also been well established, and if need be, I can easily refer back to the individual examples of disapproval, which I've already done once before. The NPOV issue shouldn't hinge on whether we include a debatable item in the info-box outside the ARW scope. The Great Powers at war 1778–1784 section, however, could be better summarized, but here also, it doesn't seem to be anything by itself that would merit an NPOV tag for the entire article. Since discussion on most matters hasn't occurred with the opposing editor in weeks, and on some issues, like Gibraltar, Mysore, etc, much longer, along with a clear consensus of prior British-centricity, there is ample grounds for tag removal, which already occurred once by an uninvolved editor. However, it would be best if another uninvolved editor review matters and remove the tag on his/her own initiative. If the tag at this late date were to be added yet again, it would become a matter for an appropriate noticeboard, where upon reviewing the edit history and the previous version of this article, it'll be easy to demonstrate that the article, up until lately, has been acutely British-centric. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Move 'Great Powers' to 'Diplomacy'

Re: previous threads about moving the ‘Great Powers’ section to a ‘Diplomacy’ focused article.

For reference here and for editors at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, here are elements from previous posted discussion related to the section ‘Great Powers’, copyedited for continuity. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

INSERT
I have tagged as DISPUTED, the sub-subsection 'International war breaks out' # Great Powers at war 1778-1784. The elaborated narrative that I’ve recently copyedited with a gallery of major Euro players, belongs more properly in a section about the Revolutionary War for DIPLOMATIC context as discussed in several threads here at Talk over the last two months.
PROPOSE: move it to Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War under the section Treaty of Paris. The transferred material can then be referenced here as in a top-hat 'See main article' citation. That will shorten this already somewhat overly-long article.
Tangential diplomatic history among European Great Powers and their respective related military operations does NOT belong in an article with a focus of the "American Revolutionary War", between Great Britain and its thirteen rebelling colonies in Congress, 1775-1783 ... as cited at the mainstream scholarly reference, Encyclopedia Britannica. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • TVH, thanks for your well informed efforts. You've tagged it, and are claiming it belongs in a different article, to which I generally agree. Also, the article is now at an all time high in terms of article size -- 108k of readable prose. I would recommend that some trimming is in order -- per the actual war/battles that the article should focus on. The article now seems to be a bit involved in the various treaty details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: We are agreed.
- 1. I've just now cut the narrative text at "British defeat in America" more than half, another 500-600 words. -2. But I tagged my take on the DIPLOMATIC Euro Great Power situation as it only TOUCHED ON the ARW, Congress & US independence from Britain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
AGREED. In the previous section International war breaks out amounting to 832 words without illustration, I made a TWO element take-away for FUTURE overall-article editing. (1) A section to STAY of 408 words. It is DIRECTLY related to ARW military operations and events immediately connected to the ARW and its outcome of American independence and territory at the Peace of Paris (1783): North America, east of the Mississippi River.
(2) A section to MOVE to another article related to diplomacy among Euro Great Powers, a section of 733 words, with five appropriate images to illustrate the passage. I mean to ultimately TRIM 424 words. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
END INSERT

ALSO: The entire discussion above directly applies to the article's Aftermath section, "Preliminary agreements". They relate entirely to the DIPLOMATIC back-and-forth in PARIS, preliminary to the Treaty of Paris, NOT to the conflict of the ARW. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

MOVED 'Preliminary agreements' to 'Diplomacy'

I've MOVED the diplomatically focused section 'Preliminary agreements' relative to the Treaty of Paris here, to Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, in the Treaty of Paris section.  Done. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Infoxbox 'co-belligerent' Spain

At the Infobox here, I've (a) at "US commanders1": ADD Gen. Bernardo Gálvez per Talk 5-wks ago @ 4 mentions;

- and REMOVE Capt. Parker, initially listed there IMO as someone who gained prominence as a "first", rather than someone who emerges as an ARW "major" figure by a review of the six-year conflict. Reference Talk 4-wks ago, @ 1 mention in the article.

and, (b) After two-weeks of study among the RS recommended to us by our Lord Cornwallis, AND a review of Talk threads by contributors Canute and Dimadick, AND DESPITE previous reservations due to extensive unfounded claims of an ARW unnamed and unaccounted for AGENCY, spreading itself "into a war worldwide" as argued at Talk and in the narrative,

I determined to be wp:BOLD, and re-introduce SPAIN into the "US belligerents" column, qualified as a "co-belligerent" and qualified in its role fighting Britain for the two years 1779-1781 in the Mississippi River Basin at a Note. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

co-belligerent works fine, and is more comprehensive in terms of Spain's actual involvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020

In the casualties section of the infobox, it says that French total dead (in the footnote labelled "m") are included for "1178-1784." It's kinda goofy, but it should be changed to "1778-1784". 2601:85:C101:BA30:453F:7AA4:A984:838E (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Good eye. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
And all this time I thought the war had lasted 606 years.  :-)   -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
HAH! "No slack for the weary." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Dutch Involvement in the American Revolutionary War

The Dutch had begun fortifying the Americans with supplies as early as 1774. They harbored American ships in Amsterdam, and provided the Americans with naval stores from their Caribbean colonies. They were sympathetic to the Americans from the very beginning of the revolutionary crusade.

They aroused great ire from England for their persistent aiding of the Americans despite ostensible "neutrality", and were attacked by England on several occasions for this very reason. This culminated into what the Dutch themselves called the "American War" in 1780.

Why were they removed as co-belligerents?

See - archive.org/details/dutchrepublic00edlerich

021120x (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the capacity of Dutch involvement, not to mention their strong moral support, I tend to agree that they also should be listed as co-belligerents, perhaps with a short footnote for clarity. e.g.The Dutch harbored American ships, provided funding and supplies and moral support throughout the war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
AGREED, "Co-belligerent" works as qualified. But NOT 'belligerent', (a) though the Dutch are explicitly invited to join in the Franco-American treaty to guarantee US independence, the Dutch did NOT join or guarantee independence; and (b) the Infobox should NOT list the Dutch Stadtholder as a field commander in America, indicating that he militarily helped to determine the expanse of US territory (as did Galvez assisting British cession of western Quebec) at the Treaty of Paris (1783) between Britain and the US - - to which the Dutch were NOT signatory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

International angle

I read this article for the first time today and thought it was pretty good. I was going to make one comment about the international context, but, having scanned this talk page wasn’t so sure that’s a good idea to do that! Nevertheless I’ll go ahead and make the comment (gulp) but won’t involve myself any further. I did think it would benefit from a short section headed something like “International context”, with a link, as main article, to Anglo-French War (1778–1783) just to clarify more crisply how it did form part of a broader international conflict, without losing it’s North American singularity. There is some of that scattered around e.g. some of the content of the sub-sections headed “France” and “British America and Empire” would work better in such a section. As I say, the article reads pretty well but I think it would benefit from a little (and I mean a little) more of that context for background. DeCausa (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. We already have a Foreign intervention section where we outline the various foreign involvements. Throughout the article people like Lafayette, von Steuben, Rochambeau and other such foreign dignitaries are worked into the narrative. The Treaty of Paris section also outlines the various foreign entities involved in the negotiations for peace.  [Add] — The article also has a rather large section, i.e. theNorth Ministry collapses, devoted to the involvements of Lord North, the Carlisle Peace Commission, Edward Gibbon, William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne and other British involvements and concerns. — However, we are always open to suggestions, keeping focus of course on the actual struggle for/against independence between Britain and the soon to be United States. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear DeCausa: This article is meant to focus on the military history of the ARW conflict between GB & US-FR, 1775-1783, fought over US independence in America. To defer to the importance (dominance) of two scholarly references in the English-speaking world globally, we wish to give wp:DUE WEIGHT editorially to Encyclopedia Britannica “American Revolutionary War, (1775-83)” and the Routledge Dictionary of War “American Revolution (1775-83)”.
They omit ANY reference to the Anglo-French War (1778–1783), whereas we NOW have several mentions in the ARW article, going OVERBOARD to collegially accommodate ALL editorial views within the wp:FRINGES of mainstream historiography, and free of any taint from 19th century historian exceptionalism, triumphalism, or imperial bias. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Your answer feels like you are addressing one of the sides in this esoteric and deeply uninteresting argument on this talk page. For that reason I don’t find an answer to my point in your reply. I’m making a simple “typical reader” type point. You have a smattering of references at different points in the article as to how the Revolutionary War intersects militarily with the preeminent global conflict of the time. It’s commonsense to make that linkage but to make it accessible to readers it would also make sense to gather it in one short section and explain what that intersection is (or isn’t) in a succinct summary. It’s got nothing to do with whether or not “Gibraltar” or “Mysore” was part of the war or not, or whatever it is you lot are arguing about (of which I have no clue nor interest). I don’t have this talk page (or article) on my watchlist so, happily, I don’t expect to be back again. DeCausa (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@DeCausa: You expressed a concern over "International context”. It was pointed out for you that there is already a large Foreign intervention section, that there is coverage of a variety of people from different parts of the world involved in the revolution, militarily, politically and diplomatically, along with the involvements of several countries at the Treaty of Paris, all with plenty of linkage. If this doesn't amount to an "international angle" for you you should have been more specific as to what topics and such you'd like to see covered, rather than skirting points in the discussion and carrying on in a rather insulting manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I’ve already explained twice. It’s scattered and incoherent and needs to be brought into a single section giving an overview. Please don’t ping me again: the attitudes and approach of the editors on this talk page are appalling and I don’t want any further involvement. DeCausa (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Since your initial appearance here you've been addressed in a collegial manner, so there's really no call for rancor, insults and sweeping accusations, thank you. The focus of the article, per its title, American Revolutionary War, is on the struggle for and against independence between Britain and the soon to be United States. Any "foreign" involvement is covered in the appropriate sections, along with two entire sections highlighting foreign involvements. The article doesn't need yet another dedicated section for foreign involvements. Thank you for setting the example of how the tone of the discussions should occur. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

REPLY to DeCausa: re: your assessment above: “You have a smattering … as to how the Revolutionary War intersects militarily with the preeminent global conflict of the time” – you indicated that to be the 1778-83 Anglo-French War. But you seem unfamiliar with the connection between that war and “Gibraltar” when you assert, any discussion elsewhere here of that war has ”got nothing to do with whether or not “Gibraltar” … was part of the war.”, a way of belittling the discussions at this Talk. Well FYI, Gibraltar was guaranteed by France to Spain by treaty to secure a Spanish alliance to invade Britain and recover empire lost at the 1763 Treaty of Paris, and that is how Spain became a co-belligerent with the US making war on Britain in North America, which in turn, is of some interest here at ARW because it is in the scope of the article.

CONTEXT # 1. In the “long view” of Euro military history, there is an ongoing 1689-1815 Second Hundred Years' War of more years’ war than peace between Britain and France, which is an overarching context of military history that you seem unconcerned about - - it's hard to figure out "where you're coming from". Giving a direct quote with a link to RS is very useful for establishing credibility on this Talk page, avoiding bald assertions without any sourcing. It's a sort of "grounding" thing for reasonable discussion.

CONTEXT # 2. In the Britannia encyclopedic overview for the general reader of the times and the topic, “United Kingdom, Britain from 1754-1783” by the pre-eminent British scholar Linda J. Colley, there is NO mention of wp:DeCausa's “preeminent global conflict of the time”; it is literally all about “The American Revolution”, in America, American waters, and at home in Britain.

In “Britain 1783-1815”, the next Britannica section on the topic, Colley makes brief mention of the contextual significance of that Anglo-French War for the general reader, viz "In February 1783 Britain made a far from disadvantageous peace with its European enemies ... France was given settlements in Senegal and Tobago, but Britain recovered other West Indian islands lost during the war.” I hope this helps you on your way. Good health in COVID year one. Sincerely - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That post is everything that’s wrong this page. Don’t ping me again. DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, "everything that’s wrong this page" (the offended editor was "mentioned", not "pinged").
(1) SUBSTANTIVELY, editors here resort to Britannica and Routledge as mainstream scholarly references in the English language without American bias, but then an objection is registered WITHOUT counter information to discuss it, no direct quote, no RS reference, no link as suggested for rational discussion here; and
(2) PROCEDURALLY, a collegial alternative is offered to embrace one fly-by editor's interest in an Anglo-French war, by encompassing all of them 1689-1815 in a BRITISH historiographical context instead, but then no engagement, only preemptive wiki-talk dismissal of the intended Wikipedia editorial processs. Farewell. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • A reminder, and for the sake of new-comers to the article/talk page: The focus of this article, per its title as spelled out in bold in the lede, is the American Revolutionary War or American War of Independence, involving the struggle for/against American independence between Britain and the American colonies. There is no longer a dedicated section for Washington, Howe, Clinton, et al. These individuals and their involvements are covered, in terms of the war for independence, in the various appropriate sections. Likewise, we don't have a dedicated section for Britain's other global involvements and other "international" affairs – we cover any such involvements in the various appropriate sections where there is a direct connection to the war for/against independence. The "International angle" is already well summarized in a fair number of sections, not to mention the Foreign intervention and Treaty of Paris sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
For this article to get anywhere near GA status, let alone further, it must include in its coverage the campaigns in Europe, the Caribbean, and the Indian subcontinent. Your attempts to argue otherwise are impermissible synthesis.XavierGreen (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. Once again, the Mysore War, in India, was a completely different war which didn't end until the year after the ARW had officially ended. How could it have been part of the ARW? This question has been submitted to you several times now and you have yet to give us your explanation. The Gibraltar campaign was a war declared by Spain against Britain for no other reason than to gain control of Gibraltar, having nothing to do with the struggle for American independence, yet the article mentions this campaign for historical context anyways, along with other international involvements, so I'm not quite understanding your complaint. Is it your intention to have two dedicated sections for Europe, India and the Americas all over again? To claim Britain's other global affairs are automatically part of the ARW is the only synthesis, not to mention POV pushing, occurring around here. Perhaps one of these days you'll try to explain how e.g.the Mysore War is related to the ARW other than to assert that Britain happened to be fighting it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
This article improves with editor contributions that are substantive and cited to RS. (1) There is no RfC dismissing Britannica as an RS here. (2) There is no RS asserting that the French-Spanish treaty for Spain to join the Anglo-French War can commit the US to make war on Britain until Spain takes Gibraltar. It is not a part of the ARW because the US does not sign it, and its armies are all furloughed home.
- Britain offers and the US accepts peace, independence, and territory west to the Mississippi, beyond the French proposed Appalachian ridge, and without giving up Georgia to Spain. The end of the AWR is a done deal before the final assault on Gibraltar, AND before the Battle of the Saintes. Recall: History is a study to understand events by using chronological order as an organizational procedure.
- World history forward is to be, by-and-large after the War of 1812, just as RS report KING GEORGE III to have said on December 5, 1782 before a public joint session of Parliament (linked ABOVE) "Religion, language, interest, affections may, and I hope will, yet prove a bond of permanent union between the two [GB & US] countries.". -- See the Timeline to Peace in the section BELOW. The article will just have to advance without XavierGreen. Que lástima! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposals to reference Great Siege of Gibraltar

  • Neutral Proposal : The Siege of Gibraltar was also involved in the ARW as it took away British resources from the war on the American continent, and later negotiations over Gibraltar's fate was involved in the overall peace settlements between Britain, the United States, Spain and France. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The first premise is good. Although it is of some interest to naval historians that De Grasse won at the first encounter with Graves nearby Yorktown when he led the British out to sea in line. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The transports of supply slipped behind the fleets to land troops and siege guns for Washington and Rochambeau BEFORE the first broadsides were exchanged sailing off east into the North Atlantic.
However, later negotiations over Gibraltar were NOT submitted to US ministers in Paris, neither by British, Spanish nor French governments. US independence was recognized by treaty with France in February 1778, by preliminary agreement with Britain in November 1782 and George III announcement 5 December 1782, and by treaty with Spain in March 1783. NONE OF THEM returned to the table with Franklin or Jay to ask how Gibraltar should be disposed of or partitioned, nor Isla de Menorca . . .
and the US ministers were signatory to no other treaty with Britain but their own at the TREATY of Paris (1783), conforming to the preliminary GB-US peace settlement of November 1782, Congressional acceptance April 1783, conclusive GB-US peace signed by GB & US, ratifications February US, March GB, with ratifications exchanged in Paris April 1784, conforming to the November 1782 preliminary peace terms. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
TVH — Good points, but aside from those developments I believe we can at least say that during the peace settlements Gibraltar's fate was negotiated, making it clear that the U.S. was not a signatory to any treaty involving Gibraltar. Trying to be as neutral as possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Proposal 2: The Siege of Gibraltar was also involved in the American Revolutionary War as it took away British resources that could be employed in the war on the American continent.[1] Negotiations involving Gibraltar's ultimate fate however did not involve any settlements with the United States.[2][a]
We'll of course need to include the proper citations/sources, which I'll overall leave to you, but I'll look for and include any sources I can find. (Since done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC))
Citations
  1. ^ Ferling, 2007, p. 396
  2. ^ a b Miller, 1931, p. 35
  3. ^ Yale Law School, Avalon Project, Essay
  4. ^ National Archives, Provisional Peace Treaty, 1783, Essay
Notes
  1. ^ Negotiations over Gibraltar were not submitted to US ministers in Paris, neither by British, Spanish nor French governments. U.S. independence was recognized by treaty with France February 6, 1778,[2] by preliminary agreement with Britain in November 1782[3] and George III announcement December 5, 1782, and by treaty with Spain in March 1783.[4] None of them returned to the negotiation table with Benjamin Franklin or John Jay to settle on how Gibraltar should be disposed of.
Sources
  • "British-American Diplomacy — Preliminary Articles of Peace; November 30, 1782". Yale Law School, Avalon Project. 1782. Retrieved July 15, 2020.
  • "Continental Congress: Remarks on the Provisional Peace Treaty". U.S. National Archives. 1783. Retrieved July 15, 2020.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If there are no issues I'll incorporate this into the narrative in the Treaty of Paris section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed RfC series

@XavierGreen and Gwillhickers: I propose a fresh series of RfCs after I've completed an article trim walk-through. Goal: several item-specific "consensus" here, and later featured in the Talk header in FAQs. As it is, several improvements have been blocked by "authority bombs" from - ONE (1) - unspecified, open-ended, wide-ranging and amorphous "consensus" that seems to have universal application at every point of dispute.
When we cite an RS, the answer is one of three options from a pre-set menu to oppose the focus of the ARTICLE TOPIC here: The American Revolutionary War for or against US independence and sovereign territory in North America: Option A. The referenced citation is not among an opposing editor's "all RS" as a term-of-art opposition, even though we've just linked to one.
Option B. There are "many citations" as a term-of-art opposition, used as a sort of 'preponderance of evidence' stand-in meant to overwhelm the direct quote from our linked RS, but individual opposition items are never themselves referenced. (Though due credit to our Lord Cornwallis for a profitable reading list a couple months ago.) Option C. RS referenced in opposition are misconstrued:
The proposed series of RfCs seem to be required because, No link in Talk archives can be found to share for the flexible all-purpose "consensus" used overthrow the article scope found in Britannica's "American Revolutionary War" - - - not at any time throughout our eight weeks' discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments and discussion:

  • An RfC at this point would be premature, imo, as there's still a lot of basic work, e.g. due-weight balancing issues, to tend to. e.g.Under the Analysis of combatants main section the subsections for Britain cover some nine pages of text, depending on your browser setting, while the subsections for the United States are covered with five. Best to get the major items out of the way before we go back and forth at the directive of some reviewer, esp if a given reviewer lacks basic subject knowledge, which, regrettably, is often the case. I seriously doubt we're going to find a reviewer that is going to look into specialized sources like Historian's Fallacies, and the like, while combing through the edit history of three+ years ago for an RfC that never occurred, while trying to discern any number of scattered discussions, past and present. i.e.There are no requirements for a reviewer. Even FA nom reviewers can just pop-up out of no where and start giving directives. In the past I've cleaned up so called FA articles that were lacking basic details, had errors of all sorts, etc -- articles that were claimed to of had "consensus". Anyway, perhaps it's best to look out after our own, before we dump this article in the lap of whomever decides to take on this long and complex article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

INSERT from the edit conflict:

Very true, the lengthiness critique applies to almost all Analysis-of-belligerents subsections. Some material may need to be transferred to each respective "Main article", but for the most part they can be trimmed here in a straight-forward copy-edit procedure without controvers ... after a careful review of material at the "Main article" link for each section.
So, it's not time to pull the trigger just yet for a 3-5 series of systematically prepared package of RfCs defining the scope of the article by several referenced RfC "consensus" in Talk FAQs.
But I did not want you to think that I had given up on the British scholarly reference Encyclopedia Britannica as an RS to be given wp:DUE WEIGHT in the ARW scope. I plan to chime in at Talk every 2-3 days with historians' fallacy helps as I can. The time in-between I plan to edit article narrative flow and continue to post my edit links here to document the progress as signposts for collegial oversight. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Since the issues involve NPOV, due-weight and the like, when the time comes, we should request RfC reviewers with subject knowledge. Perhaps the request would be best placed in a military history project. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: I was JUST looking at the WikiProject Military history # American Revolutionary War task force] for a review of their guides and criteria. (Also, how do you render that link for an easier copy-paste between double brackets  ?
I did find the last ARW review for GA from the Talk Infox link, where one fresh reviewer noted that items listed in the GA review previous had not been addressed. How do I get to the GA review before the GA last review ? Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The exact date escapes me at the moment, but this article was a GA many years ago - 2012 I believe. How that managed to occur, I dunno. As a general reminder, some trimming of some topics may be in order, just so long as we cover the topics involved comprehensively, inasmuch as the reader is not forced to jump to another article just to get the basic picture. As for something in the order of an RfC, we may want to submit a request at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests page, along with a note that we are specifically seeking outside opinions over NPOV and due-weight issues. Given the recent and past history of this article it shouldn't be difficult to explain point at the situation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay & concur. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't change AWR-America to “War of the American Revolution (global)”

At this Talk, there arises a DISTINCTION between

(a) The general usage of “American Revolutionary War” (ARW-America) to refer ONLY to conflict over US independence in North America,

"The American Revolutionary War was primarily a military conflict among subjects of the British Empire in North America and the North Atlantic, between Great Britain with allies against the rebel-independence US Congress with allies, for and against the independence of the United States."

versus
(b) Clodfelter and his (WoAR-Global), stretching the "ARW 1775-83 in America" for historiography to embrace a “War of the American Revolution” as primarily a European imperial conflict 1775-1784, formally defined from declarations of war 1778-79-80 against Britain to their separate conclusive treaties 1783-84. The Great Powers of western Europe warred over previous peace settlements in Europe and to recover military prestige. The methodology diminishes the American Revolutionary War as a "secondary theater" of conflict by the United States for its own independence.
The premise for WoAR-Global depends upon a methodology that connects dots without connections. The US could not negotiate independence independently with Great Britain. It was bound to the ally of its ally without US consent to await independence until after Spain conquered Gibraltar: (a) FOLLOWING France abrogating the 1778 Treaty of Alliance at that of 1779 Aranjuez with Spain, the US was bound by the Aranjuez Treaty between France and Spain.
(b) The US "in reality" was COMPELLED by sophisticated secret European diplomacy to wait for independence until Spain conquered Gibraltar, against its self-interest to gain independence as soon as possible with territory to the Mississippi River (Morris). This after 1) British Yorktown defeat and troop withdrawal into the confines of New York City, 2) loss of British domestic support to suppress the rebellion, and 3) the fall of war Prime Minister Lord North, and Parliament's bill for peace passed in March 1782.
Historians must write to the contrary for the WoAR-global interpretation: the British victory at Gibraltar led to the loss of their North American Empire; but that is not what the British said to themselves at the time in newspapers, or in Parliament.
posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
ISSUES: Intention was a part of ARW (3 parts); ARW determinative battle was Yorktown (2 parts).

Issue: Intention was a part of ARW: US independence or not

posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
French war on Britain changed the ARW
posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Gibraltar is in ARW, there is no ‘Anglo-French War’ anywhere
posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Issue: ARW determinative battle was at Yorktown, NOT Gibraltar

posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
No ‘Treaty of Paris” apart from “Peace of Paris”
posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
RS double standard
posted- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines "reliable source" by academic standards

No where in the manual of style does it require that a source be written by a scholar at a university to be considered "reliable."XavierGreen (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(1) @XavierGreen, Eastfarthingan, and Gwillhickers: If you did look, you misunderstand, misapply and misdirect others about what you found there in your post. Searching on “sources” at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, the first hit is in the Infobox: “Related guidelines”, Citing sources, “This page in a nutshell: Cite reliable sources. At Help:Referencing for beginners, Reliable sources: "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: (1) the work itself, (2) the creator of the work and (3) the publisher of the work. All three can affect reliability."
(2) “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. Other reliable sources include university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses." Find more at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There, linked above and directly quoted for your convenience previously: “Material [article, book] that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed [academic] sources or by well-regarded academic presses.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
EMBRACING COMPROMISE: This article might create a "Note" to explain HISTORIOGRAPHY about the "American Revolutionary War" with ALTERNATIVES to the mainstream found at BRITISH scholarly references, Britannica and Routledge Dictionary of War “American Revolution (1775-83)”. We should feature (a) Robert S. Seely’s Second Hundred Years' War, and perhaps, (b) the “WoAR-global” persuasion.
- WoAR-global advocates conflate the continental and imperial wars by western European Great Powers DURING the overlapping 2-1/2 year "shooting-war" time period 1778-1781, and the AWR among British subjects 1775-83 in North America and Atlantic. THEIR PREMIS: The US was bound to the ally of its ally without consent, FOLLOWING France abrogating the 1778 Treaty of Alliance at that of 1779 Aranjuez with Spain (Morris). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice

This article focuses on the military campaign, while the American Revolution covers the origins of the war, as well as other social and political issues.

Please try to keep this article at a reasonable length. The current approach has been to summarize the war in a way that will be clearly understandable to the general reader, without cluttering it up with too many details. Concentrate on the major figures and actions, and try to leave detailed discussion of war strategies, battle casualties, historical debates, etc. to linked articles about specific battles or actions.

Instead of adding additional detail to this lengthy article, consider adding your information to an article on a specific battle, or to one of these campaign articles currently in development. Additionally, one campaign, Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga (box at right), does not yet have an article specifically about those operations. {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Northern 1777}}

posted by 'Campaignbox' Template -?- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Revolutionary_War/Archive_20&oldid=974643288"