Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unbalanced coverage

The Analysis of combatants section is largely devoted to Britain, with sub-sections covering eleven pages of material, while the coverage in the United States sub-section has less than five. There are three dedicated sub-sections for Howe, Cornwallis and Clinton, while there is only one such sub-section for Washington. At this point I am inclined to think that the coverage for Britain in this main section, coming above that for the United States, is not a coincidence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not a coincidence. This entire debate is due to Brits wanting desperately to make excuses for getting spanked in America. And it is not new. They are fighting tooth and nail to clog the article with nonsense that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the American war for independence. They have won this particular battle in the past by attrition—they just will not stop squealing and screaming about it until everyone else collapses from exhaustion. But if we want this article to attain featured status, it must be shorter. And the best place to start is with all this irrelevant nonsense about Mysore and Gibraltar. —Dilidor (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Dilidor, this has been a problem with the en.wiki since day one. The BritClique thinks they have supreme right and primacy over any English language wiki article. Despite the fact that there are more of US speaking English and publishing written word than there are of THEM speaking English and publishing written word. We will always be ignoramuses and naive to them. Yes, it's always about attrition with the BritClique around here. As you say they will fight tooth and nail ad nauseum until any dissenting voice can't take it anymore, then proclaim it as a victory. For all their nonsense about superior wit, intellect and rhetoric they are actually quite immature; they simply mask their immaturity and feelings of inferiority with erudite and educated but ultimately empty and vapid words. It's the triumph of facade over substance. They rely on it. Jersey John (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The sentiment is well appreciated, but perhaps we might want to approach matters a bit more diplomatically. Currently, there are two sections covering the same theme, that being, Britain's other involvements. i.e. We have the International war breaks out (1778–1780) section, and Other British involvements (1781–1783) section, which was just renamed as such. This latter section should be removed in its entirety, while I've already condensed the former section considerably. Since I've already made a lot of changes and additions to this article and don't want to be accused of ownerhsip, I'm reluctant to make another trimming of remote British topics all by myself. However, we have three editors, at least, who feel the Other British involvements (1781–1783) section should simply be removed, esp since the idea has been addressed, repeatedly, and very reasonably. It seems Vyselink is on board with this idea also. If there are any items in the Other British involvements (1781–1783) section that are worth mentioning in this article we can include them in summary in the ''International war breaks out (1778–1780) section {which has been done). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I've gone through that section with a copy edit and removed Mysore completely. It was a single sentence and was out of place and rather jarring. I left in Florida only because it concerns America; it, too, is disjointed and somewhat jarring.
I still maintain that the entire section could be summarized in a single sentence—a sentence that I added at the beginning of the section. You'll notice that the previous section on foreign intervention takes the reader in detail up to 1780—then the "international war" section jerks them back to 1778. It interrupts the flow of the article, and it adds bewildering minute details that make the reader scratch his head and ask "how the hell did we get here?"
It is quite enough to tell the reader that Britain was once again pissing off everyone on earth and consequently their resources were spread thin in America. The Americans did not care! Nobody in America was following the events in Spain and Barbados and India; they were entirely irrelevant to the American struggle for independence. So we can let this section stand for now, but long term we should consider reducing it to a couple sentences with a "for further information" footnote. —Dilidor (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Well of course people like Dildor and Jros83 are squealing about this like children, since some of the content here offers a challenge to the many nationalistic revisionist myths of the Revolution that they've likely had indoctrinated into them from their world-renowned "history" classes. You can be constructive, or you can whinge about it. If you believe there is a disparity here between analysis of combatants and that the United States section does not offer up a substantive analysis, there is a simple solution: WRITE ONE. (80.0.26.58 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC))
Why don't you create an actual account before you decide to have your fun. Also, you quite clearly show your POV and agenda pushing right off the bat. Just further support of you UK editors making a concerted and purposeful effort to dilute US-centric articles. And by the way, Mr. 80.0.26.58 would you happen to be Cory Monteith? Are you still married to Leah Michele? Your editing history is interesting. Jersey John (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
"Also, you quite clearly show your POV and agenda pushing right off the bat" - Big talk coming from someone who started off his "argument" (and I use that term loosely) with conspiratorial accusations of the "BritClique" having a "supreme right and primacy over any English language wiki article". You then indulge in what can only be chalked up to feelings of insecure projection, with your baseless accusations of immaturity and British assertions of superiority. Funny how apparently others have bias and agendas but you don't, isn't it? I wouldn't have either of you editing a history article, you clearly can't keep your childish tantrums and nationalistic bias in check.(TomRidley (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC))
Please stay on topic, this side discussion makes it difficult to understand the dispute in the article. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I've added a global tag to the article, due to the purging of the majority of the text covering the international war. This isn't consistent with how RS treat the conflict. I strongly support the efforts to improve the article, but it hasn't got a hope of feature article status if it doesn't reflect mainstream scholarship on the war. As I said a couple of days ago, it is possible to have two articles on the subject in line with the earlier wars with one focusing on the entire war and one with a specific focus on American theatre. However, at the moment we only have one article and it needs to reflect the whole war. The idea that Gibraltar wasn't part of the American War of Independence is verging on WP:Fringe.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The overlap of our widely divergent spheres of understanding here is simply this: create a new article which addresses this alleged "world war" of which the American war for independence was merely "a theatre" [sic]. This view is truly ludicrous from the American perspective, so I'm guessing it will fall to a Brit to write it. Have at it, your lordship. —Dilidor (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Dilidor, a lot of sources I've provided are American. Your view (or mine) isn't important. What do the sources say? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm merely trying to find a common ground in this debate, and the one thing that we have all agreed on is that there needs to be a second article which expressly covers the "world war" angle. Since I do not hold to that perspective, I clearly cannot be one to undertake it. That is why I suggested that you do so, since it is your viewpoint. Again, just trying to find common ground on which to build a consensus and solution. —Dilidor (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think it might be a solution of a sorts, given how messy the war is. In terms of my "viewpoint", that is beside the point. Wikipedia policy is that we reflect the balance of RS. I've often added stuff to articles from RS that I've personally disagreed with.
But I am happy to work with others discussing the practicality of demarcation if there are two articles needed. Would you admit, at the very least, that there is a scholarly view held by many academics that post-1778 this became an international war?Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
All can agree that RS say N.Am. British subjects showed that the UK Empire 1775-1777 could not suppress an internal insurrection over the course of two years with veteran regulars, a great power navy, auxiliary Indian warriors seasoned in the Seven Years' War, and Germanic conscripts of mercenary princelings.
In 1777, UK regulars with colonial and Indian auxiliaries lost in pitched battle at Saratoga. The French learned of UK offers for local self government (a la later "British Commonwealth"), so the French preempted it with US treaties of defense and trade. European powers smelled weakness, the Spanish joined, and in a continuation of the Second Hundred Years' War 1689-1815, the French, Spanish, and Dutch made war on Britain again all over the globe. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Due weight

The generic references to the mainstream scholarship, covering the American Revolutionary War, in that they cover British events elsewhere on the globe in the same proportion as the actual war in America doesn't really stand. I'm quite familiar with the preponderance of reliable sources out there, and while many of them do indeed cover 'some' of the events in question they do so in realistic proportions. Enough of the exchange of viewpoints.  —  Let's look at some of the actual issues in question here in this article.

"Hostilities began with the Dutch in late 1780, and Britain moved quickly to enforce a blockade across the North Sea. Within weeks, they had captured 200 Dutch merchantmen, and 300 more were holed up in foreign ports".
Aside from the source for this statement being written in Dutch, the statement is unsubstantiated as something that has weight in this article. We need to see more than one, notable, RS that shows how the conflict in America gave rise to a blockade in the North Sea, which also explains the impact of this blockade on the fate of the war 'in' America. There should be more than a remote association to the Revolution for it to be covered here in the capacity proposed.
  • The section in question also covers the Battle of Dogger Bank (1781). The first sentence in the lede in the article for this topic says it was "Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, contemporaneously related to the Revolution". While the Dutch briefly helped out with supplies for the Americans, the conflict primarily involves trading disputes between the Dutch and the British, with the conflict lasting only a day – yet the section currently devotes more than half a paragraph to this incident, with no mention of how its outcome impacted the actual Revolution 'in' America. What reliable source directly ties this one day incident in with the Revolution inasmuch as it should be covered with anything more than a statement, if that?
  • The Second Anglo-Mysore War, has its own dedicated section, India, which is covered with three paragraphs and is almost a full page in size. It comes under the general heading of the Anglo-Mysore Wars, part of an ongoing conflict that lasted for three decades. There is more coverage for this remote event than there is for the Boston Tea Party, the Battle of Bunker Hill and the Battles of Lexington and Concord, combined (!), which are only mentioned in passing in this article. The names for these and other famous battles are hidden in piped links, btw -- yet another curiosity of this article. Anglo–Mysorean hostilities existed years before the American Revolution. All that need be said in this article is that the "Revolutionary War sparked Anglo–Mysorean hostilities in India once again". Once again, there is a serious Due-Weight issue that needs to be dealt with, and I've lost count of the times that this has been explained at length. Enough said. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I've missed a lot of discussion so won't respond to it all here as that would be just insane. However, I tend to agree with Gwillhickers. This article is about, as the title suggests, the American Revolutionary War. There was a larger global conflict that could have an article created about it, and I would be happy to see that one made. Indeed, while I dispute Lord Cornwallis's belief that the preponderance of RS's say as much (while personal experience of course means nothing, I do have a PhD in American Studies and in my academic career I have heard no one in a realistic sense discuss the other battles when talking about the ARW, as it would be impossible to do so and is unnecessary when the topic is the ARW), there are RS's that do. So let's create a page about that larger conflict. (Which, now that I think about it, I have never heard a name for. If the preponderance of RS's discuss it as such, there would be a name I would think, although I could have just missed it).
However this article is about, although I dislike the term it is useful in this context, the "theatre" of the ARW. It is far too long, and anything that doesn't directly have to do with the ARW needs to be either excised (Mysore has NOTHING to do with the ARW for example) or heavily edited to limit the amount of space that it takes up. Lord Cornwallis's statement that because another article does not yet exist that all this information belongs here is, to me, absurd on it's face. Did the first few articles created on Wikipedia have every aspect of space time and history in them? No. They were about THEIR subjects. I've looked at the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War page. It's quite small, and makes NO mention of the ARW. Why? If the connection is strong enough to mention it here, should it not also be mentioned in the Mysore page? No. Of course not. Because that page isn't about the global conflict, it's about the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War. This page is in turn about the ARW. Let's make it as such. Vyselink (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I've been checking on the extent of coverage in some of the most notable RS, starting with John Ferling's several works on the Revolution. e.g.There is no mention of Mysore, however, India is sometimes mentioned, along with other countries, but only to the extent that the Revolution 'helped' fuel conflicts for the British elsewhere about the globe, having little to no impact on the war and its aftermath in America. India is not mentioned at all in Ferling's Almost A Miracle (2007), considered his best work on the Revolution. It would be interesting to see one RS that covers Mysore in the same capacity that the battles of Bunker Hill, Lexington-Concord, Saratoga, et al are covered. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Vyselink. This article is about the whole war, not just one part of it. In RS there is one war called variously the American Revolution, American Rev War, American War of Independence. As the contention has been that the global war was a completely different war, I'd ask what is the name of it in RS?

@Gwillhickers. I don't think Mysore deserves the same level of coverage as other aspects of the war. It was involved with the war, but it was a comparatively unimportant theater. Worth a mention, but not too much. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  • That's good to hear. See my latest discussions (of May 8) below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of combatants

Back to the Analysis of combatants section... if you simply view the outline as displayed in the Contents section, the analysis is a mess. There's no structure to the analysis at all, it (like many articles on Wikipedia) has a lot of subsections that have been tacked on by different users over time. I've thought this for awhile, but I've been too lazy and/or busy to do anything about it. I recommend we do some old school writing practices and fix our outline first, which will decrease entropy and provide a solid framework for the article. This won't fix any content or balance issues, but it will reveal them and give clarity on which sections need the most help. Maybe we need a new section in Talk to discuss the outline, but first let me know if anyone agrees with me.Canute (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a problem. There are some sections that belong more at the American Revolution article rather than here. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Let's remember that we (still) have two sections that are devoted to the same theme, that being the other British engagements around the world. i.e. Currently the article has the International war breaks out (1778–1780) and the Other British involvements (1781–1783) sections. The latter section is obviously quite large and, again, poses a serious due-weight issue. We could simply take the most significant engagements in the Other British involvements section, certainly not all of them, and mention them in the International War Breaks out section, simply to demonstrate that the Revolution grew into sort of a contemporaneous world war. Yes, Ferling and others mention that the Revolution became a world war, but certainly not in the same capacities as WW 1 & 2. Bear in mind also, that while Ferling indeed makes reference to a world war, he only mentions these things in passing, giving the greater bulk of the coverage to taxation, Boston Tea Party, Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Yorktown, Washington, Howe, et al. We need to do the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ferling is a good source and I've cited him above although his primary focus is on the American theater of the war. An equally authoritive sources is Mackesey, The War for America: 1775-1783 which covers everything. I've stated in the past, that some sources are more interested in the war in America, some in the global war (I'd prefer that phrase because to me, like you, World War is generally only appropriate to WWI and WWII even if it does appear in many RS) but as far as I'm aware none suggest that they were separate wars. That is the point I have asked for RS on. Even if there were to be two separate articles with a focus on each, the RS regard them as one war and they need to be referenced as such. However, it could allow an element of focus in what was a wide-ranging and untidy war.

Again, I would emphasise how much I appreciate your efforts to improve this article, even if we have disagreed on certain points.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of fellowship. See my further reply, below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

{inserted:)

combatants

Would the analysis of combatants be more at home in the articles Continental Army and British Army during the American Revolutionary War pages? Those two pages in and of themselves need A LOT of work doing to them, there are a lot of good sources within the analysis itself (regardless of structural quality) that could really benefit those articles. We could then just provide a brief summary here with a link to those pages to read more.(TomRidley (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC))
AGREE. (as does Gwillhickers below). I hope to take a stab at it this week.
@TomRidley: Welcome! I regret we (me, I) have sometimes spiralled into a "wall of words" here. But thank you for joining us. I am walking through a "first look" copyedit through the article after a rough start. The first three days @ 9+ hours in NARRATIVE edits were LOST at another's revert for the sake of restoring two disputed flags in the INFOBOX - - I lost it, got called on losing it, I apologized for my lapse; procedurally it seems smoother sailing here since . . .
At this FIRST TRIAL RUN-THROUGH, I'm trying to cover ground without losing any citations from previous contributions. So far, cutting 500 words, adding 500 words, cutting another 500 words. This week so far, I tagged my ADDITION of 500 words as belonging to a "diplomatic history" section in another article. Gwillhickers then agreed, and I guess he wonders why I didn't just make the section move on my own initiative ... but,
- The rewritten, expanded section on diplomacy fleshed out five Euro Great Power ministers negotiating positions as they touched on US independence and territory, versus the previous version focusing on only three as US-ally-"belligerents" with or without any treaty connection to the US or its independence . . .
- but we spent OVER A MONTH here discussing "article scope", whether the ARW "caused-spread-led-to" Euro Great Power conflict worldwide over US independence, with the corollary that GIBRALTAR was the single most historically important military event in the ARW peace settlement at PARIS, because the ARW conflict did not conclude until Mysore ended two years after the Continental Army had been defunded and furloughed home. The historiography and conclusions sourced explicitly here at Talk to Lockwood at Alabama as "all RS".?!
... versus a narrative conveying the sense that it was (a) Yorktown-for-Paris and (b) Gibraltar-for-VERSAILLES. - - see - ? another "w-a-l-l of w-o-r-d-s", ALREADY . . . I can't help myself.
- So anyhow, and, all points to the contrary notwithstanding, for this first-walk-through copy-edit, I just SKIPPED OVER the larger blue-pencil "article scope" question until I cover the ground just ONCE for NARRATIVE FLOW . . . so, on to the next section . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to transplant the sections over? (TomRidley (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC))
It's okay by me, maybe AFTER a narrative flow clean-up. The move probably deserves its own Talk section, at the very-most-recent bottom of the page, and then a 3-5 day wait to see what the reaction may be . . . Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

William Howe and others

In all fairness to the issues at hand, the section for British General William Howe is not at all flattering, per his defeats and oversights, covered in the first paragraph. Not at all a hagiographic account. However, a dedicated section, at its existing length, for Howe, is a bit much for this article. I've no objections for a section for this major player in the Revolution, as we do for Washington, but it, also, needs to be condensed somewhat – esp since there is a dedicated article for this man. Same with the Clinton and Cornwallis section. Washington, however, was the central figure, in many respects. Imo biased opinion, Howe is the only British general who almost measures up to Washington in terms of accomplishments, but not necessarily in character. He Hung three women in New Jersey, without trial, for being spies. Two of these woman were hung by their feet, until dead. Not mentioned in the section. Anyways, we don't need to reduce that section down too much, but he was a defender of the Crown, not a central Founding Father of Britain, much less so in pre-war colonial times in America. While we're at it, there are no such sections for General Horatio Gates, the victor who defeated General John Burgoyne and forced his surrender at Saratoga, and e.g. Lafayette, major players also. I'm not taking any pleasure over the idea that this article, after so many years, needs much work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Washington was commander in chief from the first year of the war until the end, and had the incredible task of maintaining an untrained, unpaid army that was not united. Howe was commander in chief for a couple of years, proved British superiority on more than one occasion, but by many accounts he never particularly wanted the job. He certainly deserves discussion in the article. I would agree that he doesn't warrant as much as Washington, but that's not because of accomplishments or character, but rather because his role- although equal to his colonial counterpart- was shorter. Canute (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd totally agree. I don't think specific assessments of any of the war's Generals belong in this article and the selection is rather random.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, as we all know, we present any biographical coverage in terms of the facts. It was not my intention to say that Washington's character was better than Howe's in the main text, though on retrospect I must admit it could be taken that way. In any case, I'm wondering if we should take much of the material in the biographical sections and simply incorporate it into the narrative as is appropriate and on a per episode basis. Esp in cases where the coverage is duplicated in any of these sections. It seems that would be the approach to start off with at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Howe isn't particularly well-regarded by historians, but I think that belongs in his own article. He tended to brag that he beat Washington in every battle he faced him in, which is not untrue, but the general criticism of him is that he failed to take make use of the pre-1778 British advantages before the intervention of France made outright victory for Britain impossible. There has been a fairly recent biography of him that might be more favorable, but I haven't read it. In terms of space I think this article should as much as possible describe what happened, and not analysis of the behaviour of characters. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That Howe didn't take advantage of various strategic opportunities is now covered in the section where the given battles involved are covered. Yes, historical assessment for Howe, Washington, etc is best served in the biographical articles for these individuals.
  • Focus of the coverage should be on the formation of the Continental Army, arrival of the British troops and when and where the battles for or against independence occured. While, e.g. Mysore may be regarded as part of the global or world war by some historians, the folks in India weren't engaged because of any concerns about American independence; they were involved for their own interests, so coverage should only be in passing in an article about the war for independence. We should have one section committed to passing coverage of the most important engagements involved elsewhere on the globe. Again, many of these conflicts come under their own heading, e.g. Anglo-French War (1778–1783), a continuation of Anglo-French Wars, even though some historians may refer to them as part of the Revolutionary war, which, imo, is misleading to one degree or another, esp in cases where the belligerents involved had their own interests in mind, foremost. This is particularly true with the Great Siege of Gibraltar, where Spain and Britain's primary concern was control of this important location. The three year siege wasn't prompted by any concern for American independence. It just happened to occur during the final years of the war for independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox trim

The Infobox is so extensive that in my browser, it extends half way down into the five introductory paragraphs, forcing down the first image in the article main space.

In an ongoing process between article narrative copy edits, I’ve begun following up on Canute’s recommendation above at "Infobox citations", that the Infobox be trimmed of excessive detail. Some trimming can be done by deleting parenthetical information. Some can be reduced to notes to remove the direct Infobox clutter.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: conclusive treaty of peace by Britain and US, you should probably mention in one way or another that the conclusive peace that ended the War was in fact four treaties (of Britain with respectively the US, France, Spain and the Netherlands) that were negotiated together, signed together and closely intertwined with each other. There could not have been one without the others. Place Clichy (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: wp:ERROR: The British negotiate their treaty with each belligerent separately, and they are each signed separately: Treaty of Paris by US & GB alone in Paris; Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles by FR & GB alone in Versailles; Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles by SP & GB alone in Versailles; Anglo-Dutch Treaty of Paris by DR & GB alone in Paris. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned this before above and provided citations supporting it. The treaties between Spain and France and France and the United States all in effect bound each other to jointly ending the war together. The united states was bound by treaty not to end the war until the French also made peace with Britain, and France in turn was obligated to continue the war so long as Spain continued to be at war with Britain. Thus, so long as hope remained that Gibraltar could be taken, Spain in effect had a veto on the end of the war which continued until the relief of Gibraltar at the Battle of Cape Spartel. After the failure of the Grand Assault at the Great Siege of Gibraltar and the relief of the garrison there, the French were able to pressure the Spanish into finally agreeing to end the war. Thus, with Spain finally assenting to peace, both France and in turn the United States could make peace as well. With France making peace, the Netherlands also in turn made peace. The peace treaty between the French and British also included a provision that both parties were required to cease supporting their allies in India in hostilities as well, and thus Mysore was forced to end its war with Britain as well due to the withdrawal of French support.XavierGreen (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: wp:ERROR: The FR-US treaty binds FR to guarantee US independence; US must aid FR in Caribbean v GB if-and-only-if GB attacks FR (it is a defensive treaty). The FR-SP treaty binds FR to fight GB until SP takes Gibraltar. NO RS claims - you have supplied NONE in wp:Original Research, that the US must fight GB until Spain takes Gibraltar, nor must US fight GB until FR conquers Mysore, India.

BY the Battle of the Saintes April 1782, US had ACCEPTED by enacted Congressional resolution, the GB offer for peace with independence, territory to Mississippi River & navigation; fishing at Newfoundland AND US defunded its Army & Navy, sells off its ships and furloughs all enlisted soldiers home.

BEFORE news of Gibraltar, the US agreed to peace because George III announced for US independence December 5, 1782 in a Speech from the Throne. For the rest in the tread above, its just playing 'silly buggers' with Historians' fallacy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: wp:HOAX: The US as a sovereign nation, recognized as independent by Britain, was competent to make war and conclude peace with Britain at the Treaty of Paris September 1783, WITHOUT deferring to Spain until it conquered Gibraltar. France was likewise sovereignly competent to separately conclude peace with Britain before Spain, where France ceded Gibraltar to Britain WITHOUT conquering Gibraltar for Spain as required by the French treaty with Spain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Derivative "connect the dots" without connecting evidence is NOT good historical narrative.
1. YES, from a British diplomat's point of view, and the historical narratives describing their activities in Paris 1782-1784, THERE WERE "closely intertwined" exchanges among British, American, French, Spanish, Austrian and Prussian ministers.
2. NO, the US did not wait for the back-stabbing French and their secret treaty with Spain.
3. YES, I have read the RS that our Lord Cornwallis gave us here at Talk, and I have profited from them, viz STOCKLEY intro to Britain and France at the Birth of America. "Historians have, to date, tended to survey the 1782-3 peace negotiations through the prism of later nineteenth and twentieth century developments: to overstate the importance of American and imperial concerns while, at the same time, underestimating the significance attached, both by Britain and France, to the European balance of power." Well, J'Accuse…!.
Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sub-section: 'International war breaks out'

Post & copyedit

At the subsection, International war breaks out (1778–1783), I have expanded the section to relate a narrative of European Great Powers at war 1778-1784, as they relate to the North American continent, however tangentially to the military aspects of the American Revolutionary War. I was delighted to find images of the major players to illustrate the previously all-text section. As before, to avoid disruption in the article by provoking our editor-colleagues of any persuasion here, all previous citations are maintained, along with the entire substance of the previous version. I am aware that at a later date, the top two-thirds of the section may be administratively cut after a further community review.

But for now, this is a "half-a-loaf" compromise measure meant to accommodate editors with an interest in European Great Power conflict that was after all, tangential to the American War for Independence. It has produced an addition to article length nearly that of my copy-edited trimming over the last two weeks (though overall, we still may be cutting down narrative, as Gwillhickers is doing additional trimming). I imagine that at either the upcoming RfC review among Wikipedia military editors, or at article re-submission for Good Article review, the question will again come up as to the SCOPE of this article, "American Revolutionary War".

But in the mean time, if we ARE to address the Euro Great Powers and their imperial conflicts coincident to the time period of the American Revolution 1775-1783 in this article, it should reflect the best scholarship available including the EIGHTEENTH (18th) CENTURY (1700s) BRITISH point of view that centers on its exclusive mercantile trade between the mother country and its North American colonies

... without anachronistically attaching any 21st century interpretation about industrial age and big-corporate IMPERIALISM of the "late 19th - early 20th century" to be ... 'caused by', the American Revolution... NOR more passively wp:weasel: the American Revolution 'led to', or, 'was a factor in' 19th century imperialism and 20th century international corporations. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments and discussion:

Online source blocked

As you have seen I am avidly reading all the Euro RS as I can find time to investigatet (that's how I got a reference to the Morris book referenced, then on searching the title and author found the Journal article used at my copyedit post. @A D Monroe III and Gwillhickers: I am not suggesting a conspiracy of disruption and misdirection on this page: there is apparently none, and I have apologized for suggesting that there may have been any grounds for further administrator investigation here. Nevertheless,

FYI: At several articles related to the American Revolution and diplomacy on Wikipedia, older citations reference online links to articles found at Americanforeignrelations.com, that is, the website is used in those articles as a "reliable source". As yet unaware of any reliability problem, I then consulted search returns that I found on that previously used website in Wikipedia articles, and I used one in my draft copyedit post.

HOWEVER, when I first tried to publish that copyedit post, I found it BLOCKED by the Wikipedia editors for foreign affairs as "SUSPICIOUS".

I subsequently found comparable information elsewhere. Instead of "Americanforeignrelations.com", I used information from an acceptable academic journal published by a university press; it had more specific detail for my purposes, and my copyedit post with the scholarly journal citation was NOT blocked as "suspcious". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments and discussion:

Disputed tag

I have tagged as DISPUTED, the sub-subsection 'International war breaks out' # Great Powers at war 1778-1784.

The elaborated narrative (and the accompanying well-crafted gallery of major Euro players) more properly belongs in a section about the Revolutionary War TIME PERIOD for DIPLOMATIC context in some OTHER American Revolution article, as discussed in several threads here at Talk over the last two months. 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. The "American War for Independence" is successfully concluded by a "definitive" treaty at the Peace of Paris (1783), with BRITAIN and the US the lone as signatories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

COROLLARY: ARW Infobox. As European Great Powers during the time period 1775-1795, the flags and Crowned figures of France, Spain and the Netherlands should NOT be featured in the Infobox for the "American Revolutionary War". Their diplomatic connection is tangential except for the French defensive war for American independence (reciprocal US support in the French Caribbean until US independence), and their worldwide conflict (especially AFTER April 1783) is away from North America, without US treaty or military participation, and AFTER the US Army and US Navy are defunded with their officers and men furloughed home. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments and discussion:

  • TVH, thanks for your well informed efforts, but I'm afraid I don't quite follow. You've added a fair amount of, albeit interesting, information, under a new subsection, have 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)
INSERT: @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. Again, to avoid footnote disruption in the article, all citations are meant to be preserved. But it seems two editors had a fencing match over sources with the same redundant material; the two left the field of combat with BOTH sets of contributions in place - !!! - and the situation seems to have been overlooked for some time here.
- 2. I am reluctant to address the larger blue-pencil question of "article scope" again until I've walked through ONE complete copy-edit for narrative flow. But I tagged my take on the DIPLOMATIC Euro Great Power situation as it TOUCHED ON the ARW, Congress & US independence from Britain. Yes, it belongs elsewhere, TBD to be determined, later, it seems to me, IMHO. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In terms of treaties, it would seem we should confine our efforts to the basics of the Treaty of Paris, with links to the other treaties. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
AGREED. In copyediting the previous section International war breaks out amounting to 832 words without illustration, I meant to serve up 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 [and west of the crest of the Appalachian Mountains re: (a) Royal Proclamation Line of 1763 and (b) Quebec Act of 1774]. - - It is illustrated with two portraits of the "Conquerors of the British Mississippi River Basin", Spanish Governor Galvez, and Virginia Major Clark.
(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. This MOVE element may require an RfC to establish a documented "consensus" in the proposed package of RfCs to define the article scope. The package can then be used for reference in discussion here in a future FAQ section at the top section for ARW Talk. Sincerely, - I did not mean to alarm you with a set-in-stone copyedit ADDING 309 words, I mean to ultimately TRIM 424 words. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


Combatants continued

@TheVirginiaHistorian and TomRidley: — As per the recent continuation of the above discussion, please note that the Analysis of combatants section, with its numerous sub-sections, comprises some 17 pages of text -- that's about 1/3 of the article text. I've recently moved and rewritten some of this text in the dedicated sections for Washington, Howe, Clinton and Cornwallis with the idea that anything said in those sections should be incorporated into the overall narrative text. I've been moving slowly in that effort as at this point it would seem most of us are a bit unweary of massive changes. Before any mass migration of information occurs we should bear in mind that this is a high traffic article, while the other two mentioned see relatively low traffic, esp the British Army article, bearing in mind that many readers read the article from start to finish.

Average number of views per day:

Any information taken from this article will likely be missed by a very large percentage of the visitors to this page. We can move some of the highly technical material, but we should bear in mind that moving significant amounts of the narrative from this article will require the reader to hop to two other articles to get this information. Otoh, we can reduce the page size simply by removing redundant information in the above mentioned dedicated sections, and elsewhere, and by simply condensing some of the grammar throughout the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point regarding the traffic of the articles. However do you think if we summarised the key points but directed people to those articles it would increase the traffic? (TomRidley (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC))
Yes, this was what I was essentially proposing. I would begin by adding information to the sister articles mentioned, before we begin any significant moving and condensing here, going along one step at a time, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Without removing essential points or any of the citations in the section, I've begun copyediting another one as before here, it already has my subsequent trimming copyedit posted. I thought to address the next section, "Analysis - United States", posting in more frequent sub-sections because it is so long and covers so many different kinds of topics . . . I hope you can bear with me until I can complete the run-through of the whole section. Hopefully by sometime tomorrow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
No worries, take your time. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, btw. Friendly reminder to all editors, that we should not require any reader to jump to another article to get the basic picture. i.e.Dedicated articles are for in depth coverage, where 'lots' of secondary details are usually welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Captions

TVH, your thoughts about making the captions more informational with the idea that many readers, esp students, view the images and read the captions first, is a good idea. Like the lede, and the opening statement to a given section, if we can spark interest from the onset, they will be that much more inclined to read the section or article. To this end I've joined in the effort and have added some points of context in a few of the captions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to put together a 'general guidelines' overall ...
I'm open to discussion on this point, so as to take in other editorial considerations, but
A specialty note from the world of special education: Visually impaired kids need the images in an article to all align right. Some conditions of the legally blind can now fully integrate into the classroom with large laptop screens and specialized adaptive software. Right-justified images in a Wikipedia article helps in their immediate class-room access to Wikipedia articles, and that has been shown to contribute to their classroom participation.
There is a blurb among the Wikipedia essays on the matter, but regrets, I do not have the link at hand.
I do mean to add in the 'alt' caption in a complete article run-through among the images I've recently contributed - so as to assist those with eyesight that allows reading but not acquiring small-scale images on a screen. You may have noticed that previous editors here have faithfully attended to that very helpful editorial chore throughout. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
When images are placed to the left it's usually in cases when they are stacked one over the other three and more high -- sometimes two high, and in cases where an image is crowding the text.  MOS guidelines asks that images be placed to the right, or staggered right and left, but there are always exceptions to guidelines (guidelines are not WP policy). Discretion is the key. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Prevent image crowding in a section with the {{clear}} template. It protects the upcoming section coded =sub-section= by automatically generating spaces between the bottom of the image and the upcoming text. My preference is to place images to the right, directly alongside the correlated text (or rarely, one paragraph up or down).
If each section is limited to one image per 300-350 words, spacing for most browsers can be maintained with a short paragraph after each image. One or two-line paragraphs following an image should be followed with a {{clear}} template to insure against crowding. Large images that crowd following text can be reduced in size. Image size is governed by the code |thumb|upright=1.0|, varying image size by varying the "upright" 1.0 proportion a decimal point at a time, up or down, in preview.
If more images than the 1:300-350 ratio help provide a better understanding or appreciation of the topic, GALLERIES of them can be used in one or more rows. Again, when using a GALLERY, end the section text with a {{clear}} template to prevent image crowding into the next section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Two empty subsections were removed and their corresponding subsections were moved up one level. The sections in question have subjects that merit that level. TOC less congested. Also, we don't need date ranges in so many of the section titles, as it's understood that the war sections follow one after the other chronologically, while the sections make it plain what time period is involved. See Edit history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Almost all the images are now on the right. I'm not so sure this is a good idea in sections that have three or more images, or ones stacked directly over the other. In those cases we should stagger one of them to the left. I'm not quite understanding why a visually impaired child can see an image easier if it's on the right. Right or left, the image is directly in front of them on their monitor. Imo, we should treat multiple images the way they are in almost all the articles, with a few staggered to the left. Consider also that a given image is more noticeable if it's not lumped in with other images. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

'Alt=' captions for article image [[File:coding]]

I’ve coded ‘alt=’ captions within the image coding brackets [[File:coding]], throughout the article here.

The edit does NOT add any ‘readable prose’ to the article count. It will give readers with some kinds of blindness access to the subject matter pictured at each illustration. The effort contributes to the overall quality of the article for any Wikipedia rating review. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

ARW intro revised

I revised the introduction following the Talk discussion, here. It generally follows a three-weeks old Talk section, to date supported with no objection (June 8, twenty-two days). There has been no link to any RfC here for a “consensus” on the introduction prior to that established in the Talk string here at the beginning of this month. The copy edit takes the article from 104k of 16640 words, to 104k of 16633 words - - “readable prose size” with seven fewer words. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Intro mention count

- posted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Intro guidelines used

1. Guidelines (rationale) for Intro style: establish significance “a republic over expansive territory” in the context of British Empire and its history for the general reader.
2. Intro with war-conflict focus: Summarize the war-time conflict between Congress, Continental Army militias and ally France, versus Britain, Auxiliaries and Indian allies.
- Name only King George III and the four commanders-in-chief on the North American continent, Washington, Howe, Clinton, and Gálvez.
- Note only campaigns and major battles (turning points).
- Add the two western campaigns conquering territory from Britain, (a) western Quebec, and (b) West Florida.
3. Relate a brief overview of Congress (a) coming to resolve independence and then (b) settling an American peace.
- Add Vermont Republic in a Note: VR participated in capturing guns used at Washington forcing British evacuation of Boston; the 14th state sought to join US during the Revolution.
4. Remove article details addressed later in the narrative: skirmishing leading up to Boston evacuation, etc.
Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Images

TVH — Guidelines also mentions that images can be placed to the left in cases of stacking, crowding, etc. Sometimes adding a 'clear' template results in a large empty white space. Nearly all articles with multiple images in the sections stagger an image to the left where called for. If this is a pressing issue for you, I'll go along, as we have bigger fish to fry. :-)   -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No thanks, but if I may, I'd like to reserve the favor for another time ...
Until I find the reference on the visual advantages for aligning all images to the right, I am happy to defer to the practice of staggering images at three images elsewhere. As you say, all of this will be picked over from several angles at the next article review . . . that's a GOOD collegial thing (and NOT wp:bully) . . .
Just ruminating now, but "stacking" may be an editorial term referring to MORE than three images aligned, so it may not apply to only two or three; and, the 'clear' template results in a large empty white space usually when there are fewer than 350 words in the section - - like that of Peace of Paris in the article Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War. I think the section as of now has no 'clear' template, so it bleeds into the next section (yuk). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

ARW Infobox flags +

I’ve edited the Infobox here to prepare for removal of the article NPOV tag by first removing challenged Infobox items WITHOUT BACKUP at Talk for 30+ days by either a reliable source, or an RfC consensus cited for them.

Per a previous contributing editor note: To complete Infobox, see for reference Savas, Theodore P. and David J. Dameron. A Guide to the Battles of the American Revolution (2006), Savas Beatie LLC. ISBN 978-1-6112-1011-8.. Contains a detailed listing of American, French, British, German, and Loyalist regiments; indicates when they were raised, the main battles, and what happened to them. Also includes the main warships on both sides, And all the important battles. - posted, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

The changes you've proposed for the info-box seem more than fair, but at this late date I'd recommend that you'd just make the changes and if there are any vialble, or other, objections they will present themselves. Consensus to focus on the actual war for independence is behind you. Respectfully, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, I did not mean to become overly defensive; I'll maintain the backup at my desktop 'available on demand'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Revolutionary_War/Archive_19&oldid=968526127"