Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 33

Tyrant vs. constitutional monarch

Discussion section Dec 4-5

The discussions about whether George III was a tyrant or constitutional monarch seems to be yielding little progress. In any case, it is tangential to what is in the article. I suggest we follow sources and not say he did this or that when sources attribute those actions to the ministry or parliament. We also have to take care to understand that such terms as king-in-council and king-in-parliament refer to the ministry and parliament not to the king himself. Bear in mind too that the British constitution is based on the supremacy of parliament, not on checks and balances. Ultimately all executive must be legal (i.e., in conformity with the laws established by parliament) and can only be carried out with the consent of parliament. TFD (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Now you're misrepresenting the discussion. No one has asserted that the King was a tyrant with absolute authority, even it is deemed he prolonged the war, or that he was not a constitutional monarch. All that has been asserted, at least by me, is that he wielded significant influence and was much more than a puppet of the Parliament. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC) A tyrant is "a ruler who has unlimited power over other people, and uses it unfairly and cruelly." (Cambridge Dictionary)[1] Are you saying that Paine, Adams and Jefferson were wrong to call him a tyrant? TFD (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC) He did not have unlimited power. The Kingdom of Great Britain was a constitutional monarchy. All monarchs following the Glorious Revolution had certain restrictions: "With the passage of the Bill of Rights, it stamped out once and for all any possibility of a Catholic monarchy, and ended moves towards absolute monarchy in the British kingdoms by circumscribing the monarch's powers. These powers were greatly restricted; he or she could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, make royal appointments, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without Parliament's permission – to this day the Army is known as the "British Army" not the "Royal Army" as it is, in some sense, Parliament's Army and not that of the King." Dimadick (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC) TFD - In a technical sense, they were incorrect to refer to the King as a tyrant, but given the lack of colonial representation, excessive taxes, various acts, suspention of colonial courts, the importation of Hessian mercenaries - cronies in a sense, it is understandable that the King was referred to as such. In any case, it is agreed that the existing article title should remain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC) So you don't blame cabinet or parliament for any of those things. The colonial office did not run the colonies, parliament did not set taxes. It was just one man. TFD (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC) @The Four Deuces, Dimadick, and Gwillhickers:, To accommodate the common understanding we all seem to share here, I have begun to adopt a naming convention here at Talk to encompass the "British government" as "King-Lords-Commons" acting in such-and-such direction, which is shamelessly derived from the John Adams' quote supplied by Dimadick? above. Nevertheless, the article can fairly represent "George III" as an historical actor with intention or effect in "British government" --- whenever an RS source says so. It is NOT for editors of one POV to either (a) alter the sense of the scholar as faithfully conveyed in the article without changing citations, or (b) extinguish all RS citations that do not conform with their POV. Both strategies have been used to disrupt the article page in the last 30-days alone. Wikipedia policy is to admit two and three and four RS sourcing on an event or development with wp:due weight in a narrative of wp:balance. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC) TVH : Agree. Until such time as someone can address one or more of the remaining specific statements involving the King that may need tending to, with specific points of contention, backed by RS, I would just bow out of what has become a prolonged obfuscation and a straw man discussion altogether - esp since there are no remaining statements that actually overemphasize or misrepresent the King's involvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC) TFD : That was never said. There's no point discussing this further with you if you can't (or refuse to) remember what I have maintained, in writing, several times, here on the Talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion section Dec 10-13

I just noticed this, and it looks to me like the conversation has petered out, but adding my 2c anyway - I'd have to agree with Dimadick - by the standard definition of Tyrant, and certainly in the context of it's every day use, it refers to a dictator with unlimited power. George was a constitutional monarch, and restrained by parliament. So nah, he wasn't a tyrant in the normal use of the word. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Yes, that is good linguistics for 2020 cable TV. But 18th century British North American colonists understood themselves to have the "Rights of Englishmen" guaranteed in their Stuart King charters. George III, "the German King" of Patriot propaganda was not a post-Stalinist tyrant in its 21st century everyday use, but he was a tyrant by the English Common Law standards of 1776. - It is hard to keep the present separated from any historical period. Compounding the problem, professional historians of a remote period or place can easily impose the expertise that they developed inappropriately to a different time or place not their specialty. Which is why it is imperative to use RS in the period for the place of an history article at Wikipedia, such as the American Revolutionary War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC) - I didn't realize tyrant was a concept in common law. It's not mentioned in Coke or Blackstone as far as I can tell. Could you provide a source for your novel definition. TFD (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) I think we can agree that the King wasn't a tyrant in the technical sense, but he was most certainly regarded as such by the colonists. Their beliefs were substantiated when the King sent foreign mercenaries to America. The arrival of mercenaries was the single most controversial issue that bolstered the idea of independence, more so than taxation, suspension of colonial courts, etc, and is what won over many of those who were at first reluctant to oppose the Crown. The term tyrant is currently, and has not been, used in the narrative, but we should at least indicate that this is how the colonists regarded the King, and why. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC) They originally portrayed Parliament as a tyrant, but after Paine's Common Sense, transferred the epithet to George III. It was parliament after all that passed the Stamp Acts, etc., and funded the German auxiliary and Scottish troops. It's similar to the way today's liberals blame Trump for everything has been wrong in America today for the last 40 years, even police violence in cities that the Democrats have controlled for decades. It's a lot easier to focus hate on one person than on faceless institutions. TFD (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The Stamp Act 1765 was Parliamentary legislation, but introduced by the government of George Grenville. Credit where credit is due. Per the main article on him: "His best-known policy is the Stamp Act, a long-standing tax in Great Britain which Grenville extended to the colonies in America, but which instigated widespread opposition in Britain's American colonies and was later repealed." Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC) It's understood that the Parliament functioned as it did, but, along with Paine's Common Sense, it was Jefferson and the D.O.I. that singled out the King involving a litany of grievances, and it was the King's family connections in Hanover that arranged for the mercenaries, so colonial anger directed at the King was not exactly misplaced. Yes, figureheads are much easier to target than are institutions. In any case, colonial anger directed at the King should be mentioned, and if indeed the King was widely referred to as a Tyrant, this can be mentioned, sources permitting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC) It was the Northern Department (now called the Foreign Office) under Lord Suffolk that arranged for the auxiliaries and they were paid by the British government, not the king. Not sure how the king's family connections figured. Frederick II was separated from George's aunt. The two men probably never met, as George never set foot on the continent. TFD (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC) King George I, Grandfather of George III, was the first Hanoverian from the German states to rule Great Britain, so there is a definite family connection which existed before, and regardless of, Lord Suffolk's handling of the treaty and other arrangements, made with the King's blessings. Suffolk just didn't pull the mercenaries out of thin air. In any event, it was the King who was held responsible for what were largely perceived as acts of tyranny, just as a U.S. President would be held responsible for various acts committed. In neutral terms we should relate that this is how the colonists regarded the King, which would further illuminate the status of their overall relationship. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC) George I was actually the great-grandfather of George III, who was born 10 years after the died. In any case, that's a pretty tenuous connection. Incidentally, Great Britain, unlike the U.S., had supremacy of parliament, where ministers such as Suffolk were responsible to parliament. If parliament doesn't like what they are doing, they hold a vote of non-confidence and the if successful, the government resigns. That happened to Lord North in 1782, although he was not the first PM to lose a vote of confidence. Usually, it does not come to that, especially when a party loses an election and the PM resigns so a PM from the winning party can be sworn in. TFD (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC) George I, born in Hanover, was once Price of Hanover and ruler of the Duchy and Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg, in Hanover. George II was Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, in Hanover, before he was King. George III, while King, was also Duke and Prince-elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg, also in Hanover, so their connection to Hanover was much more than "tenuous" -- it was intimate. The attempt to dismiss family and royal/political ties, esp in those days, doesn't carry. George III, regardless if he had ever stepped foot into Germany, already had the connections where Suffolk could easily arrange for treaties for mercenaries. But we seem to be digressing. The issue at this point is how the colonists regarded the King, (as evidenced in the D.O.I.) that he was, understandably, regarded as a tyrant, esp because of the mercenaries that were sent to the colonies, again, with his blessings. Apparently you're not receptive to the idea of covering how the colonists regarded the King, and Parliament and prefer to discuss the finer details of the King's family ties to Hanover, as the idea of covering colonial opinion of the King more comprehensively has been brought up at least three times, with no comment from you on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC) What's tenuous is not the Hanoverian dynasty's connection with Hanover, but George III's connection with Hesse and other states that provided auxiliaries. TFD (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel was George III's uncle-in-law. William I, Elector of Hesse, at the time simply the ruler of Hesse-Hanau, was George III's first cousin. Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

DimadickFrederick had long been separated from George's aunt, who left him and took the kids with her to Denmark. George had been 2 years old when his aunt left England. She subsequently died and Frederick remarried. Since George never left England, it's doubtful he ever met either of them. Hesse-Hanau was one of five other German principalities that provided small contingents of troops. William I of Hesse-Hanauer was the son of said aunt, so again there was no personal connection. The negotiations were conducted at arm's length by the 18th century equivalent of the Foreign Office. Hesse-Kassel and the other states were in the business of leasing out troops and Britain had the readies. TFD (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Tyrant continued

Discussion section Dec 13 through 18 (part)

Hanover was a capital city;Hesse-Kassel and Hesse-Nassau was a provinces, all of which were a part of the Kingdom of Prussia, which is were all the soldiers for hire came from. While the Earl of Suffolk, the King's emissary, handled the paperwork involving the treaties, it was the King's family and other connections that accelerated the effort in arranging for sending mercenaries to the American continent. We can haggle about the role of the King ad infinitum, but the fact remains, it was King George who circumvented the role of the Parliament in obtaining foreign mercenaries, and it was the arrival of those mercenaries that cemented the idea of independence which was largely what made the colonists refer to the King as a tyrant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC) "Throughout the summer, in his capacity of commander-in-chief of the army and prince elector of Hanover, he had begun to negotiate for foreign mercenaries from Germany. He was indeed carrying out a cabinet decision to send twenty thousand troops to America but he had committed a double offense in the eyes of the patriots in abdicating the basic responsibility of government to provide protection and in using foreign troops against his fellow subjects. The employment of foreign mercenaries was to have a decisive effect in further alienating colonial opinion against Britain." "It was not until after the battle of Bunker Hill in June 1775 that George III considered in earnest entering into subsidy agreements with foreign powers. Given Britain's long history of relying on auxiliary troops, the king's decision to use them in this crisis was hardly surprising." "The German territory had been ruled in personal union with Britain since 1714, when George I, elector of Hanover and great-grandfather of King George III, had ascended to the British throne. The king's role as elector of Hanover allowed him to offer "his" Hanoverian subjects to Parliament for service in the British army." King George I, II, III together had a long history of hiring mercenaries from Hanover. "That the measure required, and received, Parliament's approval was irrelevant; the fact that the king considered the hiring of foreigners as an appropriate response to the colonists' actions revealed him as a tyrant determined to win the conflict at all costs." Colonial newspapers roundly referred to the king as a tyrant. George III expresses his love for his native country, (i.e.Hanover): "so superior is my love to this my native country..." Earl of Suffolk acting as the King's emissary: "The secretary of the Northern Department, the earl of Suffolk, offered the Prussian government an alliance thus following "the insistent demands of George III as Elector rather than king to secure the position of Hanover. ...the monarch's attention was not exclusively on the struggle overseas but equally on the situation in Hanover. While Suffolk's efforts had been short-lived, the Fu'rstenbund represents an exceptional and unprecedented conflict between George III and his British government over Hanover. Sources Baer, Friederike (Winter 2015). "The Decision to Hire German Troops in the War of American Independence: Reactions in Britain and North America, 1774–1776". Early American Studies. 13 (1). University of Pennsylvania Press: 111–150. JSTOR 24474906. O'Shaughnessy, Andrew Jackson (Spring 2004). "If Others Will Not Be Active, I Must Drive": George III and the American Revolution". Early American Studies. 2 (1). University of Pennsylvania Press: 1–46. JSTOR 23546502. Brendan Simms; Torsten Riotte, eds. (2007). The Hanoverian Dimension in British History, 1714–1837. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-1394-6187-0. "The secretary of the Northern Department, the earl of Suffolk" The position was Secretary of State for the Northern Department, responsible for foreign relations with the Protestant states of Northern Europe. The Northern Department was a predecessor to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Dimadick (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC) All of this is your personal speculation not supported by reliable sources. Hanover and Hesse did not become part of Prussia until 1868. Suffolk was a secretary of state, not an official of the court. There was no need to have connections anyway, because the Germany principalities were willing to supply troops in return for cash - that's why you argued we should call those soldiers mercenaries. Note your source says, "was indeed carrying out a cabinet decision to send twenty thousand troops to America." Cabinet, not the king, made the decision. And it turns out it was cabinet that was responsible for the negotiations too. TFD (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Please refer to the entire statement: The source says, "He was indeed carrying out a cabinet decision to send twenty thousand troops to America but he had committed a double offense in the eyes of the patriots in abdicating the basic responsibility of government to provide protection and in using foreign troops against his fellow subjects." Another source maintains, "the earl of Suffolk, offered the Prussian government an alliance thus following the insistent demands of George III as Elector rather than king to secure the position of Hanover. Also, the Kingdom of Prussia existed between 1701 and 1918. Both Hanover and Hesse-Kessel are located within, though they were not officially part of it until 1871, not 1868. There was much opposition in Parliament in the hiring of mercenaries, yet the king, who adamantly supported their use, was fundamental in their acquisition and was intimately involved in securing those mercenaries to send to the colonies. As for "speculation", I have just provided and quoted from three reliable sources. The only speculation would be your apparent notion that the procurement of mercenaries was an idea that was conceived by, involved and ultimately decided only by the Parliament while the King, with his family and other ties to Hanover, just sat on his hands for the duration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Largely irrelevant. The Kingdom of Hanover (1814-1866) and the Electorate of Hesse (1803–1807, 1814–1866) were independent until conquered by Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War (1866). They made the fatal mistake of supporting the Austrian Empire in the war. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC) "On the other hand, the king's decision to treat the Americans like a foreign enemy against whom a foreign enemy against whom a foreign army could be employed reflects a perception of the colonists as outsiders..." "The king did not inform Parliament and the public about his decision to use Hessian and Hanoverian troops, however, until October 1775, when the latter were already on their way to the Mediterranean. For the most part, Parliament was also kept in the dark about negotiations for a loan of troops from another foreign power, Russia." "The king presented his decision to employ foreign troops as a necessary measure if Britain hoped to keep the rebellious colonies within the empire." "The king's decision to send foreigners across the Atlantic to "complete" their destruction was the culmination of a series of cruel and oppressive acts against them." (emphasis added) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC) It's right in the relevant Wikipedia articles: Prussia defeated the Kingdom of Hanover in battle and annexed it, abolishing the Hanoverian monarchy. It was not part of Prussia in any sense before then. The fact that Prussia existed before it annexed Hanover is irrelevant. You are obviously mining for sources to support a preconceived view. TFD (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Yes, you are correct on that point, that Hanover was not officially part of Prussia. However, you are obviously picking at only one part of the discussion while continuing to avoid the main issue, that the colonists widely regarded the King as a tyrant and had good reasons to believe so, and that this should be well covered in the narrative as it was issues with the King, esp his involvement arranging for mercenaries, which bolstered the support for independence, which led directly to the war. Your "tenuous" attempt to write off the King's family and other connections to Hanover tells us you refuse to accept the idea that, in spite of the sources, the King had much to do with this advent. I've provided several accounts, directly above and in full view of your reply here, that says it was the King's decision to procure the use of mercenaries, and in spite of much opposition in the Parliament, esp among Whigs, that is, when they eventually found out what the King was actually up to. "The king did not inform Parliament and the public about his decision to use Hessian and Hanoverian troops, however, until October 1775, when the latter were already on their way to the Mediterranean." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Not only was Hanover not officially part of Prussia, it was a sovereign state with a totally different culture, usually hostile to Prussia and sometimes at war. In 1755, Hanover agreed to have Russian troops on its soil, which would have surrounded Prussia. When you base your arguments on misconceptions, then I don't see why I should answer them. TFD (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Nonsense. I based my arguments on the sources surrounding the king, his intimate connections with Hanover and his sordid dealings with mercenaries, thank you. Your're still carrying on about Prussia as a means to avoid all that, understandably. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC) You added for example that the king did not inform Parliament about the negotiations as evidence he was a tyrant. That shows a lack of understanding of the British constitution. Executive power is exercised by the cabinet, formally known as the executive committee of the king's privy council, also known as the government, headed by the prime minister. The king does not give press conferences, and gives one speech at the opening of parliament, which he may or may not have read, written by the prime minister. The ministers, who sit in parliament, are responsible for informing parliament of their actions and answering questions from parliament. If parliament is unhappy with the government, it can vote no confidence in them and ask the prime minister to recommend someone else of their choice to replace him and choose another cabinet. Usually the prime minister will resign before that happens. The king must sign all legislation passed by parliament and all executive orders, referred to as orders-in-council The king's approval of executive orders and legislation is a formality. You conflate parliament, cabinet, the courts and the king. While that may be understandable based on the archaic language used, in reality they are separate functions. The king's role as commander in chief did however have more than ceremonial power although unlike William III, George I and George II, George III never led troops in battle and this historical anomaly was removed following the conclusion of the ARW. It gave him personal control over the appointment and promotion of commissioned officers, but not the power to wage war or pay for it. Note that the archaic language and traditions of the middle ages remain today. TFD (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC) I well understand the Parliament's relation to the King, as it's supposed to work, thank you. I simply provided sources showing how the King originally arranged for mercenaries without the knowledge of that Parliament. This revealed him to be something of a tyrant. Initially there was so much opposition in Parliament about sending mercenaries to put down English subjects in the colonies that various Whigs arranged for the release of an American POW, George Merchant, by successfully defending him in court on lack of evidence, and gave him copies of the ill gotten treaties so he could smuggle them back to the colonies, which he did. Whether George III ever fought in battle or had the power to wage war after the ARW is irrelevant, and at this late date you continue to skirt the issue over how the colonists and others viewed the King. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC) As I mentioned above, the convention is that other than the throne speech the king never informs parliament of what his government is doing, that is the responsibility of the cabinet secretaries in his government who actually are members of parliament and owe their positions to parliament. In this case, Lord Suffolk, who was a member of the upper house of parliament, and had arranged for the mercenaries, could have informed the house of his negotiations. Or the PM could have assigned the task to another member of cabinet. Even today the Queen only speaks to parliament about once per year, but only Larouchies would consider the UK to be a tyranny. It would be absurd to have an hereditary monarch decide what government information should be released to the public. TFD (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC) "...the king never informs parliament of what his government is doing'?? Parliament is the main component in British government. You just claimed that the King never informs the Parliament about what the Parliament is doing. You've gone through lengths discussing "...the supremacy of Parliament which was decided by the 1688 revolution." -- now this. How can the Parliament effectively be supreme if the King is allowed to keep them in the dark? The fact remains, the king arranged for mercenaries without informing the Parliament, and according to you, this is allowed, and as such, exonerates him as acting like a tyrant in this (very) important instance. How convenient. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC) The king's government is another term for the cabinet. The cabinet must have the confidence of parliament in order to remain the cabinet. You will note that in the UK, there are regular elections and if the Conservatives win the most seats, then they form the government. And if they lose the support of parliament, then they must resign. In addition to running their departments they must sit in parliament and answer questions from the opposition. But note that the government keeps certain things secret, such as the plans for atomic weapons. The same thing happens in the U.S. Not everything the U.S. government does is transmitted to Congress. That's why the U.S. government prosecutes people for espionage if they leak government secrets. It doesn't necessarily mean the U.S. president is a tyrant. The difference though is that the king provided information to the members of parliament who were in the cabinet. In fact the cabinet arranged the negotiations. TFD (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC) "although unlike William III, George I and George II, George III never led troops in battle". George II of Great Britain was the last British monarch to lead an army in battle, with his final battle being the Battle of Dettingen (1743). George III did not serve in the military, and seems to have received no military training. Dimadick (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC) The analogy to espionage, acts against the government, treason, with not telling Parliament about the procurement of mercenaries, is not at all accurate, as this didn't involve an act against Britain. We have RS's that say the King did not tell the Parliament, nothing said about the cabinet, with no distinction that some members of Parliament may have been (do you actually know?) cabinet members, and refer to the government as "his government". But for the sake of discussion, how is the cabinet supposed to "have the confidence of Parliament" if they are keep uninformed about very important war time issues? In any case, I have no intention of calling the king a de facto tyrant in the narrative. We do, however, mention that he was regarded as such by the colonists, i.e.Jefferson, Adams (Samuel), et al, given the suspension of colonial courts, taxation without representation, and of course, with the arrival of foreign mercenaries. The idea that the King wasn't a tyrant in his treatment of the colonists is really only a legal consideration. He indeed acted like one when he treated his subjects like foreigners, in such a remote and callous manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC) By convention, cabinet officers in the UK are members of parliament. The Earl of Suffolk, Secretary of State for the Northern Department, for example was a member of the upper house from 1757 until his death. His department would be renamed the foreign Office. His boss, Lord North, had been the member of parliament for Banbury since 1754. George III announced the successful conclusion of negotiations before any troops were sent. As you can see, the treaties were debated before parliament on 29 February 1776 and approved overwhelmingly and sent to the Committee of Supply, which would pay for the troops.[2] Without that approval, no troops could be sent. The troops would not arrive in America until August. You make an interesting point about how parliament can have confidence in a government when it conducts its business in secret. But that's how parliamentary democracy works today. It doesn't mean that the Queen of the UK is a tyrant, or do you think she is? Incidentally you can blame parliament for taxation without representation. Only parliament has the power to raise taxes. TFD (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Tyrant continued, 2

Discussion section Dec 18 (part) through Dec 19

We are being told that the King doesn't have to tell his government, Cabinet members, and members of the Parliament themselves, what's going on, which seems to undermine the role of Parliament. The King is the one who appoints Cabinet members and officers of rank in the military, which would seem to afford him a great measure of influence, regardless if he singularly can't wage war, which is moot in this case, because he was among the strongest advocates of the war in the first place. That the King failed to inform the Parliament about the procurement of mercenaries more than suggests, legal and political considerations aside, he was indeed acting like a tyrant in his treatment of the colonists, as these were professional foreign soldiers for hire. Again, we are not going to refer to the King as an overall tyrant in the narrative, but in the eyes of the colonists he understandably was regarded as one, which is all that has been said there. I produced a source that claims outright that the Parliament was initially not informed about the arrangement for mercenaries. Do you know of any source that cuts it any finer than that, per the Hessians, or one which refutes that idea in no uncertain terms? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC) You should read the article Parliamentary system, which explains how parliamentary systems work. It is the dominant form of government in Europe, the Commonwealth. and Japan, which includes the most democratic countries on earth. Governments are formed by parties that have the most elected members of parliament. The king or president as figurehead formally appoints the cabinet and signs legislation and executive orders. By convention or law, cabinet officers must be members of parliament, usually in the lower house. It is the responsibility of cabinet to keep parliament informed. Usually once per year, the PM prepares a speech outlining what the government intends to do over the next year which is then read by the head of state who may or may not have read it before hand. The sovereign of the UK is not allowed to attend cabinet meetings or to enter the House of Commons. As I pointed out, the government was aware of the negotiations because they led them. We don't actually know if they informed the King about the negotiations, although they usually keep the head of state informed. Once the king signed the treaty, it had to be approved by parliament in order to take effect. We know btw that parliament was not informed of the negotiations, because they were informed 29 February 1776, when they approved the treaties and the government then arranged for the Hessians to be sent to America. If the Rockingham faction had controlled parliament at that point, they would have voted down the treaty and forced North to resign and Rockingham would have been appointed prime minister. Then Rockingham would have written another king's speech and the king would have said that no Hessians would be sent to America. However, North held parliament's confidence until 1782, when parliament voted 234 to 215 no confidence in North's government and Rockingham was able to gain the confidence of parliament. Rockingham soon died and his successor, Lord Shelburne lost the confidence of parliament because of the generous terms of the Treaty of Paris. The Tories returned in December 1783 under the Tory William Pitt, but he lost a 223 to 204 vote of confidence in February 1784 and the Whigs returned to power. TFD (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC) A very resourceful account, but our issue doesn't involve the various machinations of the way Parliaments about the world are supposed to work, only that the British Parliament was not initially informed or involved, where mercenaries were already on their way to the colonies without the knowledge of the Parliament. Since the King was involved in the initial procurement of mercenaries, I'm not understanding the idea that, "We don't actually know if they informed the King about the negotiations." We don't know? Regardless of the affairs between the King, Cabinet/Parliament, legal (in the eyes of the British) or not, foreign mercenaries were sent to put down the rebellion. I'm sure Washington, Jefferson, S. Adams, Franklin, et al, and the colonists overall, were not concerned with whether 'royal procedure' was followed to the letter, only that professional foreign soldiers were sent to fight in a war they had no personal or political interest in. Indeed many of the mercenaries were conscripted to fight, which would explain the some 5,000 Hessian desertions. Once again, our narrative should, and does, cover how the King, Parliament and their mercenaries were regarded by the Americans, which again is more than understandable. Was there something specific you'd like to add, modify or delete from the article? If not we should move on, as the Talk page is not a forum to discuss various topics, but is intended to discuss specific article improvements. Between the two of us it seems we've pushed the envelope much more than we should have at this late date. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC) The issue was whether George III was a tyrant who wielded absolute power or a constitutional monarch restrained by parliament. The evidence shows that parliament decided the laws and policies that would be applied in America. No doubt George preferred North's government. But North could only form the government when most members of parliament supported him. That's not to say that Great Britain was anything like a modern democracy or that Americans had any representation in parliament. It was in practice a group of colonies of Great Britain. TFD (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC) We've been through this several times now. It's understood the King was not a tyrant in the legal sense, only that he was regarded as such. Once again, I've no intention of saying, nor does the article say, the King was a de facto tyrant, only that he was considered as such, all things considered. Again, was there something specific you'd like the article to indicate? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Black’s Dictionary definition of a tyrant

Discussion section Dec 12-19

@The Four Deuces and Gwillhickers: Black’s Law Dictionary defines “tyranny” as arbitrary or despotic government; the severe and autocratic exercise of sovereign power, either vested constitutionally in one ruler, or usurped by him by breaking down the division and distribution of governmental powers. --- Edward Coke’s ‘Protestation’ against James I was that English liberties were a “birthright” rather than privileges of royal “toleration”, because the Common Law administered by its judges incorporated the best rule of justice from previous Kings as well as the present one. (Berman 1994, p.1677-78). George III presumed to directly govern the American colonies, altering boundaries, etc., without regard to their Stuart charters guaranteeing them the Rights of Englishmen. He did not presume to alter the boundaries of English counties --- in America, he usurped the English governmental power to do so without consent of a legislature without the representatives of colonial Englishmen, et alia, see the Declaration of Independence for the proper bill of indictment against George III as the ruler of free Englishmen by English constitutions. Parliament renounced that purported privilege for the King and itself in 1779, and the Irish Protestants immediately seized on the law as though it applied to themselves as well for their own Irish Parliament as separate from Parliament as a First Continental Congress, only without presuming independence yet has had the Second Continental Congress, but still creating another crisis there into the early 1780s. Judges in English Common Law in Massachusetts had ruled against George III acts of tyranny as sovereign in the 1760s - under Common Law, the good king cannot permit himself to administer bad law, however it may be conceived - and these were incorporated into the Declaration of Independence - they were not Jefferson's speculative philosophical ideals, they were precedent holdings in courts of English Common Law --- as previously noted in this article, if recent disruption has permitted it to survive editor wp:own alterations imposed without sourcing, discussion or consensus at Talk. I admit that I find it very difficult to keep up with the changes, but at least there is a Diff record laid down for future reference, say before end of February. --- To avoid possible misunderstanding relative to “I cant hear you” editor behavior, please acknowledge your receipt of this post as a part of our discussion at this Talk. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC) I have already explained above that Great Britain was governed under the supremacy of Parliament. It would be ironic for the Founding Fathers to argue for the rights of Englishmen, if they believed that Great Britain was a tyranny. Out of curiosity, in what year do you think the tyranny ended, or do you think that the British continue to live under tyranny? See the EB article on the 1688 Revolution: "[The Bill of Rights 1689] abolished the crown’s power to suspend laws, condemned the power of dispensing with laws “as it hath been exercised and used of late,” and declared a standing army illegal in time of peace....The adoption of the exclusionist solution lent support to John Locke’s contention that government was in the nature of a social contract between the king and his people represented in Parliament. The revolution permanently established Parliament as the ruling power of England."[3] TFD (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC) On the contrary, the idea of the King and Parliament acting as tyrants was the very issue that caused the colonists to remind the Crown about their rights as Englishmen. As far as the colonists were concerned, the Parliament and King formed a constitutional tyranny, to coin a phrase. Or are you trying to suggest that the colonists had no real grievances? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC) No idea how you could read my posting as saying the colonists had no grievances. Also, as I explained, the rebelling colonists changed the epithet of tyrant from parliament to the king. Unfortunately, that obfuscated how government actually worked in Great Britain. TFD (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC) You may not have actually said outright that "the colonists had no grievances", but given the lengths you've gone through to place the bulk of the blame for abuses on the Parliament, as if the King was little more than a dummy with a crown on his head, while trying to write off his long standing family ties to Hanover, I figured I'd ask. Still no comments about Colonial perceptions of the King. In any case, it shouldn't be difficult to come up with sources to cover this idea. Thanks for all your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC) I am sure that you can understand the difference in saying that the colonists had grievances against parliament and saying they had no grievances at all. Also, the Hanoverian dynasty's connection with Hanover had little bearing on the ARW. Hanover sent troops to Gibraltar so the British troops there could go to America. Otherwise it had no involvement. Why do you keep bringing it up? Your description of a constitutional monarch as a dummy with a crown on his head shows a lack of understanding of how the system works. The sovereign represents authority, tradition, continuity, legitimacy and unity above party. They can command a respect and affection that a president or PM cannot. TFD (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Please read the discussion more carefully. I did not say that the King was a dummy, etc, but that it was you who seemed to regard him as such, with your constant focus on Parliament as being primarily responsible for the abuses against the colonists. The King was primarily responsible for arranging for foreign mercenaries and circumvented the Parliament in doing so. See above reply. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC) As I pointed out, the 1688 revolution established the supremacy of parliament. Your statements that it was based on checks and balances or that Hanover and Hesse were part of Prussia shows that you are searching for evidence to support a position you hold on faith rather than objectively considering evidence. TFD (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC) From TFD It would be ironic for the Founding Fathers to argue for the rights of Englishmen, if they believed that Great Britain was a tyranny. Out of curiosity, in what year do you think the tyranny ended, or do you think that the British continue to live under tyranny? - 1) The rights of Englishmen are documented in the courts of Common Law that embrace the best law of every sovereign to apply to the case at hand, the balance struck is that while every king's authority is unchallenged, the justice of each case does not flow exclusively from the whims of a contemporary Sovereign. - 2) In 1775, George III was not persuaded that he was so constrained by Common Law because of a Hanover connection. His connection to Hanover was that his tutor in Kingship was John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute, who followed an absolutist model unlike that the British Common Law. Bute's grandfather was a Royalist who put down Argyll's Rising against King James II, purportedly an absolute monarch. Bute was appointed on the recommendation of the elder son of George II, the Hanoverian-born Frederick, Prince of Wales who wed Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha. The widow as the Dowager of Wales scandalously took on Bute as a consort. The Dowager and her fellow is a sympathetic subject among some RS because a descendant of hers was wife to Karl Marx, who was almost arrested for pawning silver with the family crest in Paris. - 3) The reference to the English Bill of Rights is taken by FTD here to have been preemptively an absolute certainty in all British politics beginning date certain 1688, i.e., it abolished the crown’s power to suspend laws, and condemned the power of dispensing with laws. That is akin to building a US historiography based on documents alone. The only political narrative for the US allowed is that all black men born in the US could vote (i) at the Fourteenth Amendment, 1868 date certain; or (ii) at the Fifteenth Amendment, 1870 date certain; or (iii) at the Voting Rights Act, 1965 date certain. That is not a useful "history" if it uses documents at face-value only. - 4) REPLY: The year that saw an end to any possible crown-only-tyranny by the British Sovereign was 1811 at the Care of King During his Illness, etc. Act 1811, required by incapacitating dementia in George III. THEN AND ONLY THEN, could a tradition begin building in Britain that, going forward it could become truly said that in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, "The sovereign represents authority, tradition, continuity, legitimacy and unity above party. They can command a respect and affection that a president or PM cannot.". Which is TFDs correct assessment for the historical tradition there as it now stands in 2020. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC) That's a fantastic revision of history that doesn't warrant reply. TFD (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: I do not see any reference to my post, so without any reference to the post, all four (4) critiques stand for each cited element of the FTD revisionist history in this thread. - So the question arises, Then why has TFD asserted fantastic revision of history in the first place? i.e. - 1) TFD: American political claims to violations of their English rights are "ironic" (dismissed) even if Common Law courts uphold that they in fact have been violated. Since the contemporary Sovereign can do no wrong as King-Lords-Parliament, then the American Patriots cannot justifiably image that a Common Law Court might find that George III in his administration of a law is at variance with the "law of the land" accumulated over all British sovereigns, "ironically". - 2) TFD: There is no Any Hanoverian connection to George III is irrelevant to the American Revolutionary War whether by family, upbringing or politics. George III was behaving in the same tradition set out by William and Mary for the British North American colonies, and Congress had no English grounds to object to their governance by King-Lords-Commons, "ironically". [updated per Talk below TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)] - 3) TFD: In the case of the Magna Carta or the English Bill of Rights, the intent in a document irreversibly changes political behavior everywhere for everyone at the date signed for all time. The American Patriots were just making things up, like economic depression and soldiers quartered in their homes, "ironically". - 4) TFD: Parliament's constraint on its Sovereign is not de facto well established in the 1811 Care of King During his Illness Act. There was no need for the Act of Parliament in 1811, it was already settled in 1688 for all time, "ironically". - All four TFD responses in this thread are his unique and unsourced POV, a "fantastic revision of history". But as I take his posts seriously in wp:good faith, I believe that he deserves an answer here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC) I provided sources for all my claims, and ask that in future if you quote me that you do so accurately. Anyway whether or not your arguments have any merit, we are forced to follow the interpretations that mainstream writers have. TFD (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC) To the best of my ability, I have always at every turn quoted you accurately, in the posts immediately above, "copy-pasted in green, with quotes included". I do point out where you have not referenced sources. My sourced references here do indeed have merit at Wikipedia, despite various disruptions and tangential walls-of-words posted on this page. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC) You wrote for example: "TFD: There is no Hanoverian connection to George III by family, upbringing or politics." [12:22, 14 December 2020[4]] I never wrote that. Why did you make it up? TFD (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: As I am sure you must be posting out of wp:good faith when you question my recall on this topic, perhaps you will be so kind as to post the Diff-links for your last seven posts related to posts by Gwillhickers about "George III and Hanover". Let's not rely on my recall alone. You have helped me out many times in the past when I transposed decade and year in dates. I am sure I can misremember, and your links can show just where and to what extent that may have happened in this case. I apologize in advance for wherever I have misconstrued anything that you posted here, and I thank you in advance for supplying the links here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC) I think that editor got hold of the wrong end of the stick when I disagreed with his claim that "it was the King's family connections in Hanover that arranged for the [Hessian] mercenaries." He was under the misconception that Hanover and Hesse were provinces of Prussia. In fact they were both sovereign states and negotiations were carried out by English not Hanoverian diplomats. Family connections were unimportant because Hesse sold the services of their soldiers for as much as they could get. I never said that the Hanoverian dynasty in Great Britain had no connection with Hanover, but that it was irrelevant. TFD (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Were not the "George III connections" a treaty of alliance between Hanover and Hesse? Whigs in Parliament said the HRE alliances of George III's Hanover was for self-defense only within the boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire. Therefore George IIIs appeal as Prince of Hanover to the Prince of Hesse to provide him troops to put down the Englishman rebellion in North America, without permission from Parliament was seen by the Whig Opposition as King George III usurping legislative control of British military affairs in the Empire from Parliament. But do you insist wp:editors here must foreclose any access to Whig history in Parliament, or can you admit some portion of that philosophy of government and political policy does have some relevance to the ARW? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Are you referring to the treaty between George II and the Landgrave of Hesse, which was signed in Hanover in 1755? George II announced the treaty is his 13 November 1755 speech from the throne and it was approved by Parliament. Obviously the motivation for the treaty was to protect Hanover, although the British government would later turn to Hesse for troops in the ARW. Troops were sent to America under new treaties negotiated by the British government and presented to Parliament on 29 February 1776. Parliament then voted the funds to pay for the troops and they arrived in America 15 August 1776. I don't know what role George III played in all this. However, cabinet was responsible for the negotiations and Parliament approved the treaties. That's basically the way things work in constitutional monarchies. It may not be as good as the U.S. which has the greatest constitution the world has ever known and has the most outstanding and admirable heads of state, but it isn't tyranny either. TFD (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Incidentally, unlike in the U.S., treaties do not have the force of law in the UK. In order to enact the terms of the treaty, an act of parliament is required. In the U.S. of course treaties must be proposed by the president and receive a 2/3rds vote in the Senate. They then bind both federal and state governments. So even if the king were to sign a treaty without consent of parliament, it would have not bind them. But it appears anyway that cabinet consented to the king signing these treaties. TFD (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC) The issue is not whether to admit Tory interpretation, but whether to allow any Whig history to remain. Sourcing that justifies the King's Men and the Tory Party is now in the article as it should be in wp:balance. In this case, according to British Whig and American Patriot sources, Whig opposition in Parliament attacked the introduction of German troops, whose treaties to send troops "to America" were signed with George III via his agent, placing them under his direct command with their own officers, not directly under the command of officers commissioned by Parliament. - Editorial policy does indeed say that Tory history sources should be cited to approve of the undertaking as all quite correct and constitutional, housing the King's German troops in Boston homes to save charging Parliament with their bivouac. But the RS also reference 1) English Common Law courts in Massachusetts found the practice unconstitutional, and 2) Whig members of Parliament objected from the floor of Commons on constitutional grounds. - The article must admit sources that report those constitutional objections as well. Sourced British Whig and American Patriot historiography cannot be suppressed by dismissing it with personal attacks on American editors as uninitiated into the artifices of Parliaments 1700s backroom deals, especially citing British after the 1790s. No such editor expertise is required at Wikipedia, only that contributions be reliably sourced and given due balance. Even some Tory histories interpret ARW events and Parliamentary developments at the time as primarily a constitutional attack on the power of the British executive, i.e. King-Prime Minister-Cabinet discretionary powers over American colonies, Ireland, and Empire. - Wikipedia editor page consensus does not extinguish all French scholars from the article on the French Revolution. Lets have some wp:balance at ARW to include some American historiography that attributes agency to George III in British military affairs 1775 to 1781 in North America. Extinguishing all reference to George III is not proper application of wp:due weight in editorial policy here. George III did influence events to some extent, to be reflected in the article using all reliable sources, not limited to British Tory history, but also British Whig history that embraces American historiography on the American Revolutionary War. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC) As I said above, the treaties were overwhelmingly approved in parliament, otherwise no troops could have been sent. While Rockingham may have had better arguments, North had more votes. TFD (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC) You can read the parliamentary debate on the king's speech in The Parliamentary Register, Vol. 3 (1776) on pp. 341-360. Note that David Hartley, whom you have mentioned, and other MPs, are clear that the decision to conduct the negotiations was made by Lord North's cabinet, which then directed the negotiations and approved the terms. Of course nothing could proceed without the approval of parliament. The responsible cabinet officer, Suffolk, had originally begun negotiations with Russia, but they fell through. TFD (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Missing information

discussion to Dec 16

TheVirginiaHistorian — The American Congress signs a peace section is missing a bit of information. It doesn't cover how John Jay negotiated a deal with P.M Shelburne, without the consent of France and Spain, who were still haggling over possession of Gibraltar and other issues involving access to the Mississippi, in obtaining a deal that afforded America all the land east of the Mississippi, free navigation on that river and the valuable fishing rights off Nova Scotia's coast.  --  Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)  Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Thanks. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Article progress

@Tenryuu: — Was just wondering if you're still with us as there have been no edits to the article and no comments here in Talk by you in the last two weeks. While there has been a lot of debate on the talk page, there hasn't been any further massive deletions or outright edit wars occurring. Just for the record, the prose size is well below 100k, at 96k. What is your assessment and recommendations at this point? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I'm stepping back as there's still a lot of contention over the material, which should be resolved first before any polishing (copy editing) occurs. There is no deadline, so if the involved parties can find common ground and the article is otherwise stable for at least a month, that'd be great. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Any lingering issues

@TheVirginiaHistorian, Robinvp11, and Tenryuu: — Aside from minor differences involving incidental points of context, if there are still any pressing issues to speak of we should air them now and resolve them so we can have Tenryuu get on with the arduous effort of copy editing this rather long and involved article. After that it would seem that the final effort to getting the article to GA would be to make sure the citation page numbers support the given statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The ARW is not a particularly long or complex war; I've written the articles on the Thirty Years War, War of the Spanish Succession, War of the Austrian Succession (not yet complete), First English Civil War etc. I'm not suggesting they be used as a model but none are anywhere near the length of this one. This is an online encyclopaedia; the EB article (frequently quoted as being the "Gold Standard") is considerably less complex, with details hived off into subsidiaries.

The article frequently repeats itself, is often hard to follow and manages to be simultaneously overly detailed in some areas while ignoring others. It reads like a set of loosely connected paragraphs, rather than a coherent whole and until that changes, I personally don't see the point of doing a detailed copy edit.

The Footnotes; I've made this point several times. I'm not the most experienced editor but I've been doing this for a few years and I've never seen so many; it looks like an effort to artificially reduce the size of the article - which why its so wordy (why bother to condense when you can simply shorten it by inserting a footnote). Either they should be in the body or not - some are worth including (summarised), the vast majority are not.

My biggest issue (as mentioned by Gwillhickers above) is far too many of the citations are wrong - not a few but dozens where the point allegedly being made is not supported by the reference. That needs to be done before a Copy edit, because otherwise we're asking someone to spend time checking them.

I'm happy to continue going through and checking these but I don't want to get involved in TP discussions for reasons I've mentioned previously. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Like water, the length of an article finds its own level. The ARW was some eight years long. Even if it was only four, there were many prominent people, countries, issues and events involved, and thus, to author a comprehensive article that doesn't read like a boring inventory report, room is needed. Yes, the citations do need tending to. There have been a few times where I've come across cites were the page numbers are wrong. This article was created in 2001 and, needless to say, has gone through many changes. About a year ago there was no citation standard being used, whatsoever, with a number of different citation conventions throughout the article, along with many dozens of lengthy, self-styled and website citations, which made the markup next to impossible to navigate. Also, when massive reversions and/or deletions are made with one or two edits, often times some of the remaining cites can end up being 'undefined'. My overall recommendation, for all, would be to check the citations before the edits are made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not more complex than the 30 Years War, and "comprehensive" does not equal "length". I haven't simply removed stuff - I've also added eg explaining the Southern Strategy in a paragraph, Foreign Intervention etc.

My point is that its both overly long while omitting key facts - much of that is caused by repetition and being too wordy. So it can be both shorter and more comprehensive.

Part of the problem is certain sections have been lifted from other articles - nothing wrong with that per se but its why the overall article is somewhat disjointed;

Re mass deletions; I haven't removed any significant points, in fact I've often expanded them - what I've done is (a) make it clearer and (b) shorter. There's often a relatively simple point being made eg Washington decided he needed a more professional military intelligence service, which is then spread over five lines. That's not the same as deleting them.

I have been checking every single reference provided - the ones that have been removed are where they bear zero relationship to the point being made. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I've no issues with removing wholly repetitive statements, but there are cases when an item can be mentioned again in relation to another point of context, as in the case of von Steuben. I strongly object to the idea of removing content with a primary objective of making the article shorter. As I said, the article length should find its own level. This is not arrived at by comparing this article with other articles, an idea which conversely would invite the idea that since less complex (FA and GA) articles are longer than this article it should therefore be longer also. Again, we should write comprehensively, with important topics presented in context, be mindful of unneeded repetition and let the article length assume its own proportion, regardless of the length of other articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Upgrade for Infobox sourcing

In the Infobox, Albrecht posted a cluttering phrase, "– Eastern seaboard and adjoining waters" at Casualties, French 2,112. Item #1. 23 Dec here, reason: "This is *not* the "total" French casualty figure, but only those killed on the North American mainland and in US territorial waters. See original research here: https://www.persee.fr/doc/jsa_0037-9174_1936_num_28_1_1936." --- Item #2. 25 Dec here, reason: "The ARW was a global war -- France fought Britain across three continents. This figure is clearly only those Frenchmen who died *in the United States and along its coast. Total figure is much, much higher."

- This second change is again imposed without discussion or RS to support it. It also misrepresented the source cited, although I explained in an efn Note his mistranslation of the primary source by Dawson on Dec 24 here. Also included, a Clodfelter citation to include the Euro perspective that Albrecht sought to include.

TO AVOID AN EDIT WAR: The previous Infobox citation to a 1936 primary document in French, leading to contention over wp:original research interpretation, has now been replaced by a 2004 RS by the French medical officer, Colonel Daniel P. Rignault. Rignault's book The History of the French Military Medical Corps states on page 20, "By 1783, when fighting stopped, a total of 2,112 Frenchmen had lost their lives for the independence of the United States of America."

- Rignault's footnote #17, p. 53 reads, "Dawson W. Les 2112 Franqais morts aux Etats-Unis de 1777 a 1783 en combattant pour I'independance americaine [The 2112 French soldiers who died in the United States from 1777 to 1783 in combat for American independence]. Extracted from the Journal de la Societe des Americanistes. Nouvells Serie, t XXVIII, 1936, pp 1-154. Paris, France: Au Siege de la Societe; 1936."

I hope the translation of Dawson's original French by French Colonel Rignault, MD, will suffice to persuade here that the Infobox for the "American Revolutionary War" casualties should admit the French Government publication of the French dead fighting for "American Independence" or as the French authorities say, "I'independance americaine", as published by the Ministère de la défense, Service de santé des armées, 2004. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: many more Frenchmen died fighting in the American Revolutionary War — a global conflict with many theatres outside of North America — than did fighting "for American independence," i.e. assisting the Continental Army in operations on U.S. soil and off the U.S. coasts. If my formulation is found to be "cluttering," fine — come up with a better one. But the figure of 2,112 is a subset of total French dead in this war (and conflating the two figures betrays a pretty astounding U.S.-centric bias); I don't think there can be any serious debate on this point. Albrecht (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Very well, let's include another RS view, but there is NO call to then suppress the French RS altogether. While Col. Rignault, MD, is supported by prominent American historian RS, it is not necessary for you to overthrow the French government on this American Revolution '2112 French dead' point as promoting Albrecht: "pretty astounding U.S.-centric bias" through 2004 publications by the French Armed Forces Health Services.

- It may be that we need a Note by the French RS citation -- citing alternative RS historiographies for counting more French dead in the Bourbon War against Britain 1778-1783 (previously cited, linked and directly quoted here at Talk from the American historian Mahan 1890, and the British historian Syrett 1989). There may also a consensus here to be found to add a Note elsewhere in the Infobox, for casualties in the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War 1780-1784. But off-hand, I would disagree. It seems to me that they do not directly apply to the Britannica "American Revolution", or its War for this article scope.

- But, What are your RS suggestions? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we're starting to lose the forest for the trees: we have a very solid, reliable figure for French dead on the American mainland and its coastal waters. Total French dead in this war will probably never be tabulated (how many French soldiers and sailors died at Gibraltar? In Channel operations in 1779? Off the coasts of India?), so why not keep the existing figure with a note describing its geographical scope (aka something akin to my original edit)?

Or are you actually contending that the scope of this article be restricted to operations on U.S. territory? On what grounds, exactly? Albrecht (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

1) @Albrecht and WhatamIdoing: The French government source is the book by French Colonel Rignault, MD, The History of the French Military Medical Corps,on page 20: "By 1783, when fighting stopped, a total of 2,112 Frenchmen had lost their lives for the independence of the United States of America." That is, the French government reports that a total of 2,112 Frenchmen died, listing soldiers and sailors, 1777 to 1783 inclusive, from all causes in the American Revolution, de 1777 a 1783 en combattant pour l'independance americaine.

2) -a- The French entered into the Treaty of Alliance with Congress to fight Britain until US independence. US independence was formally gained at the Anglo-American Treaty of Paris (1783) without France, or Spain. -b- The French entered into the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) with Spain to fight Britain until Gibraltar was retaken. France ended its war with Britain at the time at the Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles (France, 1783), without Spain, or Congress.

3) The American Revolutionary War as a military account extends to all operations -a- commissioned by Congress, directed by its officials, or coordinated in correspondence with its commissioned officers, or -b- those efforts by the British government to put down the rebel Congress seeking independence in North America.

- So, the ARW comprehends military activity by the Congressional agent directly coordinating with Governor Gálvez to support Rogers conquering western Quebec (US claimed British territory), but he did not in Spanish plans in Havana to occupy Jamaica with the French. Washington directly corresponded on military coordination with Admiral de Grasse to supply him at Yorktown (US claimed British territory), but he did not in French plans to engage the British fleet in the Caribbean at Saints. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Better clutter suggestion

To answer the Albrecht query, the better Infobox answer is to NOT clutter line items with unnecessary detail, such as qualifiers of geographic scope like, "eastern seaboard and adjoining waters" that are NOT found in the cited, linked and directly quoted reliable source as footnoted to the Bibliography entry. Extraneous unsourced elaboration by editor self-assertion is not permitted, it is wp:vandalism.

The number of Frenchmen dead fighting in the American Revolution, is 2112 dead Frenchmen in "l'independance americaine", totaled and published by the Ministère de la défense, Service de santé des armées, 2004. This article is the American Revolutionary War, not an unsourced "ARW-gone-Global". That is not what the French government source says, and it is not subject to arbitrary unsourced editor POV revision to disrupt the article or its Infobox. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The 3-continent-ARW

Overall, I don't hold out much hope for any success with a "3-continent-ARW", the "ARW-gone-Global". A cadre from the Military History Project blew up Clodfelter's "War of the American Revolution" against Britain on three continents clean out of the water as lacking "wp:significance" as I remember. The closing rationale was wp:snowball in adopting any related title and scope (the RfC was for ARW "title and scope" in its first seven words). Even a Military History Project administrator coordinator Peacemaker67 joined in the discussion to keep the RfC closed, cutting off the RfC to exclude the 'late' voice of an editor from the British Empire Project at day-3 of a 30-day RfC life-span, violating the WP:RFCEND policy.

- I have it on good authority from a Military History Project coordinator that one first defines article name THEN scope and simultaneously from WhatamIdoing, a WP Foundation contractor, that one first defines article scope THEN name. I tried to do both. Nevertheless,

In this way, the discussion related to ARW scope specifically mentioned by the British Empire editor was ended, rather than admit the voices from the British Empire, History, United States History, and Indigenous Peoples of North America projects - the editors who all endorsed the Encyclopedia Britannica's title and scope for the ARW as "American Revolution". That differed from the last Albrecht post in this way: "American Revolution" a British-subject insurrection in North America for United States independence, formally ending at the Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris, Britain granting US independence, also known as "the War for American Independence" --- and not, for instance, a 3-continent war against Britain for occupation of Gibraltar, Jamaica, or expanding Mysore trade through 1784, without any reference to their colony independence, or the American one in the separate British treaties ending their various, not North American, imperial wars.

- There would be no full discussion here for any "Clodfelter-like 3-continent American-Revolution" in December 2020, so you may not get far with your ARW-gone-Global. But let's proceed in wp:good faith to include all RS in wp:balance, shall we? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what the right question is. Does 'Clodfelter-like' mean that the North American-focused 1775–1783 war that resulted in the 13 colonies being considered independent of Britian and the global Anglo-French War (1778–1783) are considered the same/single war? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No, actually, although editors here have misapplied Clodfelter's paradigm, so it may seem like Clodfelter's narrow application of a specialty British military historiography at "War of the American Revolution" can be used to overthrow the RS Encyclopedia Britannica entry for "American Revolution". We must distinguish between what Clodfelter says and how he is misrepresented at ARW Talk. At Clodfelter's "War of the American Revolution" entry, he rules out the "American Revolution" as popularly understood in scholarly RS Britannica. It is inadequate to his purpose to comprehensively account for major war waged against Britain between the Seven Years' War 1763, and the onset of the Napoleonic Wars 179- in one entry.

- Clodfelter's "hook" is that once the rebel Congress army successfully used one-year conscripts to defeat British and German professionals at Saratoga, then western European "great powers" (France, Spain, Dutch Republic) jumped at the chance to make war on a distracted and vulnerable Britain. His phrasing has it that, the American Revolution spread into a global conflict. That is, it is accurate to say, the American Revolution of Congress against Britain 1775-1783 - spread into a global conflict - by France, Spain, and the Dutch against Britain 1778-1784 - but it did not spread by Congress and it did not spread for colonial independence, the "spread" of war elsewhere by others for different purposes was NOT a part of the American Revolutionary War for American Independence between Britain and Congress.

- Diplomatically, after the Seven Years' War Britain had no continental ally, but it deployed its historically largest overseas Army against the American rebellion. Parliament had failed to keep up Royal Navy shipbuilding, not only ships-of-the-line, but frigate construction that were faster, and easier to detach in squadrons. The Bourbon Kings of France and Spain extended their Pacte de Famille at the secret Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) which explicitly called for reconquering Gibraltar from Britain for Spain. Congress did not sign on to fight Britain until Spain got Gibraltar, France did. Spain did not join the Treaty of Alliance to war against Britain for American Independence, Spain joined France to war against Britain to gain Gibraltar.

- Both the American naval historian Mahan in 1890 and the British naval historian Syrett in 1998 refer to the Bourbon war 1778-1784 against Britain at sea as something about "empire" and Euro "balance of power", apart from the American War for Independence in North America. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I confess that I'm not entirely convinced of the relevance of what's been expostulated above. It's not unusual — it is, in fact, altogether typical — for a localized conflict to expand in scope and complexity as external powers, either for ideological or opportunistic reasons, intervene. Did Spain's campaign in Italy in 1741–47 have a whole lot to do with the question of the Austrian succession? Did France enter the Thirty Years' War to save Czech Protestantism? While other powers may have entered the ARW for motivations quite distinct from the U.S. struggle for independence, this really has zero bearing on whether to posit the existence of multiple concurrent but unconnected states of war.

The appropriate scope of the "American Revolutionary War" article can only be answered by looking at the great mass of scholarly literature and gauging whether it preponderantly treats the Anglo-French and Anglo-Spanish fighting as part of this war or as wholly separate conflicts. In my experience the answer here is unambiguous, but since this would be a tedious thing to try to prove by raw numbers, I'll confine myself to a single example: one of the standard naval histories of the war, Syrett's The Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War, details the Royal Navy's European operations against its American, French, Spanish and Dutch foes without any suggestion that the text is spanning four separate conflicts (or three, if one counts the Bourbon powers as a bloc). Albrecht (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

1. The appropriate scope of the “American Revolutionary War” is to be determined by Wikipedia:Article titles, rather than editor appeal to wp:deprecated browser searches. At Neutral point of view#due and undue weight, Jimbo Wales indicated article balance should be determined as follows:

- a) for an editor or source majority with a reference use the commonly accepted scholarly reference = Encyclopedia Britannica “American Revolution”, rather than a specialty military history index for "ARW-goes-Global"; and

- b) for an editor or source minority, find support by prominent adherents = 15 of 16 Pulitzer Prize winners on the topic. That is NOT "ARW-gone-Global" selectively sourcing RS that merely stipulate that the Bourbon war on Britain 1778-1783 took place within the same time period year-span as the Anglo-American war 1775-1783 (an insurrection, formerly ended by Anglo-American peace at the Treaty of Paris (1783) without external signatories).

- There is NO scholarly reliable source for this bizarre DOCTRINE of CHRONOLOGY: "It all happened at the same time, so it is all the same war, no evidence required". It is pure off-handed POV. formulated here to disrupt ARW and its Talk in a way unprecedented by you or any other wp:editor, any where else at Wikipedia, not at French and Indian War 1754-1753, not at Second Sino-Japanese War 1931-1945.

2. Your Imperial British-centric POV is irrelevant to the ARW, and worse it is anachronistic bad history because it was not believed by Britons at the time. One example: Britons did not fill regular regiments with officers and men to put down their cousin rebel (British Whig) American Congress, and senior British Army and Navy officers on half-pay refused active duty for the purpose. This left the George III "keep the colonies" policy with a third-string team and a corrupt peacetime military establishment to go to war; after Yorktown 1781, it was a much better show:

- At the close of the ARW, Britons filled the ranks, officers and men, for both regular and home guard regiments. Parliament funded a shipbuilding program after the Royal Navy jewel HMS Royal George sank of rotting timbers in the still waters of Spithead bay, killing 800. The occasion for British concern was not at the loss of the Royal George, nor the looming loss of the American colonies. The immediate alarm was raised to face the combined armies and navies of the French and Spanish whose Treaty set out conquer Gibraltar and take the British Caribbean sugar producing colonies. That, after 1781, was not the ARW. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

1. American Revolution ≠ American Revolutionary War, which invalidates your appeal to Britannica.

2. The astonishing accusation of "Imperial British-centric POV" [sic!!], besides being wholly gratuitous and abusive, is also laughably off the mark — as one glance at my edit history will show.

Let's cut to the chase: I'm not interested in your (idiosyncratic) interpretation of this conflict and which of its dynamics were significant or marginal, laid out in dreary walls of text. Where are your WP:RSs asserting that the states of war between France and Britain (1778-83), and Spain and Britain (1779-83) were not part of the American Revolutionary War? For Pete's sake, the former article clearly notes "Part of the American Revolutionary War" in its Infobox, while the latter is titled "Spain and the American Revolutionary War!" (while Wikipedia is not itself a source, this suggests a wide editorial consensus for my position and against yours). Albrecht (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's Stephen Conway, University College London, in A Short History of the American Revolutionary War:

From 1778, when the French turned out to be belligerent, the War of Independence became much more than a war for America. It spread to all areas of Anglo-French contact and competition: to the Caribbean, West Africa and Asia. ... In the summer of 1779, the Spanish entry into the war increased the danger of an enemy landing in the British Isles, as the combined Bourbon fleets outnumbered the Royal Navy. Spanish intervention also broadened the war's geographical range still further; now Central America became a military theatre. ... The Dutch joined the war at the end of 1780, extending the conflict yet again... This global war, furthermore, continued after Yorktown.

For this discussion to proceed any further in good faith from all parties, I'd like to see at least two WP:RSs arguing the contrary. If Conway's is such a fringe or unorthodox view (or, as you assert, "bad history"), you should have no trouble marshalling plenty of highly-credentialed opposing voices from the literature. Albrecht (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

1) Britannica and all RS known to me say that the American Revolution encompassed violent conflict in the American Revolutionary War, as well as Congressional legislation, federalism with the states, and international diplomacy. So no, American Revolution does not equal ARW, but the ARW is included entirely within the American Revolution. 2) Correct, the Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources and they are irrelevant to our discussion, look here.

- 3) Asking an opponent to prove a negative like this: Where are your RS asserting France and Spain war were not a part of the ARW? is [Brit: “playing silly buggers”], because you can't prove a general negative. That would be whimsical in a British "public (ie private) schoolboy" sort of way, if it were not a part of a sustained pattern of disruptive behavior.

- 4) All RS in diplomatic and military history referencing the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) and its joint Franco-Spanish war aims for Gibraltar and Bourbon imperial gain, show distinctions between the French-Spanish deal versus the Congressional Model Treaty for Adam Smith's free trade with all nations. Aranjuez is made in secret from Congress for mercantile empires, separate and apart from Congressional ARW against Britain for different war aims, and contradictory to the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance. (The scholar Richard Morris shows it abrogated the Treaty of Alliance as cited, linked, and quoted here at Talk.)

- 5) RS properly place the Bourbon war on Britain for Gibraltar and imperial gain during 1778-1783, within the time period 1775-1783. That overlapping coincidence of chronology for three (3) years of shooting war 1778-1781 is stipulated. 6) Scholarly historians write narratives to relate actors and participants in a past time and place. But good history is not properly argumentative. Reliable histories should reveal the contingency of each moment among a wide range of geography and ideology, leadership and class. Only the wp:fringe need take on that contentious argumentative struggle at every publication. So among wp:fringe polemics, there is much printed with Albrecht's ”argument to the contrary” against the mainstream historiography found at Britannica “American Revolution”. So no, I will not provide two counter-polemics with narratives that counter-argue the misrepresented RS and wp:fringe polemics purporting an "ARW-gone-WILD-Global" (sic). Polemics are not good history.

- 7) I do not object to Conway or Chavez or Clodfelter as RS. I do object to misapplying them so as to misinterpret the scope of the ARW. Even when the RS Conway writes without wp:peer review at a popular press for a publisher of action-adventure-espionage novels, Conway in his book printed at Taurus, carefully notes that when the French become a belligerent against Britain with Congress to defensively defend its trade with America, the French - who within weeks were under a separate treaty alliance with Spain without Congress - jointly spread the French and Spanish war on Britain into "every area of contact and competition" worldwide. That war was not the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance “defensive war” of Article 1, to defend "Franco-American trade" of the Preamble until Article 8 "tacit" US independence and US peace. At Aranjuez, France promised to fight Britain until Spain won Gibraltar.

- CONWAY DOES NOT TRY TO MISLEAD the reader into thinking otherwise: France and Spain as "belligerents" against Britain spread "war" with Britain globally. Conway does NOT imply that the ancien regimes in France and Spain "spread" the ARW of colonial independence and republicanism globally 1778-1783 everywhere in the First British Empire. He does not, he reserves that task for Napoleon twenty years or so later, mostly confined to Europe.

- Once we step away from the delightfully urbane British Anglo-centric historiography, "everyone is against poor victim Britain at the same time, all ganged up in the same one worldwide war" syndrome (sic), and look at it from a perspective that encompasses a) British and b) American and c) Bourbon perspectives, there is another Conclusion: Those are two different wars: by Congress against Britain for North American territory with Bourbon assistance, and by France & Spain against Britain for imperial expansion without Congress.

- For example, one (1) French war is fought until US independence with its ally Congress and co-belligerent Spain, another one (1) French war is to be fought until Gibraltar is Spain's with its ally Spain without Congress and its Revolutionary War confined to North American territorial aims. We cannot know from the cited work whether Conway became more expansive in his ARW interpretive claims during radio show interviews on his promotional tour to flog book sales for his action-adventure-espionage publisher.

- We can only work with the direct quote-block @Albrecht: has faithfully related here, and the Cambridge Dictionary online, which Albrecht refuses to stipulate as the arbiter of English usage in this thread here as too "dreary" to condescend to a reply, as expressed here.

Oh! How I wish I could write as well as Robinvp11! - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Let’s agree to mutually use the online Cambridge Dictionary

Let's agree to use the English language rather than your secret argot that is not sourced, it's undisclosed to date. Using the English dialect explicated in the Cambridge Dictionary at "insurrection", we see, "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence: armed insurrection"; synonyms listed are "rebellion", "revolt", "rising"', "uprising". Please, pause in your disruption and stipulate in this thread, that there was "war violence" within the topic and during the time of the Britannica "American Revolution" in the British North American colonies from June 1775 to October 1781.

- Despite Albrecht: incredulity, violence is described in the article. It cannot be read yet, or there can be no wp:good faith denial that the American Revolution encompassed violence in war (see Venn diagram for a quick refresher). Here is the disruptive assertion without a source to back it up: 1. "American Revolution ≠ American Revolutionary War, which invalidates your appeal to Britannica.", found at Talk here. I am incredulous. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bourbons for Gibraltar

Let's begin with RS Stephen Conway, quoted above. "The French as a belligerent" against Britain "spread war", "to all areas of Anglo-French contact and competition". ==> Congress in its insurrection against Britain did NOT "spread globally" its war for colonial independence to French and Spanish colonies. No Albrecht: purported "source" claims that Congress did so. The Franco-American Treaty of Alliance, Article I says,

"The essential and direct end of the present defensive alliance is to maintain effectually the liberty, sovereignty, and independence absolute and unlimited of the said United States, as well in matters of government as of commerce."

- The Spanish entry into the Bourbon war against Britain at their secret Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), "increased the danger of an enemy landing in the British Isles, as the combined Bourbon fleets outnumbered the Royal Navy." The 1779 Treaty of Aranjuez, Article 7 says,

"The [Spanish] king for his part understands to acquire the following advantages through war and the future peace treaty: 1st. The restitution of Gibraltar. 2nd. The possession of the River and fortress of Mobile. 3rd. The restitution of Pensacola with the entire coast of Florida... 4th. The expulsion of the English from the Bay of Honduras... 5th. The revocation of ...the English ...on the coast of Campeche. 6th. The restitution of the island of Minorca."

==> Congress in its insurrection against Britain does NOT resolve to conquer Gibraltar. No Albrecht: purported "source" claims that Congress did so. Congress passed its war aims unanimously and forwarded as instructions to their peace delegation to call for * independence, * British evacuation, * navigation of the Mississippi with access to the sea, and * Newfoundland Bank fishing and drying rights. - no Gibraltar to be seen in them, there is no "war spread" to Gibraltar by Congress in its ARW. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

British declare war on Dutch - Dutch don't 'join in' against Britain

The Dutch did not “join” the war on Britain. How British-centric can you be? The Britain declared war on the Dutch, and swept their navy it their commerce from the North Atlantic in a matter of a few weeks. The “pre-emptive strike” was taken explicitly by the British to make it impossible for the Dutch to join the Russia-led First League of Armed Neutrality. The British correctly assumed that Dutch Navy commanders at sea would choose to return fire on attacking British frigates loosing broadsides at them.

- You raise a wp:error alert: on three counts: (1) the Dutch did NOT declare war on the British, (2) the Dutch who were trying to maintain neutrality in their great power decline to freely trade around the world, did NOT join the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance to war on Britain until US independence

(or alternatively until a "tacit treaty" for US independence and peace – signed in the event by Anglo-American Preliminary Treaty on November 20, 1782 -- as provided for an end of war against Britain by the US and France in Treaty of Alliance, Article 8.)

- It is nonsense to contend here that the ARW spread and continued beyond treaty requirements for the Americans for Spanish ends they did not agree to, unless the editor POV insists that only autocratic governments have authority to make war and peace, that is wp:error alert: Congress in a republic had to await the Euro "absolute monarchs" to make peace for them. NOT.

- Beginning at the end of 1781, Congress raised no additional regiments, all ending enlistments were sent home, beginning in April 1782 when Parliament ended all offensive operations in America, all regiments were furloughed home, and almost all its ships were gifted to debtors or sold to retire some of the national debt. AFTER the ARW, when US gains independence and all wins all of its war aims, its army is disbanded home, and its navy is sold off, and it has proclaimed as of April 15, 1783, "An End of Hostilities" on broadsides throughout the land, there was no ARW in Mysore to extend French imperial expansion there, and Congress did NOT tie down significant British forces in North America from 1781 to 1784 as you imply Conway to say. He did not say what you misrepresent him to say on several counts.

- (3) the Dutch did NOT join the Bourbons to conquer Gibraltar. Yet more nonsense distraction and disruption at Talk. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Other stuff on Wikipedia

And no, I cannot fix wp:other stuff WP articles. Unsourced POV has presumed on several ARW “sister articles” that all war by France on Britain, all war by Spain on Britain, 1775-1784, from before shooting war by France in 1778 and by Spain in 1779, until after shooting war in America in 1781, through to 1784 at cease-fires in India, is all the ARW. Because the ‘starter’ small conflict “spread globally” in an “ARW-gone-Global”.

- Over the last 8-10 months or so, the previously sourced article “Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783)” was first redirected to “Spain and the American Revolutionary War”, then the title of the first page was changed to “Anglo-Spanish Conflict, 1779-1783”, so any reference to the war did not appear in chronological order in the Anglo-Spanish War article index. I did not participate, nor do I anticipate a redirection in my historical interests.

- When I did participate elsewhere for a couple of months with citations, links, and direct quotes along with two other editors, the article Anglo-French War (1778-1783) was delayed from wholesale wp:merge with France in the American Revolutionary War. It still existed as a stand alone article in June-July 2020, as did the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, it had not been wp:merge into Netherlands in the American Revolution. Just now, my interest is restricted to US and Virginia history, as my Wikipedia hobby; sorry to disappoint, I have other things to do than fix all the “other stuff” on Wikipedia.

- When you apply that Albrecht : DOCTRINE of CHRONOLOGY: “fighting happened at the same time, so it’s all the same war worldwide, no evidence required”, then you will eventually redirect the Euro Seven Year's War 1756-1763 article into the earlier "war spread global” North American conflict, the French and Indian War 1754-1763. – in the same way. I’m just not going engage there when it happens. Likewise, World War II (1939-1945) article -- by the Albrecht: DOCTRINE of CHRONOLOGY – must be likewise redirected to the earlier "war spread global" Second Sino-Japanese War 1931-1945. I’ll leave WWII to you, just like the Bourbon War for Gibraltar you site above. But here, please refrain from unsourced editor POV "supported" by disruptive misrepresentations of good scholarly Euro historians. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Alas, I return to find that — in spite of your pasting great walls of often confusing and meandering text — your personal and parochial interpretation of the conflict is still unsupported by WP:RSs from the scholarly or popular literature and, as such, has no weight or standing for the purpose of determining the scope of this article.

Since, in contradistinction to you, I am concerned to ground my edits in verifiable, third-party sources (and not surrender to the siren of my own inner musings and prejudices), here is a third text. Thomas E. Chavez, Research Associate with the University of New Mexico's Latin American & Iberian Institute, in Spain and the Independence of the United States. This text not only — predictably — frames the Anglo-Bourbon conflict as an integral part of the ARW, but also documents, in painstaking detail, how operations you view as totally outside the scope of this article were, in fact, causally and strategically related to the war on the American mainland (pp. 140–47, for instance, details how the Franco-Spanish Channel operations and Siege of Gibraltar were expressly planned with the purpose of hampering the Royal Navy's logistical support to British forces in the colonies, with the Bourbon powers maintaining constant contact with representatives of the Continental Congress regarding these strategic objectives).

It's your vision of a U.S.-centric ARW which, I'm afraid, is growing more untenable by the hour. Albrecht (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Albrecht claims here that the Chavez book Spain and the Independence of the United States indicates that “the Siege of Gibraltar was expressly planned”, - why, yes, Wasn’t that for the primary purpose to occupy the fortress as provided in the Franco-Spanish Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), Spain’s first “expectation” stated there? - Apparently not by editor POV. Albrectht continues, ”with the purpose of hampering the Royal Navy's logistical support to British forces in the colonies”, - but wasn’t that merely a secondary effect of the primary mission, and after North’s cabinet had already chosen to pivot away from America whenever the Bourbons declared war? – as previously discussed, cited, linked and directly quoted here at Talk.

Albrecht claims “Bourbon powers maintaining constant contact with representatives of the Continental Congress regarding these strategic objectives.” A search of the book at the link provided does not find a reference to “Congress” on page 140-147. Instead the publisher tags this excerpt on page 137 for the “Congress” search, “Preparations were made for an invasion of the Bahamas and Jamaica, a strategy that Benedict Arnold had suggested to Congress, although there is no evidence that it influenced Spanish planning.”

- Many here at ARW will recognize that Benedict Arnold was a field commander in the Continental Army, and not a “representative of the Congress in constant communications with Spain on strategic matters”, at any time, and by 1780 at Bourbon preparations for invasion, Arnold was an infamous traitor to the Patriot cause, and not “representing Congress” at all.

- When Chavez as RS faithfully records military operations that Britain undertakes to face the second, Bourbon, war on them, that does not diplomatically or historically make (a) the larger Bourbon war of the Treaty of Aranjuez for Gibraltar and imperial gain against Britain into (b) the smaller ARW against Britain for independence and territory in North America. Chavez does not say the two wars are the same. - Britain begins fighting against American militias in 1775, and then Britain fights against Bourbons 1778-1783 at the same time for three years 1778-1781. That is, until Yorktown 1781, when Congress stops fighting against Britain and Britain stops fighting against Congress.

- Then all British assets committed in America are no longer "tied down", they are re-deployed to the Caribbean, and Britain wins decisive battles at the Battle of the Saintes to defend British imperial Jamaica, and again at Great Siege of Gibraltar to defend the British imperial fortress there.

- Editor Albrecht’s POV misunderstanding, misinterpretation and misrepresentation now persists after sourced explanations to the contrary. But there is no RS support for the "ARW-gone-WILD-global", he cannot join the shorter, bigger, more expensive Bourbon war against Britain for Gibraltar and imperial gain into the longer, smaller, overlapping insurrection by Congress against Britain without document evidence, Look here. Likewise the POV does not serve to join the Seven Years’ War into the longer, smaller, overlapping French and Indian War, likewise World War II into the longer, smaller, overlapping Second Sino-Japanese War, Look here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Britannica’s ARW begin and end documents

The formal beginning of the ARW at Britannica “American Revolution”, begins with the unilateral Declaration of Independence from Great Britain by the rebel Congress alone, on the authority of the good people of their new nation. The beginning of the ARW is not derivative of Euro great powers, or dependent upon their warring on Britain.

- No @Albrecht: “source” for his ARW-gone-Global claims that there is any other initiator or initiators of the British insurrection by the rebel Congress to attain an independent nation-republic in North America anywhere to be found in their scholarly work printed by wp:peer review academic publishers – to other agents is put forward as true, none is suspected by other scholars, there is no other initiator speculated upon in wp:peer review literature.

The formal ending of the ARW at the wp:reliable source scholarly reference Britannica “American Revolution”, ends with the Anglo-American Treaty of Paris (1783). It has no other signatories than the two principle belligerents, the British and the Congress. The ending of the ARW is not derivative of Euro great powers, or dependent on their peace with Britain.

- No @Albrecht: “source” for his ARW-gone-Global claims that there are any other signatories to the Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris in their scholarly work printed by wp:peer review academic publishers, none others are suspected, and no others are speculated upon.

The Anglo-American peace is exclusive of any Euro great power signatories: a) not Combatants 1776-1783 on either side, not the Native Americans on both sides, and not the German auxiliaries on the British side, b) not partisan Patriot militias and not partisan Loyalist militias; c) Not the American co-belligerents 1789-1781, the French, Spanish, Dutch, they are not signatories: none of them are signatories, nor are they mentioned in the Anglo-American treaty articles.

- No @Albrecht: “source” for his ARW-gone-Global claims (a), or (b), is either true, suspected, or subject to speculation in their scholarly work printed by wp:peer review academic publishers.

In the Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris, the Euro great powers France, Spain and Dutch Republic are a) not mentioned as nations in treaty articles, b) nor are their armed forces at sea or on land, c) nor are their territories at issue with Britain at the current time mentioned, not any one, anywhere around the globe.

- No @Albrecht: “source” for his ARW-gone-Global claims (a), or (b), or (c) is either true, suspected, or subject to speculation in their scholarly work printed by wp:peer review academic publishers, not anywhere. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)