Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

First Sentence, Second Paragraph Edit

"The war was the result of the political American Revolution. Colonists galvanized around the position that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unconstitutional" Change to "The war was the result of the political American Revolution. Colonists voted and declared that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unlawful because the colonies did not have any representation in parliament."

The Stamp Act of 1765 can not be unconstitutional because there was no Constitution or even a Declaration of Independence, you twits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazhawkeye (talk • contribs)

It refers to Great Britain's unwritten constitution. Hot Stop 23:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done You really ought not call people twits when when you don't know what you are talking about. Try reading this or this.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hesse-Kessel and Hanover as direct belligerents

In the infobox, it lists the German forces, but with a generic term. Since Hesse-Kessel is listed a direct belligerent on the Battle for Trenton page, and King George III was technically the king (well, prince-elector) of Hanover, shouldn't these two German states get direct mention in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.14.28 (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Please see this archived discussion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Then why are they listed as direct belligerents on pages for individual battles?--68.8.14.28 (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion they shouldn't be listed as direct belligerents in any article, as the colonies were never at war with their governments and the soldiers who were from those countries were paid to fight on the British side just as the soldiers who were from Britain were paid.JOJ ^Hutton 02:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The individual battle pages are in error, but have not (yet) been updated to reflect the extensive discussions here. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

They should be listed bulleted under the UK. In engagments where no UK foreces were engaged they should be listed.XavierGreen (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

HK and Hanover are not treated by reliable sources as having been belligerents (as discussed at some length before), and as such we should not be including them in the infoboxes. There is nothing wrong with saying something like "Great Britain (Hanoverian auxiliaries)" or the like in the case of individual battles - I believe this is what is usually done in other contexts for, eg, Indian units in British colonial campaigns - but we can't and shouldn't assert political participation by these states. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Gray is right. The governments of Hesse etc rented out entire regiments, which kept their uniforms and flags; but the gov'ts of Hesse etc had no role in the war against France and the Netherlands. Rjensen (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

American Revolutionary song

I just added this paragraph to Revolutionary song:

"Songs during the American Revolutionary War with revolutionary lyrics and propaganda purposes include songs such as Dying Redcoat, Free America, Poor Old Tory, and Jefferson and Liberty."

If anyone can add any sourcing it would be appreciated. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 November 2012

Absolutely no evidence of Admiral Augustus Keppel saying that. 109.158.133.109 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Request is vague. What would you like us to add/change/remove? gwickwire | Leave a message 00:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Revisionist History on Wikipedia

The truth is that the American Revolutionary War was a battle zone, in what Sir Winston Churchill called 'the first world war', because it was fought all over the world, as a continuation of the Seven Years War (the first shot of which was fired by George Washingthon, agains the French, and the American colonies were one battleground in a much larger, and more important war. The Americans sided with the French Catholic mono-theistic Kingdom in that war. The British won the war, destroying the French, Spanish, and Dutch navies and preventing the mono-theistic cultures of Catholic countries taking over America. Some of this should have been mentioned in an accurate history - in fact, it should be in the first sentence.
"" Causes of the War The conflict between Britain and her American colonists was triggered by the financial costs of the Anglo-French wars of the previous thirty years, in particular the Seven Years War (1756-63). A principal theatre of conflict had been in North America, where it was felt that the colonials had failed to play their part either financially or in the fighting. In the years immediately after the war, the army in North America consumed 4% of British government spending. This cost, combined with the victories over the French had increased British interest in their colonies. Ironically, those victories had also removed one element tying the Americans to Britain - fear of French strangulation. In 1756, the French held Canada, the Ohio Valley and the Mississippi, isolating the British colonies on the eastern seaboard. By 1763 that threat had been removed. "" Rickard, J. (25 May 2003), American War of Independence (1775-1782), http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_american_independence.html http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_american_independence.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.91.21 (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

well no--that speculation is unsourced and false. The colonists were not at any time threatened by France. All the countries were monotheistic (= one God). There was no sense the colonists had not played their role in the war, etc etc Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Not so: : The American War of Independence: The Rebels and the Redcoats -- By Professor Richard Holmes -- Richard Holmes is professor of military and security studies at Cranfield University. His books include The Little Field Marshal: Sir John French and Riding the Retreat, and he is general editor of The Oxford Companion to Military History.

- Quote: "The War of Independence plays such an important part in American popular ideology that references to it are especially prone to exaggeration and oversimplification. And two uncomfortable truths about it - the fact that it was a civil war (perhaps 100,000 loyalists fled abroad at its end), and that it was also a world war (the Americans could scarcely have won without French help) - are often forgotten...The war often known in Europe as the Seven Years War was known in North America as the French and Indian War. It involved several countries, with France and Britain on opposing sides, and North America was one of its many theatres of operations. It was ended by the 1763 Treaty of Paris, by which the French ceded territory to Britain in North America and elsewhere. In addition to this success, James Wolfe's victory at Quebec had helped secure Canada for the British Crown, and the 13 British colonies further south seemed safe from any threat that might once have been posed by the French and their Native American allies. Britain and her American colonies at this time seemed very close, both culturally and politically - and it is remarkable how this rosy picture changed so quickly. In part the deterioration of relations between Britain and her American colonies - which eventually led to the War of Independence - stemmed from a logical British attempt to make the colonies contribute more to the cost of their own defence.- Unquote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/rebels_redcoats_01.shtml

--In addition, the article does not mention the 100,000 Americans that left the country because it was a civil war.

--In addition, your point about mono-theistic states is pure quibble. England allowed multi-religions since before the Pilgrims came to America - they just didn't like religious fanatics who wanted to push other religions out (the whole story of the pilgrims is more revisionist history.) France and Spain did not tolerate other religions at the time of the American revolution, andt the British were asking for taxes to pay for the wars that protected them from the mono-theists. Protection of the American colonies was costing Britain 4% of their annual budget. George Washington had started the Seven Years War against the French in the early 1750's. The British paid for the war -- History professor William Fowler - Northeastern Uni. is the author of "Empire: The Seven Years' War and the Struggle for North America."-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh9uhDoimbM

And finally, it should be mentioned that, because George Washington started the Seven Years War against the French, then refused to pay for British military support, and a world war that raged because of his attack on the French, and then later Washington and the Americans siding with the religious oppressors, France, in the War of Independence, resulting in a treaty, that gave them the colonies, slavery would have been abolished within decades, and the 600,000 men would not have had to die in the American Civil War.

You can quote historians all you like until you're blue in the face, but until you propose some concrete contributions (well-sourced, please) that are not obviously revisionist, your complaints and accusations aren't going to get far. (It doesn't help your case that the first sentence of the article refutes at least one thing you complained about. It suggests you didn't actually read it to see if your complaint had merit.) Propose a single, specific, coherent change, please. Once it's adopted (or rejected), proceed to the next one. This isn't hard, but if you find the process burdensome, you could always get an account and eventually make the edits yourself. Magic♪piano 23:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

They are sourced, you are ignoring them. I really don't care. Your job is to tell history accurately and with context, which you have utterly failed here. The Americans have been brain-washing themselves for 200+ years, and you can't handle dealing with that. The editor should clean up this mythological article. I don't care though. This will become common knowledge within a year. Pathetic article here guys - clearly just brain-washed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.91.21 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What is "sourced"? I see a bunch of complaints, and a bunch of historian quotes. What I don't see is "please change section X of the article to read like this: ...etc...". You want changes, you need to propose specific edits. Magic♪piano 00:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, some of the underlying causes of the revolution (things you're whining about above) are mentioned at American Revolution, which is explicitly cited in the hatnote at the top of the article as containing the underlying causes of the war. It also mentions the repercussions (like the dislocation of the Loyalists) that you bring up. It's not like these things are being ignored or swept under the carpet. Magic♪piano 00:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor makes some good points except for the mislabeled bit about monotheism (actually religious tolerance). However, an unusual argument made by one historian does not carry enough weight to shift scholarly consensus regarding this widely studied war. What's needed is more sourcing than just Richard Holmes. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

If the section he headed "Causes of the War" above is intended to be a proposed contribution (something that wasn't clear to me), it's actually not a bad start at a summarization of the war's causes. Holmes' statements don't strike me as being far off the mark, but neither the internecine nor the global nature of the conflict is suppressed here, so I don't understand where the alleged brainwashing is taking place. (It doesn't help that hir writing is not particularly grammatical...)

That said, there's always room for improvement, but this is not an easy article to work on. There's no particular reason this article shouldn't be like other war articles and present the causes and consequences (as a summary of what's in American Revolution); the article length could be maintained (or even reduced) by more succinctly summarizing the subsidiary campaign articles and other aspects of the war. The bit about "preventing the mono-theistic cultures of Catholic countries taking over America" is from left field, and nothing quoted above has supported it in the slightest. Magic♪piano 03:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I called it brain-washing because it continues the revisionist history that it was a war. It was not a war, it was a battle in a much much larger and more important war. The British on one side, and the French, Spanish, and Dutch on the other side, with the Americans siding with the French, in a battle for the colonies, which the French won that battle. The French (who incidentally, were against freedom of religion), immediately supported the American rebels, because it was basically a continuation of the Seven Years War.

Note. The precursor Seven Years War was started by George Washington, ended in N. America in Quebec city on the Plain D'Abraham, but the British continued fighting that war (and essentially won) around the world for another 2 years, before a treaty was signed. After the battle for the 13 colonies was won by the French backed rebels, the British went off and destroyed that French fleet that had blockaded the American ports, destroyed the Spanish and Dutch fleets, and a treaty was signed, because the British had won the war. French (mono-religious state) aristocracy was so devastated financially and militarily by the British victory in this war, that it laid the ground for the French revolution. That revolution, in which Napoleon was in the military, and he ends up becoming Emperor, trying to take over the world, so the British defeat him. So the American War of Independence was a small battle in the on-going struggle at the end of the 18th century for world domination between major states that banned freedom of religion, fighting with the anti-pope state of Britain. Britain supported freedom of religion since before the Pilgrims came to America (another false history is told about the pilgrims too.) The British won the war eventually defeating the French. Spanish, and Dutch, but, in doing so, lost some areas in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. But the article is fine the way it is if you want to keep it that way. Just still a bit parochial. But I do appreciate the difficulty of writing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs)

Your original research does not overrule the consensus of reliable sources, published by hundreds of historians. Please accept that "monotheism" does not mean "one religion," it mean "belief in one God," as opposed to polytheism. The various protestant denominations, the Moslems, and the Jews were all monotheistic, as opposed to those who believed in numerous gods. The American Revolution lasted from 1775 to 1783, and fighting took place at points a thousand miles apart, so it is not credible for you to demand that it be called a "battle" or even a "battleground." It could be called a "theatre" of the worldwide war, as well as a war in its own right. Your claim that Washington"started" the French and Indian War does not work in the sense that there would have been no war had he not shot the Frenchman, but his may have been about the first shot of that war, and is acknowledged as such in the article about that battle or ambush in what is now Pittsburgh. Edison (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Even the first sentence is wrong. There was no "United States of America" at the time, barely mentioned as a way to describe a collection of states by that time, certainly not recognized by any other country. So how can you tell the young people across the world who may be reading this, that "The war was between the Kingdom of Great Britain and The United States of America". It is utter nonsense. 30% of the people in the region were against the rebel uprising, 20% abstained to take sides. There was no USA. You also seem to mis-understand about various countries being one religion. Even the Seven Years war was ultimately about an in-compatability of strict mono-religious states such as France and Spain, opposing multi-religious states such as Britain (which tolerated various Protestantism and Catholicism for the most part.) The reason the two states warred against each other is because they had disagreed about the rights of religious freedom for centuries. The reason the Puritans left for New England is because they wanted to practice a religion that opposed the laws of the land. They were allowed to practice that religion under the same rules that everyone else (including catholics) had to go by. New France, just north of the colonies, was a mono-religious state, dis-allowing any other religious practice. The France with which the American rebels sided was a strict mono-religious state and a French economy heavily skewed towards the Aristocracy. It was the French blockades that won the battle for the colonies, not the American insurgency. The greater war was ultimately won by Britain, and resulted in it becoming the most powerful force on Earth. The treaty that the Americans were forced to sign in Paris, because the French and Spanish fleets had been destroyed, instructed that they would be allowed their autonomy, as long as they just engaged in trade, and didn't cause any more trouble. In 1812, the Americans caused trouble, so the British invaded America and burned the White House to the ground, because the Americans had broken their orders of the 1783 treaty.

Can I have some of what you're smoking? Magic♪piano 00:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The United States was recognized by several countries during the war (notably France, Spain, and the Netherlands). The United Kingdom was not a religiously tolerant state until the early 19th century, and certainty not tolerant of Catholics (see Anti-Catholicism in the United Kingdom). It was actually illegal to be a catholic priest in the United Kingdom until 1778. The Spanish Navy was not destroyed during the Revolutionary War. The British did not win anything in the war (except for some minor gains in India), and barely evaded losing a large portion of their Caribbean territories by wining the Battle of the Saintes. If it was the French blockade that ultimately won the war, then why did the British abandon the 13 colonies after they defeated the largest French squadron in the Americas? The French Revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic Wars were not the same conflict as the American Revolutionary War, the Kingdom of France ceased to exist defacto in 1791 and the United States actually fought a war with the French Republic from 1798 to 1800.XavierGreen (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite?

This whole article is pretty poorly written in my opinion. Stop bickering about details and tidy up the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.74.49 (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is horribly written, and there is constant edit warring going on (RockDrummerQ (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)).

Several articles on Wiki treat this subject in a very biased and inaccurate way. The victor writing (or re-writing) history to suit themselves. Until there was an agreed treaty, all the rebel forces were just that - rebels. They could be as 'patriotic' as they wished, after accession, but until that juncture, the FACT is they were rebels. Thus, the opening statement;-

" ...a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America, but gradually grew into a world war between Britain on one side and the United States, France, Netherlands and Spain on the other' - is rubbish. It was an armed rebellion. It was between the Crown and the rebels, it was not a war between the Crown, and a country that, at that point, simply had not yet come into being.

This is the topsy-turvy world of Wiki-history.....S94.197.220.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

With the majority of Reliable Sources in history favoring the view that the American Congress's various declarations constituted the beginning of the country, your POV is skewed.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It was indeed a world war, there were major theaters of combat in the Caribbean, Europe, in India, and even in Africa. The Dutch, British, French, and Spanish were global powers that had forces engaged throughout the world. The regional power of Mysore on the Indian subcontinent allied it self with the French and fought the British during the war as well.XavierGreen (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Loyalists

Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World by Maya Jasanoff is out and gives great insight into the forgotten loyalist, once believed to be nothing more than upper-class royalists that couldn't be further from the truth. Here is the Guardian's review:

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Colonists did not feel that the Stamp Act was "unconstitutional"

Someone please change the following sentence: "Colonists galvanized around the position that the Stamp Act of 1765, imposed by Parliament of Great Britain, was unconstitutional." There was no constitution until 1787, after the United States won the war. I'd make the change myself, but certain editors have decided to get together to reverse any edit I make due to their political agenda. Thank you! Dave148109 (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The colonist position was that it violated the British Constitution. - MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that "unconstitutional" in reference to American history is commonly understood to mean a violation of the U.S. Constitution that was drafted in 1787, the sentence appears incorrect. It should be revised to state that colonists thought the Act "violated the British Constitution," with a link to what the British Constitution is/was. Or better yet, the sentence should be revised to state that the colonists thought that the Act was simply unfair, as suggested in previous comments. Dave148109 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

readers who assume there was no sense of constitution/unconstitutionality before 1787 have made a false assumption. There is no need to cater to their ignorance--they come to Wikipedia to learn new ideas. Rjensen (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean they come to Wiki to gain knowledge about subjects they are interested in.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of this article is redundant and irrelevant to its subject, which is supposed to be the war. There's an article on the American Revolution, where discussion of the Stamp Act is appropriate. WCCasey (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2013

In the infobox, Great Britain is listed as: Great Britain. A much shorter way that would take up much less space and would show exactly the same thing is: Great Britain. The same goes for the Dutch Republic. Currently, it is: Dutch Republic. The shorter way that would show exactly the same thing is: Dutch Republic. 86.97.146.6 (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion.--JayJasper (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2013

The flag of the Vermont Republic in the infobox is 21px. However, to follow the pattern of all the other flags, it should be 23px. 86.97.146.6 (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Done thanks for noticing. Magic♪piano 13:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2013

In the infobox, the German mercenaries are shown as: German auxiliaries. First, the Germans were mercenaries, not auxiliaries. Second, there is a page about these Germans called Hessian (soldiers). I therefore suggest that the Germans in the infobox should be shown as: German mercenaries. 86.97.146.6 (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Rejected. The Germans were not mercenaries as we understand them today, so using the term would be misleading. This is a recurring discussion here. Magic♪piano 13:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2013

The American loyalists who fought with the British are not even mentioned in the infobox. I suggest they be shown as follows, under Great Britain: * Loyalists 86.97.146.6 (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Done although I didn't add the flag, since it seems redundant. Magic♪piano 13:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Besides the unanimous opposes questioning the premises that it's a POV title, only in very rare instances do we change a named title (as opposed to a descriptive title) from its common name, because we don't make the judgment call for named titles; we follow what the world calls things.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

---

American Revolutionary War → American War of Independence – Current title is blatant POV pushing. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You have stated so but have offered no evidence to support this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Are the French Revolutionary Wars also biased? Hot Stop (Talk) 02:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There are some that would say the American Civil War was the war of independence. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose bias allegation is not true. Rjensen (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I think this is probably an instance of WP:ENGVAR. American War of Independence is undoubtedly more commonly seen in Britain, but I suspect American Revolutionary War is the more common in the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In common US usage, the AWI term is never used. We use the terms American Revolution when speaking of the whole matter and when referring to the war, it is simply the Revolutionary War. There is no ambiguity on the latter term and it is without the self-referential "American" descriptor.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nature of alleged bias needs to be documented first. Magic♪piano 13:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request on 19 January 2013

There are two things that need to be fixed in the infobox. First, where it shows the dates France participated in the war, the dash between the dates is a short one, unlike the others which are long. Second, there needs to be a space between 'Dutch Republic' and '(1780–83)'. 86.97.146.6 (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Done HueSatLum 14:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2013

Since there are no Dutch commanders in the infobox, I suggest Johan Zoutman should be added, since he was the most important Dutch commander of the war. He fought at the Battle of Dogger Bank (1781). 86.97.146.6 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Hello. If you look on the infobox you will see a link to "...full list" which points you to Military_leadership_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War, an list that enumerates quite a few Dutch commanders. The infobox is only for the most important commanders, and Dutch involvement in this war was minor at best. We don't need an entry for every belligerent in the war. But I see you've been contributing quite a bit to this article; why not register an account? Registering an account carries with it many benefits, including the ability to edit semi-protected pages. Intelligentsium 01:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That the "Dutch involvement in this war was minor at best" is open to dispute. I would agree that there was no direct Dutch military involvement in the American theatre of war, but that also applies to a number of the other alleged belligerents in the info box. On the other hand, the Dutch supplied the American revolutionaries with arms via St.Eustatius from 1775 on, and undermined the British blockade/embargo of France in the years up to 1781, when the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War started (this surreptitious support was the main casus belli for the British). Finally, the Dutch subscribed important loans to the Continental Congress, that helped keep the American war effort going. Finally, the Dutch were the big losers in this war, as they lost important colonies to the British, and even had to wait till 1784 for a peace treaty (i.e. long after the Americans, Spain and France had concluded peace in 1783). Should this later date not be reflected in the infobox? Anyway, it seems a bit churlish to call all this sacrifice "minor" :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

Revolutionary War really needs to redirect here?Moagim (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, what about the French Revolutionary Wars, or Russian Civil War ? Both have had arguably equal long-term impacts. Rwenonah (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2013

change dates Dillan8 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What is wrong with the dates in the article and what dates do you want in thier place? RudolfRed (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2013

in trying to make an edit to a different page I find a notice that an atempted edit to "Amwrican Revolutionary War" has been rejected in 2009 as "unconstructive". I have NOT attempted to edit that page !! pls respond? 67.83.68.60 (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You can ignore that old warning. IP accounts can get used by more than one person over time. I've left a message on your talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2013

I cannot confirm a statement from the article, and it is misleading.

Please remove: "At least 5,000 black soldiers fought for the Revolutionary cause. [28]" for reason the statement is not supported with a trustworthy source and the statement conflicts with a source from the National Archives.

I've been doing allot of genealogy research lately, some of it looking directly at the history of the Revolutionary war. I've come across many different information sources, and when I skimmed the Wiki article I knew the number was in error. When following up the reference it seems to be circular, it references another source that references back to the original. There are also many information sources around the internet using the Kaplan number of "At least 5000...” I believe the actual number is closer to 500 or less.

If an exact number must be referenced I suggest it be extracted from a report from the National Archives, compiled in 1974 by Debra L Newman, "List of Black Servicemen Compiled from the War Department Collection of Revolutionary War Records. Special List No.36." Newman lists each soldier by name, and her report reference sources have a better pedigree than the mystery source supplied by Kaplan. I say 500 or less because many of the individual soldiers serving in the state militia's seem to have more than one three month tour, and as a result listed multiple times.

Fasttruth (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Fasttruth (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

the 5000 black soldiers is confirmed by several reliable sources: 1) Junius P. Rodriguez (2007). Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, And Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 98. 2) Nell Irvin Painter (2006). Creating Black Americans: African-American History And Its Meanings, 1619 to the Present. Oxford University Press. p. 66. c) Leslie Alexander (2010). Encyclopedia of African American History. ABC-CLIO. p. 356.; d) the original source may well be Philip S. Foner, Blacks in the American Revolution, (1976) pp 67-69 (he gives an estimate of 5,000); Rjensen (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Vandalism

There has been some blatant vandalism over the infobox on this page, specifically related to the "Result" segment. This seems to have been perpetrated by user Hot Stop. A while ago, there was a discussion over the use of the term "American victory" to describe the result of the war. "American Independence" was eventually agreed upon as a compromise, as (for some reason) "Allied victory" was not favoured, and "American victory" was seen to ignore the decisive contributions made by France, Spain and the Netherlands to the American independence effort. Despite requests to stop and take the discussion to the talk page, Hot Stop has continued to ignore my requests and warnings and revert the edit from "American independence" to "American victory and independence from the British Empire". I have attempted to reason with him, but as you can imagine, the sheer incredulity and ignorance shown by this user has made it extremely difficult to do so. For instance, one request that I made for him to take the discussion to the talk page, the response I got was a simple "nope". In a message on his talk page, he simply accused me of being a "pedantic little troll". Clearly, he/she does not care for the wishes of established consensus. The user claims they were in this discussion and that apparently no consensus was reached. This is simply untrue. The term "American independence" was agreed upon as a compromise between "American victory" and "Allied victory". As I said, despite requests to desist and start a discussion here to change the term, user Hot Stop has continually ignored my warnings and persists in reverting the edits, without a consensus to do so. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

link to previous discussion. Unless Hot Stop (talk · contribs) was the anon editor in that discussion, his/her case has not been argued here yet. (As far as I know, all of the editors in that discussion are still active.) Magic♪piano 13:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I (sadly) was the anonymous editor in that discussion. I feel ashamed admitting to that, given how nauseatingly nationalistic I used to be back then. Nowadays, I don't care about nationalism or ideals related to such, I only care about what is true. No doubt Hot Stop would contest this if said user reads my previous argument on the discussion, so I will point out I went out of my way to find sources that validated the Battle of Bennington to being a decisive success for the American cause. Unless Hot Stop was using a different user ID during that discussion, he has not yet presented his case. I feel it necessary to point out he undid his revision with the words "Your issue is with reality, not me". Clearly this user has little care for established consensus or Wikipedia editing rules. May I suggest a temporary suspension on his account for edit warring if this continues? As far as I know, Hot Stop has not presented his case in any way, and refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. Apparently as long as it makes sense in his mind, that is enough to make an edit, ignoring consensus. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

I feel it necessary to point out to user Hot Stop, that under the sub-article Compromise on the discussion you kindly linked us to, users Magicpiano (yourself), Rjensen, WCCasey, Lord Cornwallis and myself all agreed to the compromise of "American Independence", thus reaching consensus. If this issue is to be raised again, I would support the line; "Allied victory, American independence from Great Britain". (RockDrummerQ (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

The critical moment of the war, that prevented England to stop the Independence of USA

The critical moment of the war, the English reinforcement to doble the size of the English army fell in Spanish hands.

The key moment, the fleet of British reinforcements fall into Spanish hands On August 9, 1780, an English fleet of fifty five ships near Cape St Vincent and heading for Florida is intercepted by the Spanish fleet that was alerted by the intelligence services of the Count of Floridablanca in England.

The Spanish fleet, led by the Seville Luis de Cordova, and the great sea of Jose_de_Mazarredo_y_Salazar captured the British fleet with 80,000 muskets that would serve to make a double army across the English army and their allies so far. Such amount of expensive muskets would and the new forces destabilize the war in favor of England, To this should be added a number of cannons, 300 barrels of gunpowder and uniforms for a dozen regiments of British reinforcements landfall, serve to fully displace the English side's victory, passing the total forces at that moment from one to one, to three to one for England. In addition, it captures more than a million pounds in gold and silver which would pay for the soldiers and bribes, and captured the ships and made 3000 prisoners (1400 soldiers and officers). ( Newspaper El Confidencial: http://blogs.elconfidencial.com/alma-corazon-vida/empecemos-por-los-principios/2013-09-07/el-espanol-que-dio-la-mayor-estocada-a-la-bolsa-de-londres_25587/)

--77.47.30.210 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Has this been added into the article at all? If not, then it definitely deserves its own article, or a lengthy mention somewhere at the very least. Clearly a decisive contribution by the Spanish that looks to be rather overlooked by the general historians. Although it would need more than one source - do you have other sources to corroborate the one you found? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

John Hanson

There was a President during the American Revolution, John Hanson. If you don't believe me, please search "1st President of the United States" on Bing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.67.97 (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

John Hanson was the first president of congress, as at that time there was no constitution and no executive branch.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right but technically he still was the President of America, or the Colinies. Should we take this discussion to the page about John Hanson? On Wikipedia of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B123:F403:6086:113E:7B6E:885D (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hanson was "President of the Congress" = the presiding officer of the Congress with very little power. Today (2013) the US Senate still has a "President of the Senate" (that's Joe Biden) as well as a President pro tempore of the United States Senate (that's Pat Leahy of vermont). These are honorific posts with (almost) no power & nobody confuses them with Obama who is President of the United States..

Russia

Also Russia provided warships for the Americans fighting for independence from the British East Indian Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.233.232 (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That I didn't know. I thank you for this Info. I find it funny that the Russians helped the Americans and the Germans helped the British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B123:F403:6086:113E:7B6E:885D (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Historical irony at its best there! Could you provide some references regarding this piece of information? It could then be added to the article. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC))

Bad history by Sidney Fischer

The True History of the American Revolution by Sydney George Fisher was rejected by historians as incompetent popular history based on poor sources and misleading readings when it came out in 1902 and it does not belong here as a reliable secondary source. See review by: C. H. Van Tyne, The American Historical Review Vol. 8, No. 4 (July 1903), pp. 773-776, online free here. Rjensen (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2013

This page has a fake ad in the upper right corner with an image labelled "Svetlana_font_example.png" but showing photos of several perpetrators of mass shootings and calling for the repeal of the second amendment. It does not have any obvious markup in the article source, however the variable for the flag of the Dutch Republic in the belligerents list seems to not be showing up correctly and the HTML for the image occurs just before the HTML for the Dutch flag, so perhaps the two problems are related.

Cernel Joson (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Cernel Joson (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no such images or information in the article or article source and the article itself hasn't been modified in the last couple weeks like that either. It's possible that some vandalism crept into a transcluded template, but I would recommend you run some malware checks on your computer. --ElHef (Meep?) 16:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

We don't have to add this, but I would suggest that we add that Battle of Saratoga was a turning point because American troops and army won several battles which leads to the Siege of Yorktown. The French started sending troops and supplies, entering the war openly. Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalMaster (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's already included. Calidum 05:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

British Army Casualties?

The section on British casualties gives British Naval casualties, and German infantry casualties, but no British Army casualties. Does anyone have a source for those numbers? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I do. The number of soldiers killed or wounded from the British Army is 20,000± British Regulars. If you want evidence go back to the article and scan the right side of the bar, and look for casualties and wounded. It would tell how many troops from all armies are wounded or killed in the American Revolutionary War.Allied Rangoons (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't noticed. Why isn't that information in the main text of the article? It strikes me as odd to have the number of German casualties listed for the British, but not the British Army casualties? Since this is such a key article, I wouldn't want to edit it myself (don't know much about the topic), but as a reader of the wikipedia, I would find it helpful to have that information about British Army casualties in the body of the text as well. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

The intro to the article article urgently needs a skillful edit. I refer to the statement that "The principle beneficiaries of the Revolution were financial interests."

For details of my concerns, see a talk page edit by denniso. 72.179.39.178 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)denniso 72.179.39.178 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)..

I have closed this edit request only because the {{edit semi-protected}} tag is only to be used when you have a specific "change X to Y" request. This is not an absolute denial of your request. If you can come up with your own words, feel free to do so. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

At least get the grammar right

Whoever the beneficiaries were, the word is "principal", not "principle"

Principle beneficiaries of the Revolution

"The principle beneficiaries of the Revolution were financial interests." This highly dubious and unsupported statement of opinion appears near the head of the article.

Really? Of all the short- and long-run implications of American independence from Great Britain, of all the winners and losers in the aftermath of that epic struggle, what is the evidence for asserting that nameless "financial interests" made off with more gains than anyone else? Please identify these interests with greater specificity and provide details re the nature and amount of the benefits received.

Perhaps the author of this paragraph is trying to say that lenders and speculators ultimately received full payment for credit instruments issued by the U.S. Continental Congress during Revolutionary War (1775–1783). The unstated implication is that speculators in U.S. sovereign debt may have bought up U.S. bonds at a deep discount during the years when the U.S. was judged a bad credit risk owing to serial defaults in repaying war debts. These are the very debts taken on by the fledgling United States in 1789 when the U.S. Constitution was ratified (see Article IV, Section 1, aka the "Full Faith and Credit Clause").

Is it not true that most Revolutionary War debts were owed to the sovereign nations of France and Spain, and also to private Dutch lenders? Is it they who gained the most from the American Revolution? Or, if the original lenders were not the "principle beneficiaries" of U.S. independence from Great Britain, what is the evidence that other "financial interests" had managed to get their hands on U.S. credit instruments by the time the U.S. got around to paying those debts?

And even if it is proved that financial speculators made windfall gains from some or other aspect of the American Revolution, what evidence would the author provide that might demonstrate that those gains exceeded the gains, say, to citizens of Pennsylvania, Virginia or Massachusetts? 72.179.39.178 (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC) denniso

I've tagged the offending statement, which is not (in my opinion) supported anywhere in the article. Perhaps the editor who added it will provide supporting justification here or in the article. (It also makes the implicit assumption that the only "benefit" that might be recognized from the war was financial, which also seems somewhat dubious to me.) Magic♪piano 16:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014

Please add at the end of Foreign Intervention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#Foreign_intervention) section as a new paragraph (Main articles: Russian Empire–United States relations and First League of Armed Neutrality): Russia remained officially neutral during the Revolution, never openly picking sides in the war. On an unofficial basis, Russia acted favorably towards the American colonists, by offering to provide them anything without compromising Russia’s neutrality and her eventual desire to act as a mediator. In March 1780, the Russian ministry released a "Declaration of Armed Neutrality.” This declaration set out Russia's international stance on the American Revolution, focusing mainly on the importance of allowing neutral vessels to travel freely to any Russian port without being searched or harassed by the Navigation Acts. While the declaration kept Russia officially neutral, it supported many of France's own pro-colonial policies and badly damaged Britain’s efforts to strangle the colonies through naval force. The declaration also gave the American separatists an emotional lift, as they realized Russia was not solidly aligned with Britain. With Russia as a potential, powerful friend, Russo-American connections and communications continued to improve. Also Russia denied several British request for support. 92.100.120.183 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Principal beneficiaries = financial interests?

I've removed a para at the end of the lede that claimed, without citation, that the "principle[sic] beneficiaries of the Revolution were financial interests". In fact, Hamilton's program of paying off the debt was not an immediate consequence of the Revolution: for some years the Continental Congress had almost no ability to generate income, and many soldiers went unpaid. It was not until the new Constitution was ratified some years later that the federal government got the ability to pay for anything. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Constitutional issue

I deleted the material because I think it obscures the nature of the constitutional dispute. The fact that Americans did not operate on a limited franchise has nothing to do with whether it was legal under English law to tax without representation. Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that custom duties are indirect taxes, see Duty (economics). It is paid by all the people through the enhanced price of the goods being imported. The Townshend duties were deemed as illegal taxes by the Patriots just like the Stamp Act taxes.

CJK (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

the issue was no TAXATION without REPRESENTATION -- ie two issues. Rjensen (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, the issue is whether taxation without representation was lawful. The fact that Americans had a broad franchise does not alter the fact that in Britain it was always perfectly lawful for Parliament to tax without representation.

CJK (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

the political issue includes the franchise, which the Brits kept VERY narrow so that a few hundred men could vie with the king for complete control. In reaction the Americans turned to republicanism. The argument for "virtual" representation was of course meaningless--very few Englishmen believed it--as shown by the reform movement of 1832. Rjensen (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

But the issue at hand isn't whether the Americans liked the British system, the issue is whether or not it was legal under the 18th century British constitution to tax people without them being represented. The Patriots argued it was illegal, but the British maintained it was supported by long-standing precedent.

CJK (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd concur with that. No contemporary source I've seen ties the argument of strong/weak franchise to the tax dispute. Significantly it is not mentioned in the long list of complaints in the Declaration of Independence. Congress itself was to apply virtual representation to a variety of groups who were denied voting rights on racial, gender and economic grounds. Its worth remembering that in none of the colonies did anything close to a majority have a right to vote, nor was this seen as an aberration by either Patriots or Loyalists. Similiarly republicanism was not a major factor pre-1776. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Lord Cornwallis is mistaken on a few points. 1) the widespread American franchise was not a grievance it was a matter of pride 2) the Intolerable acts shut down local self government and that led directly to war; 3) the US & the states never endorsed virtual representation -- except South Carolina did before 1860; it was also an issue in Rhode Island 1840s. 4) A majority of adult male citizens could vote in most colonies. As opposed to 1% in England. 5) Historians agree that republicanism was a central Patriot ideology in 1776 (see Tom Paine) (along with liberalism of the Locke variety). Rjensen (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll address your points, although we may be straying from the original issue:

1) I think you've misunderstood. The grievance I mentioned refers to the fact that the House of Commons (which presumed to make laws for the colonies) was elected on such a low franchise. The declaration lists a string of grievances. Some were constitutional and others more topical (the pro-Catholic laws in Quebec or the British stirring up slave rebellions and Indian attacks). For what is a fairly lengthy list of grievances it is strange they didn't mention the low British franchise if it was so major a factor in their objections.

2) Yes, although only in Massachusetts, but I don't see how that relates to the original question of low/high franchise.

3) Virtual representation just means the concept of representing non-electors. To put it another way, Congressman theoretically governed in the best interests of women, slaves, those who didn't meet the property threshold (etc.) although they couldn't vote for them. An even more direct example is the governance of US Territories before their admission into the Union.

4) Although some colonies (particularly in N. England) had an impressively high voter base for the era the denial of votes to various groups meant that no colony had anything approaching majority-rule. They were certainly way ahead of most British constituencies, but I'm not aware of this being an issue of major pride at the time. Many of the colonial elite, whether Patriot or Loyalist, expressed a wariness of populism as seen during the Stamp Act protests or the Boston Tea Party.

5) If you noted I said pre-1776. Obviously republicanism became a factor that year. Paine had arrived from Britain only a year before the war and began writing Common Sense in late 1775. If there was such a link he should have been a confirmed monarchist because of the low franchise in his native country, yet Paine is given the credit for converting many Americans to republicanism. What is the evidence linking Britain's low franchise/American's high franchise with republicanism? Strong republican movements emerged from elite groups representing low franchises (England in the 1640s, Irish Protestants in the 1790s). Equally pro-monarchy attitudes flourished in regions with higher franchises (one might include colonial America in this group given the enthusiasm for empire and King seen during the 1760s). With respect you use the expression "Historians agree" a little too freely. Historians rarely agree on anything.

In conclusion: the Patriots didn't object to the British being poorly represented in Parliament, it was their own lack of representation in that body that they protested about. Although it is possible to over-stress the importance of this single issue - there were a variety of ways that British governments lost the support of a significant number of Americans who had previously been loyal supporters of the Empire. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

But that's not the point. The dispute was over the legality of taxation without representation, not whether it was desirable or not. The fact that 90% of Britons could not vote was used to show it was legal under the constitution of England. The colonists were claiming to be under the same constitution that existed in Britain, not their own constitution.

The intolerable acts also did not "shut down" self-governance in Massachusetts, the alteration of the charter merely made the Massachusetts government more like that of the other royal colonies, where all the upper houses were appointed.

CJK (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

On shutting down local gov't, the Intolerable acts provided that local officials were no longer to be elected ("governor, to nominate and appoint...and also to remove, without the consent of the council, all judges of the inferior courts of common pleas, commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, the attorney general, provosts, marshals, justices of the peace, and other officers") also the governor could now "nominate and appoint the sheriffs without the consent of the council". Most important, regarding town meetings, the key instrument of local rule: "whereas a great abuse has been made of the power of calling such meetings, and the inhabitants have, contrary to the design of their institution, been misled to treat upon matters of the most general concern, and to pass many dangerous and unwarrantable resolves: for remedy whereof, be it enacted...no meeting shall be called...without the leave of the governor, [apart from one annual election meeting]." The shooting was about to start and 4000 British troops were far too few to enforce these laws. text from Avalon project Rjensen (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

4,000 or 42,000?

In the info box under "Casualties and losses" the figure of 42,000 is given for the number of British sailors who deserted during the war. This figure seems incredibly high to me, as it would represent more men deserting than died in either the British Army or the Royal Navy. In addition, under the article section "Costs of the War" (sub-section "Casualties--British & Allies") the text states "About 4,000 British sailors deserted during the war."

The source for both the 42,000 figure in the infobox and the 4,000 figure in the infobox is the same. "Mackesy (1964), pp. 6, 176"

Which figure is the correct one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileyman1977 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are the exact words from Mackesy, page 176:

"Landsmen had to be conscripted in a proportion variously estimated at from a quarter to nearly half of the ships' complements. The wastage was colossal. In the course of the war, 171,000 seamen were raised. Only 1,240 were killed in action; but 18,500 died of disease and 42,000 deserted."

Piers Mackesy is a British military historian, now nearly 90 years old. Donner60 (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

171k sailors?

The article says (in the info box) that the British had 171,000 sailors. This seems way too high to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blelbach (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

According to Naval operations in the American Revolutionary War (citing Boatner's Encyclopedia of the American Revolution), the British had 131 ships of the line nominally in service at the start of the war. At full complement (roughly 600, but depending on the size of the ship), that is over 75,000 sailors. Not all of these would have served for the full war, this does not include the many frigates and smaller ships also in service, and the navy grew over the course of the war. Perhaps the number is too low. Magic♪piano 13:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet, during the Battle of Long Island, the British Navy had more than 500 British ships. When the Continental Navy fought the first major naval battle in the American Revolutionary War, the British Navy had 260 ships and the Continental Navy had about only 60 ships.Allied Rangoons (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A little late for this discussion, but I noted below in response to a different point about the infobox numbers the exact words from Mackesy, Piers. The War for America, 1775-1783. Bison Book Edition. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1993. ISBN 978-0-8032-8192-9. Originally published: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964, page 176:

"Landsmen had to be conscripted in a proportion variously estimated at from a quarter to nearly half of the ships' complements. The wastage was colossal. In the course of the war, 171,000 seamen were raised. Only 1,240 were killed in action; but 18,500 died of disease and 42,000 deserted."

Piers Mackesy is a British military historian, now nearly 90 years old. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The total number of sailors who served in the Royal Navy was 2 to 3 times the 171,000 number raised by conscription according to Mackesy's statement ("a quarter to nearly half of the ships' complements"). The infobox states the number of soldiers and sailors at their height. If that is the number which is supposed to be in the infobox, 171,000 is accurate only by chance. Mackesy is the cited source. Mackesy obviously does not state that was the total number who served nor does he state that was the number of British seamen at its height. That was simply the number of conscripts needed for the Royal Navy during the war because there were not enough volunteers. Donner60 (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

References

The references section has the following note at the top: "To avoid duplication, notes for sections with a link to a "Main article" will be found in the linked article." This was a good idea to keep the number of footnotes, and size of the article, down but I think it is not working. Some references and "citation needed" tags have been added to the linked sections as well as to sections without links. The note no longer obviously covers other facts that might be referenced elsewhere. Readers just may see that some facts are referenced but others that perhaps should be are not.

In addition, text has been added to linked sections, without citations in some cases, even if the text is not in the linked article. That provides cover for assertions or interpretations that may be questionable, and possibly inaccurate. Such additions also may raise another question about the scope and focus of the article, especially as it has recently grown.

I think the note should be removed and citations should be provided or requested as usual. In view of the existing state of citations and tags, I may add some citations in the near future whether or not the note remains. Because of the great interest in the article, I will not remove the note unless the suggestion is supported by a consensus of other interested editors. Another reason for me not to remove the note is that it may imply that I will provide all the necessary citations and tags, which may be too ambitious.

With respect to a different and more minor matter, I note a few content footnotes have been separated from the citations. I have started to use separate sections for the content footnotes and citations where an article has more than one or two content notes and enough citations to obscure the text. I am going to separate the remaining content notes and change the section titles. "Notes" would be left as they are. I think "References" should be "Citations"; "Further reading" should be "References"; "Reference literature" should be "Further reading." This would be in line with many other articles. I think it also would make clearer distinctions. Many books combine the two types of notes so either way of doing it is probably valid. Donner60 (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hi, as a Brit, I've got to say having read this article for the first time that it has a rather America-centric viewpoint, particularly regarding the causes of the original declaration of independence. The British viewed the taxes imposed on the colonists as necessary to keep America from the French, and the colonists simply didn't want to pay, but then who does?

But the major point which has been airbrushed from history is that a primary reason for the declaration of independence was that the colonists feared that the British would ban them from owning slaves. Following the Somerset Case in 1772, slaves became free men immediately they set foot on British soil. Although a total ban didn't happen until 1833, there were several incremental judgments along the way. It was normal for British laws to be implemented in the colonies as well, and many, particularly rich owners of plantations the cotton owning south (who actually tended to live in Britain anyway) could see the way things would go. The British National archives have a number of old documents illustrating this point.

It was caused by the brits taking arms from the americans which caused the battle of lexington and concord.

In declaring themselves neutral, the settlers cited their right under natural law to be free from tyranny, the paradox being that they did it so they could continue their tyranny over others--Godwhale (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

the "neutrality" required by Wikipedia is not a neutrality between Merry Old England and the 13 Colonies but between scholars in the 21st century holding opposing viewpoints. What scholars are you relying upon for the slavery issue? Notice that the US states began freeing their slaves in the 1770s, while Britain kept slavery in its colonies until the 1830s. Rjensen (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps 'neutrality' was not the best title to give the section, but my point is that there was more to it than just tax. I will take another look at the National Archives to see if I can dig out the documents I was referring to, but take a look at the Wikipedia article Somerset v Stewart which has something on this. I'm not looking to score political points at all but while some slaves may well have been freed earlier, slavery was still very prevalent in the US for almost a century after the Somerset case and long after it was absolutely prohibited in the British Empire in 1833. It was as we know a major cause of the American Civil War which ended in 1865.

The original poster has a point. And to rjenson, here is the 21st century scholar you asked for. An American, saying exactly what the Godwhale said:

"For European colonists, the major threat to security in North America was a foreign invasion combined with an insurrection of the enslaved. And as 1776 approached, London-imposed abolition throughout the colonies was a very real and threatening possibility—a possibility the founding fathers feared could bring the slave rebellions of Jamaica and Antigua to the thirteen colonies. To forestall it, they went to war. "

Gerald Horne is Moores Professor of History and African-American Studies at the University of Houston. http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=12075#.U7XGHY1dWG4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 21:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

who in Boston was defending slavery (ans: no one); which foreign countries were able to invade the 13 colonies after 1763? (ans; None); which Americans warned about a foreign invasion? (ans: none) When did Britain abolish slavery in its colonies? (ans: 1833, or 3 decades after all the Northern states abolished slavery); which Americans warned against abolition by Britain in 1770s? ans: none) the quote is not by Horne, it's a publisher's blurb. As for Horne's interpretation published a few weeks ago, we can await the reviews to see how well it is accepted. Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• "But the major point which has been airbrushed from history is that a primary reason for the declaration of independence was that the colonists feared that the British would ban them from owning slaves.--Godwhale"

John Dickinson's Declaration of Rights and Grievances are as good a source as any as to the state of the revolutionary mind.

" 2d. That his majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.

3d. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted rights of Englishmen, that no taxes should be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives. "

Citizen rights, proper representation, taxation --- are spelled out plainly. Nowhere is there mention of slavery as a root cause. This historic reference on slavery in South Carolina points out that "In 1619, 20 Africans were brought to Virginia as indentured servants to work in the tobacco-growing colony. At the end of their indenture, officials in Virginia decided to enslave some of these people. Some historians believe that one of these slaves became a slaveholder himself (Abrams, 2001, ix). This began the long history of blacks owning other blacks." Black Slave Owners in Charleston 10stone5 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

No one is saying taxation was not a major reason for the declaration. I'm just saying there was more to it than that. I think nations tend to sometimes believe a version of history that is comfortable, a bit like here in Britain we sometimes say we stood along against Hitler in 1940 and forget we also had Canada, Australian, New Zealand, India and South Africa actively fighting on our side as well. A bit like in 1812, where the reason given for war was British impressment and stopping of neutral American shipping by blockading RN squadrons. Again, these complaints were genuine, but it was also a good time for the War Hawks to gain more territory while Britain was engaged in total war against Bonaparte; how did America go about defending the Freedom of the Seas? By invading Canada of course!--90.214.83.76 (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Theres another good source on this, Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution: Alfred Blumrosen --Godwhale (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sources--as for the book "Slave Nation" the review in Publisher's Weekly says of it: "Blaming spotty records and backroom deal making, the authors often build their case on speculation, circumstantial evidence and interpretations of Revolutionary slogans about "liberty" and "property" as veiled references to slavery; they must often argue around documentary evidence showing Revolutionary leaders' preoccupation with other controversies that did not break down along North-South fault lines. Their reassessment of the centrality of slavery during the period is an intriguing one, but many historians will remain skeptical." Compared to several hundred scholarly books by university presses, "Slave Nation" does not pass muster. Rjensen (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the beauty of the intetnet; you can always find a citation confirming your own viewpoint and cut and paste out the bits you don’t like at your leisure. Amazon’s review of this same book says; “A radical, well-informed, and highly original reinterpretation of the place of slavery in the American War of Independence."- David Brion Davis, Yale University. In 1772, the High Court in London brought about the conditions that would end slavery in England by freeing a black slave from Virginia named Somerset. This decision began a key facet of independence. Slave Nation is a fascinating account of the role slavery played in the drawing of the United States Constitution and in shaping the United States.

We see this also in the long-held perception of Thomas Jefferson as a benevolent slaveholder, which perpetuates the myth of his operation as some misty eyed, all-encompassing happy family, writers deliberately self -censoring out any references to brutal floggings.When Jefferson wrote the declaration, a note you would think was something akin to biblical scripture because of the significance sometimes attached to it, he used a sentence which could have been almost a direct quote from Emerich de Vattell’s Law of Nations; “all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In contrast to the efforts of the British reformers of the same era, this obviously didn’t apply to blacks. While Massachusetts freed its slaves on the basis of the clear unambiguity of the word ‘all’, opposition among the six southern states, in particular South Carolina and Georgia, who were desperate for even more slaves ensured that when Jefferson’s text was incorporated into their own state constitutions, the words ‘all men’ was changed to read ‘all freemen.’

As I go through the pages of discussion here I can see that its almost exclusively Americans talking, (no offence) because words like ‘patriots’ and ‘franchises’ are not words anyone outside America would recognise in the context of the American revolution. IMO you need to look at some non – US sources on this subject, because you are not listening to alternative angles on it all, just the same endlessly recycled American-centric stuff. As an Englishman, I honestly don't understand some of what is being written here.

The article statess "The war had its origins in the resistance of many Americans to taxes imposed by the British parliament, which they held to be unlawful." Thats it. Utter crap. I see this again nd again across wikipedia, which is an excellent resource i am proud to be an occasional editor of but which just perpetuatees these clichés. These taxes were not even particularly heavy and were bypassed by smuggling on a laughable scale. Why did the Americans invade Canada in late 1775 if it was just about tax? You guys seem to have woven a benign and endlessly regurtitated popular narrative you are comfortable with i.e. English oppressors v rebel freedom fighters and when its challenged its just bad journalism. This is why for decades, the Red Indians were the baddies & the frontiersmen were the good guys, as espoused by any 1950s western and only recently you've realised that this wasn't the case. This was about obtaining Indian lands on the periphery and maintaining slavery, not just about throwing off the mettle of the British taxation system, however remotely and arrogantly administered.

Thought this article was about the war. Should we not erect the soapboxes elsewhere for these POVs? Juan Riley (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Taxation Representation and British vs Colonial Suffrage

Not clear we should be having this discussion here in the article about the war...but since it is in the "Causes" section it needs to be addressed (or the "Causes" section cut down to more neutral statements). Anyway, the best secondary reference I can find so far that directly addresses this issue is quoted next: "In Great Britain, the electorate consisted of approximately 'a quarter or perhaps even a third of the adult males.' According to one estimate, however, '30 percent of the English boroughs had less than 100 voters...and only one-eighth had a thousand or more.' The colonial electorate, by contrast, is estimated to have consisted of between 50 and 75 percent of the adult white, male population, although historical evidence suggest the actual range was higher because most legal restrictions against voting -- except those against free Negroes and Catholics -- were not strictly enforced in the American colonies."

Sorry for the use of ref's in a talk page. Also I left out the author's citations for the internal quotes. You should be able to find these in the google books link I included. Juan Riley (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest this whole subsection does not really belong here, because this is the military article on the war. It should be in the article on the "American Revolution" The issue that bothered the Americans is about taxes were not levied by or approved by their colonial legislatures, but by Parliament in London, in which Americans had zero representation. The colonials were not complaining about how elections worked in England itself. They were rejecting their zero representation. The British responded by a new theory called "virtual representation" which is that British members of Parliament might take American needs, and interests in consideration when making their decisions. Rjensen (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you that an in-depth treatment of causation does not belong in this article. The above was an example of why the subtleties and twists of the topics that are now included would detract from the main subject here. Now how do we say (briefly and duly and neutrally and with references) that: without "real" representation in the Parliament the colonists felt that revenue raising (or possibly other matters) could only lawfully be done by its own elected assemblies and Parliament disagreed? The Causes: Taxation could (and should) be shortened to just a few sentences though I am not sure I am up to it (at least now). Moreover I think the "Causes" section should be renamed to something like "Background" with the "Taxation" subsection renamed "Causes". I am going to boldly do this renaming now. With then the goal of trimming the subsections down to synopses. Juan Riley (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

On the newly renamed Background section

Further suggestions to make this about the Background to the war and not an article about the revolution and its causes:

1. Subsection Causes: to be renamed something like Early 1765-1773 (or Stamp act to Boston Tea Party)
2. Subsection Crisis: to be renamed something like Crisis 1774-1775
3. Subsection: Internal British politics: deleted (too nuanced for a Background summary)
4. Significant trimming and editing of the Early and Crisis sections.

I am going to boldly do the above renaming as well as the deletion of the British politics subsection. I do so fully acknowledging that folk may disagree and revert. But this Background section has to be reduced to a summary not a place for all the historical nuances (of valid interest in other articles) to be exposited. Juan Riley (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to include an edit description on my article edits as discussed immediately above...mea culpa. Juan Riley (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I can think of at least a few sentence deletions to make to begin trimming the Background subsections...however I am going to wait for the dust to clear on the edits I have made...or for the dust-up to start? Juan Riley (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2014

You should add the Comte D'Estaing under belligerents. 76.31.202.45 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree..will see to it. Juan Riley (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Juan Riley (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue of General Howe's treachery

One of the most difficult questions of the Revolutionary War is that of Sir William Howe's conduct. Many people in Howe's own time, Loyalists like Joseph Galloway for example, believed that Howe deliberately refrained from defeating the rebels. The alleged motive is that Howe was a member of the Whig faction in Britain and he wanted to put the Whig faction in power by making the war into a fiasco.

The evidence that Howe was not serious about winning the war is as follows:

• He botched the attack on Bunker Hill, needlessly causing huge casualties.

• He did nothing to attack Washington's army at Boston even though it was suffering from crippling ammunition shortages.

• He did nothing to fortify Dorchester Heights even though he had foreknowledge that the rebels would use it.

• He left enormous amounts of supplies behind when he evacuated Boston.

• When he evacuated Boston, he retreated to Nova Scotia instead of going to Long Island, which encouraged the rebels to declare independence.

• He failed to destroy Washington's army after the battle of Long Island, indeed he made no effort to detect Washington's probable escape.

• When he landed at Manhattan he let 4,000 rebels escape entrapment.

• He botched the encirclement of Washington's army in Harlem Heights by landing on an island that was cut off.

• At the Battle of White plains he did not attack Washington's vulnerable main force.

• He permitted his soldiers to loot the population, thus alienating Americans from the Crown.

• He ordered Cornwallis to halt his pursuit of Washington through New Jersey, which let Washington escape across the Delaware River.

• He refused to order a pursuit across the Delaware River.

• He sent Clinton with 6,000 men on a useless expedition to Rhode Island when they could have been used to defeat Washington.

• He left the outpost at Trenton poorly defended against Washington's entire army.

• He abandoned New Jersey to Washington's inferior force.

• He let Washington harass him in New Jersey for six months, making no effort to defeat him.

• When he finally moved against him June he kept an unfordable river between them and made no effort to engage Washington or cut off his supply lines.

• He made no effort to embody the Loyalist militia or commission loyalist privateers.

• He completely abandoned Burgoyne's army.

• He didn't even leave a few thousand troops to conduct a diversionary attack on New England, as he had been ordered to do so.

• He chose to go to Philadelphia via the Chesapeake instead of overland or via the Delaware, wasting a whole month and keeping him far away from Burgoyne.

• After the Battle of Brandywine he had a perfect opportunity to hem Washington against a river and destroy him, but he let him escape (again).

• At Goshen, a few days later, he did not press his attack on Washington because it was raining, even though he could have routed the rebels with bayonets alone.

• He had foreknowledge of Washington's attack on Germantown but did not alert his troops.

• At White Marsh he had an opportunity to attack Washington's right flank and rear but did nothing and retreated.

• He made no effort to attack Washington's weak army at Valley Forge.

• His brother, Admiral Howe, maintained a totally ineffective blockade and permitted a privateer base to operate almost right next to his headquarters.

I inserted a lot of sourced information about these points, but some of them were removed for unclear reasons. Maybe there are alternative explanations for Howe's behavior but the evidence seems difficult to explain away. I will reinsert information on Howe's conduct if there are no objections.

CJK (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, the list above can equally well be a list of reasons why Howe was incompetent to run a war...or why his ideas on what could win such a war were erroneous. In addition, some of your arguments appear to be based on allocating hindsight as foresight. And last but not least, is there not a just wee bit of OR here? Note that supporting the facts with references does not reference the argument you base on the facts. If a RS states a contention similar to your argument...well then properly phrase, reference and insert it. Juan Riley (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A more charitable interpretation of Howe's actions (and inactions) is that he was just militarily conservative, and failed to capitalize on opportunities which required a significant shift in his plans; this is my perception of mainstream historiography. I've never seen serious historical commentary expressing the idea that Howe was deliberately underplaying the British hand, accusations by contemporaries like Galloway nothwithstanding. (A fair bit of relevant scholarship on some of the major points listed above is covered in the Howe article.) Magic♪piano 01:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sydney George Fisher's The True History of the American Revolution (1902) and The Struggle for American Independence (1908) extensively discusses Howe's deliberate refusal to win the war and criticizes historians who ignore it. This 1910 article discusses contemporary criticism of Howe. [1] If Howe was merely an incompetent general, why was he able to win big victories at Long Island and Brandywine? And if Howe was conservative, why did he launch a bloody attack on Bunker Hill, recklessly expose the Hessians at Trenton, and not alert his troops before Germantown? Another possible explanation, raised by governor Thomas Hutchinson, is that Howe prolonged the war for financial gain, although Galloway said he didn't believe that.

CJK (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think as suggested above go to the Howe page and start there...see if your ref's past muster there. This article ia about the war. Juan Riley (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't find this relevant to the war? I'm not saying we declare Howe guilty, I just believe this point of view should be noted and that the evidence against him be reinserted. It is interesting that the article Richard Howe, 1st Earl Howe says that It has been suggested that Howe's limited blockade at this point was driven by his sympathy with and desire for conciliation with the Americans. He claimed to have too few ships for a blockade but this is obviously untrue because during the War of 1812 a similar sized British fleet was able to impose a very effective blockade. Could both Howe brothers be merely incompetent and conservative?

CJK (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Lots of military leaders are accused of lots of things in virtually every conflict, by contemporaries and by historians, and this conflict seems to be somewhat notorious for the amount of fingerpointing that went on during and after. The question is, how much of this historical debate should be placed here, in an already-long article? Do we include criticisms of Howe? Henry Clinton? Washington? Marriot Arbuthnot (who isn't even mentioned here, and had a notoriously difficult relationship with Clinton, which arguably made the latter's already bad position worse)? Do we have to mention post hoc alternatives a commander failed to consider?

While the Howes' political sympathies are relevant (as are arguably those of any other major actor), adding judgments about their motives in specific actions should be limited to what reliable sources say, in proper proportion. So a relevant question is: in a reasonably broad survey of the relevant historical literature, how popular and well-supported is the notion that William Howe deliberately soft-pedaled in his command? was incompetent? was overly conservative? Magic♪piano 18:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Magicpiano has said it far better than I could. I agree. This article is in terrible shape. Where it does not need improvement is addition of a conjectural analysis of the Howes' motives. Juan Riley (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that--apart from Benedict Arnold--the Howe brothers were the only military officials accused of deliberately undermining their own side. Fisher's book discusses how widespread these accusations were among loyalists. Fisher writes: the whole question of the conduct of General Howe is as important a part of history as the assistance rendered us by France; for if what the people of his own time said of Howe be true, his conduct directly contributed to bring about our alliance with that country, and ultimately our independence.

CJK (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

Typo

Please change "However, the Americans has multiple advantages that in the long run outweighed the initial disadvantages they faced." to "However, the Americans had multiple advantages that in the long run outweighed the initial disadvantages they faced."

The sentence is past tense and should use the word had instead of has.

12.130.174.180 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent Edits - North American Bias

I wish to bring to attention various edits made by user:JuanRiley over the past two months or so. It is quite clear he is attempting to move the page towards a more North American centric page. In his edit comments regarding various eliminations of material focusing on Europe and India he states that this page is about the north american conflict. This represents a biased non objective view of history. For example he states in one edit comment that the listing of Mysore as a co-belligerent is "nonsense". The campaigns in india, europe, africa and elsewhere were a direct part of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish to bring attention to XG's revert without talking. It is about the war and mostly about North America. Mysore might be a section if he wishes certainly silly to be in the info box or (good lord!) the lead. I do have a bias...which is that the article is about the American Revolutionary War. I do not have a chip on my shoulder though. Juan Riley (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I posted a message on this very talk page before i reverted! This article is the main page for all campaigns of the conflict, the name of the entire conflict known in scholarly materials world wide is the American Revolutionary War. Fighting throughout the world was a direct part of this conflict. Arguing that the Siege of Gibralter, the Invasion of Minorca, or the Siege of Cuddalore were not part of the American Revolutionary War. The largest engagement of the whole war was fought in Europe with over 70,000 men being engaged at the Great Siege of Gibralter in 1782. While the conflict may have at first been limited to North America, once France entered the war it quickly blew into a global conflict with engagements being fought in Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa. To ignore that is to move the page to an American-Centric viewpoint, rather than the global one which Wikipedia strives to represent.

Your edits removed europe and india from the location infobox. There were severe heavy engagements on both of these continents that were a direct part of the war. You also removed the co-belligernant section of the infobox. The Netherlands, Mysore, and the Vermont republic were not formally aligned with the Franco centered alliance, yet engaged in the conflict. Removing Mysore is especially amero-centric. Virtually all the major land engagements of the war in india saw french troops supported by huge numbers of Troops from mysore. Your removal of the section makes me believe you do not understand what the word co-belligerent is and that you are unfamiliar with the campaigns of the war outside of north america.XavierGreen (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edits, XG, are a symptomatic trend in historical pages which could make Wikipedia a joke. You have no sense of balance and wish to insert into leads and campaign boxes etc... the minor details you are so proud of knowing. Where were you when somebody (I hope it wasn't you) was inserting the "Kingdom of Ireland" as a co-belligerent? Please stop making a travestry of this article. Include historical details where they are due. If not...well..there are no repercussions other than wikipedia becomes a travesty. Juan Riley (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I take offense at your remarks, if you look at my edit history you can clearly see which articles i have edited and created including the featured articles i've written. You have not addressed any of the issues i have mentioned above. I would like imput from others on this as well. The campaign box on a military conflict page is supposed to reflect the entire conflict in question rather than just a snapshot of it. XavierGreen (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You win. I give up. Make of history what you will and turn wikipedia into a sows ear. Put your wee agenda into it. Have fun making history what you think it should be. Juan Riley (talk) 02e24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't see what point you were trying to make. At present this article covers both the American fighting and the wider (and larger) global war so we include both. If there is a consensus that they are treated by sources as separate wars then we should split the article rather than just arbitrarily removing everything that isn't directly connected to the American operations. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

For what its worth, i agree 100% with XavierGreen. The article is already heavily biased towards what happened on the American continent with very little about the wider war - just because its called the American Revolutionary War does not mean it only happened in the US. For example, no one would think it appropriate not to discuss what Americans call King William's War, King George's War, Queen Anne's War or the French & Indian War that were contemporary with The War of the Grand Alliance, the War of the Spanish Succession or Seven Yars War. In 1779 th French sent a large fleet to try to re-capture India from the British, but its not even mentioned here. The failure to properly discuss the vast shipments from France, Spain or the Netherlands that sustained th war effort of the rebels is laughable, but then, there ar some pretty entrenched views on here.Instead, we have extensive discussions about fairly minor battles that no doubt are of great interest to many americans but do nothing to portray a proper understanding of the war.--Godwhale (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the lede. What pray tell of due balance or even accuracy does the following exhibit: "Formal acts of rebellion against British authority began in 1774 when the Patriot Suffolk Resolves.." ? The statement is nonsensical...define formal...after the Tea party..after the Boston Massacre...etc....this must be when the rebels donned white ties and tails? It is someone inserting some obscure knowledge that they are proud of knowing...which might be important in the text of the article(if it were about the politics not the war) but is entirely silly in the lede. Just as are the battles in India (boy am I sore:)). Juan Riley (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me go on. This article is so bad...for what should be an important article...that your lack of at least realizing this has made me question the whole Wikipedia project. We have thos silly things called admins patrolling pages on pop stars and current news. And they let this tripe continue. Juan Riley (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually take your point that there are too many political elements in this article that really belong at American Revolution. Otherwise you haven't really addressed the original dispute in terms of the American vs Global issue, you've just posted your general opinion on the article. As for "obscure knowledge", well that's really what Wikipedia's about.

You've mentioned India as silly, but standard histories of the international war such as Piers Mackesey's The War for America include it in detail. Other books just focus on the fighting in America. You seem to have a strong objection to including global aspects but short of splitting the article, both need to be included here. If anything the article still leans too much the other way.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me say it again then: does MYSORE belong in the lede? Not the article but the lede? Is it appropriate to include it in the infobox as a co-belligerent? Not the article but the infobox. And btw, Lord Cornwallis, your slip (that silky little agenda thing) shows from your suggestion above that Ireland be named a belligerent. Not only agendas but absurd ones at that. Juan Riley (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally, the lede and infobox should reflect the contents of the article. The article currently covers the global war, and therefore they should. Numerically Mysore was a large participant in the war, and it belongs in the infobox. Hanover and Ireland were also significant players. I really don't know what you mean by agenda? Your suggestions with the article seem subjective (if you don't like something, it should go) rather than using reliable sources which is standard on Wikipedia. Removing the international elements of the war is like removing the Soviet Union from the World War II article, it leads to a very incomplete picture.

However, this issue has come up before and I respect that people feel very strongly about this. Perhaps the answer is to have an American Theater of the American Revolutionary War article, and a parent article about the global war. This would allow both to be covered in more detail in individual articles. We've already (slightly arbitrarily) split the French and Indian War and the Seven Years' War into separate articles. We've also split the political (American Revolution) and military elements (this article) - so there is a precedent. I'm not wild about the idea but it might solve some of the disputes that have arisen and probably does best reflect the sources as books usually divide quite clearly into those that concentrate almost entirely on America and those that portray the American fighting inside the more global fighting where the principal contest was Britain vs France/Spain. At the moment it feels like we're trying to shoe-horn both into this article, not entirely successfully. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

the British government and indeed the UK nation was not involved in the war in India--it was a private company (the East India Company) that was involved Using its own military force that were not part of the British Army The government took partial control of the company in 1784, after the war was over. Rjensen (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The EIC did indeed oversee civil and commercial gov't until the India Board assumed a supervisory role and they also raised troops and ships, but these were supplemented by regular forces and Royal Navy troops during the war (as they had in previous wars). Again this is easy to source and I can provide them if necessary. India was identified as strategically important by both sides and had the war not ended when it did there were further planned expeditions from Europe being readied. To ignore India doesn't give an accurate idea of the global picture (that is say that if British/French forces were being sent to India, they couldn't be elsewhere in the world). Rounding the circle to the above discussion it also led to the sending of Hanoverian troops there. See Arielli & Collins. Transnational Soldiers: Foreign Military Enlistment in the Modern Era p.40 for an outline of the British/Hanoverian involvement against Mysore and French India. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The infobox has the look of a formal statement of who was formally in the war; it does not allow hedging or explanations, and so it has to be handled very conservatively. To say that the British government was informally interested in the war in India and helped out one of its big companies is accurate but that does NOT make for a declaration of war. Onlyh the king declares war. Only the king makes peace, and the treaty that ended the war was negotiated entirely between the company and the Indians, with no role for the king or the British government. They did not have a voice in the key decisions for peace or war, and so that war is not really part of the American Revolutionary wars. Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The King also never formally declared war on the United States, which he didn't acknowledge. The infobox lists major participants in the war in order to give the most accurate possible picture of the war. The Spanish Civil War infobox includes lots of participants who are not states formally at war with each other and that's rated as a good article. You've made several statements that aren't supported in RS (that Hanoverian troops were not involved in the war, that Ireland was part of Britain at the time, that no Crown forces were sent to India). You didn't seem aware of these things, which is fair enough. But you're now trying to create artificial criteria for the infobox.

The 1773 Regulating Act created the post of Governor General whose appointment required approval of both the EIC's directors and the British cabinet. [Lawson. The East India Company. p.121-122 "the defences of the company's constitutional position had been broken and the state now had the right to interfere in all aspects of the most powerful commercial enterprise in the realm"]. What are your sources that the EIC's directors in London set military strategy for India (including crown forces)? Or that the British government didn't "have a voice in the key decisions for peace or war"? That isn't borne out in the sources I've looked at. Your idea of the EIC as a wholly independent, rogue company seems to come straight out of the Pirates of the Caribbean. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is whether the nation of Great Britain was at war with Mysore. It was not. King George III did not think that his nation was at war with Mysore. The main biographies of the King by Steven Watson and Jeremy Black never even mentioned Mysore, though they have a good deal regarding the East India Company. I have not seen any reliable secondary sources that contend that the nation of Great Britain was at war with Mysore. What the King did say Shows that he did not control the company or its army and was disgusted at the behavior of the EIC. The Company asked the King's permission to give General Campbell (of the British Army) command over its forces. The king told Pitt, "whilst the Army in India remains in such unfit hands as those of a Company of merchants I cannot expect any good can be done." [Jeremy Black George iii p 133] That is the King did not consider himself in charge of the company's war. Not until after the war, in 1784, did the British government have control over the EIC. Rjensen (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that treat Mysore as part of the general war. I'll list just a couple of them but more can be found on google books or in libraries.

• Conway. A Short History of the American War includes Mysore's movements in its summaries alongside American/European battles.
• Chickering & Forster. War in the Age of Revolutions p.103

I'll acknowledge you didn't initially seem aware of the European intervention in India during the American War, but I can't see how you un-entangle the two. Were the British and French regulars at Cuddalore fighting in a different war to the Mysorean, EIC, French EIC and Hanoverian troops?

I can't say I'm particularly surprised that books on George III don't cover Mysore because the King didn't actually set foreign policy (he might influence it, but his views were commonly ignored. He wanted to continue war in America when his Parliament didn't). The King didn't make peace or war, as you state above. Shelburne negotiated peace with France, and they spent a long time on Indian issues. Shelburne's gov't fell because of the peace terms. The King had all kinds of views on which territory should be kept, and which handed over but as Fox and North agreed "the appearance of power is all that a King of this country can have". [Whiteley. Lord North. p.212] The 1784 act beefed-up the earlier Regulating Act, but it was the 1773 Act that created the Governor General and brought formal gov't oversight. The EIC was set up under Royal Charter, and it had its headquarters in London. It's Board of Directors were British or Irish subjects. It was very unpopular with the public, but the government worked hand-in-hand with it nonetheless. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well no--the standard studies like Watson "Reign of George III" never mention Mysore. That's because the nation of GB was not at war with it. The 1773 act did not give the king/prime minister power over the Company or its policies. That's why the 1784 act was needed. EIC was an English company all right but it was not actually involved with the American war, and it had a private war in India that was not controlled by the gov't. The king said that himself. The Chickering & Forster book does not support Lord Cornwallis--they talk about the later Mysore war in the 1790s, long after the Am Rev War. They do mention the 2nd Mysore war 1780-82 on p 401 but exclusively in terms of the EI Company. The Conway book is very new (2013) and has not been reviewed so we can't be sure whether it is an outlier here. The issue is whether the events in India were or were not directly part of the Am Rev War. Conway never states one or the other. However he explicitly links the 2nd Mysore war to the East India Company (p 95), not to the government of Gt B. Note that there were no British gov't officials involved in the peace treaty that ended the Mysore war, only EIC men. The fact that EIC was making war and treaties all on its own really annoyed the government, hence the explicit control the gov't imposed in 1784. I think what we have here is a Wiki editor unfamiliar with the history who noticed the overlap of dates (1780-83) and assumed that the British govt was involved. It was not.Rjensen (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether Mysore was a participant or not is irrelevant to the real issue & subject of this section, which is North American Bias. If I was French, I think I’d be pretty offended at the way the Bourbon involvement is treated in this article. IMO this article, which like the other one that purports to be about the revolution – because they are basically the same - should really be entitled something like “The American revolution as Americans are taught it at school,” or “The parts of the American revolutionary war that Americans like to read about and are familiar with.” America did not ‘win’ the war, it finished on the winning side of a four nation coalition, but has spent the intervening 200 years telling itself that there were these people called Americans or ‘patriots’ who fought Britain and won after an epic struggle and after being joined by France & Spain after 1778 to help out. We see this in the contributions of France and Spain relegated to a couple of lines in a tiny section at the end of the article under the banner “other combatants” and where we are told that the Dutch sent ‘some’ supplies. The French archives state that it spent 1,280,000,000 livres on supplying the Americans and on its own forces to beat Britain, and the Spanish also sent vast quantities of military supplies. Practically all the equipment the rebels had was either plundered from the British or supplied by France, Spain and the Netherlands, not unlike what happened after 1942, only the other way around. They entered not out of any love for the rebels – quite the opposite – but in the hope that both the Americans and British would eventually become exhausted, giving them an opportunity to reduce British power and gain revenge for past humiliations and perhaps even get back some lost territories. Perhaps the most critical incident of all, the Battle of Chesapeake, where the British dithered and allowed the French to unload the heavy cannon that later proved critical at Yorktown didn’t involve any Americans at all. Yet the articles portray it as Americans versus British. We see this propaganda also in the paintings displayed on the articles – particularly the 1776 battle of Long Island which happened well before the main French shipments began - which shows fully kitted-out American units with matching uniforms and guns, and not the reality, that of Washington’s barefooted men, poorly armed and deserting in droves, the rest, according to Washington himself “many of ‘em naked and more so thinly clad as to be unfit for service,”

This is well summed up in the 1993 biography of the Earl of Sandwich, ‘The Insatiable Earl’ by N. Rodger, who writes: “Almost all of what has been written about the war assumes that it was a war fought over the issue of independence of the thirteen colonies. It is of course natural & reasonable for historians, especially American historians who form so large a majority of those who have written about the subject to assume from the vantage point of 200 years later that no other consequence of this war was as important as the emergence of the new republic. Even today most American historians assume that the only issue British politicians had to deal with was the colonial crisis and that all other problems, and all other enemies deserve mention only insofar as they influenced the situation in America. A recent survey states baldly that “Historians of the American Revolutionary War divide roughly between those who argue that America won the struggle and those who believe that Britain lost it; those who think that France, Spain & the Netherlands were involved do not figure at all. Most serious historians still write books on the assumption that Britain fought a war against America between 1775 and 1783. This doubly falsifies the realities of the time. It puts America on a pinnacle it actually occupied for barely two years, between the autumn of 1775 and the autumn of 1777 when it was pushed aside by the imminent onset of a French war. Before 1775 America was a departmental problem to be left to the ministers concerned. By 1778 it was a strategic issue of secondary or tertiary importance to British ministers who faced a threat of national survival. Furthermore the common assumption of historians is still very often that Britain fought America; in other words that two distinct nations, one independent and another very nearly so, faced one another on equal terms. The implicit standard of comparison is the wars of conquest of the French revolution or for many recent American historians the Second World War against Germany and Japan. Their ideas of the strategies that ought to have been employed are those appropriate to a war of national survival between two different societies with radically different values. But even if an 18th century war were fought in this way, which they were not, the military operations in America were a civil war, not a contest between nations. This was an internecine struggle in which Englishmen fought one another, a war without conventions or boundaries”

While we have these tired, ancient half-truths about tax, the article ignores the truth that the war was basically a proxy war, the rebels privateering in British waters after the summer of 1776 for all they were worth and trying to stir up trouble between Britain, France and Spain to ensure they entered the war against their enemy, exactly like Churchill is accused of doing in 1940. The pending involvement of France after mid 1776 was critical in forming British strategy about the porous blockade and affected the outcome of the war. If you refer to the excellent “Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War”, written by an American who appears to have actually bothered to visit Kew & read the archives there, the major reason so much stuff got through to the colonists was that a high level debate was ongoing in the British cabinet between those like Sandwich who wanted to keep a large force of ships in the Channel against an expected (and eventually attempted) invasion by France & Spain and those such as North who hoped that the forces in America under the Howes would be sufficient to win before the expected Franco-Spanish intervention. It was a gamble that failed. Where is the lengthy discussion of the mission by Deane and Franklin beginning in late 1775 to procure Bourbon money, guns and ammunition and of the shipments by the Spanish through their Latin American empire & the exploits of Pierre Beaumarchais, who provided the muskets, mortars and cannon, along with enough powder, flints, grapeshot, clothing, boots, stockings, blankets, spades, axes and tents to equip 25,000 men that won the battle of Saratoga, but who never received the tobacco, grain, indigo and cotton that were promised in return, and who died in poverty as a result having received barely a penny for his troubles. Where is the section explaining how Franklin and Deane begged Vergennes for ten million pounds sterling in January 1777, without which they would have to capitulate, but got instead 2 million, enough to keep going for the rest of the year? There are so many sources, including US government websites that ignore or gloss over the Beaumarchais story and there is no doubt that this part of the story has been deliberately expunged from the collective memory – presumably because it doesn’t fit with the popular narrative of glorious endeavour, freedom and of the founding fathers as righteous men of destiny. Where is the discussion of the mass privateering by Americans, not only for personal enrichment but also to capture British shipments of arms and food to fuel the war effort, beginning with Washington’s personal gang of marauders, the Marbleheaders, who In November 1775, at a time when the Continental army was so ill-equipped that many of its soldiers fought barefoot, they captured a British supply ship the Nancy, laden with 2,000 muskets, 30 tons of musket shot, 30,000 round shot, 100,000 musket flints and assorted mortars. Where is there reference to the large fleet the French sent in 1779 to try to capture India, where is the discussion of American privateering in European waters, of Wickes, Conyngham, the ‘Dunkirk pirate,’ of John Paul Jones which did so much to keep the RN in European waters and allow the shipments through? Privateering out in the Atlantic by ‘wolf packs, al la 1942 caused such havoc and losses that four British trading companies were driven to ruin. Isn’t that a more interesting story than what we have here? --Godwhale (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rjensen. But an omission can't be used as a citable positive statement. Obviously some RS don't mention the fighting in India, but lots of books also don't mention Gibraltar or other aspects of the global war and focus exclusively on the fighting in America. This article does include the entire global war so the infobox needs to reflect that.

On the whole the RS don't distinguish strategically between the EIC and the British govt (The terms "EIC" and "British" are used interchangeably) or suggest that India was not part of the war.

• [Black. Crisis of Empire. p.155 Referring to France's 1778 entry, "brought a shift of geographical focus to encompass the West Indies, and even India"]
• [Black. George III p.246 discussing the general war effort "George was still optimistic about the prospects for success, although in March 1781, he had noted that no troops or ships could be spared for Southern India, where Hyder Ali was proving a serious challenge"]
• [Bruce & Cogar. Encyclopedia of Naval History. p.415 includes the various Indian battles as part of the American War of Independence]
• [Chartrand. American War of Independence Commanders p.60 says of Mysore "The American War of Independence brought them, for a while, French military help and great encouragement such as that provided by Suffren's historic visit"]
• [O'Shaughnessy. The Men Who Lost America p.361 "In the final years of the American War of Independence General Sir Eyre Coote recovered most of the territories captured by Hyder Ali of Mysore"]
• [Barnes. The Historical Atlas of the American Revolution p.137 geographically demonstrates India's participation]
• [Mackesey. War for America. p.494.] In reference to the Franco-Mysorean attack "The British position in India was singularly vulnerable" and refers to the British gov't building up "the largest force of British regulars which had ever served there"]
• [Reeve. Strategy in the American War of Independence p.91 "Despite the relatively small forces deployed there, Asia was unquestionably part of the wider war"]

Obviously India wasn't involved in the first three years of the American War, but it was post-1778 once the French entered and their global rivalry with London overtook the initial British-American contest in strategic importance. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Soon I am going to look into how to propose deletion of this article--might be fun. Folk keep putting details into the lede instead of shortening and objectifying it. As well as the obvious suspect details. The idea was to shorten and objectify the lede (and perhaps save the chips that fall off your shoulders for your morning breakfast cereal). This article is horrendous...and I am sure any objective knowledgeable reader would say so. This is why I am leaving Ireland as a belligerent for now---taint worth my time anymore and it exhibits some editors' lack of seriousness, downright vandalism, or impairment of cognitive function. Juan Riley (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought the original lead was fine but someone decided to expand it. I trimmed it today by getting rid of excessive details. You say Ireland was not a belligerent, really? It was an independent Kingdom who contributed to the British war effort. True, it was under substantial British influence but if we list the Loyalists as combatants surely Ireland can be mentioned. You also believe my inclusion of each state is silly, but in fact not listing them is silly. The "United States" as a country did not exist during the Revolutionary war. There was a collection of sovereign states which confederated themselves as the "United States" but the "United States" was not a sovereign entity at least until the adoption of the Constitution in 1789. The articles of confederation explicitly state that each state is sovereign and Americans in the 18th and early 19th century saw themselves as citizens of the state first and the federal structure second. Given the weakness of said articles, it is utterly anachronistic to assert or imply that there was country called "the United States" fighting another country, Great Britain.

CJK (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Without getting involved in the debate, don't accuse other editors of vandalism or say they have impaired cognitive function. It's rude and unnecessary. Rwenonah (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Independent kingdoms get to declare wars--Ireland never not do so in this case. The United States of America became an independent country in July 1776 and by 1778 had negotiated a major treaty with France in the name of the USA. Rjensen (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The Irish parliament voluntarily voted to contribute troops to the British war effort--see here [2]. If the loyalists are combatants, so are Ireland and British possessions, regardless of their subordination to Britain. The War of 1812 article lists the Canadas as a combatant even though they were British possessions.

The United States of America was not a country in 1776 it was a confederacy of independent states. The articles of confederation explicitly say: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. The treaty of 1778 explicitly refers to the United States of North America, to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhodes island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia... [3] The Treaty of Paris in 1783 again explicitly states: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states... [4] Your assertion that there was a sovereign entity called the "United States" during the Revolution is therefore a massive ahistorical anachronism, equivalent to saying that there was a Germany prior to 1871 because of the Holy Roman Empire.

CJK (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

All historians agree the USA was founded in 1776 -- George III disagreed but he is not a RS--Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The USA was founded in 1776 as a confederacy composed of independent states, it did not become a sovereign nation until at least 1789. The Patriots themselves called the USA a confederacy and never claimed it was a nation. The articles of confederation say The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". And Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. And The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other... [5]

CJK (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

CJK lacks a RS for his personal views. He should read the Declaration of Independence & Gettysburg address and realize American always have celebrated the 4th of July. The states are still sovereign in 2014, by the way, Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Declaration of Independence states: these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. [6] Do you believe the declaration is wrong?

The Fourth of July celebrates independence from Britain, the creation of a new nation was a consequence of that, but it didn't happen until after the Revolutionary War was over. The article articles of confederation contains many sources backing up my view.

CJK (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The articles of confederation are (the last time I checked) defunct AND have nothing to do with the war. Juan Riley (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

CJK is making his own personal reading of constitutional documents over 200 years old. he can do that on Facebook but at Wiki that is illegal OR --he needs a reliable secondary source. Start with The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763-1776 (2004) by Merrill Jensen (the title gives the story away) (he is no relation to me) Rjensen (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

...which will just reiterate the same standard 'approved' version of the story that has been endless told and refined since the victors took control of the education system, ((the title gives kind of gives that away) ironing out or ignoring the awkward facts. He could try reading the recently published 'Men Who Lost America' by Andrew O'Shaughnessy or 'Smugglers & patriots; Boston Merchants & the Advent of the American Revolution' by John Tyler, an American writer who sees the Founding Fathers as they really were, oportunists who simply ended up on the winning side and then built a creation myth around it all. But hey, such books are 'revisionist' and subversive and must be suppressed.--Godwhale (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, the articles were not defunct at the time period this article covers. What part about these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES and Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence and His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states... is my personal construction?

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica states: Each state was under the Confederation of 1781 sovereign (except as regarded foreign relations), and for the most purposes practically independent. In adopting the Federal Constitution of 1787-1789 each parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty while retaining others. [7]

CJK (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

the states turned over control of the army & diplomacy to the USA and Congress handled that. This is the WAR article and of course is about military & diplomatic affairs, not domestic issues. EB 1911 admits the foreign policy issue which is our concern here. (EB 1911 is very old indeed for a and is not considered reliable because it is unaware of all the thousands of scholarly studies since then. Wiki does NOT allow editor to do OR on historical topics--only Reliable secondary sources count. Rjensen (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the world where people get to write history as they would prefer to see it. Juan Riley (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Spanish participation

Excuse me, I will copy too critical points of the Spanish support of the USA independence, I will copy it directly from the Spanish wiki, in Spanish:

"El Gran Sitio de Gibraltar fue la primera acción española en la guerra, que duró desde el 16 de junio de 1779 al 7 de febrero de 1783. A pesar del tamaño más grande del ejército franco-español en el punto de numeración de unas 100.000 tropas, el ejército británico menor comandado por George Augustus Elliott fueron capaces de mantener la posición en la fortaleza y asegurando su abastecimiento por mar después de la batalla del Cabo de San Vicente en enero de 1780. Luis de Córdova, capturó casi sesenta barcos británicos durante la captura del doble convoy inglés (1780) que iban destinados a las guerras coloniales que mantenía Gran Bretaña, lo que causó un importante golpe logístico y moral a los británicos tras esta captura. La flota de Howe tuvo éxito en su vuelta a Inglaterra reabastecidos como consecuencia del sitio de Gibraltar escapando en la batalla del Cabo Espartel, en octubre de 1782.

Del convoy inglés capturado, además de 52 buques, 80 000 mosquetes, 3000 barriles de pólvora, gran cantidad de provisiones y efectos navales destinados a mantener operativas las flotas inglesas de América y el océano Índico, vestuario y equipación para 12 regimientos de infantería (36.000 soldados), y la ingente suma de 1 000 000 de libras esterlinas en lingotes y monedas de oro para el pago de tropas y sobornos (todos los buques y bienes capturados estaban valorados en unas 600 000 libras). Además se hicieron cerca de 3000 prisioneros, de los cuales unos 1400 eran oficiales y soldados de infantería que pasaban como refuerzos a ultramar. Destacando, que el tamaño normal de las tropas inglesas en América era de 40.000 hombres. Los refuerzos ingleses jamás llegarían a América.

A través de la casa Joseph de Gardoqui e hixos España envió a los EE.UU. 120.000 reales de a ocho en efectivo, y órdenes de pago por valor de otros 50.000. Estas monedas, los célebres Spanish dollars, sirvieron para respaldar la deuda pública estadounidense, los continentales y fueron copiados dando origen a su propia moneda, el dólar estadounidense. Además, a través de la casa de Gardoqui se enviaron 215 cañones de bronce, 30.000 mosquetes, 30.000 bayonetas, 51.314 balas de mosquete, 300.000 libras de pólvora, 12.868 granadas, 30.000 uniformes y 4.000 tiendas de campaña, por un valor total de 946.906 reales. El ejército americano que ganó la batalla de Saratoga, fue armado y equipado por España, llevando además, esta Victoria la entrada de Francia en apoyo a la independencia de Estados Unidos de América.

Gardoqui se familiarizó con George Washington, y marcharon en el desfile inaugural del recién elegido presidente de Washington. El rey Carlos III de España continuó comunicándose con George Washington, enviándole el ganado de España, que Washington había solicitado para su granja en Vernon."

--77.47.30.210 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC) I'd love to know what it says, but I don't read Spanish, sorry. But you seem to speak English pretty well, so how's about a transaltion?--Godwhale (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

• In the first paragraph of the Costs of the war: Casualties: Americans & Allies section, please fix the typo in footnote 152: "Ellis, p.&nbsp" should be "Ellis, p. 87". (See http://books.google.com/books?id=2Y9Rko9sT3kC&pg=PA87#v=onepage&q&f=false)

• In the second paragraph of the same section, please change footnote 153 from:
  

<ref name="Burrows">[http://www.americanheritage.com/content/patriots-or-terrorists Edwin G. Burrows ]"Patriots or Terrorists?", ''American Heritage'', Fall 2008.</ref>

to:

<ref name=Burrows>{{cite web |last=Burrows |first=Edwin G. |author-link=Edwin G. Burrows |title=Patriots or Terrorists |url=http://www.americanheritage.com/content/patriots-or-terrorists |website=American Heritage |accessdate=November 29, 2014 |archive-url=//web.archive.org/web/20130323233806/http://www.americanheritage.com/content/patriots-or-terrorists |archive-date=March 23, 2013 |date=Fall 2008 |volume=58 |issue=5}}</ref>

It will display as:

Burrows, Edwin G. (Fall 2008). "Patriots or Terrorists". American Heritage. Archived from the original on March 23, 2013. Retrieved November 29, 2014.

• Please also change the section headings from "Americans & Allies" to "Americans and Allies" and "British & Allies" to "British and Allies"; this is an encyclopedia, using symbols instead of text isn't good style.

• Please also replace the ampersands in the infobox with the word "and": "Britain loses area east of Mississippi River and south of Great Lakes & and St. Lawrence River to independent United States & and to Spain"

Thanks! 184.244.0.134 (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)