Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Civil War or Revolution ?

I know this subject has been talked about before whether the Revolutionary War was a Civil War. Civil War A book authored by Holger Hoock (2017) Scars of Independence: America's Violent Birth addresses the Revolutionary War several times as a civil war. as civil war The apparent theme is that is was difficult to tell who were the patriots versus the loyalists and that the war was extremely violent. It would seem that aspects of "civil war" should be put into the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

it was not violent--much less so than 17c English or 18c French Revolutions, or 19c civil wars in US and China or 20c in Mexico or Russia or Spain. The Patriots and Loyalists were easy to tell apart, it was that mystery 'neutral' group in the middle that's a problem. Rjensen (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Holger Hoock contends that America had a violent birth and had aspects of a civil war. I gave the link. I am just showing the current research. Is there any reason to believe Hoock is fringe or has faulty research ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Holger Hoock appears to be a reliable author according to this source. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Scars of Independence Cmguy777 (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

there were lots of elements of as civil war, and there were a few episodes of violence--such as local violence in the south in 1780-81. The military aspect was not especially bloody--battles were small and deaths in combat were few. On the civilian side it was MUCH less violent than other civil wars. Dozens of Americans were killed--tens of thousands of French civilians were killed in a civil war 20 years later. Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am not trying to compare death counts. Hoock is reliable 2017 research. I think that the "civil war" part of the American Revolutionary War (ARW) article should be addressed in the article. Hoock talks of rape of colonial women by the Bristish soldiers and Patriots torturing Loyalists. According to the ARW article 7,000 Loyalists were killed. I would say that is a signifigant death count. Now I understand that this article is getting large and a lot of work is needed to reduce the article. Hoock even contends that the "civil war" part of the ARW has been historically suppressed in the past. There is also the fact that the British did not wage total war because the Crown believed the Partriots remained British subjects. It was Washington who waged total war. I don't have Hoock's book, but I believe it would be usefull for the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

the great majority of deaths were caused by disease say 70% (our table has 72% of dead Patriots died of disease, and 76% of Loyalists). Disease was always the great killer in all wars worldwide before world war II--Basically when you gathered soldiers or civilian refugees from different geographical areas and located them together in camps, contagious diseases spread very rapidly and there were no cures. In terms of death from combat, this article gives estimates of death in battle/wounds = 6800 Patriots and 1700 Loyalists. That's across about 6 years of war or about 300 weeks so we get roughly 25 Patriots and 6 Loyalists a week. Out of a population of over 2 million. Compare the Seven Years War when the Allies (Britain, the American colonies and Prussia) lost 90,000 or so dead in combat or about 300 a week. As for non-combatant civilians--Hoock does not give any estimates. I don't think many were executed (Patriots executed two Loyalists in Philadelphia, none in Boston or NYC). The main form of violence he considers was plundering of farms and houses owned by the enemy, plus whippings as official punishment in the military. Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have Hoock's book, but I think it would be good for the article. I was thinking a section title As civil war would be good for the ARW article. I am not comparing this war to others and I don't think this ARW article compares casualties to other wars. But again, this article needs work as far as reduction goes. I think adding Hoock would increase the ARW article's neutrality. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

neutrality? the article is reasonably neutral between US and UK. Hoock is primarily harsh against the British, who were more violent he says. Keep in mind this is the military article--the political article entitled American Revolution already covers the Loyalists. Rjensen (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Any revolution or war of independence will have an element of civil war. They are after all violent conflicts between rebels and government fought on home territory. I note however the descriptions in the link which calls the view original meaning it probably lacks weight for inclusion. So long as we mention that colonists were divided there does not seem any reason to get into the civil war analogy. Incidentally, despite there being possibly as many loyalists as rebels, they didn't provide the same level of military involvement, which would have made it a real civil war. TFD (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The link says "new origin's story", refering to the founding of the United States. It does not imply "original research" or any fringe theories. Neutrality because Hoock contends that there has been historical suppression of the ARW as being a civil war. Hootch is a reliable source. I gave a link that describes the author. How much more reliable can a book be authored by an acting history professor at an established University ? There is no reason to attack Hoock's credibility. Hoock addresses the ARW as a civil war. That gives his book military credibility. I don't have Hoock's book. I am not trying to establish who was more violent, the British or Americans. I am just presenting Hoock as a reliable source that can be used in this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

it is not true that the civil war aspect was suppressed--Hoock does not make that claim. 1) Edmund Morgan, one of the two or three foremost scholars of the subject stated it clearly enough: "The American Revolution was a civil war and for no one more than Franklin." (2003). 2) recent "The rage of tory-hunting": Loyalist Prisoners, Civil War, and the Violence of American Independence."Journal of Military History" (2017), pre Hoock; 3) "the Revolutionary War became a civil war for many American loyalists" Southern Historian. 2010; 4) ": The American Revolution was as much a civil war between Americans as a war between the Continental and British armies" Journal of Military History Jan 2009; Rjensen (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not an attack on his credibility. Obviously scholars develop original theories, that's how knowledge and understanding progress. It would not be an attack on Copernicus or Einstein to say that their theories were original. At issue is the degree of acceptance of the theory, which is determined by WP:WEIGHT, not WP:RS. Being an expert does not guarantee one's views will get any attention. One major difference between the U.S. and the English, French, Russian, Chinese and Cuban Revolutions is that there was no counterrevolutionary party following its Revolution. There's no party inside or outside the U.S. that wants their return to British rule. That indicates there was no deep division within the country which would be necessary to use the civil war narrative. TFD (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hoock's book says civil war dimension downplayed. Wikipedia says any edits are to be sourced by reliable authors. Hoock's book can't be ruled out. Nothing suggests Hoock's theories are original or fringe. Was Hoock the first to propose the ARW was a civil war? History can be very political. It is not about Hoock's views getting any attention, whatever that means ? Here is a New York Times book review: The American Revolution: A History of Violence Jane Kamenskyway (May 19, 2017) Kamenskyway says Hoock "marshals a good deal of startling new evidence, the fruits of prodigious research in British archives too rarely used by historians of colonial America and the early United States." The term startling new evidence is not the same as the term original theory. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Kamenskyway (May 19, 2017) calls Hoock's book a "new origins story". Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

the novelty of the book is a problem--the new ideas have not yet been accepted by scholars. So far zero reviews in scholarly journals (says "America: History and Life" index). Rjensen (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hoock is an active scholar. His authored book was published by Crown Publishing Group and division of Penguin Random House LLC New York. The New York Times Kamenskyway (May 19, 2017) is a reliable book review. Pier review is important. Yes. But that should not exclude Hoock as a reliable source. Are we to only include scholars that editors agree with ? Isn't neutrality dependent on alternative views of history ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

the problem with "novel" interpretations is that they are fringe until they win support in the scholarly community. It's too early for that in Hoock's case. wp:fringe states: an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Rjensen (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the debate here comes down to this: 1) does Hoock present any new ideas re the American Revolution [what are his new ideas??] or 2) does he present lots of new details from British sources supporting old ideas? Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of opinions does not depend on reliable sourcing, it depends on weight. Weight says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It does not say weight should be provided to insignificant views. Imagine you were writing a school essay, as many readers are. You would want to know what the mainstream views were. TFD (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been reading the Amazon edition which has a lot of the book and the TOC and index. I'm struck by the highly detailed attention Hoock pays to what scholars consider minor episodes. for example pp 250-65 focus on a 1778 surprise attack on Americans that killed 15 with bayonets in the middle of the night. Since 2006 Wikipedia has covered the episode at Baylor Massacre --our readers see it (there were 3,048 pageviews in the last 90 days). Hoocks reports every blade thrust-- Bayonet attacks are mentioned on at least 33 of his pages. This is called "Blood and guts history"--there are book buyers who line up at Barnes and Noble & seemingly can't get enough of it. if it's your taste see see https://books.google.com/books?id=cSnWDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA251 Rjensen (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Since I don't have the book I can't make any personal comments. I don't think UOP hires insignifigant nobody professors to the faculty. Could we just drop the personal attacks on Hoock. Rjensen. All I want from Hoock is concrete facts concerning the ARW. What were the dates of battles, how many killed and injured. Was the battle particullarly violent. Why does he believe the AR was a Civil War ? Things like that. I am not really that interested in the gory details. Again I don't have the book. Hoock may work out maybe not. But I don't think personal attacks should be made against a history professor. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

according to the Hoock index, he skips over the Saratoga and Yorktown campaigns in a couple pages each. (Perhaps there was not enough killing and mailing to keep his attention). the Battle of Germantown and Battle of Brandywine are not in the index--but if someone got wounded there that would be mentioned later, However the Battle of Paoli with its famous bayonet attack gets covered on pp 251, 266, 392. Blood and guts. Rjensen (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have access to his full book. I don't think editors should personally attack Hoock. What is needed is specific information on battles. Hoock may or may not work for the article, without the personal attacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

British reinforcements to Boston on March 25

British reinforcements arrived on May 25, not March 25. The correct date is used in Siege of Boston

On April 18, 1775, 700 troops were sent to confiscate militia ordnance stored at Concord.[68][69] Fighting broke out, forcing the regulars to conduct a fighting withdrawal to Boston. Overnight, the local militia converged on and laid siege to Boston.[70] On March 25, 4,500 British reinforcements arrived with generals William Howe, John Burgoyne, and Henry Clinton.[71]

On April 18, 1775, 700 troops were sent to confiscate militia ordnance stored at Concord.[68][69] Fighting broke out, forcing the regulars to conduct a fighting withdrawal to Boston. Overnight, the local militia converged on and laid siege to Boston.[70] On May 25, 4,500 British reinforcements arrived with generals William Howe, John Burgoyne, and Henry Clinton.[71]

ThomasRostrup (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Excessive citations

I reveiewed the "Excessive citations" tag recently placed on the article, and at the first glance the article does look overpeppered with footnote marks. Is this really necessary? "Colonists, however, felt that the Dominion was undermining their democratic liberty[55][56] and they overthrew it in 1689;[57][58] the Crown made no attempt to restore it.[59][60]" -- This looks dangerously close to WP:SYNTH: three parts of a single short sentence are foothoteed to 6 (!) sources. Does that mean that not a single source alone support this sentence? Then WP:SYNTH it is. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned out a lot of political stuff. this is an article on military history and other articles cover the political causes. Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll notice that the first citation occurs in the very first line of the article—and it's number 43! That means that there are 42 citations before the article even begins, which does strike one as excessive. There are a great many in the Infobox (42 presumably), and I have to question whether we really need any citations inside an Infobox. Let's begin by eliminating most of those. —Dilidor (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

excellent idea. The Infobox notes are worse than useless--they will alienate readers looking for basic info.Rjensen (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I undertook to remove all the citations from the infobox, but I had to revert it because it created problems where a citation is named (e.g., "medical" or "Greene") and is then invoked in the article—but I'd deleted its definition. I don't know how to avoid that problem and still remove the excessive citations. And they truly are excessive. It was eye-opening to slog through the mess inside the infobox. If someone can instruct me on how to delete citations while preserving the named ones, I will be happy to slog through the mess again. Otherwise, the slogging will have to be done by someone more savvy than I. —Dilidor (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion did work ok. I think wiki automatically "restores" a deleted named reference so that it exists for future calls but is out of the way. Try it on a couple cases to see. You will get a few notes that "Cite error: The named reference Michael Lanning 2009 195–96 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." -- that can be deleted. It means name=xxx is defined and not used. in that case name=xxx cam just be deleted. Rjensen (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I've lost track of the citation edits on this article, but I thought that we had removed all the citations from the infobox. Am I remembering that incorrectly? I notice that the first citation in the very first line of the article is still number 40. As I recall, I was messing up the named references when I did a simple removal from the infobox, but I thought that someone had straightened it out. One way or another, we need to get those citations out of the infobox. Can anyone help with this, please? My technical savvy is insufficient when it comes to named refs. —Dilidor (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

see also

for readers looking for political history, or those needing only a short summary, I added some help to the lede: For the political history see American Revolution. For a short summary see History of the United States (1776–89) Rjensen (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2018

In the section Aftermath, under Financial debts, there is a link to Shilling which is more of an overview page. The better link would be Shilling (British coin). Also, where it says Due to wartime taxation upon the British populace, the tax for the average Briton amounted to approximately four shillings in every pound, this means little to readers like myself who are not aware how many shillings it was to the pound (Apparently 20, according to the Shilling (British coin) article, something I didn't know. I though it was twelve!). Turismond (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Turismond (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

'A Global War'?

Um, worried that this article promotes historical inaccuracy. The AWoI was one battlefield in a global struggle for dominance between the European powers following the Seven Years War. At that time, North America was little more than a backwater, politically, technologically (the colonies were agrarian) and by population level. It is both grandiose and worse, utterly wrong to place the American Revolutionary War central to the on-going 'global war for dominance between the European powers. I would like to change the first paragraph to read: The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a major battlefield in an on-going global war between European powers to diminish British global dominance following the Seven Years War that began as a conflict between Great Britain and France in 1756 and later, expanded to include the thirteen American colonies in 1775 when they joined with France against the homeland to declare independence from Great Britain as the new United States of America. Roland Of Yew (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ed. following a discussion with admin have updated the article to include the latest facts on the subject, please refer to: .Roland Of Yew (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Global war theme needs published reliable sources--as museum exhibit references an unpublished book does not fill the bill. The Smithsonian article admits it goes against the received scholarship hat has been traditionally envisioned as a quaint and simple confrontation between a ragtag army of rebellious colonists and a king’s mighty military force of red-coated Brits. Indeed in a few years the viewpoint may become standard but it is not the consensus right now. So I'm reverting until there is better evidence from multiple PUBLISHEd reliable sources. -- all we have now is the viewpoint of "ays David K. Allison, project director, curator of the show and co-author of a new forthcoming book on the subject. " Allison is a specialist on the history of American science (especially radar and computers) and business--he's new to the revolutionary America and the world scene in 18th century. The Smithsonian articles is mostly about paintings on exhibit with comments by Allison on his own interpetation of diplomacy. Rjensen (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, but your argument is also true of the current version. are there any reliable sources that state the ARW was a 'global war'? The reason I ask is that none are cited. However, there are sources that state that the ARW was a major battlefield in an on-going conflict between the European powers. Tell you what, I'll remove the term 'global' and change it to read: the American War of Independence, was an 18th century war between Great Britain and its Thirteen Colonies which declared independence as the United States of America.

By the way, another interesting facet to the story that might interest you, was the ARW actually a civil war? You might find this new Cambridge course interesting: Roland Of Yew (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

themes of Am Rev as global or worldwide are common knowledge for decades now--it's not a matter of an obscure footnote but the text of this article covers much of the globe. Please note the titles of major books such as Richard Dupuy, The American Revolution: A Global War (1977); David Allison, The American Revolution: A World War (2018); Marc Aronson The Real Revolution: The Global Story of American Independence (2005); Jonathan Israel The Expanding Blaze: How the American Revolution Ignited the World (2017). To narrow the definition to merely Britain & USA of course contradicts the article which emphasizes essential role of France and other allies of USA. Rjensen (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the American Revolutionary War, not the "global conflict" among European nations. Perhaps it does impinge upon that global conflict, and such a connection can be made in the article, but the central focus still needs to be on the American Revolution—and that took place in America. It is inaccurate to define the American Revolution as "a global 18th century war" when it took place almost entirely on American soil. —Dilidor (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"it took place almost entirely on American soil" The American side of the war was largely a sideshow. The War caused the British Empire to fight simultaneously against the Kingdom of France, the Spanish Empire, the Dutch Republic, and the Kingdom of Mysore. And the First League of Armed Neutrality was formed by countries wishing to protect themselves against the blockades of the Royal Navy during the War: the Russian Empire, Denmark-Norway, Sweden, the Kingdom of Prussia, the Habsburg Monarchy, the Kingdom of Portugal, the Ottoman Empire, the Kingdom of Sicily, and the Kingdom of Naples. The Thirteen Colonies were relativery small fry, in comparison to Britain's other opponents. Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There might be a better way of phrasing it. Perhaps say that it developed into a global war and provide details. TFD (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A civil war as well? / Repeat of the English Civil War

1. I have noted that some sources refer to the conflict as the British Civil War, in addition to labelling it the American Revolution/war of Independence etc.
2. Likewise, I have seen a few sources that have highlighted the similarities, or have gone as far as to say the conflict was a repeat of the War of the Three Kingdoms (the colonists being - iirc in the words of one colonial soldier - the grandson's of Cromwell and the New Model Army, and the British Army being the heirs to the Cavalier cause following the Glorious Revolution and the emergence of a new elite who ran the country in stark comparison to the parlamenterian cause that preceeded them.).
3. I am by no means an expert on the subject, so I am wondering if these intpredations are more widespread that the few sources I have seen, and if they should be included?71.181.3.20 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The scope of this article is limited to the military aspects of the war. The social and political aspects are covered under American Revolution. 22:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree--the suggestion mentions unnamed sources--that's no help. and of course we have multiple articles on the English Civil War which ended over a century before. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I can understand and appreciate that the scope of this article is limited. So perhaps it would be best to pose the second point at the suggested article, although the first point does seem somewhat relevant for here. As for some sources, which I was unable to provide earlier:

Those talking of a "British Civil War":

• Niall Ferguson uses the term in his works.
• Cambridge University poses the question, for example.
• Scripting Revolution: A Historical Approach to the Comparative Study of Revolutions, for example states "...the transatlantic conflict of the 1770s that many contemporaries saw as a British 'civil war' ..."

So, I concede that this is just a handful of sources and only where I have seen the term used. It may be uncommon, and as I noted, this is not the realm of my own expertise. Is it at least, worth a mention in a footnote if it is just a fringe term so not to apply undue weight?

As for the talk of the English Civil War connection, which yes I understand ended a century before hand, hence John Rush commenting on him being the great-grandson of an office who fought under Cromwell (somewhat poorly paraphrased in my original post and mixed with another's on the contemporary feeling of the time), at least the following two have mentioned it or deal with the subject:

• Colin Woodard makes it a somewhat central theme in a chapter or two of his book 'American Nations'
• James C. Spalding bases an entire essay around the theme, and quotes contemporaries on the subject of their being a relation between the patriots and the New Model Army.172.96.34.206 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

The article is not organized and tends to jump around from the revolutionary war being a global war or a civil war. There is not a true argument in the article but it does lean more towards the war being a global war. Most of the sources links work from what I did click on. This article does use reliable sources such as campaigns and even the declaration of independence. Some of the sources do tend to be biased as they lean towards the American defense. There are not any british sources that would give reference to the british side of the American revolution. The wiki talk for the page mainly discusses the issues about the argument of the war being global or civil. There is not enough evidence that details why the article goes one way or the other. The article is listed as a level 4 vital article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdh046 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Mysore

Some trolls added some utterly irrelevant conflict (Mysore) the UK had with one of its properties. Some Indian out there wants to elevate their tiff on this Wiki page by equating the Mysore conflict with the US Revolutionary war. Get real Wikipedia. To list Mysore as a co-belligerent is ludicrous. How many soldiers did the US send to Mysore? How many soldiers did Mysore send to the US? What diplomatic ties were involved? Did the US government even know they exist? Zero, zilch on all accounts. Yeah, but write them as "co-belligerents" and lock people out of the page from correcting this silliness. User:68.79.127.40 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2018 ( Unsigned, manually signed and archived by BusterD (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC) )

Spain

Spain actively participated in the war against the United Kingdom as an ally of France. I want to put just that in the header of the article. JamesOredan (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned later in the lead that Spain allied with France. The first paragraph doesn't necessarily need to list all the secondary belligerents. It depends on how relevant they are to the overall article. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Spain was not a secondary belligerent. He was a main belligerent.

In fact, the article itself mentions who the Co-belligerents were, and Spain was not one of them. JamesOredan (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"International war breaks out"

I do not want to participate in the belligerent post above, but I do want to address the larger issue which the previous poster touches upon. A fairly lengthy portion of the article addresses Britain's war with France and others, fought in India and elsewhere. I recognize that the Brits probably viewed this as one big war against the rest of the world which they fought all over the place, and they might view the American Revolution as just one facet of that war. But the Americans had absolutely no interest in anything going on overseas and were fighting solely for their own independence.

This article is about the American Revolutionary War, and therefore will quite naturally reflect a predominantly American perspective—simply because that's what it's about! Another article might address Britain's worldwide conflicts in this period, and might even build a case that this was some kind of "world war". But this article is not about that worldwide conflict; it is about the war which the Americans were fighting on their home soil in order to gain independence—nothing more.

Therefore, I would suggest that we greatly compress the "International war breaks out" section into one short section with no sub-sections, summarizing the fact that Britain found herself fighting enemies in many other theaters besides just North America. And the "Final years of the war" section needs to go away completely, because this reflects the notion that the American Revolution was merely one theater of Britain's global conflict—and I stress that this article is about the American Revolution only, not about some imaginary world war. That is a very modern and very British notion, and this article is in danger of being hijacked by it. —Dilidor (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the international war of which the fighting in America was one element. We also have an American Revolution article devoted to the domestic aspects of the conflict. If a major change was made it would be to spin off a separate American Theatre of the American Revolutionary War article to cover that element in greater detail, rather than deleting fom this article the international aspects which came to predominate post 1778. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

"the war which the Americans were fighting on their home soil in order to gain independence—nothing more." The Americans were relatively insignificant and should be de-emphasized. These was a international war, having the British Empire challenged on multiple fronts. More emphasis should be placed on the British and French perspective on the conflict. Dimadick (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing more--well yes, the Brits did ok with respect to France, Netherlands Spain but the American success had a major impact on them--it virtually destroyed their empire. See Brendan Simms, Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714–1783 (2008). The US victory also had a major impact inspiring successful revolutions in France and across Latin America. It was the first big success in defeating a colonial power. Rjensen (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"This article is about the international war of which the fighting in America was one element." No, it most assuredly is not that. The title alone makes it abundantly clear that this article is about the American Revolutionary War. The fighting in Mysore had nothing whatsoever to do with what was happening in America—and vice versa. The American Revolutionary War was a war fought in America because the Americans were carrying out a revolution to remove British rule in America. That is a very narrow scope, and it does not permit any additional material concerning the fact that Britain had stirred up the wrath of nearly every nation on earth; that was Britain's problem and was no concern to the Americans. The Mysore and Netherlands and Gibraltar material needs to be discussed elsewhere; it has no bearing here. —Dilidor (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

There's really nothing about the name "American Revolutionary War" that demands that only matters that directly concerned the American Patriots get included, anymore than study of the War of the Spanish Succession has to be limited to what concerned the Spanish or the War of the Austrian Succession to events in Austria. Major parts of the War of the Spanish Succession were fought in the Netherlands (British and Prussians fighting against French and Bavarians); part of the War of the Austrian Succession was fought in New England and Nova Scotia (British, including Americans, fighting against French); major theatres of the American Revolutionary War include Gibraltar and the Caribbean (British fighting against French and Spanish). The American Revolutionary War started as a domestic conflict between Britain and an imperial province, but quickly became the latest in the series of conflicts between Britain and the French-Spanish coalition that dominate the eighteenth century. American historiography is (generally) only concerned with the American perspective on the war, which is understandable, but Americans are not the only historians who study the war, and for Wikipedia to adopt such an Americentric attitude would be a major failure on our part and completely indefensible. The article title is not "American Revolutionary War (US PERSPECTIVE ONLY)". Binabik80 (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This was NOT a war in which the Americans fought to free themselves of British rule. That is the utterly pathetic American-centric narrative many were taught in school in which 'The Colonists' (good guys) beat 'The British' (bad guys) because their cause was so just. In reality it was a civil war in which SOME colonists who wanted to maintain slavery, take the Indian lands and avoid paying legitimate debts owed to English and Scottish traders fought SOME other colonists who resisted while the other 60% of colonists kept their heads down and did nothing. The patriots won because they were more ruthless and more prepared to resort to violence and torture to cow their opponents. This is not a revolution. A revolution is a rebellion in which the masses rise up to overthrow their rulers and change the social order. But the patriots were fighting to preserve the status quo. The social order they replaced British rule with was the same but much harsher to anyone who wasn't a member of the colonial elite. The reason for the alienation felt by some editors in discussing the war in other parts of the world is that American (and some British) historians have always sought to downplay the involvement of France and Spain to an irrelevance because they do not want to accept that independence would have been impossible without the alliances actively solicited by the Continental Congress. The supposed 'decisive' battle of Yorktown was not a battle at all but a siege won with French heavy cannon unloaded after an inconclusive naval battle in which no colonists took part. Britain gave up the struggle because of the enormous cost of fighting what was actually a re-run of the Seven Years War, which due to this ongoing parochialism many insist on calling the French and Indian War.--Godwhale (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Please use the word "Native American Tribes", instead of the word "American Indians"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjgdh5 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Revolutionary War template proposed for Deletion

FYI, this template has been proposed for deletion, primarily because it is not linked to your page or other articles: {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Early Incidents}}

If you want to keep it add it in on this or some other page and make a objection to its elimination.Asiaticus (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"First British Empire"

This is truly a bizarre coinage to me, let alone the supposition that the conclusion of the ARW was the "end" of it! From what I can best tell, there are indeed a few journals and popular books that curry this idea, but it is not at all mainstream: a claim of this magnitude would require much stronger citation than what currently stands (i.e. none at all). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.205.196 (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a well known concept over a century old that many scholars deal with in advanced books and journals. The best place to learn about this concept is Brendan Simms, Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714–1783 (2008). It's used by BBC, Here is an excerpt from Historiography of the British Empire : The concept of a first and second British Empire was developed by historians in the late 19th century, and is a concept usually used by advanced scholars.[ref>It occasionally appears in the popular literature, such as the 1998 BC Radio series: Charls Lee, This Sceptred Isle: The First British Empire 1702–1760 v.6 (1998)</ref> Timothy H. Parsons argued in 2014, "there were several British empires that ended at different times and for different reasons".[ref>Timothy H. Parsons (2014). The Second British Empire: In the Crucible of the Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 5.[/ref> He focused on the Second. Ashley Jackson argued in 2013 that historians have even extended to a third and fourth empire: The first British Empire was largely destroyed by the loss of the American colonies, followed by a 'swing to the east' and the foundation of a second British Empire based on commercial and territorial expansion in South Asia. The third British Empire was the construction of a 'white' dominion power bloc in the international system based on Britain's relations with its settler offshoots Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa ... The fourth British Empire, meanwhile, is used to denote Britain's rejuvenated imperial focus on Africa and South-East Asia following the Second World War and the independence in 1947–48 of Britain's South Asian dependencies, when the Empire became a vital crutch in Britain's economic recovery.[ref>Ashley Jackson (2013). The British Empire: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford UP. p. 72.[/ref> Rjensen (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen, this is a well established concept with countless available sources. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still not swayed here. I'm aware of Brendan Simms' book, but there is no specific citation provided by the edit so far. In addition Simms appears to rely very heavily on Bernard Bailyn, as does David C. Hendrickson and R. W. Tucker: Bailyn in particular is not what I would consider a neutral source. I should underline that this is a very grand claim and demands evidence of equal calibre. It is not enough to prove that a view-point exists about a general topic, it should be proven that it is held by the mainstream academic consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.205.196 (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

We have an anonymous editor who never heard of the term a couple days ago who now challenges some of the most famous historians in the world to meet his unknown standards in proving the value of a mysterious concept he did not hear about in school--he needs to do some reading in the scholarly literature. Try 1) Canada and the American Revolution: The Disruption of the First British Empire by Canadian historian George M. Wrong back in 1935; 2) The Power of Commerce: Economy and Governance in the First British Empire Cornell University Press, 1994; 3) Landsman, ed. Nation and province in the first British Empire: Scotland and the Americas, 1600-1800. Bucknell University Press, 2001-- articles by a dozen scholars.; 4) on the main books : see P. J. Marshall "The First British Empire " pp 43-53 in Oxford History of the British Empire - Vol. 5: Historiography (1999). Rjensen (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, there is a lot to unpack here. First, what my being anonymous has to do with anything is quite beyond me -- there is no Wikipedia policy mandating a username as far as I'm aware. Second, I never said I hadn't heard of the term: I said it was a bizarre coinage, and more importantly, that the notion the ARW "ended" it was several bigger steps in a likewise direction. The issue here is whether this idea, particularly the latter claim, represents a broad and mainstream consensus. It should not give undue credence to this or that author, and it should not be particular to one nationality's view-point, which I rather fear has happened here. To stop and think on your own initiative is to see how deeply flawed this claim is — did the Empire "end" for Bermuda, for instance? What about Jamaica, where its own domestic struggle was playing out and overseas rule intensified over the same period? This whole idea is really void of meaning to anyone outside the United States. If it must stay (in the lede box no less) it should be heavily qualified. 94.14.205.196 (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

the First British Empire ended for Britain. The Second had a very new policy and new geographical base, while sharply reducing its role in western hemisphere. There were radical changes in the treatment of Canada (which had been oriented to the old French settlers, and now was oriented to new British arrivals.) New emphasis was on Asia, esp India and also new places like Australia & NZ. Then 2nd made a major play in Africa & Mideast. The policy makers were aware: Gladstone's "attitude to the 'second British Empire' gradually evolved : but it was broadly the same in 1880 as in 1835; and it was directly influenced by his understanding of the failure of the 'first British Empire' " [states Deryck Marshall Schreuder in 1969] Rjensen (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The British empire didn't end in 1783, I don't think you understand these terms and their use, they are not intended to imply the start and end of a civilisation, they are modern terms for use in historiography. There was no new emphasis on Asia "esp India", the British were pretty much invested with India from about the 1680s Thecitizen1 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This is pure POV pushing by Rjensen. Every few months it crops up again and he makes the exact same arguments, wearing people down by sheer attrition and bloody-mindedness. Just take a look at the archived pages and you'll see how these same discussions and arguments have been made time & time again. Its just an obsession.--Godwhale (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

the way to wear down people who are unfamiliar with the RS is to cite the RS. Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The use of this term in an infobox is simplistic and misleading. The terms "first" and "second" British empire is a convenient way for certain historians to divide two time periods, in the infobox it appears to imply that the British empire suddenly ended in 1783, which is a fallacy. The British empire was at the time an imperial system of trade, the loss of the American colonies represented a territorial loss, but the imperial system which the empire was based continued in the same way. There wasn't a shift in attention towards the south east asia pacific, the British interest was already deeply rooted in the Indian sub continent and had been since the 1680s. Thecitizen1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The terms "British Empire." "First British Empire" and "Second British Empire" are all theoretical constructs invented by historians. None is an official governmental term (Unlike the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland') . Wikipedia uses them because that's what the reliable sources use. In my opinion, the first and second Empire designations are very useful intellectual constructs that help readers get a better grasp on the situation, both from a world perspective, and from a internal British perspective. I think most historians agree that there was a dramatic difference, with the major dividing line in the 1780s. The British Empire certainly ended in the 13 Colonies in very dramatic fashion, comparable only to the final ending of the Empire in the 1940s-50s. At the same time, approximately, the geographical center of gravity radically shifted away from North America and toward Asia. The best place to examine this historiographical issue is in the long article on the Historiography of the British Empire. The Oxford English Dictionary has references to the British Empire in 1599: R. Hakluyt Principal Navigations "Note the Queenes Maiesties royaltie ouer the British Ocean sea, round about the British Empire." For the end of the first British Empire, OED notices the pamphlet of 1813 by H. Campbell, entitled "The Impending Ruin of the British Empire, its Cause and Remedy considered." Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Enough with the Mysore gibberish

What is the obsession of wikipedia folks out here with adding completely misleading data due to some editors eccentricities? The Britain were everywhere at the time of the Revolutionary war. True there was war in Mysore during the American War but it was completely different! Anglo-Mysore Wars is a separate war which has no relation with American Revolutionary war with the only thing in common between them were Britain but Britain was common in fifty other countries that time too. So should we add every event that happened during war years in the other colonies and bunch it with the American war?! The Anglo-Mysroe war event has separate page and should not be bunched into this event. French and Dutch had formal and informal role in the American war but what role did Mysore have? Mysore war can be included in the background and international war section but to put it in header and infobox is like saying Mysore was fighting the British so America could be independent. Misinformation that is. I am going to change and remove these incorrect declarations unless someone provides solid proof and source on how American and Mysore were closely related during this "American Revolutionary War". JayB91 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Secession" of the United States?

@PhilLiberty: Please elucidate your argument for suggesting that the American Revolution was an act of secession. And kindly desist from your edit warring until there has been time for some discussion involving other editors. —Dilidor (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Because that is what secession means.

MW online: formal withdrawal from an organization

Oxford: The action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state.

etc. See https://www.onelook.com/?w=secession&ls=a

Question for you: Why do you want to evade or deny the fact that this was a war for secession???

PhilLiberty (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

One does not use the term secession when one is declaring that one is no longer loyal to the king. Secession involves a level of equality within an organization or a body, which was what occurred when certain states wanted to remove themselves from the Union. Ending one's loyalty to the king is not comparable simply because there is no equality within the relationship. The Brits called it treason; the Patriots called it uniting for independence. At the very least, one should use the terminology that was used historically. And that is the most basic of the many reasons not to refer to the American Revolutionary War as a war of secession. —Dilidor (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Technically, you could probably use "secession" to describe the American Revolution (see even on WP here, though it should be noted that the section doesn't actually call it a secession). However, Dilidor's argument about using the terminology that was and has been used historically is correct in this case. His argument that "secession involves a level of equality within an organization" is also correct. The Revolution was not a secession of near equals, it was the complete breaking away from what was perceived as a tyrannical government in order to form a different one. The argument he doesn't mention is that very few (if any, as I've looked and can't find any) academics/historians ever describe the Revolution as a secession. At the very least, even if for some reason the HISTORICAL non-use of secession were to be overlooked, the current academic consensus (i.e. virtually no one uses secession when describing the American Revolution) should be followed. A relevant guideline would be WP:RS/AC. You would have to show that "secession" is the term used by academics, as the current phrasing ("between Great Britain and its Thirteen Colonies (allied with France))" is fact. Your preferred phrasing ("over the secession of several British American colonies from Great Britain. The seceding colonies....") implies an overt opinion (WP:NPOV) on the nature of the Revolution that is not supported by modern historical thought/usage, or the terminology used at the time of the Revolution (secede, secession, etc nowhere appear in the Declaration of Independence). Vyselink (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Your claim that "secession involves a level of equality within an organization or a body" is false. See the definition above. The colonies were not merely declaring they were no longer loyal to a king - they were declaring that they seceded from Great Britain, that they were ending political servitude and no longer a part of Great Britain. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Analysis of Combatants

I want to help with some of the subsections dealing with the combatants, but I'm unsure what the left-and-right limits are. When we talk about women, for example, is this article limited to only the women who dressed up as men and fought as Soldiers? Can I include the families and camp followers who traveled with the armies and sometimes witnessed the battles? What about the effect the war had on other women, especially those who had to run the farms and family businesses, is that out of scope for this article? I know the general format of this article is to give the big picture and redirect to other articles for more details; should we keep this section small and merely link to Women in the American Revolution?

Also on the topic of Native Americans, how are we distinguishing between them and those of European or African descent? Technically they're all "Americans," so it seems like we need to use very clear descriptions in this section so that we don't confuse the readers. I don't want to get into an edit war over terms, though; has this been resolved previously?

I'll probably have more questions, I just want to know what's going to get deleted before I invest a bunch of time into this project. Thanks. Canute (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The article is concerned with the military actions of the Revolutionary War. Under that umbrella, I would think that "camp followers" could find a niche, but "the war's effects at home" would probably not fit. My suggestion would be to add a paragraph concerning camp followers to the existing subsection on women who fought dressed as men.

We generally avoid modern parlance such as "Native American" and stick to the contemporaneous terminology as much as possible, in this case "Indian" or "American Indian". But then, that also precludes the confusion which you point out. Hope this helps. —Dilidor (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That does help, thanks. I wouldn't dream of getting into the Native American name controversy, I'm just curious if we've set a standard for how we'll distinguish between the various participants. Calling one group or another "American" can get very confusing in this context. Canute (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"but "the war's effects at home" would probably not fit." We do have similar articles on other wars:

• Home front during World War I
• Home front during World War II Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

My comment was that the war's effects on families and farms would not fit well in this article. It certainly would fit well in other articles. —Dilidor (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what others say, but I'll probably follow your advice and put a small reference to camp followers, then link to main article Women in the American Revolution. I'm not sure a "Home Front" article makes sense for this particular conflict, given the numerous inter-family conflicts and the "civil war" nature the war took in many areas. It's briefly mentioned at American_Revolution#Role_of_women. I don't know; the effects of war on civilians is an important aspect of any war and shouldn't be excluded, I just don't know that I have the time or energy to start a new article at this time and do it right. Canute (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Germans

Also (I knew I'd have more questions), the article refers to "German mercenaries" and includes a hidden comment that this is the consensus term, but then links to an article which immediately says the Germans were auxiliaries and not mercenaries. So... that's not a good use of the term "consensus." Can we just call them "Germans" and let the other articles sort it out? Canute (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a hot-button issue, one of those landmines one can inadvertently step on. I agree with your suggestion of simply referring to "the Germans" or "the Hessians" and avoiding any adjectives. —Dilidor (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'll wait a day or two and see if anyone else has a strong opinion on it. Looking over the article, it seems inconsistent to use "German" as merely an adjective for soldier/mercenary/auxiliary/boogeymen. We refer to French troops and Spanish troops and the Dutch fleet, but we don't worry about how they were paid or whether they were conscripted. This seems like a controversy unique to the German principalities, probably due to the immediate propaganda value it gave congressional supporters. More and more, I like the idea of absolving ourselves of the entire argument on this particular article and letting the more specific articles sweat the details. Canute (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to make this change soon, but I want to pause again for anyone with this on their Watchlist. By the way the comment was written, it sounds like this was a contentious issue at one point, and I want to be respectful of those who built this article. But if there are no objections soon, I'll make this change and have one less thing to argue about. Canute (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not clear what change you're wanting to make, but I'd say just go for it, then step back and cover your head. There was a lengthy debate at one point concerning whether or not they could be considered mercenaries; I cannot quite frankly remember what was ultimately decided, as I kept my head low and avoided it. But trust me, if you decide wrong, you will hear about it without delay. —Dilidor (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Roger, that's why I'm pinging the talk page; I'm just testing the waters for sharks before I dive in. The change I want to make is what we discussed last week: remove references to "mercenaries" and like terms to instead refer to them only as "Germans," with links to the appropriate page(s) that invest more time into the subject matter (and controversy with terms). In other words, I'm not taking a stand on the issue, I'm removing a distraction that can be more appropriately addressed elsewhere. This seems consistent with the way other nationalities/ethnicities are described in this article, and seems consistent with the intent of this article as I understand it: a high-level overview of the war with links to more specific articles for readers that want more details. Canute (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

"We refer to French troops and Spanish troops and the Dutch fleet, but we don't worry about how they were paid or whether they were conscripted. This seems like a controversy unique to the German principalities" Well, in this historical period we have France and its army mostly unified under the Ancien Régime, the Kingdom of Spain increasingly centralised following the Nueva Planta decrees, and the Dutch Republic remaining a loose confederation whose member states co-operated in military matters. This was not the case with the fragmented Holy Roman Empire, where the constituent states maintained their own armies, and often aligned with different foreign allies.:

• "By the rise of Louis XIV, the Habsburgs were chiefly dependent on their hereditary lands to counter the rise of Prussia, some of whose territories lay inside the Empire. Throughout the 18th century, the Habsburgs were embroiled in various European conflicts, such as the War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Polish Succession, and the War of the Austrian Succession. The German dualism between Austria and Prussia dominated the empire's history after 1740." Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, but I don't understand how the political relationships between the various German princes, electors, and dukes is relevant to the question of whether or not this article should degrade the Soldiers sent to North America. Canute (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The "Germans" were not part of of a large national army, but the forces organized by specific "princes". See main article Hessian (soldier), which explains that the term derives from their affiliation to either the Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel or Hesse-Hanau. The princes were the ones who "rented" their armies to the British monarch:

• "The Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel were famous for renting out their army to European Great Powers during the 17th and 18th centuries. It was a widespread practice at the time for small countries to rent out troops to larger countries in exchange for subsidies. International jurists drew a distinction between mercenaries and auxiliaries (Hilfstruppen). Mercenaries served in foreign armies as individuals, while auxiliaries were sent by their prince to the aid of another prince."
• "Hesse-Kassel took the practice to an extreme, maintaining 5.3% of its population under arms in 1730. This was a higher proportion than even Prussia, a country that was so heavily militarized that it was described as "not a country with an army, but an army with a country". The Hessian army served as a readily-available reserve for the Great Powers."
• "During the American War of Independence, 25% of the British army consisted of troops rented from German princes, half of whom came from Hesse-Kassel and nearby Hesse-Hanau. For this reason, Americans refer to all German troops serving with the British armies as "Hessians". a form of synecdoche." Dimadick (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I still view this as irrelevant, but let me back up. My suggestion is that because this label is contentious, we should avoid it altogether in this particular article and let the edit wars continue in the articles dealing with German Soldiers. Whether the term is appropriate is not the question at hand. I believe the term adds no value to this article, and is probably a violation of both Wikipedia:LABEL and Wikipedia:NPV. I've witnessed the arguments before and can give the TL;DR version of both sides if we must really hash that out again, but if this article is meant to provide the high-level view of the entire war, then we should keep things as neutral as possible and let the debate continue elsewhere. Canute (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Canute: I agree entirely. Dimadick's explication is illuminating, but it does not bear directly on the question which you are addressing: should we eliminate all adjectives associated with the German soldiers in this article? My answer is "yes". Since no other editor has weighed in on the question, I think we can assume that we've reached consensus on this. —Dilidor (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hold on. I think the RS favor using "mercenary" -- it means soldiers who fought primarily for money and not for patriotism or other goals. 1) Stephan Popp - 2018: "Since the war with the Colonies was not popular in England, the government had difficulty raising troops and sought mercenaries among other Europeans." 2) book title = Mercenaries: A Guide to Private Armies and Private Military Companies by Alan Axelrod - 2013; 3) Mark Boatner, "German Mercenaries" in Encyclopedia of the American Revolution (1974) p 426. 4) the major scholarly monograph is The Hessian Mercenary State: Ideas, Institutions, and Reform by Charles W. Ingrao - 2003. (5) Robert J. Allison in Reviews in American History 32.2 (2004) p 161: "The British had considered hiring mercenaries from Morocco and had even tried to hire Russians (Catherine the Great refused) and Prussians (Frederick the Great said this would be like selling "cattle to have their throats cut") but found Friedrich Wilhelm II, Landgraf of Hesse-Cassel, expanding his own military force and seeking uses for it. The officers and ordinary soldiers saw an opportunity to get wealthy in America (looting and pillaging were part of the allure)." (6) Standard textbook: America: Past And Present by Divine, Robert A.; Breen, T.H. et al (7th ed 2005) p 148 Washington "at Trenton took 900 sleeping Hessian mercenaries by complete surprise." Rjensen (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether "mercenary" is the appropriate term, I'm just saying that since there's controversy around it (you've given some examples), then let's avoid that argument on this article. We're trying to cover the entire breath of an 8-year war across multiple campaigns, plus the context leading up to it and immediate effects afterwards, and I just think it's silly to waste any space on this article trying to disqualify ethnic Germans as soldiers of fortune. Wikipedia has at least 2 articles that go into depth on this, so if our readers want to know more about it, they can follow the links. Editors with strong opinions can go to those articles and continue the argument for decades, but this article shouldn't get mired down in that level of minutiae when it can be easily avoided. Canute (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm still firmly in your camp. Nobody has presented any argument against no modifiers, only arguments in favor of a particular modifier. So remove them all! —Dilidor (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I made the changes. It's not nearly as dramatic as it seems on this Talk page. There were only 3 references to "Mercenaries" that were removed. I left unchanged anything that had to do with perceptions and any reference titles. I also changed one reference to "Hessians" at the Battle of Bennington, which was almost entirely Brunswickers. Canute (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Professional Army

Just curious why you reverted this addition: When the war began, the 13 colonies lacked a professional army or navy, having relied on the professional military of Great Britain for protection.

This article already states that the colonies didn't have a professional army or navy, I was just trying to briefly explain why this was the case. We go on to explain that colonies relied on local militias; what they lacked was a professional, unified standing army. The reason they didn't need a colonial standing army was that the British army guarded the frontiers and the Royal Navy patrolled the seas. No surprise to anyone here, Great Britain eventually wanted the colonies to pay for this protection. This is over-simplified, but I don't see how it is "grossly inaccurate." Canute (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The Americans did not have an official standing army, as you say; each colony was expected to raise, train, and maintain its own militia. However, those militias functioned together as a united "miniature army", if you will, and fought in numerous wars and conflicts prior to the Revolution. The colonies fought the Pequot War, King Philip's War, and others—without any help from the British whatsoever. It's true that the Brits did get involved in the French and Indian War, and their view was that the Americans ought to foot some of the bill for that conflict. But at no time did the Colonies look to British military to provide military protection—at least not in the New England region. That might be an over-statement when it comes to the frontier areas, I haven't thought that through. But considering that the Revolutionary conflict caught flame in New England, and considering that one source of heat was the enforced housing of soldiers in Boston, I think it's a reasonable statement. My main contention here is that (at least in New England) the colonies did not look to the British military for protection or law enforcement. Perhaps we can find a compromise on the wording? —Dilidor (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's fine, I was just curious on your perspective and wondered what you had found objectionable. I'm looking to re-write this whole section (not to change content, just to make it more readable) and I don't want to invest a lot of time if it's going to create controversy. It's true what you say; the colonial militias were the first line of defense. But the militias weren't professional armies, and that's the distinction I would draw. The militias were essentially free, except the nominal supplies and arms provided by the crown. By contrast, the professional soldiers and sailors needed to secure the empire and protect the important trade routes was a significant economic drain. This gets complex and I know we can't get too detailed in this article, but I hope we can convey the basic story about why the colonies started a war with militias, and why their top officers (farmers, book-keepers, and merchants) were willing to accept European volunteers for the new Continental Army. Canute (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think you've just gotten a fine start on creating a subsection on the topic in your above paragraph. One thing to keep in mind, too, is that the militias were not professional soldiers, yet they had gotten a significant amount of first-hand experience in the preceding hundred years or so, so they were not untrained bumbling country bumpkins either. The militias did the lion's share of the fighting in the French and Indian War, if I'm remembering correctly; they certainly pulled their own weight. The distinction twixt professional and militia is touched upon already, but perhaps it deserves an additional couple paragraphs to expound on in order to clarify why the whole issue of billeting the British soldiers was so volatile and produced such indignation in the Americans. —Dilidor (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's all I want to do in regard to this specific topic. I just want to consolidate and clarify so make the section more readable, especially for Wikipedia users who aren't as familiar with the war. Thanks! Canute (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Misleading subsection header

There was a header entitled "International war breaks out" which I changed to "Britain faces other enemies overseas", but this has met with disagreement from another editor. My reasoning is that the conflicts which Britain faced in India and elsewhere had nothing whatsoever to do with the American War for Independence. The fact that Britain was fighting France and Spain overseas at the same time that she was fighting in America was of absolutely no concern to the Americans. Once they defeated Britain in America, the Americans stopped fighting—because the war was over. So the American War for Independence was not a world war. —Dilidor (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That perspective might depend on whether you're British or American. Canute (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A quick skim through Google Books typing "1778" and "international war"

• "Nevertheless, from 1778 the perspective shifted. Great Britain was now involved in an international war in which victory in America was no longer the sole or even the most important objective". Peter Whiteley. Lord North: The Prime Minister Who Lost America
• "The entry of these European powers transformed the American Revolution into a major international war". Elmer James Ferguson.The American Revolution: a general history, 1763-1790.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. There are countless more.

I feel like you've raised this issue before but then haven't' gone away and consulted the sources.

Beyond that is incumbent on you as the editor altering a stable version to make the case for the new version. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Those sources are discussing Britain's perspective on Britain's conflicts in Britain's wars throughout the history of Britain. This article is discussing the American struggle for American independence fought on American soil in America's national history. As I have already pointed out, the Americans did not view the overseas conflicts as having any relation to their own struggle for independence; they were absolutely and entirely unrelated wars. This is demonstrated by the fact that the American Revolution ended with the Paris treaty—even though Britain's overseas conflicts continued. They were two different wars.

Beyond this, the impact of my edit is incredibly minor, as I am only rewording a misleading sub-header. You are, without question, making a mountain out of a molehill.

As to my not being "gone away" or "consulting the sources," I would suggest that you reduce the aggression in your tone. You have no idea whom you are addressing when suggesting that another editor is or is not well read. —Dilidor (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You have changed this heading three times now, which suggests you place some importance on it.

There are a several statements in your first paragraph. Which RS do they come from? When articles change from a stable version, the onus is to justify the change using RS.

Domestic American affairs are covered in the American Revolution article. This article covers the global war as well as the fighting in America. I don't know where you got the impression it doesn't? That would effectively lead to a radical restructuring of the article. That is more than a molehill, surely?

Apologies, if you felt I was aggressive. It just seems this is a repeat of a discussion had several times before. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we remove any of the material concerning the global warfare, so I'm not "under the impression" that such fighting did not occur. But the article's focus is on the American Revolutionary War—which had nothing whatsoever to do with the conflicts in Mysore or Gibraltar. But the bigger thing that I want to reiterate is this: It's a sub-header! One is not called upon to provide citations for headers. Seriously, this is a tempest in a teapot. —Dilidor (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No this article covers the entire war, on all fronts.

"which had nothing whatsoever to do with the conflicts in Mysore or Gibraltar". But what are your sources for that statement? There are countless and easy to reach examples of the war being described as an international conflict post-1778. For that matter, overseas is confusing/misleading. Overseas from where?

I'll reiterate this: it is for you the editor changing a stable version to make the case to do so. If such a minor issue, why have you bothered to keep changing it back? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"This article is discussing the American struggle for American independence fought on American soil in America's national history." Who cares about that? The main topic is the British Empire struggling to survive in a multi-front war. The American insurrectionists were at best minor players in the war. Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I trust this was tongue-in-cheek. —Dilidor (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. In Greece, I was mainly taught about this war through a British and French perspective. Another European war for domination, with Americans not accomplishing much of note. Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that you take up this thread of thought in an article that addresses "Britain's war for European domination" or something to that effect. However, this article is about "America's war for independence", which you already recognize as unrelated to the other topic. —Dilidor (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

"This is demonstrated by the fact that the American Revolution ended with the Paris treaty—even though Britain's overseas conflicts continued." The Treaty of Paris (1783) was one part of the so-called Peace of Paris (1783). The British Empire signed seperate treaties with France, Spain, the United States, and (a year later) the Dutch Republic.:

• "The British lost their Thirteen Colonies and the defeat marked the end of the First British Empire. The United States gained more than it expected, thanks to the award of western territory. The other Allies had mixed-to-poor results. France got its revenge over Britain after its defeat in the Seven Years' War, but its material gains were minor (Tobago, Senegal and small territories in India) and its financial losses huge. It was already in financial trouble and its borrowing to pay for the war used up all its credit and created the financial disasters that marked the 1780s. Historians link those disasters to the coming of the French Revolution. The Dutch did not gain anything of significant value at the end of the war. The Spanish had a mixed result; they regained Menorca and Florida, but Gibraltar remained in British hands." Dimadick (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the section title as it was too long; Im currently happy with this change but open to suggestion on this argument about the war being classed as being 'overseas' as if it is veiwed from America itself. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"...as if it is veiwed [sic] from America itself." It's the American Revolutionary War!! Where else would it be viewed from?? Honestly, it's hard to take some of these comments seriously. —Dilidor (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The Dutch might see it as their war too? What about the French, the Spanish and the Mysores? Anyway the change I've made has been accepted that's good enough for me. 😊 Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm not getting through in my contention that those other conflicts were different wars. Regardless, it was a good edit and it resolves the issue. Thank you. —Dilidor (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I've switched this back to the original reversion, in light of the lack of RS being provided to support the new version. Dilidor, this is on you to provide evidence that these are separate wars.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll admit that at first I was on Dilidor's side with this. However, although I have yet to read the book from this link (the link is the Smithsonian Magazine, which more than meets the WP:RS standard imo) the article itself has me convinced that the AR was indeed one front of a much larger global war. Vyselink (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Not taking sides, but I just read this article and thought of the conversation on this page. How the British Won the American Revolutionary War One could pull bits of the article to support either position. For example, some members of Parliament introduced a motion which read among the Operations of the War, America should not be a theater. Note that they regarded the world-wide conflicts as one "War," and that North America was merely one theater of that war... and perhaps the one least worth winning. On the other hand, as you all know, Great Britain sought a separate peace with the United States in order to enter negotiations with France and Spain from a stronger position. (Do we consider the 1930-40s wars with Germany and Japan to be separate wars?) Anyway, I'm not making any edits, I'm just sharing an article I stumbled across. Canute (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

Change first paragraph from:

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence,[43] was an 18th-century war between Great Britain and its Thirteen Colonies (allied with France) which declared independence as the United States of America.[N 1]

To:

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence,[43] was an 18th-century war between Great Britain and Thirteen of it's Colonies (allied with France) which declared independence as the United States of America.[N 1] 62.255.13.42 (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Besides using "it's" incorrectly, this wouldn't be an improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

French Empire

In the infobox, why did we list the "French Empire" as a belligerent, when it was not created until 1804, and the article actually links (correctly) to Kingdom of France. I did see the footnote, about why we use "French Empire" as a colloquial term, but it doesn't really make sense to me. We should say "Kingdom of France" or just "France", which is perfectly clear to any reader. --Rob (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between the First French Empire (1804-1814, 1815) and the French colonial empire (1534-1980). The second indicates that French colonies were involved in the conflict. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I can see Rob's point tho. It is confusing. Why can't we just add "colonial" to it? French Colonial Empire. It's more accurate, and takes up only an extra word of space in the infobox. In fact, I'll do it now and see what happens. If for some reason it does thrown it out of whack someone can change it back. EDIT: Nvm. I should wait for consenus, so I won't change it. Vyselink (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

My point is that "France" or the "Kingdom of France" is sufficient, and avoids any conceivable misunderstanding. It is not necessary to say the "colonial empire" was involved, any more than it's necessary to say the army or navy are involved. What would it mean for France to be at war in this time period without involving its colonial empire?   Vyselink, a change to "French Colonial Empire" just takes up needless space. In any case, we should not be capitalizing the word "Empire", because it is not part of a proper name. We list "Dutch Republic" as a "co-belligerent", but there was also a "Dutch colonial empire" that was connected to this war, according to the article. --Rob (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I admit I misunderstood you the first time. Thanks for clarifying. "France" seems perfectly sufficient for the infobox. Canute (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

After waiting a few days, I realized that the InfoBox also names "Spanish Empire" and "British Empire." We need to be consistent. Should we change the text to "Spain" and "Great Britain"? Canute (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

yes, change the text to "Spain" and "Great Britain" -- the decisions were all made in Madrid & London Rjensen (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a general consensus (or at least no resistance), so I'm going to be bold and make the changes. Here they are in case anyone has a new objection:

1. Changed "French Empire" to "France"
2. Changed "Spanish Empire" to "Spain"
3. Changed "British Empire" to "Great Britain"

Only text was changed; no links or reference notes were altered. Canute (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I updated the link for "Great Britain" to Kingdom of Great Britain, since that's the relevant legal entity at war ("Great Britain" links to the island, so I didn't do that link. The display name remains "Great Britain", since that's the official name of the entity. --Rob (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

American War

Isn't it also just called the American War ? - Francis Tyers · 02:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Province of Quebec and Loyalist addition

Hello fellow Wikipedians. Given that the Province of Quebec and Loyalists were engaged in major offensive as well as defensive fighting on the side of the British; I move to make an addition accordingly under belligerents. Please let me know what you think, whether you support or oppose this decision. Cheers. MarkMcCain (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No they were an integral part of the British forces. Rjensen (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep an eye on your commas, folks.

User Dilidor is here, being helpful, and persisting in the mistaken belief that it is wrong to close parenthetical commas in compound dates and places. I have directed Dilidor to the pertinent sections of the Manual of Style, as have other editors. "Incorrect usage", Dilidor replies; "MOS is wrong---sorry". Dilidor does not deign to elaborate. I cannot find any authority in support of Dilidor's position. I have asked for an argument, at Talk:Plymouth Rock, but haven't seen one. In other words, Dilidor has been corrected, has been given, and declined, an opportunity to make a case, and continues to inflict his or her idiolect on the encyclopedia. What is this but vandalism? If we are so benighted, why doesn't Dilidor get the MOS amended? Learn to use a comma, Dilidor, or learn to live with it. Regulov (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not personally a fan of the parenthetical comma style proscribed by MOS, but that makes no difference. No editors' personal dislike of any part of MOS allows editing contrary to MOS. The current MOS is the current WP policy, and editing contrary to WP policy is, by definition, disruptive (though not vandalism -- WP:AGF). Any problems with MOS, real or imagined, must be discussed at MOS. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Regulov: Singling me out repeatedly in this fashion is not discussion, not civil discourse—it is essentially a personal attack. Your snide tone and patronizing manner merely exacerbate the attack. But calling me out in your edit summaries is over the line. One more offense and I will take steps to have you blocked. —Dilidor (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am, in fact, singling you out, but it is not a personal attack. I am singling you out because you and I just had this argument at Plymouth Rock, and here you are at it again. It isn't personal. It's about the commas. I believe you have every intention of continuing to remove correct commas willy-nilly, ignoring the MOS. My position is that if you sincerely (though incorrectly) believe that MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA are wrong, you have an obligation to make that case to the community and get the MOS changed; but whether you sincerely believe it or not, you have been advised of the MOS, and must stop removing the commas. No one is attacking you; stop removing the commas, and I will stop calling you out. Regulov (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

And, of course, you have reverted my edits. Your reason? "Personal attacks will get you banned." That is not a reason. Rather, it is an attempt to shift the ground of the debate from comma usage to feelings. But this is not about your feelings. It is about MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA. I will not join you in edit-warring, here, Dilidor, but I will prevail in the end, because I have a clear position and a reason, and you, as far as I can see, do not. What am I missing? Regulov (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The issue being discussed is the use of parenthetical commas in this article. Any consensus should be policy-based; comments about other editors cannot be helpful in this, and should be restricted to WP's drama pages. Until consensus is reached, changing the article with respect to the issue being actively discussed is, at best, unhelpful, and at worst a form of edit warring.

So far, MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA have been cited in support of parenthetical commas. Is there any policy or guideline in opposition, or some reason why the MOS policies cited do not apply in this case? Unless something like that is presented here, I think this subject is closed. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is not parenthetical commas. The issue here is that this editor has called me out repeatedly by name. Please look through the article's history, and you will see that he has called me out by name no less than 6 times in edit summaries. Then this post calls me out repeatedly in the most snarky and offensive manner. That is what I am responding to here. I could not care less about commas. —Dilidor (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You complain of other editors having a "snarky and offensive manner". Yet this is exactly what has characterised your own editing. This has gone on for months (my only memory of your edits has been of their arrogance). Just look at your attitude in Talk:James Otis Jr.#Burning his papers. We might yet need sourcing for James Otis Jr burning his papers, but the provenance is clear that you have burned through the community's goodwill by your persistent editing in this style. Thus, as at this page, you receive replies in a style which you don't like.

You need to change this attitude. Because it has reached a point where there's about to be an RfC or similar filed looking to formally restrict your editing, and the support for doing such is clearly there. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If you'll look at the tone that was begun in this thread by the original poster, you will recognize that my comments are in response—not initiation. I acknowledge that my words can be cutting, but it is always in response to someone else's instigation. —Dilidor (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

But you so readily take offence, Dilidor; there is always an instigation when you need one, and your skin can be so exquisitely sensitive. My edit summaries were intended to get your attention. They can hardly be called personal attacks, but it's fair to say I meant to tie a bell around your neck. We settled this just a few weeks ago at Plymouth Rock. You couldn't seem to advance an argument then, and cannot claim ignorance of the style guidelines now. You seem to expect me to forget your handle, or to tire. I do find disputes over imaginary slights tiresome; but I will not tire. Regulov (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Watauga Association

I see that Watauga Association is listed in the infobox under "American Indians" as fighting on the side of the colonists. First off, it doesn't appear to be mentioned at any point in the body of the article, and secondly, I don't know why a bunch of European settlers would be classified as "American Indians" anyway. What gives?--Danthemankhan 03:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

it's a mistake. Rjensen (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Restore older version of lead

There's been an unbelievably long discussion on Alanscottwalker's talk page about whether or not to capitalize the u in United States in the first sentence of the article. Here it is with the ref and note omitted:

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war between Great Britain and its Thirteen Colonies in America which declared independence in July 1776 as the United States of America.

This implies the war began in July, whereas the first shots were fired in April. It's also not very good prose. I found the following older version that not only gets around the lower- or upper-case u quibble, but, imo, introduces the topic much better. Here it is:

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between Great Britain and revolutionaries within thirteen of her North American colonies. The war, which eventually widened far beyond British North America, resulted in the overthrow of British rule in the thirteen colonies and the establishment of the United States of America.

I intended to boldly swap it out for the present version, but found the notice DO NOT MAKE ANY MAJOR EDITS TO THE LEAD, IT WAS AGREED UPON BY CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE. PLEASE DISCUSS IF YOU WISH TO CHANGE IT. So, what do my fellow editors think about restoring this version? YoPienso (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree to switching to the second (old) version listed above. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with the older version. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you two gentlemen. Howdy! And thanks for your input. It's been over 24 hrs. since I requested comments, so I'll go ahead and boldly swap out the lead. YoPienso (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this older version on a number of grounds. First, the top sentence most certainly does not imply that the war began in July. It is clearly stated that the colonies "declared independence in July 1776 as the United States of America". That is quite unambiguous; they did not declare war in July, but declared independence. Second, the wording "thirteen of her North American colonies" implies that there were more than 13—but there weren't. Third, the wording is loaded, such as "revolutionaries within thirteen" of the colonies, implying that it was a minority group which rose up and overthrew their fellow citizens which "resulted in the overthrow of British rule" and changed the ruling regime. Fourth, it's badly written, with problems such as the interruptive clause in that same sentence ("The war, which eventually..."). Fifth, it's over-linked; do we really need a link to the word "war"?

Please note that this discussion has only had 3 days and is hardly sufficient to reach a consensus; therefore I will revert until more discussion has been permitted. —Dilidor (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Dilidor! In response to your objections:

1. A person unfamiliar with the history of the Revolutionary War might infer from that wording that hostilities were sparked--or ended--when independence was declared.
2. Great Britain had other North American colonies in 1776, notably, Newfoundland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and Trinidad. That said, I agree that "its Thirteen Colonies" (dropping "in America"), would be an improvement over "thirteen of her North American colonies."
3. The revolutionaries were in the minority. The wording doesn't suggest they overthrew their fellow subjects. It was primarily the revolutionaries who fought Great Britain; the Tories and Loyalists and non-partisans didn't. Some Indians as well as French, Germans, and other Europeans joined the revolutionaries.
4. There's nothing wrong but everything right with the nonrestrictive modifying clause.
5. You must not have noticed I thought the same about bluelinking "war" and removed the link on the article page.

I think it's been 2 days since I boldly edited. How much time do you think is sufficient to reach a consensus? Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A person unfamiliar with the history of the Revolutionary War might infer from that wording that hostilities were sparked--or ended--when independence was declared. Technically, the final clause "which declared independence..." narrows the meaning of "Thirteen Colonies", it does not expand the information concerning the war. I suppose that a reader might misunderstand that, but it seems an unlikely misconstruction.

Great Britain had other North American colonies in 1776, notably, Newfoundland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, and Trinidad. I can see your point here, and I agree that it would be better to drop "in America" as it's redundant information; there was only one locality specifically referred to as the Thirteen Colonies. That's an easy fix.

The revolutionaries were in the minority. I do not agree with this. Most Americans were supportive of independence, or at the very least held a tenuous neutrality. The Loyalists were the minority.

There's nothing wrong but everything right with the nonrestrictive modifying clause. We can agree to disagree here.

As to timeframe, I don't have a specific deadline. I believe that the relevant Wiki guideline re: talk-page discussions is deliberately vague and suggests roughly a week, but it's been a long time since I read them and don't even remember now where to find them. I'm hoping that other frequent editors will chime in here. —Dilidor (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear and polite response. YoPienso (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

After reading this I think both editors make decent points. I have a suggested compromise that I think takes the best of both:

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies, although it eventually expanded far beyond North America. Its result was the overthrow of British rule of the colonies and the establishment of the United States of America.

Personally I don't think we need the "declared independence" bit in the lead. I think we can all agree that this is page about the war, not the Declaration, and as the war started in 1775 it is unnecessary to waste time about the Declaration, which while a part of the war's events, did not start the war. I think the "Thirteen Colonies" is specific enough to warrant the definitive article and to simply say "the Thirteen Colonies" (linked of course). Adding "revolutionaries of" seems superfluous, as when push comes to shove the Colonies officially went to war, regardless of what percentage may or may not have openly supported it (although I have heard numbers ranging from 1/3 to just under a half). Thoughts? Vyselink (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

POV alert--"between Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies," is a British perspective rejected by the USA, France, Netherlands, and not accepted by most historians based in UK. The fighting started with the :United Colonies" in 1775 who became the USA in 1776. Rjensen (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Which is why Wikipedia has an entire page dedicated to the Thirteen Colonies and not at all to "United Colonies". The term "United Colonies" was used for barely a year. You will need to provide evidence of your claim that it "is a British perspective rejected by the USA, France, Netherlands, and not accepted by most historians based in UK". While I do not claim as robust a career as yours Prof., my 25 years in the American educational system as both student and American History teacher, and my 5 years in the UK educational system as an American Studies scholar working towards (and achieving) a PhD in American Studies left me with a far different impression of how often the term is used in those two nations. Even the Office of the Historian (see here) refers to them as the "13 American colonies". Should you demonstrate compelling evidence that the term is not used (or even accepted) by most historians a number of pages regarding the American Revolution will have to be altered. Vyselink (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad for more input! I pretty much agree with Dilidor and Vyselink. No need to mention the DOI or revolutionaries. I do like that nonrestrictive modifying clause, though. Tacking it onto the first sentence weakens that first, defining sentence, which should be bold and crisp. Regarding the 13 Colonies, we could write "thirteen American colonies" and link to "Thirteen Colonies," and they should probably be named first as they were both the Americans and the revolutionaries for whom the war is named. Is eventually necessary? Here's a proposal:

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between the thirteen American colonies and Great Britain. The war, which widened far beyond British North America, resulted in the overthrow of British rule in the colonies and the establishment of the United States of America.

Alternately, the last sentence could read, "The result of the war, which widened far beyond British North America, was the overthrow of British rule in the colonies and the establishment of the United States of America."

YoPienso (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I was looking at Paul Stock, "America and the American Revolution in British Geographical Thought, c. 1760–1830." English Historical Review 131.548 (2016): 64-91. which shows most British geographers approved or celebrated the new USA. eg John Payne’s Universal Geography (1791). Americans In 1778 rejected British offers of reunion expressed in the Carlisle Peace Commission-- in which London still talked about colonies and America talked about independent states. [Anthony Gregory, "'Formed for Empire': The Continental Congress Responds to the Carlisle Peace Commission." Journal of the Early Republic 38.4 (2018): 643-672.] Indeed by 1778 London had pretty well given up on the American colonies, ir making reconquest a low priority, and gave much greater emphasis to "higher priorities in the Caribbean Sea, maritime Europe, and the Indian Ocean." says James Holmes, ["Lessons from George III: When the U.S. War of Independence mushroomed into an international maritime conflict with the entry of France and Spain, Great Britain made the best of the situation by prioritizing" Naval History Aug 2018, 32#4 pp 16-21] Specifically, Lord Sandwich may defense against France a much higher priority than recovery of the colonies. [Ethan R Bennett, "Fidelity and Zeal: The Earl of Sandwich, Naval Intelligence, and the Salvation of Britain, 1763–1779." Historian 2008, 70#4 pp 669-696.] Chatham & Edmund Burke were prominent spokesman for the rights of Americans--they get rather more praise from historians than do George III, Lord Germaine or Lord North. [In an open letter (May 16, 1777): Burke said the one indisputable empirical fact was that "the disposition of the people of America is wholly averse to any other than a free government." [q in Peter Stanlis, Political Science Reviewer. 2006, Vol. 35 p 88]. As for modern historians, Roy Porter says "the War of American Independence proved a watershed, acutely dividing the political nation and a constitutional issue, and inciting many City merchants and tradesmen to side with His Majesty's enemies." [Porter, English society in the 18th-century, 1982 p 345.]. According to Andrew O'Shaughnessy (historian) -- an Englishman-- Lord Germaine--The main designer of the British war effort-- "Is widely regarded by historians as having been utterly deluded." [The men who lost America 2013 p 198.] For historian Jeremy Black 6 February 1778 saw two treaties of alliance and of commerce "between France and the United States" He goes on: The war in North America took second place for the British, below the struggle with France. [Crisis of Empire: Britain and America in the 18th century 2008 p 155] Black notes that the King even after Yorktown was determined to recapture the colonies. Meanwhile, Lord Germaine came up with a new strategy to fight back. However, willingness to battle on in America was disappearing [Crisis of empire pp 167, 168]. The highly favorable British view of the American Revolution, with its positive treatment of Chatham, Burke, Fox, Rockingham, and Shelburne is of course due to George Otto Trevelyan, The American Revolution published 1899-1914. Rjensen (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Vyselink has offered the best compromise so far: "The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies, although it eventually expanded far beyond North America. Its result was the overthrow of British rule of the colonies and the establishment of the United States of America." That with the caveat that we should work out the difference of opinion concerning "Thirteen Colonies" first. My own view on that question is that they were known as the Thirteen Colonies for most of their existence, and it's a commonly understood name. But I'm open to other arguments. —Dilidor (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

They were not known as the 13 colonies after 1775 in US or France, Netherlands, Spain, Russia. The holdouts were King George and his top aides. Even in 1778 when the King decided not to fight for all 13 of them he still called them that. Better to use the name USA to follow most RS. Rjensen (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen: @Vyselink: Would this work as a compromise: "...between Great Britain and the United Colonies which became...."? This would read with the technically accurate appellation while linking to the relevant article. —Dilidor (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

yes, ok by me. Rjensen (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Small quibbles but shouldn't it be "overthrow of British rule in those colonies", I think the part about beyond North America muddies a bit what colonies are being referred to when you get to the second sentence. Or perhaps lose the 'beyond North America' until later in the lead as it moves from main belligerents to geography or/and add a separate sentence at the end of the first para, about the conflicts between Great Britain and . . . . . that took it beyond North America? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I object to introducing the little-known term, "United Colonies," and to linking the term to an article which nowhere says "United Colonies." YoPienso (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

perhaps the fault is Wikipedia's -- it is not a strange term see the key passages in the two most famous documents of the era: the Declaration of Independence states: in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.... Jefferson was not alone-- the key proposal in Thomas Paine Common Sense (1776) = " let their business be to frame a CONTINENTAL CHARTER, or Charter of the United Colonies; (answering to what is called the Magna Charta of England) fixing the number and manner of choosing members of Congress, members of Assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between them: (Always remembering, that our strength is continental, not provincial.) Securing freedom and property to all men, and above all things the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; with such other matter as is necessary for a charter to contain. " Rjensen (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is not hard to see why 'Thirteen Colonies' is almost universally preferred and used, (the reader knows immediately you are talking about thirteen and not 18 or 27; and it conveys subnominally not the Floridas, Quebec, Vermont, etc., etc.) it is simply more informative, precise, and basically anodyne (if a knock on 'Thirteen Colonies' is that it contains a hidden POV, 'United Colonies' is open and blatant in its very purpose to convey a POV, and in some senses, a wish, not a reality) and, moreover, revolutionaries did refer to the group as 13. Nonetheless, there is an easy fix, 'Thirteen Colonies (sometimes known as, United Colonies)'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's nice of you to be willing to compromise, but stylistically, that compromise just adds bloat to the lead. Since "United Colonies" appears nowhere in the article, it's inappropriate to stick it into the lead. Now, if someone wants to add this insignificant detail down in the article, no problem. Note, however, that even in our article on the history of the USA, it appears only twice, once in the DOI, and then in an explanatory comment immediately following, and the source is history.com. IMO, this quibble is along the lines of insisting John Hancock was the first POTUS. YoPienso (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Yopienso. "United Colonies" is simply not used outside of academia. And even within academia is rarely used, despite Rjensen's claim of "no one uses Thirteen Colonies". An explanatory sentence or two about "United Colonies" is certainly appropriate in the body of the page, but not the lead. Vyselink (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Time for a consensus

It seems no one else is joining this discussion, which opened Jan. 4. Do we have a consensus now? How is this?

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between the thirteen American colonies and Great Britain; it resulted in the overthrow of British rule in the colonies and the establishment of the United States of America.

YoPienso (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution. I concur. —Dilidor (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

well no, it was fought MAINLY after july 1776 between the independent nation USA and Great Britain. It was not fought "mainly by the colonies."--the direction of the American war effort was by the Congress not by the colonies or thee states. The UK did not control more than a small fraction (like 10%) of the USA after 1775. Rjensen (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Rjensen at this point you seem to simply be arguing for the sake of arguing. Yes, the colonies declared independence in July 1776, but if you want to be ultra-technical the United States of America wasn't formed until March of 1781, when the Articles of Confederation came into force and Article I officially created the new union and name of the former colonies. So by your logic the entire first 6 years of the Revolution should be nulled and the war began in 1781, as it was only then that THE United States of America began fighting Britain. Beyond that, I can't imagine that you deny that Lexington and Concord were the beginnings of the war, so your "MAINLY after july 1776", while technically accurate, is pointless, unless you are in fact arguing that Lexington and Concord (in 1775) did not start the war. So I'm pretty sure that the dates of 1775-1783 are accurate. You also miss the undeniable fact that, even if your "10%" number is accurate (sources?) had Britain gone on to win the war the USA would have ceased to exist and once again the land would have been colonies of Great Britain.

Your argument that Congress ran the war effort, and that this somehow means that the thirteen colonies didn't fight it is borderline absurd. The men of the Congress, last time I checked, didn't fight the war. The men of the colonies, under the direction of the Continental Congress (themselves REPRESENTATIVES of the colonies) and George Washington did. This to me solidifies that the "thirteen colonies" did in fact fight the war. It's akin to saying that "America didn't fight in World War II, it was the federal government and the United States military that did because President's Roosevelt and Truman ran the country." Equally absurd.

Beyond Rjensen, I don't believe the above is completely accurate. Because we know that the war spread farther than just the USA and Britain (already alluded to by the "fought primarily between" statement) we should mention the fact that it became much larger. I would recommend

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between Great Britain and thirteen of its American colonies, although it would expand far beyond North America. The result was the final dissolution of British rule of the colonies and the recognition of the United States of America as an independent nation with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris.

To me, this literally hits everything that the opening paragraph should say. It gives the dates, recognizes the main belligerents while also acknowledging that the war spread, and ends with the final outcome. The rest of the lead expands on this a bit, and then the article fleshes it out. Vyselink (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No, this latest tweak muddies the waters and opens a can of worms, to horribly mix my metaphors. The War of American Independence did not "expand far beyond North America". It ended in 1783 and England left—only to turn her guns toward France. This last detail did not concern America in any way, as Washington took great pains to stay out of it. This article is about the American War for Independence, not about what followed. The "fought primarily" statement is not referring to the conflicts which followed twixt England and just about everyone else in the world; it is an allusion to the fact that French forces and German mercenaries were also involved.

As to the difficulty which Rjensen is bringing up: the Thirteen Colonies were fighting for their independence during the war—which is why it's called the War of Independence—and therefore they technically did not become the "independent USA" until they won that war. So, since this discussion has again bogged down in technicalities, it's technically more accurate to say "the thirteen American colonies" than to say "the USA". —Dilidor (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"technically" is a meaningless termand no RS is cited for using it. so drop it. the USA became independent in international affairs when the rest of the world started treating it that way--in early 1778. But the "13 colonies" did not not direct its half of the war at any time--and anyway the 13 states were FORMER colonies during the war. Congress always ran the war from April 1775 to 1783. London indeed recognized that when it made various peace /compromise proposals with Congress NOT with the 13 several colonies/states (eg Howe Sept 1776 @ [[Staten Island Peace Conference]] met with Franklin, Adams, Rutledge appointed by Congress; Paul Wentworth sent by London met w Franklin (Congress's diplomat) in Paris Dec 1777; likewise Lord North's Carlisle Peace Commission in early 1778)). So London Paris etc all worked with Congress, not with the 13 states. Rjensen (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Then kindly propose a solution instead of persistently finding problems. —Dilidor (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

OK try this. Keep in mind that we can assume users now about the USA but not necessarily the "thirteen colonies"--which are sufficiently mentioned in 2nd paragraph: In the '''American Revolutionary War''' (1775{{ndash}}1783), also known as the '''American War of Independence''' a new nation the United States of America under the leadership of Congress and General George Washington broke away from the [[British Empire]] and in alliance with France and others defeated Great Britain and secured its independence. {{refn|This article primarily refers to the locals who supported Congress as "Americans", "Patriots" or "Revolutionaries". Those who supported the Crown are referred to as "Loyalists" or "Tories". The geographical area of the new nation is often referred to simply as "America".|group=N}} Rjensen (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I largely agree with Vyselink and Dilidor. Unsurprisingly, I prefer my own suggestion, but would happily accept Vyselink's, though I don't understand why he puts Britain first. In my mind, although goaded by real and perceived British injustices, it was the Colonies that actually started the war and were the eponymous revolutionaries, so they should be named first. Also, dissolution seems so tame a word to use; the events seem better described by the vigorous word overthrow. YoPienso (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Here is YoPienso's suggestion, the best we've cobbled thus far:

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between the thirteen American colonies and Great Britain; it resulted in the overthrow of British rule in the colonies and the establishment of the United States of America.

Rjensen's chief objection, as far as I can understand, is in the use of "Thirteen Colonies" vs. "United States" or "United Colonies". Therefore, I suggest the following resolution:

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between the United Colonies in America and Great Britain; it resulted in the overthrow of British rule in the colonies and the establishment of the United States of America.

Please note that "United Colonies" links to Thirteen Colonies for clarification (and I've removed links to GB and US, which require none) and is otherwise concise and precise. Can we please agree to this compromise? —Dilidor (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been passively following this discussion, and while I think it's fantastic that everyone is trying to reach consensus, I don't believe you're going to achieve unanimity. It probably has less to do with anyone's individual knowledge of history and more to do with our preferred visions for this article. That comes to bear in this discussion because you're trying to sum up the entire American Revolutionary War experience into one or two sentences. (For my part, I wouldn't attempt such a feat in public.) It's difficult enough to define the scope of the entire article let alone the condensed introduction. I find most of the proposed introductions here to be acceptable because I understand the inherent difficulty of the task. The term "United Colonies" is fine but not perfect, either. It is sometimes used to refer to the rebellion in the pre-independence phase of the war, but when the war started the colonies were not yet united. That first year involved both political and physical violence to determine which colonies would be a part of the union. The 2nd Continental Congress referred to itself as the United Colonies in its petitions, but it wasn't yet a full political entity nor did it yet consist of all 13 colonies. The historic stage gate to this "United Colony" phase was the document which declared the "United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States." We then move into a different phase of the conflict when the "United States of America" exists as a real political entity and seeks recognition, which happens in another year and a half. But by then it's only 1778, and we're quite at half way point in the war. My point is that the "United Colonies" as an entity only existed for a short period after the war had already begun. Beyond that, we're apparently linking to 13 Colonies instead of United Colonies, which seems to be a compromise but still makes me question the decision.

Like I said, there's no perfect answer when trying to be complete and yet concise, and I don't envy those of you who have accepted this challenge. I would therefore accept any of the proposed solutions. Perhaps "consensus" here should refer to the recognition that there's no perfect solution. Canute (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

the RS agree the war started in April 1775 and the Congress immediately took control within days. They took charge of the forces from several colonies that surrounded Boston and appointed one of their leaders George Washington to command it. The "13 colonies" was never a political unit of any kind and it did not have a role after the war started (all 13 stopped being colonies and got rid of the British officials). Congress was in charge--and London agreed--and deserves the credit. "13 colonies" is a very useful shortcut for the CAUSES of this war, but this article is about how the war was fought. Rjensen (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

My reason for putting Britain first was for grammatical purposes. It allows for the use of "thirteen of its American colonies" in order to work around the, imo, unwieldy use of "United Colonies", to which I very strongly object as it is a phenomenally little used term even within academia (which Canute highlighted well). However, since the "Thirteen Colonies" seems to be causing Rjensen so much pain, despite the common use of the term as can be shown by the fact that whatever we call it the PAGE which it seems we will be linking to is called "Thirteen Colonies", that seemed to me to be a compromise. "United Colonies", given it's very short history, should be mentioned in the body of the page, but the lead is not the place for it. As far as I can see, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, specifically #'s 7 and 8, argue against the use of "United Colonies" as well:

7. Scientific journals. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.

"Thirteen Colonies" is straight forward and common usage, and even if Rjensen's dislike of the term should prevail, "United Colonies" is by no means any better, in fact is it demonstrably worse by this standard. Thus my wording of Britain first, then "thirteen of its American colonies".

8. Academic language. Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible.

This to me is why we won't, seemingly, be linking to "United Colonies".

I shall offer another suggestion:

 The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between the thirteen former British colonies that formed the United States of America and Great Britain. It resulted in the overthrow of British rule in the colonies and British recognition of the new nation of the United States of America.

Vyselink (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

OK try this: "The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought by Great Britain to regain control of its former colonies that revolted and formed the United States of America under Congress and George Washington. Britain was without major allies but the United States had the critical military and financial support of France and others and prevailed." This assume our readers are already aware of Britain the US and France, --it is not necessary to introduce the 13 colonies in the opening sentences--it comes later in discussing the origins. This version has the advantage of explaining why Britain lost the war. Rjensen (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Still not convinced by Rjensen's arguments, declaring independence is just not the same a securing independence and the revolutionary war is a proceeding of events involving multiple people, not, to paraphrase John Adams, 'the striking of the ground and out sprang George Washington'. Each colony had to overthrow its government and fight until the supporters of its colonial polity gave up and agreed to give-up, which is one of the reasons why the war is often analysed as a civil war. At any rate, I think all the proposals that refer to the "thirteen colonies" are better. (see eg. Britannica "American Revolution, also called United States War of Independence or American Revolutionary War, (1775–83), insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence and went on to form the United States of America."[1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 The American Revolutionary War was a military struggle between Great Britain and some revolting Americans.

Winner? Canute (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I would oppose this phrasing. Per the Cambridge dictionary, "revolting" is a synonym for "extremely unpleasant", "disgusting", "loathsome", "skanky", "foul", "repellent", and "yucky". Such a descriptions about the Americans who betrayed their king would fall under Anti-Americanism. Dimadick (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

1783 is much too late dating "independence." The Patriots "secured" independence as a nation in 1778 when London turned its main attention to France, Spain etc--and made a stab at picking off Georgia and South Carolina which failed by 1781. Rjensen (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion?

Ok. At this point Rjensen is arguing just for arguing and attempting to get his pet beliefs into WP as fact. Let's get this done. And Canute's suggestion, if it wasn't made in jest, is clearly not appropriate for the reasons Dimadick stated.

I still believe my most recent suggestion takes into account nearly everything, is accurate and succinct (with one change, I added "final", which could also be changed to "permanent")

 The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was a war fought primarily between the thirteen former British colonies that formed the United States of America and Great Britain. It resulted in the (final/permanent) overthrow of British rule in the colonies and British recognition of the new nation of the United States of America.

Let's create a new subsection, place the most recent suggestions into it, have people vote, and see where we stand. Vyselink (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This is truly becoming absurd. The more we tweak this, the more confusing it becomes. PLEASE: let's all stop a moment and recognize that we are writing one single introductory sentence! We are not called upon to summarize the entire Revolutionary War in this sentence. I would like to return to the rendition with which we opened this subsection, and I'll take the opportunity to refine it for clarity:

The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), also known as the American War of Independence, was fought primarily between Great Britain and her Thirteen Colonies in America; it resulted in the overthrow of British rule in the colonies and the establishment of the United States of America.

We need to put this to rest, as Vyselink suggests. —Dilidor (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. YoPienso (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no problems with either my suggestion or Dilidor's. Vyselink (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Prefer the concise Dilidor proposal. (even though I would prefer more, to phrase it as, " . . . thirteen of its colonies in North America" or ". . . thirteen of its North American colonies." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Good! I put it in the article yesterday. YoPienso (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)