Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 2010 Early U.S. History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ducky325 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Saroka26 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Death toll for the British does not contain diseases.

It estimated around 24,000-25,000 British died all together including battle related deaths and disease. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Lee Resolution in lead

How about the addition of the Lee Resolution in the lead? The present text: "Fighting began on April 19, 1775, followed by the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776." could change to "Fighting began on April 19, 1775, followed by the Lee Resolution on July 2, 1776, and the Declaration of Independence on July 4." Thanks for considering. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Have added this, please revert and discuss if any objections, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Date of Boston Tea Party in lead

May be better per accuracy (and as the 250th anniversary approaches) if the exact date of the Boston Tea Party is presented in the lead. The change would be "on December 16" instead of "later that year". Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Exact date added, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War

Thanks and commendations for the recent collegial outcome in ARW article Introduction to User:Magicpiano here and User:021120x here.

- RESULT: ”The American Patriots were supported by the Kingdom of France and, to a lesser extent, the Dutch Republic and the Spanish Empire, in a conflict taking place in North America, the Caribbean, and the Atlantic Ocean.”

I have added a link to the critical information justifying these Intro additions in the Article #See Also section, found at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Spoken article

Per user request, I plan to record a spoken version of the article soon (intro only). Any feedback is welcomed. 0101Abc (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

|title=

should probably be

|title=

I expect this has been a typo or I am mistaken and this is a spelling I'm unfamiliar with. If so, please disregard this message. Give me2424 (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done: it is spelled "Kassel" in Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel, but later in this article it spells it as "Cassel": The most important was Hesse-Cassel, known as "the Mercenary State". Footnote and article spelling has been changed to "Kassel". TGHL ↗ 🍁 06:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Infobox photo

If there's some new rule regarding the infobox photo being too large, just crop out the bottom two images. There was no need to fix this photo in the first place. If that's still a problem, then use Lord Cornwallis' surrender portrait at Yorktown (top photo) only. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

I would like to include in the further reading list a book by the American Historian Gordon Wood The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787. HistoryGuy2022 (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done: Book has been added to the further reading list. DDMS123 (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Image caption styling

Many of the images have an unusual 'break' styling, and many don't. Should be consistent use, and the non-break caption seems to be Wikipedia style. Was this a page decision at some point? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Photo and image formatting needs to be reviewed and improved

More and more photos, illustrations and other images have been added to this article over the last several years, giving it an increasingly cluttered look that makes it difficult to read, particularly for people with visual impairments. At least several of these image additions appear to violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Accessibility standards which urge editors to "Avoid placing images on the left hand side as a consistent left hand margin makes reading easier" and "Avoid sandwiching text between two images or, unless absolutely necessary, using fixed image sizes." At this point, several images need to be removed or repositioned in an image gallery in order to bring the article back into compliance with the MOS and make it more accessible for Wikipedia users with visual impairments. 47thPennVols (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaders

George III is listed as a 'leader' in the conflict. It is doubtful that he was a leader in a political sense, and he certainly was not one in a military sense. By the late 18th Century Great Britain had by and large moved to a system of Constitutional Monarchy as the concept is understood today for practical purposes. Therefore George III should be removed from the list. 82.132.187.157 (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

He was commander in chief in the modern sense: he appointed all officers and had a say in where troops went, although the decision to fight the war, how to fight it and how to end it were made by cabinet. TFD (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The Green Dragoon

This book by Robert Bass is biased. He included the most sensational tales he could find And resorted to some fiction as well. In addition, the reference to use is not the book itself. It is actually a review of the book. That puts the statement in doubt. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

Hi,

I noticed a possible error in the 3rd sentence of the 4th paragraph of the article [American Revolutionary War]. Currently, the sentence states the following:

    "Fighting began in March at the Battle of Lexington on April 19, 1775."

I think there is a mistake in the sentence. I think the sentence should read as follows:

    "Fighting began in April at the Battle of Lexington on April 19, 1775."

If you agree with what I have noticed, please change the 4th word of the sentence from March to April.

Best regards. HappySimba (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done I cleaned up the wording to just say "Fighting began at the Battle of Lexington, [...]"

The American War

Given that the "American War" is explicitly referred to as a name for the war in the UK, and that American War links to the Vietnam War, since that is what the Vietnamese called it, I see no good reason why that shouldn't be listed as an alternate title for the war, at the beginning of the article. It is what every British person learns to call it in school. As the name that the primary belligerent both historically and currently calls the war, this should be stated at the top of the article as an alternate name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StossDrewppen (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Popups not working?

The navigation popup (WP:POPUPS) is showing only }} instead of the first few lines of the article, which suggests that a template somewhere is possibly not properly opened, closed, or nested, probably in the lede. But I cannot figure out for the life of me where due to the number of templates. It might be some other issue entirely not related to templates, even. But, can anyone figure out why the popups are showing only the braces? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Confederation period

I was thinking that we can mention in the infobox that the United States was governed under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 until shortly after the war. In other words, change the page link in the infobox from United States to Confederation period. Volker89 (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023

Skagg13 (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Under section "Strategies and commanders, subsection "American strategy", second paragraph, second sentence, it reads "Together, these milias denied France's claims...".

The word "milias" is a typo meant to be the word "militias".

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

Grammatical error.

Please change: During the war, American patriot forces eventually gained the support by the Kingdom of France and the Kingdom of Spain.

to:

During the war, American patriot forces eventually gained the support of the Kingdom of France and the Kingdom of Spain.

To reiterate, change ‘by’ to ‘of’. 153.161.152.154 (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oldest Written Constitution

'The United States has the world's oldest written constitution' is at odds with the wikipedia article on constitutions which states

"The Constitution of San Marino might be the world's oldest active written constitution, since some of its core documents have been in operation since 1600, while the Constitution of the United States is the oldest active codified constitution" 2A00:23C5:DDA8:9B01:5C76:A43D:476D:4AE3 (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Good luck getting Americans to adjust claims like the one you mention. I think that if you insist someone would simply edit the article on Constitutions to make it compliant with the claim. This is the Anglophone Wikipedia, Man. If you want the facts differently, go to the French Wikipedia. Incidentally, these kinds of posts have a better chance of being taken seriously if you sign them. Just a suggestion. Ereunetes (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained Reversion

Hello Slatersteven,

Can you please explain revision 1174430529?

The comment does not provide any kind of explanation or rationale. 021120x (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes it did I asked why holy roman empire. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Because that's where they came from. 021120x (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

No they were Hessian. Most sources (all?) call them German mercenaries. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I have now changed the text to better reflct the reality, there were more than just Hessians anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@021120x@SlaterstevenThe Landgraviate of Hesse-Kassel was a principality of the Holy Roman Empire in the relevant period so 021120x is formally correct. Calling the Hessians "Germans" is the usual shorthand, though, even though it may be called an anachronism. There were other "Germans" as mercenaries in British pay, but they were likewise denizens of the Holy Roman Empire. But who cares? Not many Americans I am afraid. Ereunetes (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So what is the solution, call them German or "Holy Roman Empire"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have just made a very minor change and came across this particular debate. It reminds me of the article about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. It’s complicated.

• “Born in Salzburg, then in the Holy Roman Empire and currently in Austria…” Later: “ Salzburg was the capital of the Archbishopric of Salzburg, an ecclesiastic principality in the Holy Roman Empire (today in Austria)” with a note “ The many changes of European political borders since Mozart's time make it difficult to assign him an unambiguous nationality”; for discussion, see Nationality of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart My thought: The soldiers were certainly not Romans, so a brief mention that their principality was part of the Holy Roman Empire is sufficient. What they were NOT, was “mercenaries” so that word should always be in quotes. During their service in this particular war, the common name for them was Hessians. See Hessian (soldier). Reading through that article might give you some ideas.

Nevertheless, the soldiers may have considered themselves to be “ethnically” German, and those who deserted found a reception with “German” communities in america. (Or Should that be German-speaking communities or ethnically German communities?)

Similar situations exist today with what we might call nationless groups: possibly Kurds, Sihks, Tibetans, Consider Chinese in North America, Japanese in Peru, Syrians in Germany. Also indigenous: Sami in Scandinavia, Maori in NZ, and indigenous people of Australia (where there is now a campaign to vote for recognition). The term Native American comes up in War of Independence articles. It is incorrect and they should be referred to as their tribe/band/nation or as indigenous.

I hope that helps. A brief explanation or attached note is probably the solution in this article. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead length

Hello! The current lead is 930 words and eight paragraphs! The article is a little over 16,000 words, 106,000 characters. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH we should probably get this down to less than 600 words and 5-6 paragraphs. No firm rules, of course, but in my opinion the lead is definitely too long at the moment. I'm happy to take a swing at trimming it, but per the invisible comment, wanted to garner consensus and gather opinions from regular contributors to the page before doing so. What material should be 100% kept per pre-existing consensus? I'll be looking back through the talk page archives as well. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Reasons for the British deteat

Maybe I just missed the section but what exactly were the reasons for the defeat of the British? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It says in the article that Parliament voted to stop fighting and a new government that supported U.S. independence negotiated a peace treaty. TFD (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Dutch republic bellingerent

Even tho they did not enter into a formal alliance i think they should be included since they played a big role, maybe put unofficial above it, or a note Fxzeds (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

They where a Co-belligerent im pretty sure Fxzeds (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a difficult point. Formally the Dutch Republic (unlike France and Spain) did not enter into an alliance with the Americans, even after they were attacked by Britain in 1781 for allegedly "conniving" with the Americans (or maybe because that accusation was used by the British as a casus belli). But of course informally there was much Dutch support in the form of supplies (St. Eustatius before that entrepot was eleminated by the British) and money (the loan that John Adams belatedly managed to get). In any case the other belligerents treated the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War as a separate matter, and the peace was separate also. I think a formal alliance was politically impossible because it would have had to be concluded over William V's dead body (him being a full nephew of George III). And he was sore, because he thought the Declaration of Independence was a bad persiflage of the Act of Abjuration. (there are indeed textual similarities). In any case, when Hamilton consolidated the US Federal Debt, he refinanced it with a Dutch loan (which is commemorated in Washington's first State of the Union). Has that been paid off yet, by the way? Ereunetes (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Spain did not have an alliance with the United States. Spain was only allied with France. Spain never formally recognized America as an independent state. 021120x (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@021120x I just want to say that the exact same goes for the dutch too they also, goes by the term co belligerent, as for the reason u put spain into the co belligerent the same thing the dutch did, shouldnt they be added too then? Fxzeds (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no Justice. I did not know that Spain only deserves to be called a "co-belligerent" through their relationship with the French. But the Dutch did not even have that claim to being a "co-belligerent". They were just the innocent victims of British paranoia. The fact that the British used the incident of the capture of Henry Laurens on the High Seas with a compromising document to "justify" their aggression against the Dutch, is not sufficient to make the Dutch Republic a co-belligerent in the American Revolutionary War. The French could not be bothered to formally ally with the Dutch, and neither did they allow the Dutch to take part in the Peace conference (so the British were allowed to continue the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War for another year after the 1783 peace that ended the Revolutionary War). The Dutch could have formally recognized the Continental Congress earlier, of course, and formally allied themselves with the Americans. But they would have had to do that over the Dead Body of the reactionary Dutch stadtholder (nephew of king George III). In other words, the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War was fought parallel with the Revolutionary War, but not as an integral part. Even though John Adams in a very late stage got his Dutch Loan and the treaty of Amity and Commerce. But that was not a military alliance. So I am afraid the Wikipedian guardians of this page have a point if they insist on their formalistic exclusion. Even if it would behoove the Americans to recognize that the Dutch suffered greatly on their behalf. But I am afraid they are blissfully unaware of that fact:-) Ereunetes (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind you are right the Dutch indeed did not enter into a formal alliance with France Fxzeds (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to participate in this debate, but I can contribute three points:

1. The article List of Military Leaders in the American Revolutionary War says “The Dutch Republic played a significant economic role in the war, but its military participation was limited,” But the article is a list of MILITARY leaders.

2. There was a naval battle.

3. whether or not it was an “excuse”, a draft treaty carried by a representative of the Continental Congress is a pretty clear indication of belligerence. Further, the article about Henry Laurens says he “successfully negotiated Dutch support for the war.” The British had enough problems; they didn’t take on more without good reason. The Dutch were belligerents despite American preference to exclude anything not directly involving the US. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"to exclude anything not directly involving the US." This is primarily a European conflict, placing the Kingdom of Great Britain and a few German states of the Holy Roman Empire against the Kingdom of France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic. The American involvement was not particularly significant. Dimadick (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Images are overflowing the sections, leaving a lot of blank space and not matching the sections they appear by

Should a switch to the image gallery system be used for some of the images instead of inserting them all on the right hand side? Occono (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Indigenous allies

Hello Machete457 (talk · contribs). Could you change all occurrences of “Native Americans” to “indigenous peoples”. It would be useful to check whether a more specific (“tribal”) term exists. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Taxation and legislation

[[File:Philip Dawe (attributed), The Bostonians Paying the Excise-man, or Tarring and Feathering (1774) - 02.jpg|thumb|alt=In the foreground, five leering men of the Sons of Liberty are holding down a Loyalist Commissioner of Customs agent, one holding a club. The agent is tarred and feathered, and they are pouring scalding hot tea down his throat. In the middle ground is the Boston Liberty Tree with a noose hanging from it. In the background, is a merchant ship with protestors throwing tea overboard into the harbor.|A 1774 illustration of John Malcolm, a [[Loyalist]] customs official, tarred and feathered by the Sons of Liberty under the Liberty Tree near Boston Common in Boston]]

The above is in the article, I assume it's a mistake. Please feel free to return it corrected. I assume someone wished to insert a picture in edit sourcing and it didn't fare well :). Homerethegreat (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2023

In the third paragraph, where it’s written “After Saratoga, the France and the rebels signed a commercial agreement and a Treaty of Alliance in February 1778.” change “the France” to “the French.” 65.36.78.165 (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Remsense留 07:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

Change "After Saratoga, the France and the rebels signed a commercial agreement and a Treaty of Alliance in February 1778." to "After Saratoga, France and the rebels signed a commercial agreement and a Treaty of Alliance in February 1778." 2.30.42.70 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Question: What section is it in? Shadow311 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You could always use the editor to find the string in question, it was in the lead. Remsense留 07:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I have made the edit, thank you. --Historyhiker (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

Discussion at WT:MOSCAPS § Founding Fathers of the United States

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOS § Founding Fathers of the United States on whether the expression "founding fathers" should be in lower or upper case. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

In the first paragraph,where it says: " 2600:100A:B10F:2653:0:55:72EA:3901 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, for some reason that didn't come out right. The sentence reads: "This lead to the Treaty of Paris." The verb should be changed to "led" because "lead" is present tense. 2600:100A:B10F:2653:0:55:72EA:3901 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done, good catch, thank you very much. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Omissions

This article gives short-shrift to the Sullivan Expedition of 1779 against the Iroquois Indians. The campaign occupied more than one third of the total number of Continental army soldiers and has been described as the most important military campaign of 1779. It other words, it wasn't a sideshow to the main events. I'll get around to remedying this problem -- if somebody else doesn't. Smallchief (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You need first to show that it is seen that way in reliable sources. And how many continental soldiers were there during the campaign? TFD (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Fort Nassau

"Hopkins' troops then marched on Fort Nassau."

Wrong Fort Nassau. Serenaeta (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the alert. Plifal (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2024 (JST)

Number of french troops during the war could be more accurate.

3500 French troops from Savannah siege are not counted: not a lot where from french line regiments (3000 where from french Carribeans colonies) so on the 3500 almost none will come back later in the war. On many sources it is said Rochambeau land with 5000 soldiers and not 6000. The French reinforcements from 1781 i can count like 2000 from what i can find, i don't know where this 4000 come from, i can't find realiable sources for now. So if someone know good source for the french reinforcements number from 1781 it will be then very accurate. Ettenrocal (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

In addition, @Mr. Information1409:

1. The infobox is not exhaustive per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Please only include material therein that's key to the article. I would say Dutch participation is only arguably worthy of inclusion.
2. Please actually add items to lists, not slap on additional line-break separated entries. Thanks.

Remsense诉 21:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)