Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Casualties

I think that the casualty figures in this article are incorrect, as 25,000 Americans died in all, and 24,000 British and their allies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.128.139 (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the so-called "casualties". if most of the deaths were due to disease, then those deaths shouldn't be considered casualties of war. Therefore, the American casualties should be read as 8000, not 25,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.9.161 (talk • contribs)

Your understanding of the word casualties is flawed..please see this definition.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

==Americans naturally fickle and disloyal in 2008==

Do you think it would be fair to suggest that 'Americans' today are fickle and naturally more likely to lean towards being disloyal to their nation because of their descendants ? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that any conclusion of that sort would be strictly original research, as I think you'd be extremely hard pressed to find any reliable sources to back it up, I'd say a pretty resounding no. GlassCobra 08:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All pants and no trousers?

Aka All Victory & No Losses

The opening statement refers constantly to rebel victories but not their numerous losses which themselves were strategically significant, please edit accordingly or I can. Twobells (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Commanders

I am not sure what the criteria for listing commanders in the infobox. While some of the American ones are more famous, they are not necessarily the highest ranking commanders. For example, John Paul Jones was only a Capitan, and while considered father of the American Navy, and more famous than Esek Hopkins, Hopkins was Commander in Chief of the Fleet during the entire war. Rds865 (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Hopkins was not the commander for the entire war, only about half of it. But I do see what you're saying, and I do believe John Paul Jones has no purpose being on the list of main commanders in the warbox. He was no different than the several other Continental Navy captains except in that he was marginally more successful than most of his colleagues. He had no overall command position than that of his own vessel, when he even had one. Auror (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Paul Jones is inappropriate on this list. Shoreranger (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Worldwide View Box"

Americans? No such thing at the time

I have started replacing the term 'american' for 'rebel' and 'insurgent' for 'patriot' as that is how both the US, the UK and the UN describe armed civilians attempting to overthrow the legitimate government. From the UN's point of view they are happy with those descriptions and do not consider the wordage partisan, however, I am happy to change it to 'unlawful combatant' if preferred.Twobells (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true previous to to July 4, 1776 but after that they were Americans. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

I have restored the orignal text changed by Twobells. In fact, terms such as "Americans" and "patriots" are used commonly in reliable, professional historical works of the era. I also changed a few other POV terms employed by Twobells. 21st Century political decisions on terminology are irrelevant to works describing events in the 18th Century -- historians trump government officials on matters of historical scholarship. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I support your restoration of the conventional, familiar terms. Not only are they accepted by respected scholars, but reinterpreting or rewriting history would not seem to be a proper function of Wikipedia. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was such thing as american in 1776. The british themselves called the colonist americans in 1759. On the plains there war the Royal American who were actually german but who were colonist. So the word american was not strange to them. [[1]] (Plains2007 (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

The problem is that while a valid word in the 18th century "American" also included Canadians and often those colonists from the Carribean as well. The use of American in this article often fails to distinguish between pro-independence and anti-independence factions. To call the rebel colonists 'Patriots' is POV. While the term has popular usage in the United States, it is largely unknown outside. A more balanced compromise term should be used Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, American is widely attested before 1759, at which point it did not include Canadians; Jamaicans and Bermudians are a minor complication. Calling one side in this war Patriots is common usage, and (in Dr. Johnson's sense) comtemporary usage; their opponents called themselves Loyalists, as they are still called. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really object to Americans being used exclusively to mean inhabitants of the 13 colonies, as this is logical if a little simplistic. The two things I strongly object to are the use of the word American to imply the pro-independence faction (as in:

Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans Colonel James Livingston led the 1st Canadian Regiment at the Battle of Quebec (1775) and Moses Hazen led the 2nd Canadian Regiment to support the American cause at the Battle of Saint-Pierre. They both continued to fight for the Americans until the end of the war.

which completly ignores the role of American Loyalists in the war. It hijacks the word 'American' to apply exclusively to the pro-independence cause. The second thing I object to is the use of Patriot, which is POV, and lacks international perspective. Outside of the United States the term 'Patriot' to describe the rebel colonists is almost entirely unheard of and unused. The article needs a better term to describe the pro-indepedence cause other than patriot or American, both of which are highly contentious. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Highly contentious" to whom? Is there some raging debate among historians about the use of the terms "patriot" or "American" as commonly used by reliable, professional, historical sources? Why don't you tell us which leading scholars of the American Revolution refrain from using the term "American" in their works and we can compare those folks with those who do. Do you disagree that the majority of the leading historians of the Revolution are American? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute the fact the majority of historians on the subject are American, but it doesn't just make it automaticlly correct terminoligy for an international wikipedia. The use of the term "American" to describe pro-independence forces might seem natural and comforting to some modern Americans, but it ignores the complex civil war-like nature of the conflict. Loyalists were not any less Americans because they did not support seperation. The term Patriot is a POV expression that is essentially used in one country alone. By contrast to many of the British, Irish,Canadians and West Indians they were simply rebels. I am not advocating that the pro-independence forces be called rebels, but rather that a more neutral name is used. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "comfort" -- it is a matter of accurately presenting the views of the leading historians on the American Revolution. Historians are quite capable of using the term "American" in the same way it is used in this article and still address "the complex civil war-like nature of the conflict". You dodge my question which is very relevant to this issue. Let me repeat it -- Why don't you tell us which leading scholars of the American Revolution refrain from using the term "American" in their works and we can compare those folks with those who do.

As I said elsewhere, your use of the tag is inappropriate. If you go to the applicable project page you will see that it clearly says:

"Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that 'Patriot' is modified to a more neutral term in the article. I am not suggesting that it it was not a term used by some of the pro-independence supporters to describe themselves, nor am I disputing that it is clearly the most common term used in the United States today. What I am highlighting is its widespread lack of usage outside the United States. It is also a POV term, which makes it unsuitable for this article.

Your question regarding the listing of books is a red herring. It would come back to the same point you have already made about there being more American books about the subject. Your argument essentially comes down to "the United States is bigger, so it should have its way on this subject", ignoring the fact that this is an international wikipedia that covers the entire world.

With all due respect, many leading American historians use the words English and British interchangibly, seemingly unaware that the two are not the same thing. This does not exactly fill me with confidence when it comes to their abillity in defining the term "American" in the complex civil war context that existed during the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Patriot and Loyalist are equally traditional, and equally neutral; if we dispose of both, we will have to invent our own terms for the two sides, which is contrary to policy. The charge of confusion cuts both ways; I have seen a British life of Lord North which used jerrymander of the efforts to keep Wilkes out of the House, an error alike in meaning and in etymology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that Patriot is either traditional or neutral, but I recognise that the place to discuss that is over at the [[Patriot (American Revolution) article. The major point I would still like to make regarding this article is the use of the term American to describe the pro-independence cause which ignores the portion of the population who were either anti-independece or simply neutral. I think the article should change all reference to the "American" cause to something cleary indentifying it to the pro-independence supporters.

• It is certainly traditional; the OED finds its first quotation, in that sense of "resistance fighter", from Franklin in 1773, and cites British sources for the general sense. It should be intelligible to a Commonwealth reader; it is defined here and widely used; and in any case, this article, being strongly associated with the United States, is properly in American English.
• It is no less neutral than Loyalist, which we must use, unless we go to the actually traditional Tory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand the jerrymander point as it just re-directs to gerrymander. Thats just a mildly different spelling that wouldn't be contentious (I'd have thought), and to be honest I didn't know there were two different spellings until you pointed it out but like color/colour it doesn't change the nature of the word. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it is (like many redirects) an allowance for a common misspelling. The source of gerrymander is Elbridge Gerry; see the OED's first and fourth quotations for the noun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article clearly thats true, which is why the word Jerrymander re-directs to Gerrymander but I don't see how much that affects this article or the debate over the use of the terms 'patriot' and 'american' to mean the pro-independence supporters during the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not to be settled by dismissing the historians of one of the nations involved for blanket inaccuracy; both have had problems. (As for the actual complaint made: references to North, or Cornwallis, or Clinton, as English rather than British are mere accuracy; they were.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I might have been a bit hasty in offering such a blanket dismissal of US historians purely on those grounds for which I apoligose, but I was responding to what I felt was an unfair dismissal of the opinions of non-Americans just because there are less of them. There are many fine American historians on the subjects. While references to the English Army, English Navy, War with England (when they clearly mean Britain) that slightly their credibillity in my eyes, but these are matters of incorrect terminology rather than serious historical dispute.

On a point of interest, Henry Clinton was actually born in Newfoundland and grew up in New York where his father was Governor. When he went to Britain to join the Army aged 13 he was generally considered an American but Cornwallis and Lord North were, as you point out, essentially Englishmen.

I feel we are getting sidetracked a bit, althrough I have learned a bit about gerrymander for which I thank you (I had always thought the term came from Ireland, but I think I was confusing it with boycotting). I am going to start a new discussion topic at the bottom of the page as the points I am raising do not fall under the present title. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term American to describe pro-independence cause

In several places the article uses the term "American" to describe the pro-independence Americans, including in the opening paragraph when an 'American' victory is described at Saratoga. Further on in the article there is a sub-heading "Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans". This represents a hijacking of the term "American" to mean exclusive pro-indepdence. The word American should be qaulified with another such as "Seperatist" or "pro-independence" Americans distinguishing them from the anti-independence Americans who made up a large portion of the population. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, let's ignore the terminology used by (1) Americans during the Revolution, (2) the British during the Revolution, and (3) the leading historians of the American Revolution and make up a phrase to be used exclusively on Wikipedia. Bad idea. Please give us examples of leading historians of the era who do not use "Americans" as a stand alone term in preference for your suggested terms. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What harm is there in qaulifying the use of American on this page to make clear we mean pro-independence Amercicans? I am not suggesting we do not use the term American, but rather that it is accompanied by something to make clear which Americans we are speaking of. The use of the term 'American' seems to imply that the Loyalists were a tiny remnant allied to the British, who had turned their back on the overwhelming majority of their Americans who supported independence and thrown their lot in with an invading army of a foreign country (Britain) which is erroneous. It seems to imply that after the 1776 declaration of independence (and indeed, even earlier) those supporting a break had a monopoly on the term American.

I am not requesting this be changed to something pejorative such as "rebels" or "American rebels", I am simply asking that this article better acknowledge the complexities of the Loyalist Vs Seperatist factions of what was in many senses a civil war within the British empire rather than the "America" + allies Vs British + allies that seems to predominate on wikipedia and in many history books. I don't see how it would hurt. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then would including the Loyalist units in the order of battle in Armies, militias, and mercenaries be enough for now? We should do this anyway, but I don't have a figure at hand. There must be an example that used American as their unit name. I don't think presenting this as an Empire-wide civil war is necessarily helpful; Burke and Dunning and Fox were loyal to the Crown, while opposing it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord C -- You are the one who wants to change the status quo -- you need more of an argument than "what harm will it do?"

There are over a dozen references to Loyalists throughout the article and they are listed in the summary box as one of the belligerents. The way to discuss "the complexities of the Loyalist Vs Seperatist" is to add, in an appropriate article (there is a separate article on the Loyalists), a documented narative that explains those "complexities" not already in that article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord C, is this an effort to make our British readers feels better? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC) ]

Could this issue not be remedied in the article by use of the term United States instead of American. I understand there has been quite a long running saga over the use of 'American' on wikipedia about whether it should be used to describe those from the United States of America or whether it should be used to refer to those from the Americas as a whole. This would serve as a compromise for that issue as well. Surely no objection could be made to the replacement of "American" with the United States?

It does seem a little too simplistic to brand it as a straight "American" vs Britain conflict as the War of 1812 was), through this is not a big problem outside of the repeated use of "American" to mean pro-independence. The article actually is not too bad on the Loyalists, but could have a little more info. I will try to get some more resources about the Loyalist units who fought - I definetly know the Royal American Rangers were a regiment and remained so after the war, becoming the 60th foot of the British Army.

Althrough I have taken the user name Lord Cornwallis and despite the fact that I was born in in London - I am actually a Canadian Citizen with a great deal of Irish blood. I am genuinely trying to veiw this from an international perspective. I am neutral with regards the outcome for the war. I am not bothered who won, and IMO the two sides should have compromised before it ever reached war. It wasn't worth a drop of blood, British/Canadian/German/Irish or American - but that is all by the bye.

I hope this isn't being interpreted as an anti-US vendetta. I personally tend to sympathise with many of the pro-independence Americans aims (not those to do with slavery or the issue of the Native Americans) but rather that away from the over-the-top hyperbole about freedom they were raising serious points about the nature of goverment in the British Empire. I am admirer of William Pitt the Younger who took a similar line. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of United States would often be a positive error, on two grounds:

• It is certainly wrong for the first fifteen months of the war, before July 4, 1776.
• It is wrong for the several occasions in which the forces on one side belonged to an individual State (or other unit), not the United States.

It is also seriously misleading. The Government of the United States now extant did not come into existence until six years after the war; it is hard enough now to make clear that the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation were not the present Congress of the United States. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Then I return to my previous suggestion of qaulifying every use of American with an indication of whether it is talking of loyalists or republican Americans. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I should prefer not to. (For one thing, there were some Patriots who were not republicans.) Unless the language is actually ambiguous (and I have not read through, but I doubt it will be so often), this would be a pedantry adding length to the article to no reader benefit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect that is hijacking of the term "American" by one side in the conflict. Calling Saratoga an "American victory" in the opening paragraph is just wrong. To put it in context with another international conflict it is like calling a Nationalist victory in the Spanish Civil War a Spanish victory. It was of course, but it was a Spanish nationalist victory and should, and does state that. This article needs to do the same. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

However, it is exactly like calling, let us say, the Battle of Vittoria an Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese victory. Possibly more so: there appear to have been more Spaniards fighting for Jerome I than there were Tories at Saratoga. If there were a hijacking, it would have been conducted in 1776 and compounded in 1783; but at this point one must ask if there is any support for the Noble Lord's position, and if not, ask him to consider yielding to consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• In fact, your grievance, my Lord, is with Sir Edward Creasy, who writes consistently, as this extract shows, of English and Americans. (We link to this; but I believe Burgoyne also wrote of his defeat by the "Americans".) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure when Lord Cornwallis uses the "hijacked" term "American" in his own edit summaries, he doesn't mean to be a hypocrite:

Added Sir Guy Carleton. Commander at Quebec in 1775. Later N.American commander-in-chief. Benedict Arnold was a notable American commander during the invasion of Canada and later at Saratoga.

I think it's clear (and I'm sure this is confirmed somewhere in that gigantic tome of guidelines on these matters) that the most commonly used term is what should be used in the article. Historians agree on this one, it's not Wikipedia's place to try to change respected historical precedent. Llakais (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MOS does nothing so useful; but it's in WP:COMMONNAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Llakais this discussion is not the reason why the page has been semi-protected. There has been no edit war over this. This article has a long history of vandalism which is why I guess that is why it is blocked to newer editors.

I don't feel this is a petty argument. I am raising a serious point about both accuracy and consistency in this article and others on the topic. My position on this is fairly simple the term "Americans" should only be used on its own to describe those from America (the 13 colonies) as in: Benedict Arnold, George Washington and Sir Henry Clinton were from America, therefore they were "Americans". When referring to either the Loyalists or Revolutionaries it should state that. (eg. American Loyalists surrendered at Saratoga. Saratoga was a victory for the American Revolutionaries.

This issue has actually been nagging at me for some time now, but I have always supressed the urge to raise the point before because I didn't want to rock the boat. I could anticipate this discussion would pan out, with people defending the popular but incorrect misuse of the term "Americans" for (common usage) reasons that I mildly sympathise with, but which have no place if the article is to receive a better rating in the future. I don't really understand why this is so contentious, it would make the article clearer without significantly adding to its length.

Examining the page there were only two bit that really stand out to me at the moment as in need of immediate change, perhaps because they appear so early in the article. The reference to an American victory at Saratoga in the introduction, and the sub-heading "Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans". I have made some small edits to the article as a proposed change. Please feel free to re-edit them or discuss them, I am not looking for an edit war - I am interested in establishing a clarification and consensus on this point, at which point I will go off to expand some of the other articles on the subjects, particularly regarding the wider war outside the American theatre.

Regards the use of the term with Benedict Arnold I wanted to qualify the term but ran out of space in the edit summary. I feared it might be pounced on like this. The example of Sir Edward Creasy arrogant and repeated misuse of the term English to mean British is perhaps another example of why the English are not always the most loved amongst their Celtic neighbours. I wasn't particularly impressed by his historical analysis which seemed a bit simplistic, but thank you for posting it. It made interest reading.

Again I hope this does not seem like I am waging an anti-American battle. The people who I am standing up for here were themselves in fact American. It seems to me the American Loyalists received some of the worst treatment during the war, and following it their role and grievances have largely been marginalised or even ignored. Their native land, America, has effectively disowned them, Canada has never embraced them and they have always received a pretty cold shoulder in Britain. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are not looking to start an edit war, you picked a strange way to show it. In both cases I have reverted your attempts to qualify the term "Americans" where it is unnecessary. There is no consensus for your changes -- please don't make further changes of this nature until there is one. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, injecting your own political sentiment about the supposed mistreatment of Loyalists is not the right way to go about having a quiet, unemotional discussion concerning this relatively trivial issue. At the very least, the term "Patriots" could be used - that would certainly clear up any perceived ambiguity. But past "mistreatment" of a group does not warrant any kind of allowances for its depiction in a factual encyclopedia. Llakais (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There was indeed mistreatment of Loyalists, witnessed at length by J._Hector_St._John_de_Crevecoeur and ordered by numerous Patriot organixations (although the Loyalists were by no means alone), but this is not the place to avenge anybody's grievances, or this page will resemble the Gdanzig and Macedonian debacles. Nor is it the place to reform the historiography of the English-speaking peoples. We use, and we are required by policy to use, the terms found in our sources: we reflect them, not amend them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Llakais (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

How about Rebels instead of Americans?[2] Then we can have rebel Americans and loyalist Americans, shorted to Rebels and Loyalists. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems a good compromise - (Webster’s, 2006, p. 1528). Rebel is a combination of the prefix re, which means “again,” and the suffix bel, which means “to make war” (Webster’s, 2006, p. 1528). Rebel literally translates as “to make war again” (Webster’s, 2006, p. 1528). To rebel is to make war over and over again. War is “strong opposition . . . hostility . . . conflict within” (Flexner, 1982, p. 2141). Rebel as a verb refers to making opposition, hostility, or conflict again against oneself and others. A rebel is “one who opposes authority or restraint: one who breaks with established custom or tradition” (Webster’s, 2006, p. 1892). Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The current article represents a compromise on this issue that was reached relatively recently after weeks of discussion. There was no consensus then, and I doubt there will be consensus now, to take the references to Americans out of the American Revolution. If it is your intent to challenge that consensus, then I suggest that a concrete proposal be made in a new section at the bottom of this page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Loyalists

I was hoping the small edits I had made would serve as a compromise, and we would have been able to settle this for the time being. As the article currently stands I feel compelled to continue to raise the point.

Examine the article carefully and you will see serious mention of the Loyalists is omitted in the introduction, the Armies, Militia & Mercanries Section, the Massachuetas section, the Canada section, the Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans section and it is only at the very bottom of the New York and the New Jersey section when they get their first significant mention. Does this not strike you as slightly strange given the size of the Loyalist population and the role they played in the war? Either this is an oversight (which I would like to think it is), or it represents a degree of bias which brings the whole neutrality of the article into question.

This article will be read by many people who do not know a great deal about this war, and as it stands this will simply compound the common misconception in the minds of many that this was simpy a British versus American War. The leading few paragraphs should be very clear to state that there were two types of "Americans", it can do this by the use of qaulifying the term. I hoped the word "revolutionaries" would be acceptable, as it is used in the introduction.

I would like to question the inclusion of the Two Quebec Regiments join the Americans subsection. While interesting it is only a sentence long and if it belongs anywhere should be merged into the Canada section. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Cornwallis' proposed changes, including the current abuse of the term American. This conflict was much too complex for it's current treatment in this article. Note on the Quebec Regiments, I'm removing these right now as the entry is misleading, it's not two Quebec Regiments joining the Continentals, it's two Quebec Regiments raised by them, there is a big difference.--Caranorn (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord C -- As a CONTENT issue regarding Loyalists (or Tories) you may have a valid point. It is perfectly possible to include additional, SOURCED, information on Loyalists where applicable, including the lead section and “Armies, Militia & Mercenaries Section”. This can be accomplished quite easily without tinkering with the word “Americans” -- historians, American and British (have you reviewed the debates in the archives on your issue?), do it all the time.

I suggest you de-link the two subjects and propose some specific language (on this Discussion Page) to expand the coverage of the military role of the Loyalists/Tories. I fact, this has been suggested twice in the earlier discussion as a way to address your concerns. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do think the issues are linked. The use of the term "American" to mean pro-independence is both contentious and ambigous, regardless of the fact that is sometimes used by participants and historians. As a short term compromise, I will again suggest a change from the introduction currently reading:

"In early 1778, shortly after an American victory at Saratoga resulting in the surrender of an entire British army..."

to

"In early 1778, shortly after the American Revolutionaries' victory at Saratoga resulted in the surrender of an entire British army...".

I feel this would help clarify the statement, without making any significant changes to its details.

As regards inclusion of more Loyalist details I will begin to gather some sources and draft some language. My initial instinct is that perhaps the Armies, Militia & Mercanries section is the best place to begin to remedy their omission, but I am tempted to propose a short section early in the article be created to cover the differences between the two types of "Americans" -"Revolutionaries" and "Loyalists" the forces and resources each contributed to the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Revolutionaries" is not a term typically used to describe the American resistance military establishment. "Patriots" is probably better. But subsequent to the signing of the Declaration of Independence there existed a nation called the United States of America, so the term "American" has clear meaning in the sentence above. It does not need to be changed. Llakais (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Americans is an ambigous term. The United States may have declared independence in 1776 but its independence was not recognised by Britain, her Loyalist American subjects, and many other states until 1783. A complex civil war was fought over the issue, during which Loyalists continually referred to themselves as Americans - see the names of many Loyalist regiments. To refer to the pro-independence faction as the "American" cause does represent a hijacking of the term. Were the Loyalists any less Americans than those who supported indepedence?

The addition of a single word as a qaulifcation in the intro would at least go some way towards indicating the complex nature of the war. I don't see how that this is so unacceptable a proposal? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I failed to point this out the first time, but here's another thing which makes the original sentence abundantly clear and its modification entirely useless: it clearly indicates that the "American" actions resulted in a British defeat. Why would Tories be fighting the British?

For an analogous situation, consider Kosovo. We don't say "the Kosovar revolutionaries declared independence"; we just say "Kosovo has declared independence". That's because the highest legislative body in Kosovo made that declaration, similarly to how the Continental Congress was the highest representative authority in the colonies. Llakais (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first point - the article barely mentions the American Loyalists, at all, particulary in the intro. It is hardly even clear they even exist! As obvious as it may seem to you who is being referred to when "American" is spoken, this page is looked at by many people around the world whose sum knowledge of the war comes from a single viewing of The Patriot.

It does not counter the fact that the current phrasing represents a POV hijacking of the word "American". The Continental Congress was only the self-declared highest representative authority without majority support amongst the populace. Until 1783 the British Parliament remained the legal highest legiaslature for the 13 colonies, and was recognised by the Loyalist Americans, until it relinquished this role following the Treaty of Paris which recognised independence. I think I'm correct in saying that at the time of Saratoga the USA was unrecognised by any other state? France recognised it the following year but most other states did not recognise independence until 1783.

In my view the United States are free to use the term Americans therafter - althrough even this is apparently controversial in Latin America. If type in wikipedia on the search and you'll find that "American" takes you to a disambiguation page for that very reason.

I'm not sure the comparison with Kosovo is entirely helpful. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Your spiel is getting tiring, frankly, and you're blaming flaws in the article with everyone else, as if they're to blame because they don't volunteer (and that should be made clear) to write lengthy sections that you yourself want to see. There are numerous articles in Wikipedia that are poorly sourced, filled with wrong information, or otherwise lacking in many facets. I don't go around, however, berating people for them being this way.

Moreover, your argument throughout this whole page has been that a term, recognized by almost everyone, used everywhere, including all the sources on this and hundreds of other pages, is wrong mostly because you find it politically offensive and personally inaccurate. Well, unfortunately, tough noogies. We're not in the business of inventing new terms, as others have mentioned, in order to satisfy personal sensitivities. If numerous indigenous groups can suffer being commonly known by names that are more than likely derogatory, I'm pretty sure a guy from Canada whose Wikipedia name is after a white British officer can suck it up. SiberioS (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... this is an article that deals with the American revolution, no? Perhaps a more diverse perspective could be included, but putting that template at the top of an article concerning this subject matter smacks of something a little darker. Llakais (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are alluding to by "darker"? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed. I think it sufficiently represents a well-rounded world-view. If anyone disagrees, please discuss here before reinstating. Alphageekpa (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how tagging works, I have not been involved in many disputes before - but aren't you supposed to discuss it here before removing it? Isn't there supposed to be a consensus? I have restored the tag, until this point is clarified. I would also still like some clarification from Llakais about what they mean by "darker"? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually believe it is you who owe us the clarification. It is you who added the tag - without discussion (not necessary, given), and it is now you who has twice reverted valid user edits (admittedly, including my own) removing said tag. Please provide your substantiation for including this tag on this particular page. Alphageekpa (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

These are a outline of some of the major problems.

• At the moment the war outside the American theatre is poorly covered. Much of it feels tacked on, as through the main article is about the British versus the United States, while the rest was just a sideshow. The Great Siege of Gibraltar, for instance, receives only a brief mention despite the fact that it is by some way the largest and longest engagement of the war. Minorca needs expanding, as does the expedition to San Juan, and the League of Armed Neutrality. Really the whole segments on wars involving the British, Spanish, Dutch outside the American Theatre need to be expanded. The fighting in India was also on a large scale, and deserves equivilant mention with the American theatre.
  • This is a justification for including more about Gibraltar and Minorca, which Cornwallis is welcome to do. The inclusion of the Second Mysore War in this article is itself controversial, and should not be expanded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The armies, militia and mercenaries section focuses entirely on troops in North America at present. This should be expanded to cover all the global troops of all the global participants - The Spanish troops, French troops, British troops, Dutch troops, troops of the Indian States.

• Internationally the war lasted until 1784. Peace between Britain and the Dutch was only agreed in 1784, as was peace between the British and the Kingdom of Mysore (Treaty of Mangalore). The dates in the infobox should be changed to reflect that.
  • This would be like changing the closing date of the First World War on the grounds:
    • that the treaties were not signed in November 1918
    • That incidental conflicts, like the Russian Civil War and the war between the Arabian States, continued after 1918.

  There is a case for both these adaptions, and some historians have followed it; but consensus is 1914-18. So here: 1775-1783 is consensus; the peace with the Netherlands was not finalized until early 1784 (arguably the same is true of the United States, I see), but it was agreed the previous September. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The article needs to be more careful when its uses the term “American” to demonstrate precisely what it means. What this means, and when it meant it from is a contentious issue. The continued use of the term “Americans” to refer to the cause of the pro-independence before 1783 is questionable. It has been correctly in pointied out that the term is widely used as shorthand by British and Americans to mean pro-independence, it may not be so widely understood in other countries. (and is anti-Loyalist POV as well - implying they are not Americans. The Loyalist sections need expanding, but that is another issue)

• The article does use terminology that is unique to the United States such as the term ‘Patriot’. Patriot is almost unknown and unused outside the US (and the page on wikipedia is a not very expansive stub). This does not suitably make it accessible the whole global community, terms used should aim to be as international as they can. This issue might be helped by the creation of a page Terminology used to describe the American Revolution, or something of that kind. I have read this article several times now, and I am still not clear what “Americans” in the introduction is referring to? The US military, the pro-independence “American” cause, or the inhabitants of America.

I have heard this article described on the talk page as the “daughter” of the American Revolution article when it really should be the “sister” of the Seven Years War and Peninsular War articles as well. I hope this clarifies why I tagged it (I may have been mistaken to, but it seemed the best way of flagging up these problems without doing major edits on the article). Lord Cornwallis (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should change the title from American Revolutionary War to World Revolutionary War. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the talk archives I did across a suggestion that two articles should exist one The American Revolutionary War to cover the fighting in Continental America, and another The American War of Independence as a parent article on the wider global war. At first I didn’t favour the idea, but I have warmed to it - particularly having seen the similar excellent arrangment with regards to the French and Indian Wars being part of a wider Seven Years War. That seems pretty cool Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

♠ HEY! Stop the tagging war. Go offline and settle your difference, if you cannot do it here maturely. It looks to me like this tagging has changed three times. If it doesn't stop we may have to request protection. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Section 5

Tag should stay until consensus is found. Cornwallis has stated his case and I partially agree, mostly on terminology. Now is the time to find a solution and not to start a reversion war over the tag.--Caranorn (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please specify what you agree with, and insofar as it is about terminology, please supply examples of usage other than the "Americanisms" of which he complains. American and Patriot are, as far as I can see, conventional usage on this war. We are not in the business of inventing terminology to soothe complaints; we are required to use what we find English using. Tags should not be deployed to compel the inclusion of original research. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I am glad to find and add an estimate of the Loyalists in arms, the reason I read Weintraub was this question of language. I find that he quotes Boswell and Burke, who never crossed the Atlantic, referring to themselves as Americans because they supported the colonial cause (we cannot use colonial after 1776; usage again opposes). And Patriot was intelligible to George III, even if he disagreed with it; I should like evidence that it is unintelligible to the far-flung subjects of Elizabeth II before we go any further with this question. (The next step would be to point out that this article is properly, per WP:ENGVAR, in American, but we need only go there after evidence that the Englishes do in fact differ.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The current use of "American" in the article remains both ambiguos and POV (it hijacks the term). "American" is used in the article to mean several different things. On wikipedia "American" is a disambiguation page for this very reason. Type Canadian in, and you will go straight to Canada. Type American in, and you do not go straight to the USA - because its meaning is debatable.

Patriot is not widely used or understood beyond the US, except as McLintock states below - in reference to the Mel Gibson film. I am now starting to suspect that different versions of the same books are published using different terminology. It is hard to produce evidence that a word does not exist in popular usage, because there is no cuase for anyone to ever mention the term. Surely there is a logic to that?

As far as I can see Wp:ENGVAR seems to support using more neutral language under the Commonality section where it states

"Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia"

"Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences. For example, use alternative route (or even other route) rather than alternate route, since alternate may mean only "alternating" to a British English speaker."

Which seems to apply in this case. Please don't remove the tag until we have reached a consensus on this issue, if this is not possible we could make a request for informal mediation, but I have not given up hope of establishing a consensus between ourselves Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you unilaterally put a tag up on a widely read and edited page, without seeking any input from anyone who edits here. While it is true that one should be bold, and that no one author, or even group of authors, has ownership of an article, it is unnecessarily provocative and essentially a shot across the bow. AFTER that was done you have now insisted that everyone else must argue why your unilateral action should be reversed, or face your reversion wrath. This is not only poor form, but one of the reasons why everyone now is obstinate in not budging on the issue. SiberioS (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my initial tagging of the article did upset some people, but there had already been some debate and there appeared to be no effort by some to reach a neutral consensus. I have been trying at all times to reach a consensus, including at one point when my only request was that the "American" victory at Saratoga be qualified with another word to make it more apparent which Americans the article was referring to.

I'd also like to add editors should not be "obstinate" about efforts find a consensus, as this seems to violate the principles of a neutral wikipedia. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Americans" is used in the article on the Declaration of Independence. Nevertheless, we could use the term "colonist" instead of American if that seems more neutral. As far as the discussion of Canada is concerned (and why the Continental Army went there), take a look at the DoI and you might learn something. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I have no objection to "colonists" being used if that is acceptable to others. It is still a little ambiguos, but to me it appears better than the present "Americans", though I have a feeling others might object. If they don't, it seems we have a big step towards a consensus.

I would also like to again propose a glossary of different terms used - either within this article, or in a seperate article linked to this page that might further help to define and explain terminology.

As for the Continentals invasion of Canada, my understanding of it (and my interpritation of the DoI) seems to be they were hoping to capitalise on the Anglophones resentment of the Quebec Act. 1774 is sometimes regarded as the founding of our modern nation, because of the compromise it allowed in recognising the existence of both English law and French law within what constitutes modern Canada. Why the invasion failed is probably as much to do with logistics than politics, Arnold and Montgomery were trying to make the same journey in reverse as Burgoyne did two years later with considerably less troops.

It is an often neglected question of the era, why did the rebellion in the thirteen colonies not spread further? Ceirtanly the British goverment at one point feared it would spread to all their posessions in the Americas, including the West Indies, through I think I might be starting to touch on Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to compromise on the issue of "Americans". Until someone shows that some significant number of historians have written about the Revolution without using the term "Americans" (and you have indicated that you will not provide such information), there is really not even a basis for an intelligent discussion. The fact that you would accept "colonists" instead of "Americans" suggests that ambiguity IS NOT your concern -- or were Loyalists not also colonists?

If creating a separate article on terminology solves your problem, go for it. Similarly I have no problem with creating a brief paragraph on terminology for this article (and possibly for inclusion in other articles), something like the following:

In this article the colonists supporting the Revolution are primarily referred to as "Americans", with occassional references to "Patriots" or "Whigs" (terms commonly used by the Americans in referring to themselves), "rebels", or "revolutionaries". Colonists who supported the British in opposing the Revolution are primarily referred to as "Loyalists" (this group's preferred term) but "Tory" may also appear."

In fact, it could even be added at the top of the article, indented and in italics. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It would need some slight tweaking, as below, but the general idea is not unreasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Colonial is used only for the situation before 1776, because it is itself inherently POV; it is only appropriate in representing the British position, and dubious there after 1778: the Howes' terms were what we would now call Dominion status, and therefore it would be as odd as using colonial of modern pre-repatriation Canada. It is therefore unacceptable as a general term.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• We should probably add Continental. It is slightly ambiguous (does it include units in the service of the Continental Congress not in the Continental Army?) and it should not be a blanket term (it excludes, for example, the Americans at Lexington.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a pretty good idea to me. I think Lord C is partially correct when he highlights some problems - even in this article the word american is used to mean several different things. We should try and restrict it to one usage (I'm not sure which type though) and use that as consistently as possible. McLintock 71 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Parliament voted to suspend offensive operations not end the war, 27 Feb 1782.
  • also after Yorktown (oct 81), Lord North resigns 20 Mar 1782 (King George lost control?), then Rockingham and then Shelbrune become PM. Pohick2 (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• might want to include discussion of French capture of St Kitts, Nevis, Monserrat, naval battle Saintes, Minorca, and Spanish assault on Gilbraltar, between Yorktown and treaty of Paris
  • (sorry refer to earlier section) i would submit that these committments elsewhere were why reinforcements weren't sent, not the 'citation needed' reasons Pohick2 (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• might want to include talk about Temple of Virtue, Newburgh [3]
  • That's under Newburgh conspiracy. It relates to the internal politics of the United States, not the conduct of the War: it would not have happened if there had been any real likelihood of the British moving out of New York. In fact, one of the triggers was the effort to get the pension question settled before the arrival of the peace treaty, when the Army would be disbanded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • you make a good point, but it was the most important military event of the year, continentals were mutanying because congress wouldn't pay the army? Washington had to personally intervene? - it seems an important event in the history of the continental army, a link would be nice. Pohick2 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
• talk about diplomacy of John Jay prior to treaty of Paris Pohick2 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, the diplomacy is another article, except for that having the most immediate effect on the conduct of the war; Jay's fumblings in Madrid did not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    • (maybe it's the next section) the treaty of paris is mentioned without any mention of Jay? why it took so long to negotiate (British acceptance of the inevitable). i guess i'm suggesting a little more nuance to the sequence of events Pohick2 (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Section 6

I agree with North Shoreman's proposal of an indented and italic paragraph at the top of the article, the wording seems fine to me, as it seems broadly to cover all bases.

My only point would be a clarification in the article of the term "American" when used in the context of describing all the inhabitants of the 13 colonies (in a non-political sense) so as not to imply they all offered their allegiance to the US by using the term "American inhabitants" or some other term if someone has a better suggestion. If that makes sense?

A separate article on terminology would also be useful, and I will try and start that in the near future (I have some university exams coming up, unfortunately, which will limit the time I can spend on wikipedia) but obviously it will need to be a collaborative effort as I am largely only aware of the non-US terminology.

I am still not entirely clear as to Patriot (I, like I guess a lot of people initially read it more as a statement than a faction - as in a patriotic American wheras I now think it is in fact used as a reference to a faction (in the same style as "Loyalist"), correct?. I think that might need some further elaboration on the Patriot article by someone better qualified than I on the subject for the benefit of non-US readers.

Of course that's correct; that's why we capitalize it, as our sources do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Having looked through a number of books on the war, and found the use of Patriot only once - bizarrely in a book by Simon Schama, who I think is a British author, it has now dawned on me that they issue different editions, with different terminology, and possibly even some of the content changed to tailor it to the respective audiences. Regards. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that Patriot (American Revolution) is being used, I fail to see the issue. Doesn't this article make it clear? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 02:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am actually warming to the use of Patriot, having done some more reading on the term. As I say I feel it needs to be expanded slightly at the Patriot article, and on any terminology page, because its usage is often unknown or misunderstood outside the US and it is currently only a stub.

A more widespread use of "Patriot" would allow the article to remain neutral on the issue of whether the United States came into existence in 1776 or 1783. I think use of "American" should be restricted to describe people coming from the 13 colonies (and Vermont, Tennesee, Ohio territory.etc) in a non-political sense (as in: George Washington, Benedict Arnold and Sir Henry Clinton were Americans). Does anyone have any objections to changing the "American Victory at Saratoga" to the "Patriot victory at Saratoga"? and similar changes throughout the article?

In many ways this would seem to solve both the POV and ambiguity issues at once. The problem with "American" remains that it can still appear ambiguos and potentially partisan in its current usage. "Patriot" and "Loyalist" give more of a nod to the fairly complex "civil war" issue.

Admittedly there is an issue of a similar ambiguity problem with the use of the word British (it can be used to mean the British Goverment, the Great British people, the Great British and Irish people, the British (and Irish) army, or the subjects of the British Empire) but that seems a less pressing issue, because it is more likely to be understood and less contested in its current usage. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievable! Now suddenly, in your mind, "Patriot" is an acceptable term, and you want to concentrate all of your attacks on the term "Americans'. I am opposed to any piecemeal change in the text relating to these terms, including my own earlier proposal, since you apparently view this only as a new starting point for your own agenda regarding "Americans". There is no problem with the use of "Americans" as it is currently used in this article since it is used EXACTLY as historians use it. We have made efforts to meet you halfway, but you are back exactly where you started. You still are unable, even after your recent readings, to demonstrate that there is any significant number of historians of the era who use of "America" in the manner you propose. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

North Shoreman, I would like to point out that this is an international encyclopedia not a history essay. We have to make terms as clear and non-controversial to all readers as we can. I will not state again why the current use of American is both ambiguous and POV. Whatever you seem to feel - my proposal to use Patriot was an attempt to meet you halfway. As I have said this term is not much used outside the US, but if it is properly explained it seems to provide a solution.

I had hoped this would serve as an effective compromise and I leave it on the table - I would like to hear what others feel about it before we cast the suggestion aside. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Tom! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lord C -- As far as your POV claim, I will present the first sentence from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

“Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.”

AT THE VERY LEAST, there is no doubt whatsoever that “reliable sources” use the terms “America” and “American”. Therefore it must be used in this article to the extent it is used in those reliable sources.

As far as your “ambiguous” claim, all ambiguity is removed once we provide the statement I suggested at the start of the article. Everytime the word "American" is used, it refers to the folks fighting the British.

Once again you fail to demonstrate any significant number of historians of the era who use of "America" in the manner you propose. Your response this time:

“North Shoreman, I would like to point out that this is an international encyclopedia not a history essay.”

A total non sequitur. This certainly is an “international encyclopedia”, but on matters of HISTORY the preferred source for the facts, interpretation, and terminology must be HiSTORIANS. There has been no evidence submitted that the use of “Americans” does not reflect an international consensus of historians. Until you provide some sources that everyone else seems to be totally unaware of, I see no reason to change the artcle simply because you say so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. Are you now saying you object to the term "Patriot"? I genuinely made this suggestion as a form of compromise, I thought you were in favour of Patriot? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to arbitrarily mandating the substitution of one historically appropriate term (as determined by historians) for another historically appropriate term. This article has a mix of "American", "Patriot", and "rebel", and you have presented nothing, other than your "feelings", suggesting that the mix needs to be adjusted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

His Grace is reading, albeit "with the easy negligence of a nobleman". We should not discourage this; if he reads enough, he may well notice the number of sources, contemporary and modern, British, Canadian, and "United Statesian", which use American for the American side of the war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't sneer at me. It is not civil or constructive.

"American" was an ambiguous term in the period the article describes. I still also haven't heard a convincing argument why the current use of "American" isn't anti-loyalist POV? Why are they not American? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That much seems clear. Neither our arguments nor established usage will ever convince you; your Cause is too dear to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can state them again? Why are Loyalists not Americans? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Because they chose not to be; those who remained and had not levied war against the United States became Americans again.
• But a better justification is that American, like Loyalist or Patriot (or Whig or Tory or Confederate), is a group name which later writers have accepted as the name of the group and call its members by. Whig and Tory were originally attacks; Loyalist and Patriot are terms of praise; American is geographical. So what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Since apparently neither you nor I are aware of any reliable historical sources that accept your "hijack" theory, including it in a Wikipedia article would be a clear violation of our policy. As I showed you earlier, ignoring a position held by a reliable source would be a violation of NPOV. Ignoring the unsubstantiated opinion of an individual editor, regardless of how sincerely felt, is the clear expectation of the Wikipedia community. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So instead of answering my question, you've started resorted trying to start a tagging war? What does "Remove. Let's show him a consensus" mean, Pmanderson? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That tag is disruptive, and remains unsupported by evidence. I am the third or fourth editor to remove it; several more have objected to it. If Lord Cornwallis cannot yield to consensus against him, Wikipedian consensus does have the power to enforce itself. I encourage others to join in removing this tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PManderson your behaviour tonight is entirely unacceptable. You have at least twice made a personal attack against Cornwallis tonight. In addition you have proven by a couple of statements (your definition of American) in this discussion that you have no place around this article. I recommend you take a break of a day or two from this article at least and think some more about these matters. I also strongly recommend you stop reverting the article on the basis of a non existing consensus (I still consider the tag appropriate, though Cornwallis has not convinced me he has a useable solution, if we were to have a vote I would probably abstain at this time, in any case nothing negative happens if an article is thus tagged for a while).--Caranorn (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, stop the hysterics. Cornwallis has been obnoxious from the start, busting onto a page damning everyone and wanting to change the instance of a word in dozens, if not hundreds of articles, because he doesn't like the word "American". He has little to no experience, from what I've seen in his user contributions, to any non-football related historical article, compared to the recognized experience of many of the editors here. Moreover, he still hasn't argued why it is, like everyone else pointed out, scholarly articles use the term "Americans" and why we should rewrite the whole article to flatter his personal proclivities. SiberioS (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PM has not offered a "definition of American" that is at odds with reliable, historical sources. I would suggest that anyone who is not aware of that has "no place around this article." Since Lord C is either unwilling or unable to upport his contentions from ANY RELIABLE SOURCE, perhaps you would step in for him. What historical works on the American Revolution are you aware of that do not use the term "America" as used in this article and throughout the other articles relating to the Revolution?

If you fail, as I suspect you will, to provide this information so essential to making Lord C's case, then I feel there is no reason to delay eliminating the tag for any longer. What do you expect to change? Lord C's first post on this discussion page was at 19:47 on May 28 -- he posted the tag at 22:16 on the same day. Compared with his example, I think the rest of us have been damn patient. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a tag can be disruptive, it simply flags up an issue - but I have no wish to keep replacing it all night, so I will not do so and instead suggest we make a request for informal mediation. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

North Shoreman I point you to this diff [4]. It is my opinion that by its first statement PM has discredited himself conderning this debate and actually made a pretty strong point for the current tag.

America designates a continent, Americans the inhabitants of said continent. In a narrower sense it's also used for US-Americans, but that use in and of itself already merits the use of the world-wide tag. But, this article deals with a matter before the creation of said state (yes obviously the war was essential to its creation), it also deals with a number of distinct categories of Americans. 1) Patriots or Rebels, 2) Loyalists or Torries, 3) Those who did not chose sides, 3) Canadians who could be seen as yet distinct from 1) and 2), 4) West Indians (same as Canadians, some could be seen with 1), most with 2) and logically quite a few with 3)). A member of 2) is as much American as a member of 1)... That is the entire point of this discussion.

And note again, there is nothing intristically bad about this tag, it means the article could use improving, that's all. Many articles have had this type of tag up for months and no harm has come of it. Lastly, I can assure you that as a simple user (I was in wikiretirement for a year or so and only irregularly editing during that time, but regularly researching here, so I've come to see the project from both sides, (note I'm still retired here on en.wikipedia, though I expect to return to some activity once my current project on commons and fr.wikipedia is completed)) tags like this are not disruptive only informative.--Caranorn (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I offered a proposal that would have made it clear right up front that the use of "American" under in this article had a specific, narrow definition. This proposal was not sufficient to meet Lord C's needs. Are you seriously arguing that when terms have both broad and narrow meanings that even after clarifying that we are using a specific, narrow definition of the term that it is still wrong to use the term as defined?

It is your OPINION that Loyalists are as much Americans as anybody else. The problem is that by the article's operational definition (a definition not determined by a Wikipedia editor but determined by RELIABLE HISTORICAL SOURCES for use within the context of the American Revolution), "American" is a common, acceptable term for referring to the people who were fighting the British.

The issue is not whether the tag is "intrinsically bad" but whether the tag is relevant to the article. Have you gone to the site for the group that originated the tag -- a work group Lord C does not even belong to? The site clearly says concerning its purpose:

"Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented."

Clearly this dispute does not fall within that group's guidelines. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Section 7

I proposed "Patriot" becuase I genuinely hoped it would be acceptable to all. While it has clearly not gone down too well in some quarters, it was offered in good faith, and did not merit the sort of response it has received. I would like to add that I do not have a "Cause" in this regard, whatever has been implied. Something I suspect is not true of everyone, considering a recently expressed opinion from one user about why the Loyalists are not "Americans".

I have yet to see any non-POV historical source showing why the Loyalists were not American during this war?

If this can't be resolved without resorting to incivility I again suggest we request for informal mediation before this descends further Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to see that you are interested in any compromise. I offered an inclusion of the following statement as an indented explanation right at the top of the article:

“In this article the colonists supporting the Revolution are primarily referred to as "Americans", with occasional references to "Patriots" or "Whigs" (terms commonly used by the Americans in referring to themselves), "rebels", or "revolutionaries". Colonists who supported the British in opposing the Revolution are primarily referred to as "Loyalists" (this group's preferred term) but "Tory" may also appear."

Nobody objected, including you, yet in subsequent debate you still claimed that the term “Americans” was ambiguous despite the fact that all ambiguity would be removed. Earlier it was also proposed (and nobody objected) that a separate section on Loyalists be added in section “Armies, militias, and mercenaries”. Even this was not enough for you.

The plain fact is that the existing article, the existing links to Loyalist (American Revolution), and the proposed additions that nobody has objected to present a very clear and balanced picture of who the loyalists were and what their interests were. You obviously will not be satisfied until the term “American” as used by historians is banished from the article. Yeah, this type of inflexibility on your part sounds like you have some “Cause” beyond writing an accurate encyclopedia article based on reliable sources.

You statement, “I have yet to see any non-POV historical source showing why the Loyalists were not American during this war?” is simply obfuscation and misdirection on your part. Everyone but you is interested in including information from reliable historical sources and nobody has opposed you adding anything that you could back up with a reliable source. If you actually have a reliable historical source that says Loyalists were upset about the Patriots “hijacking” the term “Americans”, then let’s add it to the article as an alternative POV that a reader should consider. I have continually asked you to produce ANY reliable sources that support your position yet you neglect or refuse to do so. Your definition of “non-POV historical source” seems to be any source that actually agrees with your “cause”, yet neither you nor anyone else has shown that such sources exist. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

North Shoreman, your above explanations make it apparent that the tag is justified and that there indeed is a US-Patriot slant to this article if a term like American is used in such a narrow way. I'm not saying that this cannot be done, but if it is done then the tag should also remain. There is absolutely no reason to keep an ambiguous term in the article when less ambiguous ones are available. In that respect it's irrelevant whether sources use the term or not (and I fully agree that many do). It would only matter if we were citing such publications directly, in which case we obviously could not replace American by some other term, though we could still comment on it.

I just tried to check the article for every occurance of the terms American or America. About half way through the article I gave it up as the conclusion had become apparent by that time. I found exactly one example where the term used singly was 100% appropriate, there was also one case where the meaning was entirely unclear, in alls other cases where the term was used singly it seems inapropriate from a global history point of view. Note that I obviously excluded African American, American Indians or Native American (note that in some ways this term is also inappropriate as it is again US-centric terminology and is not supported by many notable members of that very community, but lets not add more problems to this discussion) from this search. All incorrect uses of America or American could easily be replaced by terms like Patriots, Continentals (or equivalent), Rebels etc., though the exact term to use would have to be chosen case by case. If we can agree on such replacement I'd volunteer to do this editing, even though I'd much prefer to spend my wiki time on other projects. Alternatively we could ask for volunteers at the Project you already mentionned. Note that they expressly state that they concentrate on remedying omissions, it does not mean they are limited to such. Also nothing says tagging articles is limited to members of that project.

Lastly, if we cannot find an agreement I'd support either leaving the article as it is, including the tag. Alternatively we could seek mediation as Cornwallis has suggested. Until a consensus is found I'd recommend not changing the disputed terminology but also not removing the tag.--Caranorn (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you have fully bought into the “America is ambiguous” argument. What this argument conveniently ignores is that any number of common English terms, either as a standalone word on a list or in a sentence taken out of context, can be seen as ambiguous. The ambiguity issue is resolved by the full context in which it is used. In this case we have suggested defining RIGHT UP FRONT exactly what that context is. Anybody encountering the term in the body of the article knows exactly what the article is referring to. The definition is a proper definition in this context because reliable historical sources accept it as such.

What your position also ignores is that there are considerable more articles on the American Revolution than simply this one. Any policy established here should certainly be followed elsewhere and “American” is the most common term throughout. Have you volunteered to change all of the articles or do you think it would be sufficient to simply just tag them all? Need I remind you that the only two names for the war in the article are the “American Revolution” or the “American War for Independence”? By your logic, "America" and "American" would be banned from all articles.

In fact, WP:Consensus is clear on the implications of the proposal to eliminate a term used by dozens of editors over a multitude of articles:

“Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should never over-ride community consensus on a wider scale, unless convincing arguments cause the new process to become widely accepted.”

I’m not saying that even this wide of a consensus can’t change. What I am saying is that in order to reverse such a widely held consensus you and Lord C need to present something more than your own feelings. You need to explain why Wikipedia should use different terminology than that used by the majority of historians.

I notice you have no problem with the term “rebels”. From the American standpoint, independence had been a fact from 7-4-1776. Since you two think the terminology used by both historians and actual participants as irrelevant, how can you justify such a blatant NPOV violation? The Americans considered themselves on an equal footing with the British and it is a gross violation of NPOV for Wikipedia to pretend that the Americans did not feel they had created a nation. “Patriots” is a term that was used even before 1776 and in no way is equivalent to the use of America, to define a nation, after 1776. Every year on July 4 the American consensus on when the nation began is acknowledged.

The bottom line? My position is that we should acknowledge ALL POVs and use the same mix of terms used by historians. Your exclusionist position is that only certain POVs merit inclusion -- a clear violation of NPOV. Mediation is fine with me, although due to the large impact that this decision could have I would hope that ALL EDITORS who have worked on articles relating to the American Revolution weigh in. I oppose your suggestions that we simply agree with you and either you or someone else implements your program to destroy community wide consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

♠ OK TIME OUT! May I interject here, because I'm not seeing any progress? Lord C, I believe I see part of this issue. This is not a criticism, but you seem to take the position of interpreting these various terms we're tossing about from the 1776 point of view. Remember, that everyone living in the colonies and in "Canada" was a British citizen. I suggest 'Americans' at that time was interpreted more as those living in the 13 colonies. Now 'loyalists' would be covered under this umbrella, however did not this term arise to describe those Americans opposed to independence from Great Britain? Therefore couldn't we agree that Americans would be those who supported independence from Great Britain? "Canadians" were British citizens and possibly loyalists in the broad sense. Furthermore I believe the 'patriot' (Patriot (American Revolution)) should be settled. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I see it American is a term that it should be used in this article only to refer to all the inhabitants of the thirteen colonies (and their respective territories such as Ohio, Kentucky. etc) whatever their political allegiance. I do echo Caranorn in questioning the usage of an ambiguous and potentially POV term "American" for one faction when there are other unambiguous terms available such as "Patriots" and "Continentals".

As for Patriot it is not a word I've ever heard used much outside the United States, but if it is well-explained for international readers I don't oppose its use. As I said some reading on the subject has convinced me that it is used in the US as an equivalent term to "Loyalist". Both terms seem fairly equal and neutral (they are both favourable terms), but the current usage of American does seem to imply that one side (Patriots) are American and the other are not.

Loyalists did use the term "American" too, a number of Loyalist regiments have American in the name, and I have yet to see a historian argue they were not American. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can verify the last paragraph, then nobody is stopping you from adding it as an alternative POV. Wikipedia policy is to INCLUDE all legitimate POVs rather than eliminate all reference to a POV simply because there is another POV that disagrees with it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a mild aside, and it's really hard to jump into this debate without reading the massive block of text above - but I don't see the problem in calling the Americans, "Americans". Respected historians call them Americans - McCullough, Ambrose, Ellis, Middlekauff, Fischer - consistently. At the very top of Thomas Paine's famous pamphlet Common Sense was "The American Crisis." (italics included). In the British house debates in 1775, the Earl of Shelbourn referred to them as Americans. These folks aren't making distinctions between various "factions" - and trying to do so will most certainly muddy the work, create confusion, perpetuate ill-will, and waste a lot of time. Tan | 39 16:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

♠ Is it me, or does it seem we're not further along? Who is interested in forming a consensus; raise your hand. Frankly I think we need to pursue a third opinion or some other option. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

By my count, there are 8 editors who have expressed some degree of agreement to include "Americans" with only two opposed. Right there we are darn close to having achieved a consensus. I would like to wait a few days and see who else shows up and then make a very specific proposal to take a vote on. My version of the proposal would include:

1. Add the indented paragraph at the top of the article to clarify the terms.

2. Add a subsection to address specifically the militay role of Loyalists and any reliable, verifiable, referenced material that characterizes how they felt abot the term Americans.

3. Acknowledgement that there are multiple terms used by reliable sources and that any are appropriate for use in the article -- no effort will be made to change the status quo simply by replacing one term with another.

4. Removal of Lord C's tag. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in establishing a consensus, but I tend to agree with Founders Intent that we're not getting any further along. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as the "outsider" to this debate, this sort of back-and-forth is extremely common here on Wikipedia, and often ends in deadlock - or what people perceive to be as deadlock. Remember that consensus (as defined here) does not require unanimity. What is required is an editor or two to be bold and make the changes without fearing an edit war or reprisal. I appreciate what Tom is trying to do there, but having large "votes" with multiple questions and issues is, in my experience, a sure way to perpetuate the deadlock. If I may assume that everyone participating in this debate is civil and playing under good-faith rules, then whoever is in the "minority" will accept the changes/status quo and move on. This is just my opinion, take it or leave it! Tan | 39 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas, in this statement of yours lies the true problem I feel but I don't see the problem in calling the Americans, "Americans". The point is that both Loyalists and Patriots (not to mention Indians) were Americans. Just to illustrate this, lets look at another conflict. If we applied this American logic we'd called the Union in the American Civil War Americans and the Confederates not. Yet the correct approach in that situation is of course to talk about the Union and Confederates, calling one of those two factions American, or rather addressing them as only American would be entirely inappropriate. In essence there is no difference to the American Revolution where the most neutral terminology would probably be Patriot and Loyalist.

Otherwise I agree, I think we are at a deadlock and a vote would not improve matters (in any case straw polls are 1) non binding and 2) certainly not applicable to anyone who did not vote...). The only way I see to solve this is for everyone to cool down (not saying that the debate has been exceedingly hot today) and maybe step back for a brief time. After that we could then either try to argue this out some more (though I honestly doubt we'll arrive at anything) or seek mediation, though even then I doubt we'll reach an agreement that will be respected by all.

But in the end, that very deadlock is why I tried to outline those two alternatives. 1) we either edit out any use of America and/or American where it singles out one party and excludes the other; or 2) we leave the tag in question. I would certainly prefer choice 1). But if a consensus exists that Americans are exclusively citizens of the United States and/or those who fought for the creation of said United States then the article should obviously stay as it is, but that also means admitting to a pro-US bias (as that is definitely not a global view, not even a continental one as those who object most to this designation are of course Americans of citizenship other than US) and therefore the tag explaining that to users. In the end we should be honest and recognise it's an either or situation.

Lastly, the problem probably exists on other American Revolution related articles (I only watch a few, just ones involving military questions, though considering my former study fields I feel at home in all). Obviously the solution, whichever it is is, should apply to all such articles. Either edit the articles for neutrality and worldwide view or otherwise tag them as not representing a global view. Which does not mean that I would support tagging all such articles at this time, rather that we should indeed expand this discussion. One logical step would be posting notes alerting to this ongoing discussion on the various relevant talk pages (which would also include various projects in addition to American Revolution articles). But it should be noted that all debate on this topic should be centralised, either here, on another talk page or on a page created for the sole purpose of discussing this issue.

After some thought, what might be more useful than a vote at this time would be for everyone involved so far to write a brief (yes, I'm never brief, that's the whole point though, we cannot expect everyone new coming in to read the whole discussion, particularly as we repeat ourselves) statement about his/her current view of these questions. Obviously such a list of positions should not be accompanied by replies etc. as that would make said positions unreadable.--Caranorn (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a third option that, since we're being honest, must be considered -- recognizing that there is no worldwide violation and allowing any terms used by historians in reliable sources to be used in the same manner in Wikpedia as they are used in the source material. I agee that there should be one discussion page to explore all three options and expect that no efforts to place additional tags on other articles or replace existing language subject to this dispute be attempted until a consensus is reached to do so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would politely like to ask people to refrain from making personal attacks on me. I am starting be hurt/offended by them and they appear to violate both Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Section 8

• I agree this is the proper place to discuss this issue, it seems the best place to do so. I also agree that there should be no tagging or widespread editing of terminology in other articles for the moment, while we are still trying to achieve a consensus here.

• I have removed the tag on the Patriot (American Revolution) article as I now accept this is an appropriate term to describe one of the two American factions which took part in the conflict - an equivalent of Loyalist.

• I assume there is a consensus to expand the sections featuring the Great Siege of Gibraltar and Minorca and I will do so in the next few days, unless there are any objections?

• As for the disputed use of “American” I am happy to discuss it further before we make a request for some form of mediation, provided there are no further personal attacks.

Regards. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Right at the top of this discussion page is the following:

Notice

This article focuses on the military campaign, while the American Revolution covers the origins of the war, as well as other social and political issues.

Please try to keep this article at a reasonable length. The current approach has been to summarize the war in a way that will be clearly understandable to the general reader, without cluttering it up with too many details. Concentrate on the major figures and actions, and try to leave detailed discussion of war strategies, battle casualties, historical debates, etc. to linked articles about specific battles or actions.

Instead of adding additional detail to this lengthy article, consider adding your information to an article on a specific battle, or to one of these campaign articles currently in development.

It appears that there very clearly IS NOT a consensus for expanding or creating sections on individual battles. Since your proposal is all part of this "Worldview" issue that you have created, I think your SPECIFIC proposed changes should be discussed here first. I can't imagine that anything other than a clarifying sentence or two would be appropriate. I did a quick check to see how two British authors, Robert Harvey and Jeremy Black, handled Minorca and Gibralter in their general histories of the Revolution. It appears (it's been a while snce I read the two works) that in the hundreds of pages that each wrote they provided very little detail not included in this much, much smaller encyclopedia article -- it seems like we have a proper balance. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the question of including more on the Gibraltar and Minorca campaigns, there were no objections to this and PMAnderson seemed to indicate they felt expansion of those two campaigns were justified. Apologies, I sort of assumed that meant there was a consensus, but if there are objections I won't add these without first clearing the language here.

As to your view that they are already adequately covered I'm not sure this is true. Gibraltar was the longest and largest campaign of the war, at its height the besieging Franco-Spanish force was over 100,000 - I am not sure the current state of the article does do it proper justice, when stood next to the coverage of a smaller campaign, such as the 1775 Invasion of Canada, but I will not insert anything without agreement here first. Regards Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

They are adequately covered on THIS page. When necessary a large, overarching article (such as this one) should be separated out into related parts, which the siege IS linked to. While we can argue about the length of other sections, we should err on the size of a concise summary and a link to the main article. Also, significance has little to do with sheer force exerted by warring parties; as all information needs to be soured, size and importance is usually dictated by the amount of historiography about a subject, for better or for worse.SiberioS (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Irish Patriots (Honorary Section 9)

I seem to have wandered into a bit of crossfire here, which is unfortunate, as the point I wanted to raise was about the use of the term “Patriot”. I am trying to create a page on the Irish Patriot Party, a movement around in Ireland at the same time as the American independence war was taking place.

My understanding was that the Irish Patriots name came from the British Whig “Patriot” faction which included William Pitt, but the first link I saw on the Patriot Disambiguation page was for an American type, to describe those who rebelled in America in the 1770s. There is also a Dutch Patriot faction apparently, my question concerns are they all part of a wider movement stemming from the British/English Whigs? I thought here might be a good place to ask?

Regards this little dispute - Maybe Lord C’s suggestion of a separate “terminology” article might not be such a bad idea if there is genuine potential for confusion or dispute, but above all we should all try and remain friendly and neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McLintock 71 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Patriot in the American sense also comes from the older British sense of "Country Party", which would include Pitt; we do need an article on this. I would have no objection to ordering the senses on the dab page in chronological order, but the etymological question really belongs to the OED and to Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, althrough I'm still not entirely sure about the answer. Over at the Patriot Whigs page they seemed to think there was no connection (or rather that there was no worldwide movement). The one book I have (about Irish Nationalism) isn't too clear on the matter unfortunately, just mentioning the Irish links with the British Whigs.

I have to say I wasn't personally familiar with the American "Patriot" term until I saw the Mel Gibson movie. I think Lord C might be right when he says it isn't much used outside the States, but I could offer nothing to support that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McLintock 71 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no world-wide movement; there is a common English word, which originally meant someone loyal to the country (patria) and against the central government. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, that basically confirms what I've subsequently read elsewhere. McLintock 71 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

June 7 Additions

Since the debate has focused on other areas, I have made additions that have been suggested without drawing any specific objections. These are primarily (1) an up front defintion of terms similar to that already proposed (2) a paragraph in the article lead explaning the divided nature of the colonial response to the Revolution and (3) a subsection in he Combatants section specifically addressed to Loyalist forces. I am not locked into any of the specific language. If a consensus should develope that "Americans" be eliminated from the article then (1) can be eliminated but for right now it is an accurate statement of how the term is used in the existing article -- let's not allow our petty squabbles make it more difficult for readers to understand the current article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion?

I would like to propose a conclusion to the world wide view discussion. I think that the consensus would be that the article remain as it was prior to this discussion with maybe some article specific definitions included. I don't know if this in accordance with Wiki policy, but it would provide clarity for some readers. Whole sale removal/alteration of common terminology to satisfy a POV is inappropriate. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I am eager like you to find a resolution to this. To suggest this is my and Carahorn's POV is unfair, we are observing that the article currently has a POV already and needs to read more neutrally. Would it be a solution if we asked Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard for their opinion? If they felt the current use of "American" was fine, I guess it is cool and perhaps the creation of a seperate terminology article to explain the words we use would be enough for the moment. Regards. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfair? I didn't name names, but providing supporting source material for deficiencies in the existing article is expected. I don't remember a definitive list of sources showing up in the discussions. I made a few suggestions for compromise that were rejected, and there is an italicized paragraph at the top of the page contextualizing the terminology in dispute. All the discussion above seems primarily opinions to me from both sides. I don't see a consensus to support change. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the italicized intro text is MORE than sufficient. We should not be creating a whole new vocabulary or redefining the existing terminology that historians have deemed adequate and sufficient for the last 230 years. I am going to second the request of THE FOUNDERS INTENT and ask that sources/citations be provided to support such a change. There is a common and established vocabulary and terminology in place for the discussion of this subject matter, and a SMALL number (two, if my count is correct) of editors are trying to change this, under the guise of "correcting" POV. I, for one, believe that consensus has been reached and that the removal of the tag at the top of the article is in order. We've beaten this issue to a bloody pulp, and it is my opinion that the italicized text at the top of the article is sufficient to explain the terminology to those who just might be confused. So, my vote is in for 1) removing said tag; 2) leaving italicized text in place (no further "article" needed), and 3) NOT changing or revising common and establishing terminology without supporting documentation regarding such being provided by those that wish to make those changes. Let's see it in print. Alphageekpa (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree the italicized intro text is very useful as to the question of ambiguity, but it still hasn't solved the neutrality question. I think it would be an idea to ask the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if they feel the current use of American conforms to NOPV. I would still request someone provide us with a historical work showing that the Loyalists were not American, and I can provide a number of sources saying they were American. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that if you have information that you consider relevant, that you should, if you are discussing this in good faith, provide that SPECIFIC information rather than simply hinting that it exists. Once you provide that information, then we can evaluate the context and the source and advance the conversation. There is no doubt at all that most reliable sources (and all that I am familiar with), American and British, use the terms "American" exactly as they are used in this article. If you have a few reliable sources (i.e. PhD, published, footnotes, bibliography, reviewed in professional journals, all that cool stuff) that say something like "After the Declaration of Independence Loyalists considered themselves every bit as much Americans as the Patriots and were really miffed about having the term hijacked", then by all means lets include this in the article and give it APPROPRIATE WEIGHT. Where there are actual DOCUMENTED differences of opinion among reliable sources, as I've said before, the Wikipedia practice is to INCLUDE both rather than EXCLUDE both.

On the issue of consensus, it does appear that the opinion in this discussion is 2 versus everybody else. The possibility of EXCLUDING "Americans" is of course dead. The only issue is whether to (1) delete the tag based on the consensus and report any attempt to replace it as disruptive editing or (2) take the issue to mediation. The former seems like the best course since neither of the "team of two" have presented even a single example from any reliable source anywhere in the whole wide world that uses terminology different from the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from using belitting langauge. If your case is so overwhelmingly clear, it is unessecary. I am genuinely confused as to the current position of American in the article. Are you suggesting you think that somebody such as Joseph Galloway was an American until 1776 when he stopped being one? Did those Loyalists who did not emigrate in 1783 become "Americans" again? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on Mr. Galloway is irrelevant. What do reliable sources say about his status? What did he call himself? Did Galloway or other Tories consider this issue significant? What reliable sources even consider your question remotely relevant? I can't help but notice that you are still keeping the sources you hinted at secret. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misinterprted what you said, but at the heart of this there appears to be a neutrality question. The problem is it concerns terminology rather than content - a number of sources I have indicate that the Loyalists were Americans, I can produce them if you like, but I have never seen any reliable source state that the Loyalists were not American. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Then do so. But your objections have consistently been to this article calling Patriots Americans; do your sources not call them Americans, or is this connexion your Original Research? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll toss out a source in support of the majority opinion here. Sir George Trevelyan (note: a BRITISH historian), in his The American Revolution refers to Americans as we presently refer to Americans in this article. Refers to Loyalists as Loyalists. Almost every darn page in the book. Alphageekpa (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lord C, you are making the mistake of reading a judgment into the use of the term "Americans" and "Loyalists". You seem to presume that the use of the term "Americans" towards the rebellious side is making some sort of nationalist imprimatur onto their cause and making a value judgment that they were "Good"; it is nothing of the sort. Certainly it MAY have been originally, much in the same way terms and words formed in wars or political divisions may have loaded baggage, but its been a sufficiently long period of time since the events described in this article to no longer worry about whether they are inappropriate. Similar arguments have been made before about potentially derogatory terms in reference to specific minority groups as they are known to the broader world; the use of "Ainu"(which means dog) to describe the indigenous of Japan, the use of Dalet to describe lower castes in India, the use of the term "Queer" in relation to LGBT, etc. While it is unfortunate, in certain cases, that insulting terms have been used as the nomenclature for groups in historiography, it is not our place to CORRECT this. In fact, as someone whose written historical articles on Wikipedia, I do feel awkward when using a source or a citing a quote that uses offensive language, but thems the breaks. SiberioS (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

?You have 24 hours. Unless a modern secondary source appears which uses neither Patriot nor American for the victors of Saratoga (and if so, what?), I am removing this tag, again. It has never been sourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

World History of Warfare by Christon I. Archer et al (2002) p. 373 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)