Talk:American Revolutionary War: Difference between revisions
Line 665: | Line 665: | ||
:'''Comments:''' |
:'''Comments:''' |
||
::<u>Robin violates [[wp:reliable]] sourcing</u>. The undiscussed revert blanked what the what the RS says: Hibbert, Christopher (2000) in [https://www.google.com/books/edition/George_III/ShQAtAEACAAJ?hl=en George III: A Personal History]. {{Gi|<u>King George III</u> had determined that in the event that France initiated a separate war with Britain, he would have to redeploy most of the British and German troops in America to threaten French and Spanish Caribbean settlements. In the King's judgment, Britain could not possibly fight on all three fronts without becoming weak everywhere. - Hibbert 2000, p. 160.}} – This source may be replaced with yet another using a reference that I have not yet inspected. - <small><small>[[User:TheVirginiaHistorian|TheVirginiaHistorian]] ([[User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian|talk]]) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)</small></small> |
::<u>Robin violates [[wp:reliable]] sourcing</u>. The undiscussed revert blanked what the what the RS says: Hibbert, Christopher (2000) in [https://www.google.com/books/edition/George_III/ShQAtAEACAAJ?hl=en George III: A Personal History]. {{Gi|<u>King George III</u> had determined that in the event that France initiated a separate war with Britain, he would have to redeploy most of the British and German troops in America to threaten French and Spanish Caribbean settlements. In the King's judgment, Britain could not possibly fight on all three fronts without becoming weak everywhere. - Hibbert 2000, p. 160.}} – This source may be replaced with yet another using a reference that I have not yet inspected. - <small><small>[[User:TheVirginiaHistorian|TheVirginiaHistorian]] ([[User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian|talk]]) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)</small></small> |
||
:::Just a comment on this: the Hibbert quote confirms George's opinion, but that doesn't in itself mean he had substantial power - indeed with respect to America (as elsewhere) even George regarded himself more as the "executive agent for the maintenance of Parliamentary authority" (Ditchfield, ''George III: An Essay in Monarchy''', p.110) in the spirit of the 1688 political settlement. He could influence policy through selection of ministers, but his power was severely limited - I realise American historiography may be different here.[[User:Svejk74|Svejk74]] ([[User talk:Svejk74|talk]]) 12:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===(#4) Robinvp11 deleted Tory - Whig image balance representing the two parties supplying George III with PMs === |
===(#4) Robinvp11 deleted Tory - Whig image balance representing the two parties supplying George III with PMs === |
Revision as of 12:35, 27 November 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Revolutionary War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0
|
![]() | American Revolutionary War was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Revolutionary War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
B-status met
- Article progress Apr-Oct 2020 to meet Projects B-status at Wikipedia: article is 99kB and 15708 'prose size' (text only).
- - B1. Suitably referenced and cited. All paragraphs end with a citation; all direct quotes are attributed; All 588 citations now conform to HarvRef format. Oldest redundant references, usually from the early 1900s without footnotes elsewhere, are moved to “Further reading”.
- - B2. Reasonably covers the topic. Top hat: "This article is about military actions primarily." Narrative trimmed 20% to “readable prose size”; tactical detail, intimate factoid, future impact, and elements unrelated to the American war for independence is moved to Notes as a stop-gap-gambit for Talk and Article stability - for future consideration by each RfC at Talk.
- - B3. Defined structure with a lead section. The lead section is a five paragraphs related to article material. The topic core is addressed in four sections: Introduction-Infobox, Background, The war, and Aftermath.
- - B4. Free from grammatical errors, met by a line-by-line copy edit with the assist of 28 editors and 3 bots.
- - B5. Supporting infobox and images. Balance is maintained among scholarly approaches: British and American, military and naval, American and foreign assistance.
- - Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC) Originally TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
AWR international perspective: naming conventions
Re: editor interest in an "international perspective" for the ARW.
rationale and its citations
|
---|
|
North-American conflict | Euro-great-power conflict |
---|---|
align="center" style="border-color:#FFE49C;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|French and Indian War 1754-1763 pitted the colonies of British America against those of New France, each side supported by military units from the parent country and by Native American allies. |
align="center" style="border-color:#A3D3FF;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|Seven Years' War 1756–1763 a global conflict, "a struggle for global primacy between Britain and France," which also had a major impact on the Spanish Empire |
align="center" style="border-color:#FFE49C;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"|American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 also known as the American War of Independence, was initiated by the thirteen original colonies in Congress against the Kingdom of Great Britain over their objection to Parliament's direct taxation and its lack of colonial representation. |
align="center" style="border-color:#A3D3FF;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;Template:Border-radius"| War of the American Revolution[1] Bourbon War of 1778[2] 1778–1783 "In 1778, the American Revolutionary War [colonials v. Britain for independence] became the global War of the American Revolution [Bourbons v. Britain for imperial gain], expanding into a multinational conflict, spanning oceans to singe four continents. Most of the fighting outside of America was naval combat, among [Britain and France, Britain and Spain, Britain and the Dutch],"[3] "the last British-European war with the Bourbons as their enemies."[4] |
Chart citations & bibliography
|
---|
Citations
Bibliography
|
Submitted for discussion - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Military history assessment request
At the 28-day old Military history request for this article, the update reports,
- - ARW Update. (1) Maps gallery of European claims, British empire, and Native American language and tribal distribution is relocated at the renamed “Prelude to revolution” section to immediately adjacent and above “War breaks out” for better reader reference; (2) Bibliography improvements; (3) copyedits for focus, style and trim to NET 98 kB & 15531 words “readable prose size”.
- - ARW meets all articulated critiques of the article for B-class assessment for 71 uninterrupted days (since 30 August), admitting additional improvements without any controversy or disruption.
- - Good article criteria, note 6, "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Updates as they occur (that's over 800 edits in 71 days since 30 August, and over the last 30 days, 29 editors and four bots with positive contributions incorporated into the article). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Copyedit request
TheVirginiaHistorian (TVH), I'm going to separate points by section so that they're easier to sift through. If you have anything in particular to bring up feel free to do so. Each point can be considered its own conversation, so please leave indented (preferably unbulleted) replies underneath them. I'll strike my comments out when a resolution has been reached for them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've placed the deliberations over the Lede into one collapse-box for immediate access. Concluded deliberations should be transferred into an Archive only after the line-edit is completed, imho. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: TheVirginiaHistorian I've got some questions about the "War breaks out" section. Anyone else is also welcome to add input. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping: TheVirginiaHistorian (and others) for the "Strategy and commanders" section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
ping
To recently active editors (TheVirginiaHistorian—Robinvp11—Gwillhickers): There seems to be some major article restructuring going on that has removed some of the text I've copyedited. It appears there's still some contention over article content, so I will be suspending my copyedit until issues among primary editors have been resolved. This is not a jab at anyone, but rather there being very little point to copyediting when text hasn't been agreed upon and may be potentially removed wholesale. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reply can be found at the bottom of the talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu: Thank you for your good work to date.
- - I would implore you to have a copy edit look at three remaining sections #Revolution as civil war, #Aftermath, and #Commemorations of the Revolutionary War, as all have remained stable to date.
- - I know your "ground rules" were to apply to the entire article, so I understand that your normal work flow has been interrupted. But the 'bones of contention' seem to be confined to only two sections #Strategy and commanders, and #World war and diplomacy.
- - Can you overlook them, and just skip over the two sections at issue? In any case, thanks for your help and good wishes. Sincerely - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Happy to stop - I obviously misunderstood the template. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Lede
completed Lede resolved & editor comments
| ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Panel discussion
Editor comments
Pending
|
Prelude to revolution
Resolved
completed Prelude line-edits
|
---|
|
Pending
War breaks out
Resolved
Resolved points
|
---|
|
Pending
Strategy and commanders
Resolved
Resolved points
|
---|
|
Pending
New section 'Overall results'
@DTParker1000, Tenryuu, and TheVirginiaHistorian: It seems the new section (Overall Results of the Revolutionary War) that was just added, while very interesting, is a bit over-done. The section is mostly devoted to slavery, filled with tangential details that didn't occur until some years later. There is also a serious citation overkill situation. Unless a statement seems highly unusual or controversial, it need only be cited with one or two sources – certainly not five to ten citations in a row. Also, for the last several months we have been employing one citation convention throughout the article, (an FA requirement) using the same format for all cites/sources. Some work is needed in that area. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Some tangential text, some citations have been removed, and some prose has been condensed. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
discussion part A
|
---|
|
- I think it could be shortened and written in a more neutral tone. The powers of the British king and even the aristocracy are exaggerated and of course in the aftermath of the ARA only 6% of the U.S. population could vote,[1] which was probably the same amount as before the revolution. And while the U.S. constitution has been copied, it was not written until 1789. It might be better to say that the war allowed the newly independent states to form the first modern republic, which would become a model for other nations. TFD (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
discussion part B
|
---|
|
Social history of colonies and early states
discussion part C
|
---|
|
Colonial governance
discussion part D
|
---|
|
Social history of colonies ... continued
discussion part E
|
---|
"then the peerage (those with titles of nobility), gentlemen, common people, and slaves at the bottom. One's life was determined by one's birth." Not entirely true. In the Peerage of Great Britain, new titles were created for socially mobile people. For example:
"Also, you were the one who mentioned that Washington, et al, was an "elite", which in a sense was true, but that term is a bit inappropriate, since we are referring to elected officials, and in Washington's case, someone who marched into battle. He wasn't one to sit back and watch his men fight from the rear" Irrelevant. An elite is formed by "a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society." That does not mean that this elite consists of people who have never sought political office or military positions. Within the British Empire, several successful politicians and military officers of modest backgrounds were elevated to the nobility. And Washington may have never held a title of nobility, but he was a member of the American gentry. Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
|
continued...
I was the one who produced sources that said while Loyalists came from all classes, they very often came from privy classes closely associated to Royal Governors and their circle of constituants. In general, the Loyalists were older, more well off and had associations with Parliament and the king. Are you also saying that your "British cabinet officer"(s) were in the same class as the common colonist and had no more association to Parliament and the Crown as they? Parliament, the King, implemented taxes, acts, etc via a privy class of Royal governors and the various officials that worked under them. This was ended after the ARW. To think they let the common colonist make these impositions on themselves would be and is nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am saying that there were very few imported colonial officials, most of the imports were career civil servants or military officers, they did not form a social class, most officials were members of local wealthy merchant or planter families, most of whom remained in America after the revolution. America wasn't France or Russia, where an aristocratic class was overthrown and became emigres. For example, George Clinton who would later become governor of New York and Vice President of the United States was appointed Clerk of the Ulster County Court of Common Pleas by the royal governor, George Clinton. Unlike France and Russia, there was a lot of continuity. And of course a lot of the colonial officials were elected, especially at the municipal level. Mostly, royal governors ruled worked with local worthies rather than bringing in their own people. The only exception as one of your sources said was that before the Revolution they imported officials to enforce the unpopular tax and navigation acts. TFD (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Very few"? "Imported"? Okay, the discussion is getting a bit fuzzy. "Imported" or domestic, "very few", or more, these individuals were a privy class, most of whom became loyalists, who, at the onset of the ARW, typically migrated north to Nova Scotia, or to the south, and were indeed in a class apart from the common colonist who largely comprised the Continental Army. I fail to see what is so amazing about this that this must be hacked out in such a lengthy capacity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Very few would mean usually the governor and his secretary. However in some cases the governors were elected. TFD (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- "Very few"? "Imported"? Okay, the discussion is getting a bit fuzzy. "Imported" or domestic, "very few", or more, these individuals were a privy class, most of whom became loyalists, who, at the onset of the ARW, typically migrated north to Nova Scotia, or to the south, and were indeed in a class apart from the common colonist who largely comprised the Continental Army. I fail to see what is so amazing about this that this must be hacked out in such a lengthy capacity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
A note on captions
![A line print head portrait of William of Normandy wearing a four-pointed crown, holding a sword over his shoulder, and wearing breastplate armor.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/William_I_of_England.jpg/240px-William_I_of_England.jpg)
Some few recent edits for captions on the page seem to reflect the work of an avid art historian. I encourage all to explore the Wikipedia Manual of Style, WP:CAPTION. The following are my takeaways for a lengthy history article such as the American Revolutionary War.
“A good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article.” Details of artwork provenance are available to the reader by a “click through to the image description page”. The guidelines explain, “If you have nothing to say about it, then the image probably does not belong in the article.” In the example coded to the right, using the 'thumb' image, the parameter 'upright=1.0' allows easy tweek of pic size; the parameter 'alt=text description' is used to describe the image for sight-impaired readers.
The purpose is to “draw the reader into the article”. Image captions should be succinct and informative. “Identify the subject of the picture.” Editors here populated the article with an image every 400 words to add visually interest within extended sections of text. But to balance that many images, captions are kept succinct; most are 2-3 lines to avoid either crowding image frames into adjacent sections below, or opening large white spaces between sections.
In this example, the reader becomes curious about William of Normandy's new form of government and reads the text adjacent to learn what it is. The example is meant to illustrate a passage about William of Normandy's innovations in monarchial government, such as 'trial by jury' for a manor's peasant in the King's court composed of one's "peers", that is, local residents other than the Lord of the Manor's relatives or his soldiers-at-arms. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
‘Global war and diplomacy’ - Robinvp11 and undiscussed reverts
At #Global war and diplomacy, Robinvp11 as the reverting editor gave a fragmented rationale for wholesale disruption of the section without discussion at Talk.
The first in a series begins with this, which has four (4) objectionable elements:
(#1) Robinvp11 removed image of the King choosing PMs before and after the political effects of Yorktown
- posted here:
(1.a) Robin initiates his edit-post wp:original research without sourcing or discussion at Talk. He arbitrarily chooses to off-handedly replace picture (again, because this makes it seem as if George III was far more active than he actually was)
. The replacement: A blown-up image of only one (1) of the two (2) parties in Parliament that George III chose from for his Prime Ministers during the American Revolutionary War.
- Comments:
- It is a violation of wp:BALANCE to omit or otherwise censor the constructive role George III had in the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War. He was the principal in the history event i.e. he was “actually” an active agent, rather than a passive figurehead of some inexplicit description. In his 5 December 1782 Speech from the Throne to a public joint session of Parliament, George III declared for American independence, peace and trade. No, he did not finally retire as a princeling of the Holy Roman Empire in Brunswick, despite rumors in London parlors. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Speech from the Throne is written by the prime minister, in this case, Lord Shelburne.(See Edmund Burke, Vol. 2, p. 13[4].) Parliament then debates and votes on the speech. In this case, Burke attacked the speech and the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended it. TFD (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and Ted Sorensen once wrote,
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
. But it does not necessarily follow that President John F. Kennedy was a nullity in the history of Anglo-American relations for using it in his Inaugural Address. - - Although there is a doctrine to dismiss "great men" influencing history, surely you do not presume to assert generally that George III and John F. Kennedy should be treated as nullities in historical narratives, or to specifically deny here that George III had a substantial role in ending the ARW? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- The speech from the throne is entirely different. That Elizabeth II or her representative reads a speech every year to the parliaments of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 11 other sovereign states as well as 10 Canadian provinces, 6 Australian states, 15 overseas territories, two associated states and in the past dozens of other independent states and their provinces is a formality. She doesn't personally decide the government policies of all those territories. The reason that the prime ministers of each state write the speech is not that they are particularly qualified in speechwriting, but that they use the speech from the throne to outline what they intend to do in the current session of parliament. Presumably Kennedy agreed to the policies and opinions that Sorenson wrote in his speeches. TFD (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Bon, good. Thank you for improving my understanding of the "Speech from the Throne" in the modern "Commonwealth" era of British Empire. That British "commonwealth" of independent nations is akin to what the First Continental Congress imagined in its Olive Branch Petition, to my understanding.
- - I see that you and I are agreed in this: Incoming PM Lord Rockingham was of importance in ending the ARW, significant historically and relevant to the ARW article. Lord Rockingham influenced the King's new policy for American independence. Perhaps you can support my restoring the now Robin-reverted gallery portrait of incoming PM 'Whig' Lord Rockingham paired with the outgoing PM 'Tory' Lord North, I will do shortly. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. My point was that we cannot know a sovereign's views from the speech from the throne because the speech reflects the PM's views, although the speaker may add to it. George III exercised more influence than modern monarchs and may well have added to the speech or changed it. TFD (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- The speech from the throne is entirely different. That Elizabeth II or her representative reads a speech every year to the parliaments of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 11 other sovereign states as well as 10 Canadian provinces, 6 Australian states, 15 overseas territories, two associated states and in the past dozens of other independent states and their provinces is a formality. She doesn't personally decide the government policies of all those territories. The reason that the prime ministers of each state write the speech is not that they are particularly qualified in speechwriting, but that they use the speech from the throne to outline what they intend to do in the current session of parliament. Presumably Kennedy agreed to the policies and opinions that Sorenson wrote in his speeches. TFD (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and Ted Sorensen once wrote,
- The Speech from the Throne is written by the prime minister, in this case, Lord Shelburne.(See Edmund Burke, Vol. 2, p. 13[4].) Parliament then debates and votes on the speech. In this case, Burke attacked the speech and the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended it. TFD (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- It is a violation of wp:BALANCE to omit or otherwise censor the constructive role George III had in the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War. He was the principal in the history event i.e. he was “actually” an active agent, rather than a passive figurehead of some inexplicit description. In his 5 December 1782 Speech from the Throne to a public joint session of Parliament, George III declared for American independence, peace and trade. No, he did not finally retire as a princeling of the Holy Roman Empire in Brunswick, despite rumors in London parlors. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(#2) Robinvp11, without further discussion, asserting 14-words is longer than 34-words is insufficient reasoning
- posted here:
(1.b) Robin perpetrates an unusual miscount on the article main-space, confusing the previous 15-words as longer than his own 34-words. The rationale: ”correct over long first sentence and (as indicated previously)”
- Article sentence of 15 words - "Tory Prime Minister Lord North had been the King's Prime Minister in Parliament since 1770."
- Robin revert run-on of 34 words - "Lord North, Prime Minister since 1770, delegated control of the war in North America to Lord George Germain and the Earl of Sandwich, who was head of the Royal Navy from 1771 to 1782."
- Comments:
- Nonsensical sequencing of two (2) scaled ordinal numbers. The article 15-word sentence is shorter than the purported 34-word “correction”. The misstatement is not sufficient justification to restructure a topic sentence at the beginning of a section without Talk discussion first. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(#3) (see also #6, #9) Robinvp11 imposed POV that George III was not significant in ending the ARW
- posted here:
(1.c) In an unsourced editor's wp:own proclamation without sourcing or discussion at Talk, Robin's POV: ”George III did not conduct government or strategy”
.
- Comments:
- Robin violates wp:reliable sourcing. The undiscussed revert blanked what the what the RS says: Hibbert, Christopher (2000) in George III: A Personal History.
King George III had determined that in the event that France initiated a separate war with Britain, he would have to redeploy most of the British and German troops in America to threaten French and Spanish Caribbean settlements. In the King's judgment, Britain could not possibly fight on all three fronts without becoming weak everywhere. - Hibbert 2000, p. 160.
– This source may be replaced with yet another using a reference that I have not yet inspected. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)- Just a comment on this: the Hibbert quote confirms George's opinion, but that doesn't in itself mean he had substantial power - indeed with respect to America (as elsewhere) even George regarded himself more as the "executive agent for the maintenance of Parliamentary authority" (Ditchfield, George III: An Essay in Monarchy', p.110) in the spirit of the 1688 political settlement. He could influence policy through selection of ministers, but his power was severely limited - I realise American historiography may be different here.Svejk74 (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Robin violates wp:reliable sourcing. The undiscussed revert blanked what the what the RS says: Hibbert, Christopher (2000) in George III: A Personal History.
(#4) Robinvp11 deleted Tory - Whig image balance representing the two parties supplying George III with PMs
- posted here:
(1.d) Robin deletes the two gallery portraits of successive Prime Ministers to George III, Lord North, and Lord Rockingham, leaving only a blown-up image of Lord North alone to lead the article.
- Comments:
- Robin persists in foisting an unrelenting POV bias on the article, without sourcing or discussion at Talk. That Lord North portrait is now placed it at the top of the section, renaming the section with the purpose of describing the Fall of the North Ministry to an unwarranted and undiscussed Exultation of the North Ministry. And as noted before, the edit-post removed King George III, the sovereign who appointed both Lord North and Lord Rockingham as his Prime Ministers during the American Revolutionary War. Again, an unsourced and undiscussed revert to advance the misapprehension that George III had no significant role in ending the American Revolution. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The second in the "Robin series" is this, which has five (5) objectionable elements:
(#5) Robinvp11 altered source attribution about the Carlyle Commission
- posted here:
(2.a) Source Hibbert wrote, "Before the Commission returned to London in November 1778, it recommended a change in British war policy." (Hibbert 2000, p. 160-161)
- Robin misrepresented the source:
When the commissioners returned to London
"in November 1778, they recommended a change in policy." - without a source, without discussion at Talk. - Comments:
- Robin alters the source to lead readers into the error that the Commission did not leave London prepared to alter British policy making war on their fellow subjects. It is relevant because the change figures into why the "Country Gentlemen" of Commons deserting the Tory caucus to join the Whigs against any further prosecution of "American War". The Bourbon naval war had begun requiring huge new naval expenditure and the first invasion attempt on England just averted (Syrett 1998, p. 19). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(#6) (see also #3, #9) Robinvp11 altered source attribution for George III
- posted here:
(2.b) Source Hibbert wrote, "George III still had hoped for victory in the South." (Hibbert 2008, p. 333)
- Robin misrepresented the source:
North still hoped for victory in the South, [...]
- without a source, without discussion at Talk. - Comments:
- Robin persists in a POV about the end of the ARW, that it is somehow disconnected from and unrelated to the ruling Monarch of Britain, George III. George III was known to have influenced Parliament by corrupting both members in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons who were in his pay. The repeated edits dismissing George III's role in American independence, peace, and trade with Britain is unwarranted disruption of the page. There is no sourcing to support Robin's assertion, coloring, or bias to be introduced into the article. There is no discussion on his part to find a consensus here to overturn mainstream historiography on the topic that supports an effective rule by pre-dementia George III as king. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- These massive deletions made with no discussion while everyone else is taking the time to discuss matters in a line by line fashion is indeed disruptive. I would have have restored the deleted items in question on the spot. If you decided to make the corrections of which you refer you have my support. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers:, thank you. I am reluctant to respond with anything that third-party administrators might view at first glance to be an "wp:edit war" (been there, done that). Better to allow the misrepresentations to stay up in the article, misleading some 1000 readers per day for a week (my estimate of how many of the 7000/day who will read down to Robin's disruption), and first document the case before taking action. An disruption sanction from the arbitration committee might better protect the page for the future long-run, rather than an off-handed response that gets me suspended for a week for edit-warring. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- 7000 mislead readers a week is sort of a high price to pay for someone else's arrogant editing practice. Rolling over only encourages more of the same behavior. I would simply make a few corrections, and if they are deleted wholesale again, you could simply drop a note to Tenryuu where he can see what's going on for himself. If the sources support your statements it should earn any editor's support - you would think. You did not initiate any edit war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, in and amongst the disruptive edits, Robin has done some good copyediting, trimming, rewriting, linking, that I do not want to lose or have to later replicate. Robin is a good writer, that's a fact to be taken advantage of here.
- The really sticky part is coming up soon. Just a reminder, Robin is the same fellow at the Military history Project who is a self-described expert, who authored a scholarly paper, for a noted think-tank, but all are anonymous, and to backup footnote can be found in the literature, only appeals to overlapping timelines. He is the editor who thought the article was not worthy of C-status at the Military history Project because he believed the ARW 1775-83 Infobox should be modeled on the European great power "Austrian War of Succession" without listing "Combatants" as is done at the "Spanish Civil War" Infobox.
- When I observed that the Continental Congress in 1775-1783 was NOT a "Great Power" as the United States after the fall of the Soviet Union, I was met with "crickets", no response either here at Talk or at the Military history Project discussion page --- and so we await yet a second one-month-13 day delay with no response to the upgrades here and posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests.
- (1) I'd like to keep all the good contributions that Robin made, and not blank all of them out indiscriminately. (2) I'd like to keep my powder dry for just a day or two more. Then approach the problem in two stages, the first "before Treaty of Paris" edits, when I'll restore the relevant sourced material lost without disturbing the several positive edits, and the second stage, "after Treaty of Paris". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- 7000 mislead readers a week is sort of a high price to pay for someone else's arrogant editing practice. Rolling over only encourages more of the same behavior. I would simply make a few corrections, and if they are deleted wholesale again, you could simply drop a note to Tenryuu where he can see what's going on for himself. If the sources support your statements it should earn any editor's support - you would think. You did not initiate any edit war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers:, thank you. I am reluctant to respond with anything that third-party administrators might view at first glance to be an "wp:edit war" (been there, done that). Better to allow the misrepresentations to stay up in the article, misleading some 1000 readers per day for a week (my estimate of how many of the 7000/day who will read down to Robin's disruption), and first document the case before taking action. An disruption sanction from the arbitration committee might better protect the page for the future long-run, rather than an off-handed response that gets me suspended for a week for edit-warring. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your words of conciliation and caution are appreciated. Eight sections were committed here in Talk, mentioning the editor in question, which I was in agreement with. No one wants to blank out all of anyone's edits based on a couple of so called 'bold' edits, but at the same time it seems you shouldn't let your well sourced edits be removed so easily. A "good writer" doesn't merit a blank check, esp when we are at a stage where the article is being gone over with a fine toothed comb, and we are discussing article content first, before making significant or major edits. I'll leave the issues in question to your discretion. ~~ Gwillhickers (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- These massive deletions made with no discussion while everyone else is taking the time to discuss matters in a line by line fashion is indeed disruptive. I would have have restored the deleted items in question on the spot. If you decided to make the corrections of which you refer you have my support. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Robin persists in a POV about the end of the ARW, that it is somehow disconnected from and unrelated to the ruling Monarch of Britain, George III. George III was known to have influenced Parliament by corrupting both members in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons who were in his pay. The repeated edits dismissing George III's role in American independence, peace, and trade with Britain is unwarranted disruption of the page. There is no sourcing to support Robin's assertion, coloring, or bias to be introduced into the article. There is no discussion on his part to find a consensus here to overturn mainstream historiography on the topic that supports an effective rule by pre-dementia George III as king. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(#7) Robinvp11 removed first step to Euro peace: international armistice
- posted here:
- (2.c) Source authors Green and Pole enumerated two initiatives by the British Parliament in Paris: (a) "Parliament began its negotiations in Paris" [with Americans separately from Bourbon French and Spanish], and (b) "a British-US-French-Spanish armistice was negotiated there, subsequently honored in North America among all sides, thus ending worldwide conflict related to the American War for Independence." (Greene and Pole 2008 (2000), p. 325)
- - Robin misrepresented the two-step process as sourced:
"Peace discussions were held in Paris, leading to the Treaty of Paris, ending worldwide conflict related to the American War for Independence."
- Comments:
- First and foremost: This article is a military history of British subjects in their (a) insurrection, (b) rebellion, (c) constitutional "Revolution", or (d) "War of Independence", depending on various mainstream historiographic interpretations. It cannot reasonably be expanded into a diplomatic history of great European powers. when there is already a stand-alone Wikipedia article on Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War.
- Regarding the end of the ARW as military actions, explained to all as the scope here in the article top hat: (1) First the shooting war was stopped by truces negotiated by local British and American commanders in Yorktown and New York in 1781; (2) British offensive action in North America against Congress ended in the "American war" by Act of Parliament in April 1782;
- - (3) An Act of Parliament initiated peace with Congress without the Bourbon kings, leading to an Anglo-American Preliminary Peace that met all the unanimous Congressional war aims in November 1782: independence, British evacuation, territory to the Mississippi with its navigation into the Gulf, and Newfoundland Banks fishing with curing rights. Congress ratified that agreement on 15 April 1783 (Library of Congress "Memory"). Euro armistice worldwide was in early 1783, followed by Euro worldwide peace in late 1783.
- - The end of the ARW as a military enterprise came with the end of the shooting war in North America. It was not defined by the formal "conclusive" Anglo-American peace delayed "at the pleasure of his Most Britannic Majesty". -- (An editors here observed that "shooting war" was a term unknown to him [in Euro diplomatic history?], falsely asserting the term is TVH "made up" only for the purpose of discussion here.)
- - That bit of European diplomatic history of various "conclusive treaties" in Versailles awaited the French April 1782 failure in the Caribbean and the Spanish October 1782 failure at Gibraltar, both engagements related to the Britain's Bourbon War (Am: Mahan 1890, Brit: Syrett 1998). They were apart from the British colonial insurrection for independence in North America, they occurred without any document evidence of participant connection to Congress or American independence. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
(#8) Robinvp11 POV removed 'American War' opposition in Parliament, Tory and Whig
- posted here:
(2.d) Robin, without sourcing or discussion at Talk, deleted the following account of Parliamentary opposition to continuing the 'American war', both Tory (Edward Gibbon) and Whig (William Pitt the Younger).
- The mood of the British nation had changed since the 1770s. Member of Parliament Edward Gibbon had believed the King's cause in America to be just, and the British and German soldiers there fought bravely. But after Yorktown, he concluded, "It is better to be humbled than ruined." There was no point in spending more money on Britain's most expensive war, with no hope of success. Whig William Pitt argued that war on American colonists had brought nothing but ineffective victories or severe defeats. He condemned effort to retain the Americans as a "most accursed, wicked, barbarous, cruel, unjust and diabolical war." Lord North resigned. George III never forgave him. (Hibbert 2000, p.161, 164).
Comments:
- Colonial Americans did not "exceptionally" single-handedly overthrow the greatest naval power on earth and seize independence from a despotic "Mother Country". There were Opposition Whigs in Parliament at every step of the American taxation crisis and throughout the Revolutionary War.
- - The Patriots were grounded in Whig history, philosophy, and politics. And they were supported by British Whigs publicly in Parliament throughout the American Revolution. The British lost its second army in America at (Yorktown October 1781). The catastrophe had resulted from the Tory administration of a hard war policy that Lord North had staked his political fortunes on, so that failure allowed for the ascendency of the Whigs in Parliament (William Pitt the Younger in Commons). The "Country Gentlemen" in Commons defected from the Tories to the Whigs to oppose the "American war". These included Tories such as Mr. "it is better to be humbled than ruined" Edward Gibbon, in a seat that had been bought and paid for him through the patronage of Lord North. Parliament ended further prosecution of the "American war" in April 1782.
- - British patriotism reasserted itself. The Bourbon invasion of England by their (Armada September 1779) had failed a little over a year before only from the happy circumstances from bad weather combined with widespread shipboard illness and death among the invading fleet. With no further prosecution of war by Britain in America, the ranks of regular British regiments and county home-defense militias were filled, both officer and enlisted.
- - The deleted passage not only bears directly on the end of the American Revolutionary War, but it is also relevant to the pivot by King, Parliament and the Briton populace, to answer the direct threat of the Bourbon War on the British homeland, Caribbean, and India, apart from any subsidiary assistance that France or Spain had been forwarding to the efforts of the rebel - independence Congress among those British subjects beforehand. The passage should be restored - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
(#9)(also #3, #6) Robinvp11 altered source attribution for George III
- posted here:
(3.a) Ferling source: "George III abandoned any hope of subduing America militarily while simultaneously contending with two European Great Powers alone. (Ferling 2007, p. 294)
- Robin misrepresentation:
"North
abandoned any hope of subduing America militarily while simultaneously contending with two European Great Powers alone." (Ferling 2007, p. 294) - Comments:
- For the third time in this series, Robinvp11 inserts a POV of unsourced and undiscussed posts diminishing the role of the ruling monarch of Britain, before the onset of his later dementia, and while George III was still actively corrupting Commons seats to confer on his favorites, and adding seats in the House of Lords to guarantee his "King's Party" majorities in Parliament's votes. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
(#10) Robinvp11 removed reference to the Second Hundred Years' War
- Posted here, with a rationale explaining, "You'll very rarely find any British historian who refers to the Second Hundred Years War and isn't needed anyway":
- (4.a) Previous text: "Beginning in 1778–9 as a part of what European historians know as the Anglo-French Second Hundred Years' War, France and Spain again declared war on Britain."
- Robin's misdirection: "Beginning in 1778–1779, France and Spain again declared war on Britain."
- Comments:
- (1) The ARW is an article on American military history. Unlike the ARW for British colonial independence in a republic the Anglo-French wars of the Second Hundred Years' War 1689-1815 concerned the two major European great powers vying for a favorable Balance of power on the Continent, and extending their imperial reach by colonial conquest and trade agreements (Larrie Ferreiro, Brothers at Arms: American Independence and the men of France and Spain who saved it, "British scholar Robert Seeley's name for the eight Anglo-French wars 'stuck'").
- - Without reference to the British historiographic category of a Second Hundred Years' War, there is no reason to include any reference, not even tangentially, to any diplomatic or military history that is not directly related to the American Revolutionary War as defined by Encyclopedia Britannica. The on-topic material for this article must then be restricted to subject matter relating events in an insurrection of British subjects against their British government for national independence in North America for the purpose of establishing a republican government.
- (2) The Wikipedia military history project must adhere to a consistent editorial policy across its articles. None of the Wikipedia articles on four North American wars are written so as to comprehend the related European great power imperial wars that overlap them for some period of time. The ARW of 1775 cannot be made to do so as a one-off, stand-alone exception.
- - Only at the ARW have editors tried to merge not one, but two European great powers war articles into an existing American war article. The undisrupted, stand-alone American wars are to be found at 1689 King William's War, 1701 Queen Anne's War, 1739 King George's War, 1754 French and Indian War. The as yet unmerged great power wars are the 1689-1697 War of the Grand Alliance, the 1701-1714 War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Austrian Succession, or the French and Indian War.
- (3) One Wikipedia project should not single-handedly and inconsistently dictate that the article for the ARW of 1775 fought in North America and the North Atlantic for national independence in a republican government, should absorb sourced narrative accounts for the Anglo-French-Bourbon War of 1778 (naval history scholars Am:Mahan 1890, Brit:Styrett 1998) that was fought worldwide over the European balance of power and their respective imperial colonies. Editors there should not throw in the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War in the North Atlantic and Caribbean, and the Second Anglo-Mysore War in India and the Indian Ocean as add-ons.
- - That is especially so, since all the great power Anglo-French wars 1689-1815 are a part of the British historian Second Hundred Years' War, which as a stand-alone artic'e itself needs expanding at Wikipedia to become "comprehensive", were editors there be so inclined. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
(#11) to be completed
(-) to be completed.
- Comments:
- to be completed. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Overall results
I wonder if editors could comment on how we describe the overall results.
To me, colonial America was controlled by the British government, but had a great degree of internal self-government. While not a democracy, the colonial governments relied on local elites for support. They lost this however after the British parliament imposed "intolerable" legislation and sent colonial officials to impose imperial legislation. Many colonists, from all ranks of society, remained loyal to Britain and some 80,000 "loyalists" left the colonies after independence.
The distinguished historian Gordon S. Wood saw colonial America as a stratified society that would change into an egalitarian society as a result of the revolution.
Gwillhickers sees colonial America as a semi-feudal state with lords and ladies and personally controlled by the King of Great Britain. A class of colonial officials from England formed the upper class, but left following the ARW.
I don't know how accepted Wood's view is, but I see no support for Gwillhickers' view in reliable sources.
For the overall results section,[5] we need to distinguish the degree of support various views have. It reflects Gwillhickers' view and uses Wood as a source. I think that Wood's view is misinterpreted and is in any case a minority view.
TFD (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just generally,
- (a) I am reluctant to spend narrative space in extended discussion of historiography on any aspect of the article topic, except in a very few summary sentences in a final end-of-article "Legacy and commemoration" section.
- (b) The wholesale import of a political section from another Wikipedia article at American Revolution into the military article is (i) mirroring another article, a practice that is deprecated in Wikipedia policy -----, and (ii) off topic. The article top hat reads,
This article is about military actions primarily. For origins and aftermath, see American Revolution.
- (c) The imported POV (I'm not sure that Gwillhickers should embrace it in a wiki-fencing match here) in the once named "overall results" section, mis-characterized American colonial society as "feudal" when that term of historiography has only a limited application to the colonial Tidewater Atlantic seaboard of the Chesapeake Bay, south (and the British Caribbean).
- (d) I propose, the following language, supported by RS footnotes, below. :Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Proposed 'Legacy' section
- Political legacy
- The American Revolution established the United States and set an example to overthrow government by monarchy and imperial colonialism. The new republic spanned a large territory, justified to the world by Enlightenment ideals with widespread political participation. That participation was further expanded by land grants made to Continental and militia veterans. The French, Haitian, Latin American Revolutions were inspired in part by the American Revolution, as were others into the modern era.
- In their home states, returning veterans sought to expand the voting franchise to include all those who had served in the American Revolutionary War, and to embrace all those who enrolled in their county militias from ages 21 to 60. During the elections for delegates to state conventions to ratify the US Constitution in 1788, that goal was attained in Virginia for that one election only. Most states did not expand the franchise to militia members regardless of property holdings until after the War of 1812 and later at the rise of Jacksonian democracy.
- Returning veteran settlement included a variety of backgrounds. Enlisted men, several hundreds of whites and a few dozen free blacks, received land grants from Congress or their home states to settle on family farms on the western frontier, and thereby met the land requirement to vote. Germans who had fought for the British returned with their families to settle on the frontier, achieving citizenship within one year for their adopted states, before US citizenship. "Soft" Tories, the two-thirds of Loyalist militias who did not migrate to British colonies in Canada and the Caribbean, either made a home among their former neighbors, or migrated west to the western frontier.[b]
- Social legacy
- The Enlightenment reasoning to abolish slavery was widespread among Revolutionary war veterans. They had seen black troops perform well under fire both in state militias and in Continental Line regiments.[c] At the close of the war, Revolutionary officers North and South, supported freedom and land grants to all surviving black veterans, regardless of their previous condition of servitude, but they were outvoted in their state legislatures. Large numbers of enlisted veterans south and west of the Tidewater joined Methodist and Baptist religious sects that were racially integrated, admitting both free black and enslaved membership.
- Revolutionary veterans made up majorities in the state legislatures that took actions to free slaves. By 1804, all the northern states had soon passed laws outlawing slavery. George Washington, personally manumitted his slaves and did so through his will without an Act of Assembly. Veteran majorities in both House and Senate passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves went into effect in 1808. John Marshall helped found the American Colonization Society, a manumission society to establish an African nation of self-governing freed slaves.
- Washington's Continental officer corps, including Naval officers and French officers with Congressional commissions, founded a brotherhood of the Society of the Cincinnati to care for their fellow officer's widows, orphans, and one another in old age.[d] In the early 1800s, state chapters with strong republican principles such as Virginia, self-dissolved the hereditary organization as the last widow of the Revolution's serving officers died. Later these chapters were reconstituted to memorialize their ancestors' service to the republic, and generally promote American patriotism.
- Memory legacy
- - a balanced discussion of mainstream historiography
- Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC);
- - updated.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments:
- Very well done – perhaps too well. We've gone from an existing section of 1513 characters / 227 words, to a proposed section of 4266 characters / 644 words - a threefold increase. I would omit the details about Patrick Henry's and Washington's relationship with the Society and other details quoted below:
- ... including newly opened territory to become founding families in states such as Vermont in 1791, Kentucky in 1792, Tennessee in 1796, and Ohio in 1803.
- Despite fears of Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry of Virginia militia service in the Revolutionary War, George Washington did not orchestrate Cincinnati membership as a cabal to impose a national government on the United States. While he did encourage his former officers such as John Marshall to run for delegate in the Virginia Ratification Convention, Society members who were elected from their home counties split 50-50 over the final vote to ratify.
- ...including newly opened territory to become founding families in states such as Vermont in 1791, Kentucky in 1792, Tennessee in 1796, and Ohio in 1803.
PS, how do I get rid of all this underlining in my reply? I tried using the </u> but it's not working. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think I got rid of all of them; just a friendly note to TheVirginiaHistorian to remember to close their
<u>
tags. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)- Thanks. sorry. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Very well done – perhaps too well. We've gone from an existing section of 1513 characters / 227 words, to a proposed section of 4266 characters / 644 words - a threefold increase. I would omit the details about Patrick Henry's and Washington's relationship with the Society and other details quoted below:
- It covers exclusively the legacy within the United States. It does not cover the Rise of the "Second" British Empire (1783–1815) and how the Revolution changed the fate of Australia. Our article on the British Empire covers the changes:
- "Since 1718, transportation to the American colonies had been a penalty for various offences in Britain, with approximately one thousand convicts transported per year across the Atlantic. Forced to find an alternative location after the loss of the Thirteen Colonies in 1783, the British government turned to Australia. The coast of Australia had been discovered for Europeans by the Dutch explorer Willem Janszoon in 1606 and was named New Holland by the Dutch East India Company, but there was no attempt to colonise it. In 1770 James Cook charted the eastern coast of Australia while on a scientific voyage to the South Pacific Ocean, claimed the continent for Britain, and named it New South Wales. In 1778, Joseph Banks, Cook's botanist on the voyage, presented evidence to the government on the suitability of Botany Bay for the establishment of a penal settlement, and in 1787 the first shipment of convicts set sail, arriving in 1788. Britain continued to transport convicts to New South Wales until 1840, to Tasmania until 1853 and to Western Australia until 1868." Dimadick (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dimadick has made a remarkably clear expression of one aspect of the 'worldwide ARW', as we have discussed at some length on this page. Its sweep is comparable to our assistant professor at the University of Alabama, a Dr. Lockwood, who writes in his book, "the imperial American Revolution spread worldwide" (Lockwood 2019). Widely acknowledged as a masterful storyteller, Lockwood shows examples of the economic ruin among Andes Indios and Australian aboriginals that occurred in his view as a direct result of the untoward effects rippling out from the worldwide economic disruption by the War of American Independence. While most serious scholars gave the effort little notice, one scholarly journal that did review the book observed that Lockwood had connected dots where there were no connections.
- In short, the scope of an article primarily devoted to the military aspects of the American Revolutionary War that established a struggling republic unable to subdue the disparate westerly Indian tribes of its own interior for over fifty years, did not establish of the Second British Empire, never mind did it have a reach to effect the outcomes of British colonization in Australia into the Victorian Era.
- To place our editor query in some historical context, we should ask ourselves, Which RS cites correspondence in George Washington's published papers, either as General of the American armies, or as President of the United States, addressing Queen Victoria on this topic, considering Australia as a British penal colony? --- Now, I will concede that it is of some note that a dozen or so Irishmen banished by Queen Victoria for risings in Ireland, later achieved the rank of Brigadier General during the American Civil War on the Union side for liberty, the republic and democracy. But I do not want that included in the 'Legacy' section of the ARW, whatever the intriguing connection may be.
- Let's put a chronological limit on the 'Legacy' horizon at Thomas Jefferson's Inauguration for his first term as President: the "Revolutionary Era", the "Constitutional Era", and the "Federalist Era" of American history, April 1775 - March 1801? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian, this is a great idea. I fully support this. Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
A welcome for Robin copyedits for encyclopedic summary style
- In view of the good copyediting by Robinvp11 – in a summary encyclopedic style – first of my contributions on African American participation here, then just now, his two most recent in Early engagements here, and here, I look forward to his further contributions as a writer.
- I still maintain a substantial disagreement against his imposition of off-topic European diplomatic history into this American military history, and his method of imposing it, undiscussed and unsourced. His POV is contrary to mainstream interpretation of the ARW in the unimpeached gold standard for scholarly reference in the English language, the Encyclopedia Britannica.
- - The American Revolutionary War was an insurrection within the British Empire between British subjects over (a) colonial political independence and (b) their constitutional revolution from monarchy to republic --- for an American self-governing people separate from those in Britain. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Mass deletions, undiscussed, proving disruptive
(This is a reply to a ping that was made here.)
@Tenryuu: — Yes, some of the wholesale deletions also resulted in citation errors. This occurs when a defined 'ref=' statement is removed. The first time a mass deletion occurred, with no discussion, two editors took exception, here on the Talk page. Then just recently, yet another mass deletion occurred by the same editor, again with no discussion, and with one coverall statement about General Gage in edit history, which hardly explains the bulk of the text removal. Perhaps we should revert the article back to here (Nov.25), just before the last mass deletion, and take it from there, with all editors, including yourself, cooporating and dealing with individual issues one at a time, as we were doing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gwillhickers: For the immediate future, I have asked Tenryuu to make an exception here to the usual work flow. Instead of working through the entire article as a whole, I've asked for a piecemeal treatment of the three remaining stable sections: #Revolution as civil war, #Aftermath , and #Commemorations of the Revolutionary War.
- ASK of our fellow editors: Until the "under construction" notice is removed from the top of the page, please do not revert Tenryuu's copyedited sections. Any revert such as proposed above should be explained at the revert of the disrupting post with a reference to this section, and an additional informational note of how we are collegially proceeding on this page posted directly to the disrupting editor's Talk.
- @Robinvp11: At the Talk:American Revolutionary War section #Copyedit request, each section that is has been copyedited in an agreed upon comprehensive review has its own subsection. Immediately below each "resolved" collapsed box, there is an opportunity for interested editors to note any additional interests and concerns for each section in the dedicated sub-section titled "Pending". In the most recently disrupted article main-space disrupted, that is found for the American Revolutionary War#Strategy and commanders section here. You are collegially invited to participate in this two-week long on-going process, as noted for you in the large box at the top of the article for your information and use at the article Talk page. Thank you for your patience and cooperation for this limited time. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Gwillhickers, I've posted the informational notice to the Military history Project 'status review' page under the ARW section, at Robins Talk, and made an update at Tenryuu Talk, noting my restoring the "under construction box", the informational posts, and my ask that the copyedit process be continued at the three stable sections, while we await cooperation or forbearance from Robin for the limited time remaining to complete the Tenryuu comprehensive review. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the help page).
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- B-Class American Revolutionary War articles
- American Revolutionary War task force articles
- American Revolutionary War articles with to-do lists
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- United States military history articles with to-do lists
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Top-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- United States Government articles with to-do lists
- B-Class United States History articles
- Unknown-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States History articles with to-do lists
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- High-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- B-Class history articles
- High-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- High-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Indigenous peoples of North America articles
- Mid-importance Indigenous peoples of North America articles
- WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles
- B-Class British Empire articles
- High-importance British Empire articles
- All WikiProject British Empire pages
- High-importance United States History articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- Start-Class Dutch military history articles
- Dutch military history task force articles
- Start-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- Start-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- Start-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- Start-Class Spanish military history articles
- Spanish military history task force articles
- Start-Class United States military history articles
- Start-Class Early Modern warfare articles
- Early Modern warfare task force articles
- Start-Class American Revolutionary War articles
- Failed requests for military history A-Class review
- Delisted good articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English