# Talk:William Howe, 5th Viscount Howe

Did he possess any property in Ireland?--Anglius 21:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
If General Howe "succeeded" as commander-in-chief of British troops in North America between 1775–1778, why did the Treaty of Paris (1783) result in the recognition of the North American colonies as "thirteen free and sovereign States"? This article verges on NPOV in it's celebration of a "very capable", "daring, aggressive" British officer "knighted after his successes" seeking "to crush the" Americans. To me, this article reads as very Anglocentric in it's celebration of a 18th Century British war hero seeking to crush resistance to British colonial rule. The North Americans defeated General Howe -- why does Wikipedia describe Howe as a successful hero? 66.17.105.226 01:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Needs many deletions, such as "Howe sucks nut all night long". These people need to get a life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.220.15.2 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

What was the point of deleting the entire section about Howe and the Revolutionary War? Surely it would have made more sense to edit the section to create a more balanced article, rather than simply deleting it because of an alleged pro-British POV. Now there is no section about Howe and the Revoltutionary War which is silly considering it is what he is most famous for. 81.157.42.49 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The section was deleted in this piece of vandalism, nearly seven months ago. I have put the section back with the wikilinks and footnotes. Graham87 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't some mention be made that while wintering in Philadelphia in 1777 Howe was distracted somewhat because of his affair with Mrs. Elizabeth Loring? This was quite public knowledge at the time. Poems
were even written about the affair. There also seemed to be a lot of partying going on among the British officers. This would also seem to be a distraction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.145.144 (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC) 

From all I've read, the balance of the war changing and France entering was because of Saratoga, not because of a British victory in taking the capital and repulsing a counter-attack.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.250.142 (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 

At top of article is
William Howe, 5th Viscount Howe, KB, PC (10 August 1729 – 12 July 1814)
1729 is before England and its colonies changed from old style to new style calendar (which was done in 1752).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC) 

American War of Independence is favoured in Britain and in the infobox it looks like the American War is a battle of the Seven Years' War. Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now, especially regarding the list layout. Sorry about that; I've just reverted myself. Graham87 06:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem, thanks. Thomas Courtenay, Earl of Devon (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

A casual or new reader, seeing the title of this article, might well assume that this is the "Lord Howe" mentioned in histories of the American War of Independence. (I'm coming here after discovering that the original author of the Revolutionary War section of the Staten Island article had certainly made that mistake.) I'm going to add a note to the lead indicating that in that context he's referred to as Sir William Howe. Binabik80 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This sentence seems too opinionated and should be rephrased as a fact or statement: "He did, however, spend a fair amount of time at the gambling tables, and allegedly established a relationship with Elizabeth Lloyd Loring, the wife of Loyalist Joshua Loring, Jr. Loring apparently acquiesced to this arrangement, and was rewarded by Howe with the position of commissary of prisoners." Camsargent8 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The only expression of opinion I see in the sentence is describing the amount of time Howe devoted to gambling as "fair." That he allegedly had a relationship with Lizzie Loring, that Joshua and Lizzie Loring were married, that Joshua appears to have accepted his wife's affair with Howe, that Joshua was commissary of prisoners, and that he received that office in compensation for not making an issue of Lizzie and Howe's relationship are all assertions of fact and already phrased as such. They certainly need to be cited (I haven't looked at the article to see if they already are), but if they're supported by evidence (and none of them are controversial, so sources should be findable for all of them), I don't see the problem with them. Binabik80 (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)