Talk:American Revolution/Archive 1

message: Thhis is currently a redirect page, to the war, but it  shouldn't stay that way. This note is intended to make Wikipeians aware of what I intend and to make a request.
Please" If you have an article that should reference the revutionary war, do so. But, if you should logically refernce the revolution, then go ahead and write  American Revolution rather than  American Revolutionary War. 
That way when there is an article here, the references will sort themselves out.
Outline of Proposed Article:
*Background
** Trends in liberal thought
** historic trends to revolution
** colonial history
** British history
** Religious history
*Immediate causes
** European dynastic wars
** mercantilism and trade policy
** American expansion
*The actual revolution
** The political revolution
** American separatists
** The revolution in Britain
*The Revolutionary War (and see main article)
*Building the United States
** Under the Confederation
** Continental Congress
** Consitutional Convention
Now re-read the request at the top,, Thanks...Lou I 00:14 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:Is this article coming soon? Otherwise I will change it back to a redirect. There are too many broken links to let it stay this way. Rmhermen 20:49, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)
::It's now been two weeks since the last update of this page. I'm not going to start a fight here, but I can see no reason that it is not still a simple redirect to American Revolutionary War. Neither page gives any reason for it having a separate article, rather the other page currently presupposes that it does not. IMO this is a sub-stub, looks stupid, and makes Wikipedia look bad as a result. Better still would be rename the existing American Revolutionary War page to American Revolution, which is what it more accurately describes at present, and redirect the "...War" page here. But a revert to the simple redirect would be quite good enough. Perhaps copy some of these links across first. 
::Please, focus on the readers. They want information, not showing off your personal pedantries. But IMO a revert war would look even worse, which is why I'll restrict myself to these harsh comments for the moment. Andrewa 19:46, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed outline

message: Here's the text I removed from this section, with explanations:
European Dynastic Wars, as experienced in the French and Indian Wars, raised several important ideas among the North American colonist.
:Simplified this to discussion of the impact of F&I War. 
One of these was the importance of self-reliance for their own defense, and a recognition that the European military establishments were less effective when applied on a continental scale. The Albany Congress taught them the value of cooperation between otherwise divergent colonies. Armies and techniques that might protect Great Britain, France, or the Netherlands could not be extended over thinly populated North America.
:I think the above sentences are, in order: arguable, false, and too vague to be useful. :-)
Another result was a rising sense of frustration, when victories earned in part by their blood and wealth were negotiated away for a gain in Asia or the Caribbean.
:Vague generalization.
At the same time, political changes in Britain, itself, brought to the fore, leaders inclined to be more forceful and active in the governance of Britain's colonies.  The Seven Years' War had resulted in a huge expansion of the British Empire thoughout the world, encouraging imperial thinking and ambition.  The accession of George III introduced a politically active monarch into British politics for the first time in fifty years, and encouraged the rise of a new Tory party, which would govern under Lord North during the period of the American Revolutionary War.  The authoritarian assertiveness of the Tories tended to be magnified in the perceptions of the colonists into intended tyranny.  Whigs, who were inclined ideologically to be sympathetic to American aspirations to liberty and self-governance and relieved of the responsibility of governance, became important allies of the American cause in Parliament.
:Restating this later in the article, within a timeline, rather than in a summary up front.
Economic Changes gave further impetus ...
:Ditto.
--Kevin Myers 02:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory was popular 1910-1940 but historians no longer use it. J. Franklin Jameson, Arthur Schlesinger Senior proposed it. (currently held by Jesse Lemisch) Said that there were 2 revolts: one against Britain and a civil war at home of the poor rising up against the rich (many of whom were Loyalists). Historians have now looked in depth at every state and there were some instances of that but far more often it did not happen.  It was popular among the political left but they mostly have switched to talk about Indians and blacks & women. Rjensen 02:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh... that Socio-Economic theory. (I have heard it... I just didn't know who said it).  I would agree that the theory is discredited.  However, NPOV does mean that it can be mentioned as such if someone really feels it should be included.  Personally, I don't see it adding anything significant. Blueboar 02:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions from Origins

message: It is a sad fact that they commonly fail to see how the american war of independance probably saved thousands of Canadian lives. Typically, Canadians do not give enough credit on Canada Day (July 1st) to the United States, who's sacrifice during the war of independence paved the way for a peaceful negotiation of the British North American Act, through which Canada was granted independance.
NPOV? -- stewacide
Is this somebody's grade 8 essay? There are serious NPOV issues all over the place. QuartierLatin1968 00:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada

message: ...to decide the future of this article. Personally, I think we should scrap the 70% of it that deals with eighteenth century America as a whole. But we should also do some thinking about what it is we actually want to talk about here. What was the Revolution, as distinguished from the Revolutionary War? Was the Revolution something that happened before the War and made the War inevitable? Or are we talking the social and political transformations wrought through the Revolutionary upheaval, including the impacts on religion, demographics, Native/White relations, slavery, the colonies' economy; but perhaps most of all colonial independence and the politically radical decade from 1776 to 1787. Personally the second view makes more sense to me, and I'd hesitate for that reason to put these things into an "Aftermath" section. On the other hand, sections on pre-Revolution America should really go mostly to an article on the (social) history of the Thirteen Colonies. QuartierLatin1968 00:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: These are good observations. I think the previous version of the article consisted of too many generalities -- an overview or interpretation of the Revolution (vaguely defined), rather than a history of it. I think there's a better approach. To state the obvious, revolution is about change, so an article about any revolution should fall into three broad sections: (1) the way things were before the revolution, (2) what happened during the revolution, and (3) how the world was different after the revolution. Easier said than done, of course. I don't think the article should just be a countdown to the war (which I don't believe was inevitable). I think we need more material about "What happened" (other than the war) and "how the world was different" -- the social and political transformations -- but without resorting to generalities. --Kevin Myers 02:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The moment has come...

message: I believe it is inaccurate to say that:
"Loyalties
It should be noted, however, that a large proportion of the population did stay loyal to Britain, or at least remained neutral during the war. Loyalists, known as Tories, included members of the aristocracy who had a lot to lose, as well as recent immigrants who identified more with their birthplace than their new home. Both during and following the war, Tories were forced to flee to Canada or Britain. Many Native Americans also opposed the revolution, believing that they were likely to suffer more at the hands of independent Americans than the British. An estimated 10-15% of colonists were Loyalists, and about one-third of them left the United States. Some 70,000 Loyalists fled, along with 2,000 Native Americans. 50,000 of these Loyalists went to Canada, where they helped form the colonies of New Brunswick and Ontario. Some black Loyalists went to Sierra Leone." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Revolutionary_War)
AS it is seemingly unsupported and in that:
regarding the American Revolutionary War of Indepdence (please not this as my response to the issues earlier stated) that "One-third loyal, one-third patriot, one-third undecided." (John Adams (“2. Loyalists a. 100,000 left the colonies4. Declaring Independence (WAYCROSS COLLEGE DR. COREY LESSEIG   http://www.waycross.edu/faculty/coless/Am1lec.htm)
(which I recall was corroborated by Dr. Herbert Apteker in lectures attended by Andrew Zito) and in that:
“Loyalists, that sizeable pro-British element, perhaps a majority when open war began, who had stood by established law and imperial unity against revolutionary upheaval” (http://www.canadianheritage.org/books/canada4.htm) “New York City, which was at that time more pro-British than England itself.“ (The Tribes and the States W. J. Sidis chapter 23, http://www.sidis.net/TSChap23.htm) 
The question the colonial elite must have repeatedly asked each other is if the growing class hatred developing in the colonies could be focused against the pro-British elite, and be deflected from themselves, the national elite? (Lecture Notes 3 - The American Revolution African American History - Spring 1999 Department of History, St. John's University by Omar, Ali http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/4275/StJohnsLec3.html ). "about 40% of the population 
was pro-British. (The Presbyterian Rebellion ( by Harry Seabrook (harry@littlegeneva.com" http://www.littlegeneva.com/docs/presbyterian.htm )
:The lectures and notes that Zito cites are intersting but not entirely accurate. First, we must know that no one knows the TRUE numbers of rebels, tories, and indifferent population. That said, New York City was originally a hotbed of the revolution. From 1765-1775 as many incidents happened ther as the more widely known ones in Boston. By the end of 1775 the royal governor had to leave, and withdraw a small garrison with him. The notes cited claim that there were a great many loyalists in New York. By the summer of 76, there were. Open fighting in New England caused numbers of Tories to leave home. When the British left Boston in March, Tory refugee centers became NYC and Nove Scotia. Everyone expected the British Army to come to New York.
::To net this discussion, I haven't seen anything to cause me to want the article changed. However, eventually the loyalist-rebel or Tory-Whig notes should go to the revolution article, not the war. Lou I 16:06, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loyalists 

message: It might be relevant to change the titles in this section from conservative and democratic to conservative and liberal, and perhaps clarify a bit as how those have changed over the years. The political issues of the time and wheather or not they can be converted to our time is debatable. The article points out the slave irony but leaves it at that. To quote salvidor dali "a man can go from liberal to conservative in 20 years without changing a single thought" and thats especially true in america, i don't want to change this because im a pretty bad writer and don't have time to research, but maybe someone does.
I removed the following assertion from this section... By an anonymous editor: "In the States of New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Georgia, the majority of the population remained loyal to Britain [See article Loyalist (American Revolution).]". I know this to be untrue for New York, and doubt it for all except maybe Georgia. Seems controversial enough to need a source or citation... Lou I 19:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choosing Sides 

message: I'm not American nor British, so I have very little background on the topic. But I feel that Magna Carta should just be mentioned. -- Nic Roets 19:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magna Carta 

message: im gonna go ahead and take out the dash between in and between in the second paragraph because i seriously doubt its like that 69.115.162.93 00:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dashing ahead 

message: My source for saying that Brant was not the son of a Mohawk chief and that he did lead Tories is Isabel Thompson Kelsay's exhaustive life of Brant (Joseph Brant, 1743–1807, Man of Two Worlds, Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1984.  (hardback);  (1986 paperback)).  Also, note that power in Iroquois society descended matrilineally. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Brant 

message: The American Revolution's influence cannot be so large, especially in the Netherlands (see 80 Years War). Further more, it is safe to say that is was because of the French Revolution that the democracy took a big step forward.
- I agree. Additionally, the French Revolution was certainly not spurned by the American Revolution in a direct ideological fashion. The French governmental military operation in support of the colinies' war of Independenc certainly had a direct influence on the budget of France royality. This indirectly contributed to spurn the foot riots etc. . However, the american revolutionary ideas did not ideological influence the French writers such as Sieyes. It remains to be shown by the authors of this article how this influence exists. If it does not, I can't succumb to the idea of the great influence of American Revolution within Europe. The French Revolution cited by authors such as Kant had a great influence. If there is no direct link between the American and French Revolution then the believed American's revolutions influence is an americo-centrism.
:Or your denial of it is Eurocentrism. You have produced no evidence for your opinion either. Rmhermen 18:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the article makes clear this was an early example of the Atlantic Revolutions all of which influenced each other. The fact that the French spent all that $$$ helping the American Revolution means they did not ignore it. Rjensen 18:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The international aspects of the war are covered at American Revolutionary War--this is more about internal politics in which the French did not play a role. The Americans were getting rid of a British King. The first part appealed to the French but not the second part. Rjensen 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The War for Independence of the American Colonies, and the resulting United States, were of great interest to the intelligentsia of Europe during the 1770s and 1780s, and beyond of course - witness de Tocqueville and his journeys.  Educated people in Europe, and in the British colonies in North America, had received education in many of the same Enlightenment texts, and Europeans recognized this influence in the writings circulated from America concerning political goals and ideals.  Whether American actions, pamphlets, or broadsides had any direct impact on the actions of the French Revolution is difficult to discern, as French historians tend to dismiss any influence of the American Revolution upon the actions of 1789, and American historians tend to overstate whatever influence there may have been.  There is understandable chauvinism regarding this on both sides; reference to scholarly work from other nations may help to clear this up.PJtP 03:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Revolution's influence 

message: As it stands now, the article reads: "The revolutionaries, known as Patriots, Whigs, Congress Men or Americans included a full range of social and economic classes, but a unanimity regarding the need to defend the rights of Americans. George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, for example, were deeply devoted to republicanism while also eager to build a rich and powerful nation. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine represented democratic impulses and the agrarian plantation element that wanted a localistic society with greater political equality."
I am not sure this is completely correct.  These are certainly the stances that these people took in dealing with POST-revolutionary issues, but I think things were a bit more muddled before and during the revolution itself.  Prior to the revolution, for example, Franklin was a strong advocate for the colonies joining into some form of centralized cross-colony government (as opposed to seperate colonies or states which could not indivitually fight for independance from Britan);  Hamilton's views are not well known prior to the revolution (he was awfully young); and Washington demonstrated stauchly pro Virginian (local) loyalies in land disputes with Maryland and Pennsilvania... etc.  I have a feeling we are reading Post-Revolutionary views into pre-revolutionary politics. Blueboar 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriots 

message: Under the section Crises, 1772-75, "The patriots controlled over 95% of the territory and 99% of the population, and were ready to declare independence" stuck out as inaccurate.  A considerable segment of the population was sympathetic to England throughout the war, thought you wouldn't really know that by reading the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.4.113 (talk • contribs).
:Agreed, it seems unsupportable.  I have removed it.  -- Mwanner | Talk 23:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's true. Every study of Loyalists explains that they controlled no territory in mid 1776 after Brits left Boston and before they took NYC-- that was the window that allowed for the Declaration of Independence.  The statement does not say that 99% of the people were patriots--it said the patriotswere in control everywhere.Rjensen 23:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but the ""99%" and "95%" sounds like a degree of precision that is just not supportable.  If you want to rephrase it in more reasonable language, I have no problem with that.  It would be good, though, to make sure that it didn't imply that there loyalists were negligible in number. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the wide reports of rough music during the prewar and war years, I think you could account for more than 1% of the population's worth of Loyalists in court records alone. There were a good number of Loyalists, and if I had to make an unprofessional educated guess (which would not go in the article),: I'd put it between ten and fifteen percent, if not more. Fearwig 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of people were Loyalist in July 1776 but they controlled no territory at all. Rjensen 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Tories? 

message: In the Pending Tasks box above the last item says: Recommend revision or reference to opening statement of "The American Revolution was a revolution that ended two centuries of rule of the Thirteen Colonies by the British Empire" Please justify TWO CENTURIES. That would place Brtian in North America in the 1500's.  If you go by the first English claim to North America (made under Henry VII of England) the statement is accurate.  And it is only 25 years off if you go by the first attempts at colonization in what would become the 13 colonies (1783-1607 = 175 years).  perhaps the sentence should read "...ended close to two centuries of rule..."
Another question to think about is the use of the term "British Empire".  Most people (perhaps erroniously) think of the British Empire as what England gained AFTER they lost the 13 American Colonies.  Others (especially some British Historians) call the American Colonies the "First British Empire" and India, Australia, Nigeria, etc. the "Second British Empire".  Would it be more accurate to say "British" or even "English"? (just tossing all this out for comment... I really don't know how I would word it.) Blueboar 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it has to be "British" (lots of Scots were involved). 200 years is close enough--Gilbert tried to establish colony in 1583, and Raleigh did so in 1584. As for "British Empire" -- the term was in common use long before 1776. for example Nathaniel Crouch's The English Empire in America (1685) covered the mainland colonies from Newfoundland to Carolina, then discussed the islands from Bermuda to Jamaica. Also John Oldmixon, The British Empire in America, Containing the History of the Discovery, Settlement, Progress and Present State of All the British Colonies, on the Continent and Islands of America (London, 1708)Rjensen 04:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on Pending Tasks box 

message: Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian Institution's Center for Education and Museum Studies, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers.  An online version of an issue titled "Revolutionary Money," about paper currency printed during the war, is available for free at this address:
http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/revolutionary_money/index.html
If you think your audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.
Thank you so much for your attention.
::Good idea--I added it Rjensen 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Smithsonian Education link? 

message: I was redirected to this article after searching for "American Independence".  I was searching for the political machinations that went on during the Second Continental Congress involving the adoption of the Lee Resolution -- including the fact that the vote for independence had been determined to be unanimous, and that things almost didn't pass.  Shouldn't there be some section in this article (or on Wikipedia ANYWHERE) about what went down?  New York's infuriating :Fabstentions, the Southern Delegation walking out in the last minute, Adams' great quip: "This is a revolution, we have to offend SOMEBODY!"
I don't know if this is a comment best left on the page for the Second Continental Congress or here (and I would assume that it's more or less the same people working on both), but I think it should be addressed.  
-- MusicMaker5376 06:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Independence 

message: I'm a little uneasy with the description of this in the Republican ideology section. It is not clear that the Lockean 'rights' to life, liberty and property was only extended to the white population. I'm fully aware that this is a sensitive issue, so rather than 'wade in' and start editing the article, I would rather discuss it here first. Markb 09:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lockean liberalism is different from republicanism, and the text tried to say that. In the states Lockean rights were extended to the free population (including free blacks and "civilized" Indians) and all whites, but not to slaves. Rjensen 10:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. did that include women? Markb 08:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. Rjensen 08:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanks.Markb 13:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  liberalism of John Locke 

message: I've added significantly to the section on the war debt, mostly to detail the contemporary and historiographical controversy surrounding its repayment. If this is insufficiently supported, feel free to tell me--there are texts that will support my statements, but if you make me research it for citations I'm probably just going to wind up writing more! All that said, I think I just outlined the basic principles of a very large topic that's been covered by dozens of historians. The sources are there, though: Morris, for instance, was very vocal about his belief that the common man had no idea how to spend money and thus shouldn't have any more than he needs to subsist. If I recall, he was also pretty vocal about the dangers of democracy--but then, so were half the members of the Constitutional Convention. Anyway, that's a tangent--I've tried to be NPOV in the article edit (moreso than in talk), but if I've failed, feel free to talk it over with me (or edit away).  Fearwig 04:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an edit which noted that this occurred in the 1790s, but as previous authors of this article have noted, the revolution itself didn't end in '83. This is of direct and extreme importance to the revolution. I think it's a big enough issue to warrant an individual article, or at least an offshoot of Shay's Rebellion, but a few paragraphs certainly earbelong here, too. Thoughts? Fearwig 18:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The war debt and repayment 

message: I'm taking it on myself to rewrite some parts of this article, including the introduction. The old version was redundant (repeating the same phrase three or four times in two sentences for no reason) and didn't really say much about the revolution itself. I hope others will join me, and maybe we can whip this thing into shape. With some research and work, it could make a decent feature. Fearwig 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One revert does not an edit war make. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, you've been very civil. I mistook you at first for the one who edited away the above section, as well (the MO was the same, I must say). Hopefully what's there now is more of an overview of social concepts surrounding the revolution than a revisionist editing spree. It seems like a big change for the first paragraph, I agree, but the plan is for the article to include these ideas and to expound upon them, considering their importance to the social revolution. As I said before, I'd love to see a broad cleanup of this article, considering the significance of the event. I think it's better to do it piecemeal, even some parts seem out of place until the final product, if only because this lets people do what we're doing: argue it out bit by bit.  Fearwig 17:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrites 

message: The Issue of paying the war debts was a major political debate of the 1790s.  I summarized it. The old version was full of POV and was unsourced; it was not based on recent scholarship of 1790s (like Elkins and McKitrick or Ferguson). This is basically a postwar issue not a wartime issue. Rambling POV about class warfare/ rich vs poor was poorly done and not connected to wartime issues. (for example section on Morris--author did not mention the main events or Morris going bankrupt) Rjensen 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas Jefferson hated debt--read the Sloan book (Principle and Interest: Thomas Jefferson and the Problem of Debt by Herbert E. Sloan 2001).  All new material has to be thoroughly sourced. and cut the POV about populism. Rjensen 21:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but stating that Jefferson hated debt (which is true in a vague sense--he thought specifically that economic depdendence was necessarily detrimental to a republic) is not related to the debate and paints his arguments in a cartoonish light. The populism material is not strictly POV. See "Breaking Loose Together: The Regulator Rebellion in Pre-Revolutionary North Carolina" by Marjoleine Kars (UNC 2002) for just one example. This was a huge influence in the popular-opinion side of the revolution, which is just as important as the political side. If my populist opinions come through, feel free to show me how, because they should not. But the argument itself cannot be POV--it existed, these were its terms, and this was its outcome. Fearwig 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The Regulators have their own article and are not part of the mainstream of the Am Revolution--certainly not a "huge influence" (if you think so then rewrite the Regulator article first). The Kars book does not link the Regulators to the revolution--she says most of them were neutral or opposed the Revolution! (Kars p 213-4).  The reason the debt issue in 1790s was so important was that Jefferson fought it and built his new party (in part) on that issue. He of course lost to Hamilton who argued that repudiation of part of the debt was a bad start for a new nation. In Wiki we start with solid scholarship. Rjensen 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The war debt and the populism issues aren't necessarily united, and it was likely a bad example to cite that source, though my purpose was more to refer to popular attitudes and expectations of revolution in general. I can't say I've got sources right in front of me, and it will take time to produce citations, but I am not in doubt that they're available. More importantly than all of this, I just think it needs to be clear that the war debt wasn't just a question of whether debts in general were going to be paid off. It's a misrepresentation of the issue. I probably expressed it poorly, and it's good that there is a peer review process to point this out, but your assessment of the war debt issue is simplistic. This isn't just about Jeffersonians, but about the nature of the revolution itself (which is why I'm arguing for its inclusion here)--if the government paid its soldiers in notes, and as a result of the circumstances those notes were bought by individuals en masse who had a notable say in whether or not those notes were paid at face or at market value, you have an issue worthy of mention! Historiography aside. Your scholarship on this issue is superior to mine, and I say that without a trace of facetiousness. But I argue wholeheartedly that this is significant, and unless you are willing to cite evidence saying that the speculator-legislator relationship I have just described did not exist, I don't see how I can be entirely incorrect in my assessments. I think I have qualified the situation poorly, especially for an objective medium, but I also think there is something here that the article as it was (and as you attempted to rewrite it) is missing completely, something essential to the qualification of the revolution. Fearwig 21:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to back down on pretty much all the social statements in the article so long as the war debt controversy is retained. Because it involves the very nature of the national debt and the payment of active participants in the revolution, I don't see how it can be argued as irrelevant. I think your rewrite of the introduction is apt. Fearwig 21:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: during the war itself there was no debate (everyone assumed the notes would be paid 100% face value). The speculator purchase of the notes happened after the war and the debate about repayment erupted in 1790, and it properly belongs to analysis of Washington Administration. This article covers the sums borrowed and to whom owed, as it should. Articles have boundaries, and items that fall outside the normal time boundary do not belong.  (Speculators could buy notes for 20% because people had lost faith in their government--which was exactly Hamilton's point in full funding = restore full faith and credit. Rjensen 23:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, save that it's misleading to indicate that the only reason the notes would deflate would be a specific loss of faith in the government. I'm aware that this has been upheld by historians of that opinion, but working even with the basic facts it should be clear that either point may be argued with some validity. A glut of notes always deflates the value of those notes when they can't be exchanged for a grounded currency. This was a time when notes not based on metal were automatically suspect, after all. People who needed to buy goods to survive sold the notes, therefore, to people who could afford to sit on the money--it has nothing necessarily to do with the faith of the seller in the money and everything to do with the fact that they had to sell them, and as such there were people who were going to receive them--at profit. Hamilton was as manipulative in his words here as he was in Federalist 84. The movement of notes was uniformly upward--I don't have the sources of these stats in front of me, but I recall some old lecture notes which were sourced. By the end the wealthiest one or two percent of the population (a large proportion of whom were in politics, regional or national) held over some ninety or ninety-five percent of the notes. Now, if it weren't for the six percent interest to boot, I'd say the conservative analysis might still be believable, but you can't honestly say that the payment of so many millions via standard regressive taxation directly into the hands of the people who were responsible for determining whether interest, etc. would be paid was entirely founded on the basis of national welfare. This isn't some class warfare dogma I'm spouting, it's plain good reasoning, and it's been disguised by the painting of the Founding Fathers as men of perfect morals. Now, as for the article, I can tentatively agree with the notion that it is not necessarily the place of this article to go into such depth on the topic of the war debt, despite the fact that (as I and others have noted in their material here) this is -not- about the revolutionary war, but about the revolution, its causes, and its consequences. I'm not pretending Wiki should house some silly expose on the Federalists, I'm just saying it is (in my opinion) important to the discussion of the revolution to note that the people who were being paid for the war wound up paying for it. Does this make my stance clearer? Fearwig 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: there was a market price for the notes and it fluctuated for political reasons--if people thought there was a 40% chance of getting their money they would sell them for 41 cents and be happy about it. The 1780s were reasonably prosperous and there is no evidence that many of the note holders were suddenly forced into dire poverty that they had to sell for 30 cents when the market price was 40 cents. The g basic problem: people distrusted the Continental government (which had no source of tax revenue and couldn't pay off its debts no matter what it did. )  In terms of the political debates of 1790, Virginia had already paid its state debt and did not stand to gain as much as the other states, hence the opposition. Much of the "speculation" in fact took place after 1787 when the prospect suddenly appeared that a strong government could pay the debt, maybe. then the notes went up in value.  In any case this is a postwar debate and does not belong in the article. Rjensen 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah, I want to end it, but if you're going to get the last word you'd better make them smart ones. A) Poverty was the rule, and not the exception, for much of the population in this period. They had to exchange the notes because they were a sole source of pay for many during the war. While the 1780s were relatively prosperous, this fact did not change the rule. Whatever your Adam Smith voodoo doll might say, the market price for something that cannot currently be exchanged for material goods is necessarily less than the market price for something that can--if you pay me with a $10 I.O.U. written by your (very presentable, I might add) friend, I am not going to trade it for ten hard dollars (say, in goods or gold), no matter how much I might trust that friend. It's not just about trust, but about a base-level uncertainty that comes with any soft currency, one that would've been higher in a time when the majority of exchange was made with hard currency. B) Those being paid were still those who made the determination as to how much would be paid. C) This is not an article about the war (which exists elsewhere), but an article about the revolution. I believe I said that before. Thus a "postwar" debate is (within reason) a debate about the revolution. I am aware that history is just a succession of battles for most of your leaning, but I dare say the ramifications of the war are as important in this instance.Fearwig 15:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are imaginary arguments: please cite your sources. Rjensen 22:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are no more "imaginary" (or unsourced) than your own in the previous paragraph. I say that poverty was widespread in the 1780s, despite a period of relative prosperity--that is not a controversial and thus sourceworthy statement. In a discussion (not an article), logic is as useful as are sources, and I see that logic is not our mutual friend. But as this has degenerated into a private debate, and one which is as impertinent now to the article as it is unsatisfying, I think I'll remove my watch from the article and let things be. I would say that it was nice sparring with you, but... Fearwig 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  debt controversy 

message: Is NA involvement in this war worthy of a seperate article? Considering the wide availability of information (and the length of the current article), I suggest that it is. Opinions? Fearwig 05:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native American involvement 

message: Why is it that we have such an incredibly massive collection of references, and only one (two?) citations? It's somewhat impossible to legitimately "trim" references once they're there. I have the feeling someone went to their bookshelf and added every American Revolution text they owned, then did the rest from memory (or simply neglected to note what information came from what source) (I am talking about someone in particular, now. See if you can guess who you are. Fearwig 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added many of the references and I used every one of those for this article. So yes, it's legit! Rjensen 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, they both credit United States National Park Service; look at the end of each article-- "These articles and maps were taken from the Official Guide to the Saratoga National Historical Park from the United States National Park Service." -- Mwanner | Talk 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel dumb :| I dont know why I missed that -Zorroness 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone can get rid of this section if they want —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zorroness (talk • contribs) 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References / Citations 

message: The site http://www.americanrevolution.com/ (listed as an external link) contains at least one plagerized article, the one about the battle of Saratoga (http://www.americanrevolution.com/BattleofSaratoga.htm).  It is either them copying this other site (http://www.saratoga.org/battle1777/history.html), or it is the victim.  I would assume the former since it has advertisements sprinkled all over it while saratoga.org has no advertisements and appears to be from a more respectable source (the "Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce")
If you read the article on americanrevolution.com, everything after the first paragraph is the entire content of the other article down to the punctuation.  Even the images are the identical.  No credit is given on either page. -Zorroness 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they both credit United States National Park Service; look at the end of each article-- "These articles and maps were taken from the Official Guide to the Saratoga National Historical Park from the United States National Park Service." -- Mwanner | Talk 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel dumb :| I dont know why I missed that -Zorroness 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone can get rid of this section if they want —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zorroness (talk • contribs) 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Resolved) Plagerism in references? 

message: I'm bringing some of this to the talk page to prevent an edit war, though I am re-editing the section in question, Rjensen. The key point of my edits was not to remove republicanism's primacy as the cause for the revolution, and I'm not sure why you came to that conclusion. I am retaining your characterization of Americans as being "primarily" (rather than just "heavily") influenced by the "country" Whigs, since I don't think it is a point of worthwhile contention.
* Republicanism was a radical ideal in Britain, and Loyalists were necessarily tied to a belief in the Monarchy--they supported the maintenance of the British Monarchy over more democratic forms of government, which should be exemplified by the fact that they were Loyalists. As such, it is unreasonable to state that most Loyalists were republicans without citation.
* There is nothing inherent in republicanism that emphasizes the duty of the citizen to fight for his country when needed--this is nationalism, patriotism, what have you, and while it may exist IN a republic, it is not an aspect of republicanism. By adding it here, you derail the 
* Lockian ideals were not distinct from republicanism, but the a very formidable foundation of the ideology during this time. As such, they were not distinct from republicanism, hence my removal of this clause.
* Additions concerning the specific rights that Locke's statements expanded on those to which you reverted. He advocated the specific right of citizens to overthrow regimes that violated the social contract.
* "Republican Motherhood" should be "republican motherhood," unless you are living in the 1770s, and as such capitalizing every word or phrase of apparent significance.
If you'd like to argue these points with me (as I hope you shall), I would be happy to learn the rationale behind your various conclusions. Please read the Wikipedia entry on John Locke if you would like to see a justification for my statements on that topic, though I can pull up his own words if you are especially curious. Thanks! Fearwig 23:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this would be an edit war now? There is nothing specifically inherent to republicanism that involves the defense of the nation. That's (apologies for bluntness) total drivel, and unrelated to the topic. While specific virtues are relevant to republicanism (as specific virtues are relevant to any political system), "being virtuous" is not really relevant either, and I'd like an explanation or a direct source (as you demanded of my edits). I realize that you are "making concessions" by reverting smaller and smaller parts of the section, but my trust in your edits is declining as you continually re-introduce material just because you wrote it (this is my interpretation--correct me if I am wrong by defending your edits). Fearwig 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (re: Rjensen reverts/edits) Are you specifically talking about "greater good"-style civic virtue? If so you should be clear. Virtue can mean absolutely anything, and the problem with your addition here is that it is incredibly broad and fluffy and (as a result) reads as POV, not to mention lacking in factual relevance. If you mean something specific, say something specific. Fearwig 04:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Some quotes: "The republicanism of the Revolution rested upon such assumptions of an actively engaged and virtuous citizenry both in and out of the military. " Holly Mayer in Greene ed. Companion to the American Revolution (2004) p 312. "It was precisely this quality of “civic virtue” that was missing from past republican experiments and led to their demise. ibid 427. Rjensen 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is not about whether or not Wiki should represent current scholarship (and I am not here to debate that topic, as I agree with it), but about what is and isn't cited or portrayed accurately from sources--some things you said here are citable, but should be better-phrased to reflect what the sources mean to say. I agree that noting the issue of civic virtue is important, but it is not the same as saying that republicanism is about "being virtuous"--it's easy to misquote (or indeed misrepresent) this sort of thing by accident. Every institution has its professed virtues. That republicanism stressed civic virtues is important, because what made it different was the "common good" (the "civic") mentality, not the "virtue" part ("virtue" really just means "adherence to social norms", in the sociological context). So by all means, include the matter of virtue, but be clear what it is you're talking about, or it will sound dogmatic. Now, on the matter of military service, this IS important to republicanism, but it's also important to (again) essentially every political system. So while it makes sense to note in a text that it is an important part of a successful republic (along with adherence to virtues), it is not significant in a summary to say that republicanism was distinctly related to military service--this is militarism or nationalism, which can be (and usually are) an aspect of a republic, but not a defining aspect of republicanism in itself. What we should have here is a very basic overview of Article:republicanism, in order to give people an idea what we're talking about--we shouldn't be redefining the term. Discussion of what are really minor facets of the ideology is not beneficial to this topic. So, before you show more citations: yes, citations will show that these are aspects of republicanism, but they need to be defining aspects to be listed here, or else they are misrepresentative. If you think military service is a defining aspect of a republic, please rewrite republicanism. I agree on the virtues, though--you just need to be clearer in stating that civic virtues are what make republicanism different from monarchism. Fearwig 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As (again) for the Loyalists--I scarcely need to source that most people, despite their personal beliefs, are going to accomodate themselves to a new system of government before packing up their bags (though some on fringes will take the latter course). But disregard that if you want: because the very nature of being a Loyalist adhered them philosophically to monarchism, they did NOT accept republicanism, and it is highly illogical to state as much based on migration statistics. If they became involved in the new government (even as voting citizens) after the revolution, that is one thing, but at the time of the revolution they resisted the establishment of a republic in favor of the monarchy. That is a better indicator of their philosophy at that time than actions that would take place years or decades later. This portion was misleading in the extreme. In addition, use of historical statistics to produce a non-obvious synthesis is definitely across the NOR line. Fearwig 05:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  1) Agree it should refer to civic virtue.  2) Military service was a component at that time OF civic virtue/republicanism. That was new in the world--which always had professional or mercenary armies to fight their battles. (Napoleon changed that.) 3) As for the Loyalists who stayed in the US, they were of  course watched and there are no reports that they were monarchists. I reject the assumption that republicanism required a rejection of the monarchy--that came only in 1776 (with Common Sense). 4) There was no NOR here--every historians since 1783 says that most Loyalists remained behind. (it is not original research when one part of the article says there were 800,000 Loyalists and another part says less than 100,000 left to conclude that 700,000 stayed behind.  Rjensen 08:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The OR has nothing to do with Loyalists staying behind, and everything to do with the assumption most of them were republicans. You cannot defend this with migration statistics, but if you can produce a source that agrees explicitly with your analysis you might be able to say in the article that some historians have made this analysis. Living in a republic has nothing to do with believing in republicanism, especially if you are an avowed supporter of the British monarchy. The rest can be fixed mostly with rewrites (your new explanation of the military matter is apt, but it did need expansion to be accurate in its depiction I think), but this Loyalism bit is incomprehensible nonsense. To clarify once more (since we tend to confuse each other sometimes): 700,000 Loyalists refusing to leave the country does not mean they were republicans, meaning they believed in or touted the ideals of republicanism. While it is possible that some of these people did believe in republicanism while simultaneously thinking it was bad to seperate from the empire (for one reason or another), it absolutely is OR (if not pure speculation) to make any kind of claim about how many people believed what, especially when they made direct acts or claims to the contrary. For all you or I know, every single one of those 700,000 believed the monarchy was preferable, but were unwilling to abandon every single piece of property they own to stand up for that belief. Until you find and cite specific research that somehow can verify the political ideals held by 350,001 or more of those people, you should not go around saying that most of them were republicans. It's original research, bad research, and a very bad thing to put in any source of information since you have no verification of its accuracy as an analysis. Fearwig 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, reading your new edit. I'll pick it apart. I like the other changes, but this one is the one I'm going over now: "Many if not most Loyalists also adhered to it. (Note that the decision to reject monarchy came only in 1776 and was not an ingredient of republicanism.)" This is actually a reversed reasoning--there was a sentiment to seperate from Britain before the declaration, but in '76 it was finalized. Now, Loyalists were those people who did not agree to seperate. Republicans were those who believed in the establishment of a republic over the maintenance of the monarchy (or the creation of a new monarchy), especially through seperation from the empire. This means that the actual date of the declaration isn't really important: those who wanted to seperate were not the same as those who wanted to remain, and if (as you, I, and most historians would say) the revolution was inspired by the ideals of republicanism, those who did not agree with the revolution were not inspired by those ideals of republicanism--or at least it would be unwise to assume that they were. This bit really needs to go, man. I'm not sure where you came up with it, but it's really not worth defending. If you're going to quote more migration statistics, read the above, though I think this paragraph might be more to-the-point. Overall though, regardless of the factual basis of your point, this is definitely synthesis and definitely OR. The only aspect of your argument that you defended as not being OR is that a large number of Loyalists stayed in the new nation--that doesn't prove that they are republicans, then or later, and as such it can't be taken as such an obvious synthesis as to escape the parameters of NOR. Fearwig 15:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republicanism 

message: the discussion was getting too long, and I hate scrolling down that much... so here is a continuation...
Let's get away from "The Patriot"... to me the issue remains, is a list of any films or plays needed in this article.  I still think the entire section should go.  It does not add to the article.  There is no expert opinion or public consensus to indicate this group of films or plays are more important or relevant than this other group of films or plays...  so if we are going to include some, we would need to include them all. 
Yes, you can probably come up with comments by individual critics or historians that say a given film or play is relevant or important ... but what we do not have is something that compares them to others that may be MORE or LESS relevant or important.  The analogy to generals is apt.  In a biography of Henry Knox, the biographer is going to say that Gen. Knox was important.  What he will probably not say in that bio is if Knox was more or less important than some other general, say Washington.  However, when writing about the entire revolution we can rely on general concensus to clearly state that Washington is more "important" than Knox.  We can even rely on expert opinion... In lists of the 100 most influential and important people in History, Washington gets listed while Knox does not.  We do not have such concensus or such lists to rely on with films.
So... either we have to list every dramatic rendition and give them equal weight, or we need to list none of them.  Since such a list would double the size of the article, I feel we should list none of them.  How do other editors feel? Lets take a non-binding straw poll. Blueboar 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - I have entered an RFC on this so we can get more input from neutral editors. Blueboar 13:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine by me. Blueboar 14:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorse listifying the section. I hate the problems with listcruft but I'm also tolerant and recognize it will just come back again and again. Might as well hide it out of sight ;-) or hope that hte list is well-maintained. This is such a vast topic and there are so many productions. --Dhartung | Talk 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *KEEP. The movies tell so much that we should be able to see them. Obow2003 16:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (note: the comment above and repost of the Keep vote by the anon posting as Obow2003 were posted at 20:48, 5 August 2006 by EricR - this comment by Blueboar 21:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone objects I am going to discount the vote and comment by anon... I suspect it was not an attempt to really help solve this issue, but pure vandalism (deleting other people's comments does not lead me to assume good faith). Blueboar 21:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you haven't... you would not be a redlink if you had registered.  I will assume good faith and that you are intending to register however, and will not delete your comment out of hand.  We will move your vote to our tally when this happens. Blueboar 23:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AH... correction... you have registered, but have not created a user page.  Your vote has been counted.  Thanks for participating.
*keep  The films go back 100 years and show how Americans have "seen" the Revolution. That is useful information for teachers like me working with K12 audiences. Teachers and librarians do not have easy access to this information otherwise, and we have discovered that students definitely respond more to films than to old monographs. Jozil 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films and Plays 

message: OK, we have polled the regular editors, and put out an RFC.  So far the concensus is clearly in favor of deleting the list of movies from this article, with several editors commenting that it could be shifted to its own page.  Have we given it enough time, or shall we wait a while longer? Blueboar 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: let's give it a couple more days. This is vacation season. Rjensen 14:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem... that's why I asked. Blueboar 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results of Straw Poll and RFC 

message: Invariably, this is going to need some protection soon.   —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  worry 

message: Following the suggestions from the RFC, I have created the article List of plays and films about the American Revolution and moved the list to that article (it is linked on this article).  As I said above, I think it could use some commentary about how different films have interpreted the Revolution and reflected changing cultural views about it.  I will leave that to those who understand that subject more than I do. Blueboar 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of plays and films about the American Revolution 

message: Having come to this topic somewhat late in the process, I'll share the successful experience of another Wikipedia page.  For over two years the Joan of Arc article had a similar list at the end of the text - a prime example (many editors might say) of listcruft.  However, no one actually deleted this list and it grew from diverse contributions, mostly regarding popular culture.
Late last year that list broke off from the main article and became its own page due to space constraints.  With additional categories for literature and fine arts, and translations from a related page at the French Wikipedia, it grew to a substantial page of its own.  None of the "crufty" entries proved to be a hoax and most were verifiable.  The result is a unique resource: Wikipedia's Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc has become a featured list.  It also appears to be the only list in existence that compiles references to Joan of Arc in graphic novels, computer games, and Japanese anime.  The potential value of such information to parents and teachers should be obvious.  While I'm not necessarily a Wikipedia inclusionist, the success of that experiment should encourage other articles.  It takes minimal effort to copyedit and alphabetize the new additions, and by having kept the list with the main article for so long the entries really did accumulate well.  Regards, Durova 23:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: What is this line about? "By 1763, Great Britain possessed a vast holding on the North American continent. In addition to the twenty-nine British colonies, victory ..."  should that say 13 colonies? Or is it referring to some Canadian holdings or something? --Awiseman 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it counts lots of islands (like Jamaica, Bahamas) and even counts Florida twice because they had their own governor Rjensen 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok. Maybe it should just say "in North America" or "in the New World" or something, since the islands aren't technically on the North American continent. --Awiseman 19:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  29 Colonies? 

message: The above referenced section seems to be confused regarding which states did and did not continue state-sponsored religion and when the practice discontinued.
Considering the subjective nature of disestablishment (is state religion established when the state mandates worship? when the state pays clergy salaries? when non-worshipers are banished?), perhaps the blanket bullet-point statements (continued state religion; disestablishment) should be expanded or removed.
As an example of the overbroad stroke, the New Jersey constitution granted free worship to its residents but required a religious test for public office. Yet New Jersey is listed as having disestablished religion. And New York is listed in the section that continued state religion, when in fact the 30th Article granted free religious worship and the 35th Article prevented all laws that would establish or maintain state-sponsored religion. Citation: Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America, New York 1902, p 502.
It is not so easy to say that the states that were bicameral continued state religion while the unicameral did not.
:New Jersey permitted a religious test; but there were Irish Catholic officers in the NJ militia, so it is doubtful it was applied; and it was certainly abolished by 1799, when the legislature enacted a new oath of office. Septentrionalis 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating New State Constitutions 

message: Given the frequent vandalism this article faces, I think it needs to be put on a semi-protect block (which blocks unregistered and new users from editing, but lets more experienced editors continue editing).  Any objections? Blueboar 16:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There has been much anonymous vandalism recently. (Duribald 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Request made. Blueboar 17:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May I suggest a semi-protect 

message: The article fails to mention that the "Join or Die" cartoon was a cartoon telling the colonies to join the Albany Plan of Union, which is significant in attempts at Colonial self-government during the periods of the Revolution. --PiOfFive 18:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Join or Die cartoon 

message: If we ever want this article to be taken seriously, we need to work on citing which references back which statements (or at least which sections) in this article.  I have therefore tagged the article with a  tag. Blueboar 18:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A hearty well done to Rjensen for adding citations.  A HUGE improvement.  Thanks Blueboar 23:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: blush---) Rjensen 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing References 

message: After the most recent set of vandal attacks, I have tried to revert back to what I know is a clean version.  The article is not accepting my edits.  Are we under a complete lock? Blueboar 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm... it is accepting other people's edits, so the problem must be with me.  In any case, the article seems to be back to a correct version, so all is well. Blueboar 18:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits? 

message: Changed opening to shorten intro (ideally, the Intro should be short enough for the table of content to appear near the top of the article.)  Also made a few copy edits to the text.  Did not remove anything, just some reorganization. --Jayron32 20:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:LEAD, the introduction should be 2-3 paragraphs and "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies."  I think it was better before.  The longer intro also reduces the amount of blank space between the table of contents and first header too.  – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  05:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wrote the longer lede, basically taking into account WP:LEAD, the long table of contents, and even added two images to balance out the whitespace. Titoxd(?!?) 06:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds like concensus is for the longer lead-in.  I am fine with that too then.  I was of the opinion that a shorter lead would improve readability, but in light of WP:LEAD and the justifications here, the longer lead may be more preferred.  I will change it back.  --Jayron32 06:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by ECOTM 

message: Could this article please get protected status and be corrected to remove Tim Allen from all over the place? I'd do it myself, but I don't really know the procedure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.181.228.22 (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism/Tim Allen 

message: Popularity meaning, how everyone felt about it. Feelings about the war?
There should be a section on the popularity of the war. The war actually was fought, in the beginning, colonists:hey lets build a militia, and we don't want to separate from you GB. Yeah its weird. Furthermore in the south-it was more along the lines of: We like how we are, if they give us independence, great, but we don't need to take it by force.That was from the fact the south wasn't affected by the acts, as much as Massachusetts was. If all the colonists were zealous when it came to independence, the war would've ended much sooner. It wasn't all too popular. Also when the British hired the Mercenaries, the Hessians, they didn't have a will to fight (they're being paid) and many became respected American citizens post war. Also would this section go here or the American Revolutionary War article? Nominaladversary 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity of the war 

message: I find it a very large oversight that no where in this article is the Boston Massacre addressed. Even in the listed reasons building up to war it isn't mentioned, one of the most infamous, spun, incidents to effect the approach to war should be listed I believe. Nikter 23:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boston Massacre 

message: Up again for GA since objections from last one have been addressed. --Banana04131 03:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Try 

message: Are they in modern US$ or in 1783 US$? The Person Who Is Strange 19:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monetary figures 

message: Like I've already said, great article, and it's a great read. I believe the last section on National Debt doesnt tie in too well, as already pointed out, but nonetheless, it's a great article overall. I'm quite glad to pass it for GA, and will be nominating it for FA promptly. Druworos 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like from the discussion above it was approved for GA status? →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think it deserves GA status, would you mind explaining what needs improvement? Blueboar 02:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * See my comments at this article's FAC for details. —ExplorerCDT 05:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did see your comments... and have requested that you list the areas that need work here on the talk page.  As near as I can tell, you removed the GA status because you feel that the artice is a "clusterfuck"... that is not really a helpful comment, as it does not tell us what needs improvement.  The goal is to improve the article so that it becomes a GA (and eventually FA).  To do this we need constructive comments as to what needs to be improved.  Blueboar 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the GA process doesn't work, it is too easy to be listed as a GA article, but this article passed the review in good faith.  It is not a case wherein the person who passed it was heavily involved with the article or created a puppet to pass or lacks experience.  I am RELISTING it as a GA on principle.  If you believe it should be delisted, then you need to follow the steps to delist.Balloonman 16:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the relisting, your comments ("This article blatantly does not meet the GA requirements.") are not helpful to those trying to improve the article.  I think it does meet the requirements for GA status, anyway. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 20:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I just used the criteria at WP:GA?, and out of the 15 criteria I can say "Yes", or "Generally" to most of them.  If nothing else at least we've been able to get some good suggestions for areas to look at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James Kidd (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passed GA 

message: This article blatantly does not meet the GA requirements. Proof positive that the GA process needs reform. —ExplorerCDT 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like from the discussion above it was approved for GA status? →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think it deserves GA status, would you mind explaining what needs improvement? Blueboar 02:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * See my comments at this article's FAC for details. —ExplorerCDT 05:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did see your comments... and have requested that you list the areas that need work here on the talk page.  As near as I can tell, you removed the GA status because you feel that the artice is a "clusterfuck"... that is not really a helpful comment, as it does not tell us what needs improvement.  The goal is to improve the article so that it becomes a GA (and eventually FA).  To do this we need constructive comments as to what needs to be improved.  Blueboar 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the GA process doesn't work, it is too easy to be listed as a GA article, but this article passed the review in good faith.  It is not a case wherein the person who passed it was heavily involved with the article or created a puppet to pass or lacks experience.  I am RELISTING it as a GA on principle.  If you believe it should be delisted, then you need to follow the steps to delist.Balloonman 16:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the relisting, your comments ("This article blatantly does not meet the GA requirements.") are not helpful to those trying to improve the article.  I think it does meet the requirements for GA status, anyway. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 20:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I just used the criteria at WP:GA?, and out of the 15 criteria I can say "Yes", or "Generally" to most of them.  If nothing else at least we've been able to get some good suggestions for areas to look at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James Kidd (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: I put the article up for FAC, so concerned editors may want to check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Revolution. Cheers! Druworos 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As most of the comment at the FAC state, it is way to soon for this to be nominated for FA.  We are having enough of a debate over whether it is worthy of a GA. Blueboar 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC 

message: Isn't there any consideration given to the fact that if Britain wasn't fighting France, the French wouldn't have helped the rebels ?  This would, of couse, have meant that it was likely both that Britain would have won over the rebels, and that, of couse, a more just government would have come out of the whole affair.  See www.pavefrance.com. Anon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.23.127 (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have your timing a bit backwards.  While France had been assisting the Americans/rebels monitarily well before officially joining the war, it was not until after the Americans won battle of Saratoga that France declared war on England and officially joined the conflict.  You are correct that, once France did this they became a major factor in the strategic thinking of the British (the southern campaign was a response to the need to keep troops closer to the carribean and a potential French invasion of Jamaica and England's other island posessions).  As to whether the Americans could have won without active French participation, that is open to debate.  The war certainly would have lasted longer, but whether this would have aided the British or the Americans is not knowable.  I will discount your last comment (about a just government) as an attempt at humor.  We certainly don't know that any such government would have been more "just".  Blueboar 18:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Angle 

message: Time for some semi-protection again? There's been serious vandalism the last couple of days. -Duribald 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.Blueboar 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing. I think the page is a magnet for school kids --AW 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, don't forget to warn vandals. I'm using the  one a lot, it's good --AW 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals - Protection 

message: The use of the word "Patriot" to describe colonist advocating and actively working towards a government independent of Great Britian is approriate based on it's historical use. However using it in lieu of the word "Insurgent" is an example of ethnocentrism; and thus evidence of strong bias. Articles describing similiar historical events use the term "insurgent" and no debate is required. Thus i feel it would be most appropriate if the origin and significance of the term "Patriot" be included, but the actual forces involved in the movment be reffered to as "Insurgents" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edc04001 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, besides the fact that there is nothing "ethnic" about the word (I think you mean Amerocentrism or something), I do understand what you are trying to say.  However, "insurgent" is not right either... It implies a level of guerilla warfair, and "street fighting", that did not take place in the American Revolution.  I can agree that if a NOPV term could be found, it might fit better with Wiki policy... but since (as you acknowledge) the term "Patriot" has become accepted by the majority of historians, I think this is the term that should be used here. Blueboar 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just write "revolutionaries"? "Patriots" seems somewhat biased (I'm sure king George didn't call them that), it could be seen as inaccurate (since they fought against their country in favour of universal principles of human rights) and I have to confess to never having seen the term used in a history book written outside of the USA. I hav e reacted to the term myself, but not wanted to start a war of reversions on the matter. I think that it's good that there a discussion on the matter, at least. - Duribald 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the problem... the term pops up to discribe one of two factions (essentially political parties) of Americans in the colonies: the Loyalists (also called Torys) on one side and the... well, the accepted term is "Patriots" (and as far as I know there isn't another term used).  This word has become a "term of art" in American History.  It is in essence the common name of a political party.  Loyalist and Patriot... It's like Roundhead and Cavalier, Tory and Whig, or Republican and Federalist...  Yes it sounds POV from a British perspective, becuase the word has a broader meaning outside of American History.  But in the context of American History it has a specific meaning.  Using it isn't the POV of editors writing this wikipedia article... its the name given to a particular faction by generations of scholars.  As to POV... Remember that from a US perspective one could argue that was the "Loyalists" who were the traitors.  Rather than open a can of worms, and invite unending revert wars (which is what I think will happen if we try to be PC about this), I feel we should stick with the accepted terms of art... Loyalists and Patriots. Blueboar 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: the dictionary definition works fine: (Webster's 3rd;) " one who advocates or promotes the independence of his native soil or people from the country or union of countries of which it is a part (as a colony)." the question of celebrating or denouncing the patriots is another issue. Rjensen 04:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'm just saying the issue should be discussed. On one hand, one could argue that the term is extremely POV, especially as it is used in America in normal conversation. On the other hand it could be used with reference to, yet again, American historical tradition, claiming that it should be seen as a purely technical term. If I were to write a book, I'd use other terms. But since Wikipedia has a policy of favouring American terms in articles about America related topics, I can live with it. Perhaps there should be an explanation about this in the beginning of the text? My Longman Dictionary, BTW, defines "patriot" as "usually appreciative" and "someone who loves and is willing to defend his country". I think this is closer to the normal use of the term in most languages. - Duribald 04:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The british OED defines patriot as "c. spec. (orig. U.S.). A person actively opposing enemy forces occupying his or her country; a member of a resistance movement, a freedom fighter.  Originally used of those who opposed and fought the British in the American War of Independence.: I think the article is correctly using the term in that sense. As for neutrality, there is a misunderstanding here. The Wiki POV rules deal with disputes among experts today-- we are supposed to cover all major interpetations. (The article should represent the POV of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.') It usually comes up when some set of facts or interpretations is under or over-represented. That does not seem to be a problem for this article.  The rules do NOT say Wiki should be neutral among the contestants in a war 200 years ago.   Fact is both the Americans AND the British leaders and people were split on the issue of independence. A strong minority in Parliament opposed the King on this issue, and in fact finally seized power and rejected the King's position. Rjensen 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Rjensen, that definition was even more biased, since it means the article as it stands defines the British troups as occupants fighting against freedom. ;-) The POV thing was meant in general, referring to bias, not to Wiki policy. Anyway, I think your OED definition (which is clearly meant to cover American usage of the term in a specialized context - biased or not - Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary makes no mention of such a meaning of the word) highlights the point I made about "patriot" being a biased word. Nevertheless I'm willing to yield to the majority opinion, if there is one, provided that an explanation of the usage of the word in the article is added. - Duribald 07:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My other point is that Wiki POV rules do NOT apply here. I think our rreaders are smart enough to read the article and understand there was a big fight going on and what the issues were. When both the big guns -- OED and Webster's 3rd -- agree with us on the definition we use, I think that's good enough. Rjensen 08:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: History writing should be unbiased if possible. That has nothing to do with Wiki POV policy, which I have already pointed out. And the OED definition proves this concept biased, even in the specialized technical definition in which it is used in this article. I would say that the term "patriot" as used about the American revolutionaries is highly ideological. Virtually all Americans would say that they are patriots and they would definitely connect that patriotism with love for America, a willingness to stand up for and defend America AND connect this with the virtues they see in the "original" patriots. I don't think historians are an exception to this rule. The American revolution is part of the story, or myth, that makes up the core of American nationalism and national identity. Anyway, as I have already stated, I will not start a war of reversions on this subject. The word patriot can stand. But I do plan to write a small piece on how the word should be understood in relationship to this article. Let's see if you like it or not, shall we. -Duribald 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is unbiased. "patriot" was the common word used by everyone at the time. Americans love the patriots, indeed, and CVanadians love the Loyalists. Is it biased also to call them Loyalists?  Rjensen 09:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it was commonly used in that way at the time, the term could be interpreted as biased and the explanation is called for. - Duribald 09:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I can agree that an explanation might be called for.  Blueboar 14:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears to me that the term "patriot" has connotations quite different from terms such as "revolutionary", or "insurgent". "Patriot" evokes feeling of prestige and good deeds, while "insurgent" has a more balanced connotation but clearly of the undesirable kind (this connotation may in fact be caused by its use in contrast with the alternate term). The effects of this wording in the recorded literature is profound because of this: the term "patriots" being used in recorded history in juxtaposition with the term "insurgent" is actively conditioning those exposed to it the idea that two different acts that are extremely similar technically have opposite connotations. More so it conditions one to believe that certain peoples are morally right in "revolting" while others are not.--137.99.150.9 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "patriot" was used by everyone at the time in the meaning used for the article, so it fits exactly. "insugent" was not so used (it was rare before 1810). The politics is important, because the patriots immediately (in 1775) drove out all the Royal officials. After that it was fighting between the locals and the invading army. (The loyalists never had control anywhere). People seem to be worried that "patriot" sounds too good. But Wiki allows that. The NPOV rules have to do with current (2007) debates in which all expert views should be included.  In 2007 most experts use terms like "patriot" and "loyalist" because they are accurate and precise. "insurgent" is ambiguous--does it mean a patriot fighting the Crown, or a loyalist fighting the patriots who are in control?. As for "revolutionary" it was a new word coined in 1774 by the Americans to describe their ideas or policies. "Revolutionaries" as people was an 1850 coinage says OED.Rjensen 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the term isn't precise. I've checked six dictionaries and patriot is exclusively defined as I described before in all of them. We are writing an encyclopedic article for people from all around the world in 2007. Most of them are lay people. The term "patriot" carries a  lot of bagage, and it should be explained how the term is used in this context. -Duribald 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh lots of terms carry baggage--"Loyalist" for example. Our use is explictly sanctioned by the two most important dictionaries (OED and Webster 3) and is nowhere forbidden by Wiki rules. Rjensen 02:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionaries don't sanction or endorse the use of terms. They simply describe how they are used - whether good or bad. In this case it is a use that goes outside of what is common usage of the word, especially outside of the USA. I don't really get why you oppose clarifying how a word is used in an article? It seems important to you, for some reason. Don't you want people to get what you mean? -Duribald 02:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriots vs. Insurgents 

message: Substituted at 20:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment