Talk:Western theater of the American Revolutionary War

message: I have added the NPOV and tone tags to this article because of the edit from an anon on 8 March 2007.  That edit uses terms such as "genocided", "utterly genocide", and "murderously killed" which fail for stylistic and grammatical reasons.  They also express a strongly-held point of view and are not neutral in tone.  It may be that the edit adds valuable content, but it is not expressed in an encylopedic manner.  Unless it is revised, corrected, and copyedited, the may end up being deleted entirely.  If the facts are as the contributor states them, then let those facts speak for themselves (with cites to authority) and forego the adverbs.  [[bctuasyk75yk6tyjurtyiuoio0[94User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] 17:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted; article was reverted to a prior version.  Kablammo --24.228.37.6 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Tone tags

message: I removed France from the list of belligerents.  Although there were a lot of French-speaking colonials in the disputed territory, as well as an occasional French officer, I can't think of any direct participation in the Western Theater by the Kingdom of France.  In fact, I think you could make the case that the Kingdom of Spain played a greater role in the Western Theater of the ARW than the Kingdom of France. Mingusboodle (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: France

message: The short synopsis on the right labels this an "Anglo-Native Victory; U.S. diplomatic victory".  How is it the former?  Though the British and their Indian allies may have still held land that their peace negotiators signed away on another continent, the war was still in flux, and indeed George Rogers Clark had just led a successful thrust into Ohio.  For there to be a victory there needs to be a conclusion, regardless of whether the British et al arguably held the upper hand at this place or that moment.  This is akin to labeling the Vietnam War a "U.S. victory; North Vietnamese diplomatic victory" just because the U.S. Army was still propping up Saigon and other areas at the time troops were removed. 69.229.239.9 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Anglo-Native Victory" phrase was added one year ago by an anonymous drive-by editor, without explanation, and no one bothered to correct it. Clearly, as you indicate, this was hardly a victory. Indeed, despite winning some important battles, the Indians were unable to achieve their primary objective, which was to drive the settlers out of Kentucky. I've restored the previous wording. Thanks. —Kevin Myers 14:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Rather than simply adding your opinion back to the article (I assume you are using at least two IP addresses), try to reach a consensus on this discussion page for your opinion (which currently seems to be 3-1 against).  What sources do you rely on that claim an Indian military victory in this theater of the war?   Middlekauff in the recent revision of "The Glorious Cause" (page 578) summarizes the conflict in the West with, "Rather, the common thread in Indian experience in the Revolution was loss." Speaking of the Northwest, Alan Taylor in "The Divided Ground" (page 107) wrote, "Indeed, the Iroguois plight seemed dire by war's end."Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, calling this an "Anglo-Native Victory" is to confuse winning battles with winning a war. I've added some notes and text to clear this up. The war was arguably a Native American loss, since they lost Kentucky (the Ohio Indians' primary object of the war) and were pushed back from the Ohio, and there were American settlers pouring into the area. But Scaggs calls it a "stalemate" because neither side could achieve anything of lasting military significance in the war's final years; it was the British calling it quits and ceding the Old Northwest that proved to be decisive. —Kevin Myers 22:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Results

message: The scope of this article seems to overlook the happenings south of the Tennessee–Kentucky line in this time period.  Is this an oversight?  Just what is the scope of this article? GenQuest "scribble" 00:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, I'd like to know if anyone has opinions or sources.  The ARW campaign box (Template:Campaignbox American Revolutionary War) lists 3 theaters: North, west, and South.  It lists Galvez's Gulf Coast Campaign as part of the Southern theater.  That covers Alabama, I believe.  These distinctions could probably be debated.  Battle of Island Flats says it's part of the Western theater, but also part of the larger Cherokee-American wars; is that the most southern event in this article? Canute (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope

message: Type 12.221.238.18 (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Question on this sentence:
While leaders such as White Eyes (Lenape) and Cornstalk (Shawnee) urged neutrality, Buckongahelas (Lenape) and Blue Jacket (Shawnee) decided to fight against the Americans.
Did Buckongahelas and Blue Jacket specifically target rebellious Americans, or were they resisting all white settlers?  In other words, did they make a distinction between white settlers who were loyal to Great Britain and those who supported the revolution?  If they were allied with Great Britain and specifically fought against rebels, I think we need to cite a source for that. Canute (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shawnee