Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 25

New section 'Overall results'

@DTParker1000, Tenryuu, and TheVirginiaHistorian: It seems the new section (Overall Results of the Revolutionary War) that was just added, while very interesting, is a bit over-done. The section is mostly devoted to slavery, filled with tangential details that didn't occur until some years later. There is also a serious citation overkill situation. Unless a statement seems highly unusual or controversial, it need only be cited with one or two sources – certainly not five to ten citations in a row. Also, for the last several months we have been employing one citation convention throughout the article, (an FA requirement) using the same format for all cites/sources. Some work is needed in that area. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Some tangential text, some citations have been removed, and some prose has been condensed. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

discussion part A

Agree; the whole section is mostly unnecessary, and duplicates a section from American Revolution. This article, as the name indicates and the hatnote underlines, is about military actions primarily, with the Aftermath covered at American Revolution. Copying 10kb of text here from the parent article only opens the possibility of divergence between two very similar sections, or duplicate maintenance in two places. Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC) At edits here, here, here, here. --- Copy edit for style, distribute footnotes to cite locations, limit multiple sources to scholar RS. NET PROSE SIZE (text only) = 99kB, 15,728 words. - More work to do to align citations to HarvRef format. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Many thanks to DTParker1000 for his/her great research effort and coming up with all those sources. It must have taken an appreciable amount of your time. I think I speak for everyone when I say we took no pleasure in shrinking your original section down to a fraction of its size, but as was explained above, the section was a bit over-done. If you feel a certain item should be kept in the section please let us know. We are not hard-liners around here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it could be shortened and written in a more neutral tone. The powers of the British king and even the aristocracy are exaggerated and of course in the aftermath of the ARA only 6% of the U.S. population could vote,[1] which was probably the same amount as before the revolution. And while the U.S. constitution has been copied, it was not written until 1789. It might be better to say that the war allowed the newly independent states to form the first modern republic, which would become a model for other nations. TFD (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

discussion part B

Agree, in that there are several clauses, sentences related to the 'American Republic' (New Republic Era of US historiography). That is the subsequent national political evolution beyond the military war establishing a 'constitutional revolution' from monarchy to republic. However, it is of some note, that on the world stage, at 6% (larger % among citizens not living tribally, larger % among freemen not indentured or enslaved, larger % of men alone) not only did a larger percent of the total American colonial population vote, embracing 15-20% of the adult males in some counties, but that vote was more broadly distributed socially and geographically than in Britain. Britain in its turn at the time, far surpassed the rest of the world in free political expression and active engagement among its residents, from free speech, to voting, to protests, to London's Gordon Riots during the ARW that shut down the capital for the better part of a month. And, 'new section' percolating ... relative to the expanding, leveling franchise, all the veterans, enlisted white and free black, who returned and accepted their land grants on the frontier, then owned the acreage outright, immediately upon relocation to occupy their claim. They then qualified to vote in Virginia, and elsewhere --- hence the examples of free black grandsons in Virginia's western counties being drafted for the Confederate Army from militia rolls of property owners in the 'late unpleasantness' that you may refer to (no, they were NOT enrolled, but turned away, as were the sons of black vets from the Battle of New Orleans, who volunteered by their drilled regiments and were turned away by those in grey who fought to perpetuate slavery into the 20th century --- instead of the Confederate states-rights-and-independence that the 'Lost Cause' advocates imagine...but I digress... - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Social history of colonies and early states

discussion part C

The acts and executive actions carried out in the name of the King were made by the King-in Parliament or the King-in-Council, in other words the British parliament and cabinet. The original complaint was that Americans should have the rights of Englishmen, so that local legislatures would determine taxes and Americans would have the same civil rights they would have in England. The ARW achieved this. More Americans could vote because more of them met the property requirements. But the narrative that Americans overthrew a despotic king and established freedom is simplistic. The king was in most ways a figurehead and freedom was mostly expanded in the years after the ARW. Nor was there a feudal system in pre-revolutionary America. TFD (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: That's mostly correct, though prior to the US Constitution, Virginia ended feudal entail, primogeniture and its established church, and it confiscated church lands, all undoing the pre-existing economic realities found in a feudalistic regime. I have strived over the course of eight months to expunge from this article any remaining ideological "exceptionalism" that purports "Americans overthrew a despotic king and established freedom". To specifically rebut that anachronism (that's the most kind characterization I can think of for it), I have expanded the beginning 'Prelude' and the ending 'Diplomacy' sections, at first noting the American Patriot ideology was derivative of the British Whig, the independence Congress was defended in Parliament by the Whig Opposition from 1775. The ARW narrative does not presume Congress achieved independence alone. Not only is coverage the French assistance expanded, and the Dutch at Sint Eutasius. They are more fully linked in the text and illustrated in battles, ship-gifting and portraiture. The Spanish contribution has an illustrated section coordinate with the Clark operations they made possible. Native Americans now have an expanded section. It features portraits of war chiefs on both sides to replace an artist's conception of American Army and militia uniforms without an Indian anywhere among the twenty soldiers pictured. After the Yorktown disaster, Lord North's administration fell as the independent 'country gentlemen' in Commons deserted the Tories to join the Whig caucus. It was Whig Opposition Lord Rockingham who insisted George III promise American independence before he would accept Prime Ministership (Rockingham's portrait is now featured in the article). It was the Whig Prime Ministers Rockingham and Shelburne who secured a peace treaty ratified in Parliament that met all five unanimously declared American war aims: independence, British evacuation, territory to the Mississippi and its navigation to the sea, and Newfoundland fishing and curing rights. I pointedly searched for and found an attractive portrait of George III in his parliamentary robes unlike the usually pictured ermine stoles at coronation found in American high school histories. And at the last of the ARW, I stressed George III's crucial political support for American independence, peace, and trade in his 4 December 1782 "Speech Before the Throne" opening that session of Parliament. It set the stage for Paris negotiations with the great powers favorable to the Americans. Spain gave up its claims to Georgia as a buffer state, and France relented from it is demands for a province south of the Great Lakes, from the Appalachians to the Mississippi (see maps at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War#Preliminary agreements). It may be that we must concede that there was a constitutional revolution to overthrow monarchy for a republic, by leaders presupposing later generations could be free to change what they had done. There was no "Little Red Book" for everyone under the age of fourteen to memorize chapter and verse. But if you do find any remaining echoes of "the narrative that Americans overthrew a despotic king and established freedom" in the article, please point it out here, so we can collegially root it out together. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Although some feudal institutions were imported into America and some remnants remain, it would be an exaggeration to say that America was feudal before the ARW. TFD (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Exactly so, only portions of some elements survived the transplanting. By the late 1600s, we have English travelogues noting the colonial settlements were filled with "mongrels" of European cross-breeding among English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, Swedes, Germans, French, and intermarriage with Indians and Africans too, he observed. Whether an independent spirit so temperamentally disposed, or an outcast pregnant indentured servant, it was just too easy to find an alternative to whatever colonial social structure there might have been: migrate (a) into a mirror-colonial community as those to Rhode Island from Massachusetts, or (b) to the frontier borderlands of two cultures in family-farm isolation, paying the occasional pig as tribute to a hunting party that had not caught any deer (cheaper than either landlord quitrents or church tithing, and not in specie coin), or (c) in permanent settlement among multicultural interracial "maroon colonies" among impenetrable swamps and remote mountain hollows. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: Just to be clear about your first post in this thread. The ‘American Revolution’ is a political one, not a social one. There is a constitutional revolution in government from monarchy to republic. To deny it was so is not persuasive if the case advanced is based on a "straw man". To my knowledge, no practicing American historian at any accredited university claims the straw man: That the American Revolution ushered in an immediate total transformation of society. Not so anywhere, in any way comparable to some few remaining scholars of the Russian Revolution who pretend there was a "New Soviet Man", and so on. The American constitutional revolution was a real one, regardless of a ‘New History corrective’ to the “exaggerated power” once attributed to the “Mother Country’s” imperial government by king and aristocracy. The critique is justifiable, to this extent: The fatal flaw in the imperial regime ruling the North American seaboard was in its allowing native-born landowners to sit on the Royal Governor’s Council. They then could form familial allegiances with those in the elected House of Burgesses to effectively nullify the Crown’s appointed Royal Governor For example, the ‘Thrusting out’ of Virginia’s Royal Governor Sir John Harvey in 1635. By 1712, a majority of the Governor’s Council in Virginia was native-born with family ties to the lower-house self-elected officers. That network continued through to the last Virginia Royal Assembly in 1775. The son of a member of the Governor’s Council, Royal Attorney General John Randolph, --- Peyton Randolph chaired both the Virginia House of Burgesses and the First Continental Congress (and the first three Virginia Revolutionary Conventions on 1 August 1774, 20 March 1775, and 17 July 1775). While the social history of the “revolutionary era” as defined in pre-1950s American historiography may not show much difference in the short-run between two decades adjacent, 1765-75 versus 1775-85, a comparison between the social hierarchies in place for every state in the Union will show a substantial variation between those extant in the two decades bracketing those first two, 1755-65 versus 1785-95. Just as Pauline Maier argued, serious students of American History can use the old historiography in its good insights and well sourced accounts, while leaving behind its weaknesses. Here we have again restated Jackson Turner’s 1893 Frontier Thesis, "American democracy was (a) born of no theorist's dream; (b) it was not carried in the Susan Constant to Virginia, nor in the Mayflower to Plymouth. (c) It came out of the American forest, and it gained new strength each time it touched a new frontier" (enumeration added). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Not having read Turner's The Frontier in American History, yet, I am deducing from this discussion that the unexplored and ever expanding "frontier" had a unique effect on the psyche of the people who were born in and lived in this new world environment. It would seem that the vast American frontier presented to these people, long detached from the plights and influences of centuries old monarchical rule, with all its hierarchies, and its imbued social influences, a sort of blank slate, devoid of any pretext, on which they could freely express their own sense of social justice and democracy. Bearing in mind that no one group of people invented the 'wheel', I have to agree with Turner, from what I've read above, that these ideals were not so much brought over on the 'Mayflower', but were greatly inspired by the virgin new world, or the frontier. After the ARW was won, the last remaining patriarchal ties to the old world were cut, allowing that 'wheel' to move forward and unobstructed on its own. If this can be expressed, with the understanding that this is the 'war' article, with a couple of sentences, perhaps in the Aftermath section, I believe the article would be improved comprehensively in terms of what the ARW achieved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Turner, Frederick Jackson (1920). The frontier in American history. New York : H. Holt and company. Turner, Frederick Jackson (1906). Rise of the new West, 1819-1829. New York and London : Harper & brothers. TheVirginiaHistorian, I was commenting on the text: "The American Revolution not only got rid of a king, it profoundly changed society itself. Prior to the Revolution, everyone except the king had their "betters." Society was layered, with the king at the top, then the peerage (those with titles of nobility), gentlemen, common people, and slaves at the bottom. One's life was determined by one's birth. The American Revolution got rid of this entire system of aristocracy." It makes it appear as if the American colonies were like pre-revolutionary France or Russia. The colonies did not have an aristocratic hierarchy. In fact, the structure of American society was not upended by revolution. They colonies were ruled by the British government in the name of the king (King-in-Parliament, King-in-Council, etc.), not by the king himself. Britain had ended absolute monarchy in 1688. Finally, the observation that ideas of social justice and democracy (whether imported or developed or a combination of both) already existed in the colonies is correct. The complaint was that London had illegally curtailed the powers of local institutions of government. So the ARW did not transform society in the same sense that the French and Russian revolutions did. TFD (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Colonial governance

discussion part D

The colonies had their royal governors and other such royal officials, who were an extension of the Crown, and who oversaw colonial affairs, the courts, law enforcement, (unrepresented) tax collecting and such. None of the colonists could assume these royal appointments through a voting process so indeed society, who was still under the rule of a King, was very much layered as it was in England, where positions of influence occurred through the process of nepotism and cronyism. The ARW changed all of this completely, which indeed had a profound effect on common society. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC) As explained in History.com: the Declaration of Independence "portray[ed] George III as an inflexible tyrant who had squandered his right to govern the colonies. In reality the situation was more complex: Parliamentary ministers, not the crown, were responsible for colonial policies, though George still had means of direct and indirect influence."[2] It is important not to be confused by the fact that Great Britain retained language that gives the impression that the sovereign exercised power on his or her discretion, such as King-in-Parliament or King-in-Council. The colonial officials did not constitute a ruling class. The elites in America were not medieval aristocrats, but local men who had earned their fortunes through plantations, trade and industry. Laws were passed by colonial legislatures and royal governors usually consulted them in the administration of the colonies. In many cases the royal officials were actually prominent colonials. In essence, society operated much as it would after the revolution. However, resentment was caused by the British parliament raising taxes and, colonial governors ignoring local legislatures and the British government using admiralty courts based in London instead of local courts for prosecutions against colonials. That's what provoked rebellion. The ultimate objective however was independence, not social revolution. TFD (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC) The colonial officials were not elected by the common populace, and it's doubtful that the royal class in England had nothing to do with their appointments. When the ARW broke out, virtually all of these officials became loyalists. Royal officials were in a class far apart from the average colonist. I'm not seeing much of anything that would blur the distinction from these people with those of the unrepresented common class. In terms of actual article improvement what would you specifically have the article say, and with what RS would you use? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Many colonial officials were elected by the colonial legislatures and this practice continued after the revolution. Otherwise, royal governors brought few officials with them and they did not form a separate class. The colonial elites were made up of people such as George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson who would maintain an elite position after independence unless they remained loyal tp Britain. The days of kings appointing their friends and relatives to governorships had gone out with the 1688 revolution. TFD (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Did the common colonist, the farmer, the shop keeper, etc, have a hand in voting for the various royal governorships and for other royal officials? No, they were in a separate class. Washington, et al, obtained their "elite" position via the popular vote. Washington led troops into numerous battles. Did the King ever do that? At this point, if you're aiming to amend or change the article, it would be best to speak in specific terms, supported by specific sources, lest we get into another one of these never ending and opinionated discussions about what constitutes a class. Would you provide us with an actual proposal that would be incorporated into the article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC) We were talking about an addition you want to include in the article. I note that none of the sources support the text or they are sourced to a Trotskyist website. Your idea that colonial America had an upper class of royal officials is a fantasy. The monarch was and is the personification of the British state. But the view that he actually ran the government or that the current sovereign rules all her states in any meaningful way is wrong. In fact the common citizen who owned sufficient property voted for legislators who chose most of the "royal officials." Or they directly elected officials such as sheriffs and mayors. After Jefferson became president the voting pool was expanded. TFD (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Social history of colonies ... continued

discussion part E

Apparently you're confusing me with another editor. I made no such proposal, or any such additions, nor did I introduce the "Trotskyist" source involving the interview with historian Gordon Wood who is a widely noted expert on the ARW, one such book winning the Pulitzer Prize. The original edit in question, asserting "layers" in society was made here. From there that edit was trimmed down to a fraction of its size by at least two editors, including myself. And if anything is a fantasy it's the idea that the British Crown had no hand in the governance of its own colonies, and that there was no distinction between the ruling class, soon to become loyalists, having no ties whatsoever to the Crown, and the common colonist, and that the ARW had no part in bringing this arrangement to an end. Before American independence all land belonged to the monarch. The large land owners acquired their land via Proprietary and royal charters. They were indeed a privy class, closely associated with the Crown, most of whom became loyalists when war broke out. This class was distinctly different from that of the common colonist. In any event, this is the original edit, and it seems to be well sourced: It got rid of all the layers, except for the bottom one, the slaves. Slavery had existed for 3,000 years. It was legal and normal - it fits in with a layered society. The American Revolution changed that. So again, I ask, what amends or changes do you propose for the article, and with what source(s) are you supporting any of your assertions? It seems that TVH is handling matters rather well, below, so you might want to reserve any contentions about no layered society, and no monarchical oversight in colonial governance. It would seem if the colonists, with no classes, were free to run their own affairs in the capacity you claim, there would have been no rebellion in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC) I was referring to the paragraph before that. It reads, "The American Revolution not only got rid of a king, it profoundly changed society itself. Prior to the Revolution, everyone except the king had their "betters." Society was layered, with the king at the top, then the peerage (those with titles of nobility), gentlemen, common people, and slaves at the bottom. One's life was determined by one's birth. The American Revolution got rid of this entire system of aristocracy. There is even a clause in the Constitution prohibiting the granting of titles of nobility in America."[3] Your first two sources are the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). But I was referring to the preceding paragraph. In any case, can you show where the third source says, "It got rid of all the layers?" The sentence anyway doesn't make sense. How could they get rid of the slave-owning layer of society but not the slave layer? So I would get rid of both paragraphs as incorrect and unsourced. TFD (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC) I read the WSWS article which is an interview with Gordon S. Wood. He explains why the Declaration of Independence refers to the King. Jefferson believed that since the British government had no authority over America, the King had betrayed his American subjects by "combin[ing] with others [i.e., the British Parliament] to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation." He wasn't claiming that the King personally was directing the British government. He also says that America did not have a European or British type titled aristocracy but was stratified with people like Washington, Adams and Jefferson who were styled gentlemen forming the elite, men of commerce such as Benjamin Franklin forming the middle class, then the mechanics and farmers, the indentured servants and finally the slaves. But I see that as an opinion and we would need secondary sources to establish its weight. TFD (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC) It would seem that finding a source that supports the idea of the ARW getting rid of a king can be done with our eyes closed. Also, I don't think it was necessary for Jefferson to remind the King that he was the ruler of the British empire. Even though there was a Parliament, the King is the one who oversaw that entity, which ultimately governed the colonies. Certainly you're not suggesting that the colonists were ultimately free to rule themselves. They were bound by English law, as were all Englishmen, however they were getting the short end of the stick, being unrepresented, etc. As for the idea of "layers in society", were there not those in colonial America with titles of nobility, royal governors, members of the court, tax collectors and such? These people were socially far apart from the common colonist. Also, you were the one who mentioned that Washington, et al, was an "elite", which in a sense was true, but that term is a bit inappropriate, since we are referring to elected officials, and in Washington's case, someone who marched into battle. He wasn't one to sit back and watch his men fight from the rear, as did Santa Anna and Napoleon all dressed in pomp. In any case, it's understood that we don't say anything that the sources don't say. If we are to refer to Gordon Wood, it should be from his books, as I too actually have reservations about that Socialist website. Again, it seems that TVH is handling the content in question more than adequately, so I'll leave matters to him, primarily. Btw, I agree that "The revolution did not establish civil liberties but protected them". Perhaps we should say reestablished. I also agree with TVH, that the Aftermath section should limit itself to events that occurred no later than 1830. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) "then the peerage (those with titles of nobility), gentlemen, common people, and slaves at the bottom. One's life was determined by one's birth." Not entirely true. In the Peerage of Great Britain, new titles were created for socially mobile people. For example: Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson received the title of a baron in 1798, and a viscount in 1801. He was the son of a priest, Edmund Nelson, and his paternal ancestors were "moderately prosperous" commoners. John Scott, 1st Earl of Eldon received the title of a baron in 1799, and an earl in 1821. His father was a successful merchant, and his paternal grandfather was a clerk. John FitzGibbon, 1st Earl of Clare received the title of a baron in 1799, and was already an Earl in the Peerage of Ireland. His father was a successful lawyer. Alexander Hood, 1st Viscount Bridport received the title of a viscount in 1800. His father was a priest, holding the position of a vicar. Dimadick (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC) "Also, you were the one who mentioned that Washington, et al, was an "elite", which in a sense was true, but that term is a bit inappropriate, since we are referring to elected officials, and in Washington's case, someone who marched into battle. He wasn't one to sit back and watch his men fight from the rear" Irrelevant. An elite is formed by "a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society." That does not mean that this elite consists of people who have never sought political office or military positions. Within the British Empire, several successful politicians and military officers of modest backgrounds were elevated to the nobility. And Washington may have never held a title of nobility, but he was a member of the American gentry. Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Although we should use books rather than an interview as a source the interview probably accurately represents Wood's views. It seems though that you are rejecting them and need to provide a source that supports them. I disagree with your view of the British Empire. Great Britain indeed got rid of a king who was an absolute monarch in 1688 and replaced him with a constitutional monarch. The result was that the powers of the king were exercised by parliament and the rights of subjects were recognized. Parliament abused those rights in the case of America (that's considered to be a fact, not just an opinion) and the Americans rebelled against British rule. Since their original contract was with the king that is the phrasing they used, despite the fact his powers had passed to Parliament. There never was an aristocracy of colonial officials. No titles were created in the Americas and few officials had titles. The titles they held were rarely of ancient creation and usually a reward for colonial or military service. Incidentally, although I said Washington was a member of the colonial elite, that is exactly what your source says. The elite mostly sided with the Revolution, which is why it was successful. TFD (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) The "Trotsky" site is not 'my source'. As I've indicated, we should refer to Gordon Wood from his book(s). It was the "Constitutional monarch" that was responsible for the lack of colonial representation, excessive taxes, the Stamp Act, Intolerable Acts, et al, and it would be a bit naive to assume the king hand no hand in these affairs, not that you have. Though the king was subject to Parliament, and Parliament, btw, subject to the king, who was at liberty to reject certain measures they proposed, as explained in Thomas Paine's Common Sense, he was nevertheless the focus of colonial descent, and rightly so. Again, Washington being referred to as an "elite" is highly misleading, as he was, once more, elected as both Commander in Chief and as the President, and again, one who had assumed the role of the common foot soldier time and again. His perilous crossing of the icy Delaware, alone, more than substantiates the depth of this idea. All labels aside, this is indeed what distinguished him from the likes of a monarch, royal governors, etc. And let's not forget, at the end of the ARW, Washington relinquished all military authority, and in doing so was even praised by King George and widely likened to Cincinnatus who also forfeited all power and returned to his farm. Again, the royal governors, their royal peers, tax collectors, etc, soon to become loyalists, were in a class far apart from the common colonist and figures like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al, which all came to an end after the ARW. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC) The problem is that you are the one who insists that America had a feudal class system and the source you use to support your claim says that Washington et al. were the elite. The lack of colonial representation, excessive taxes, the Stamp Act, Intolerable Acts, et al, were all actions of the British Parliament, just as acts of Congress in the U.S. are actions of the U.S. Congress. While technically the sovereign can withhold royal assent, the last time that happened was in 1708 (the Scottish Militia Bill). The constitutional convention is that the sovereign acts on the advice of his ministers, that is, the cabinet that is responsible to Parliament. If you have sources that support your view of colonial America, please present them. Furthermore, you have not quantified the royal peers, tax collectors, etc. who would become loyalists. AFAIK there were no royal peers in America. TFD (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Not all loyalists had close ties to the King, but many of them did. Wikipedia has an article that explains exactly who many of the loyalists were before they became loyalists. "They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain (often with business and family links)." Many of these people were in a class above the common colonist. This doesn't constitute a "feudal system" but there indeed was a class of colonists who were privy to the King, which easily explains why they became Loyalists at the onset of the ARW. Easy math. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC) TVH's mention of the Randolph family (relatives of Jefferson) provides a good example of the colonial elite. Sir John Randolph, a Virginia planter, was speaker of the elected House of Burgesses and the attorney-general. He was knighted in London in 1732 during a visit as a representative of the House of Burgesses. His son Peyton also served as speaker and attorney-general and was the first president of the Continental Congress. Another son John was also a member of the House of Burgesses and attorney-general and remained loyal and left America for Britain. His son Edmund became Attorney-General and Secretary of State of the U.S. There wasn't an elite made up of colonial officials who remained loyal and a separate class of oppressed plantation owners who rebelled. TFD (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC) User DTParker1000's original edit didn't use the term feudal system, but only maintained there were classes, or "layers" in society, which happens to be true of any society, btw. But not colonial America? While the large land owning colonists elected colonial assemblies, these entities were closely associated with Royal governors and often had ties to the crown. A separate class from the average colonist. While it was the King and Parliament who imposed taxes and the various acts, they were not implemented by the common colonist, but by Royal Governors, officials and those closely associated with him and/or the Crown. While you keep denying there was different classes in colonial America you continue to refer to Washington, etc as an "elite". Now you're asking for sources that support the idea that many of those who had positions in colonial government and were closely associated with the king and Parliament became loyalists, which should be common knowledge for anyone half familiar with the ARW. Your notion that there were no royal peers, e.g. Royal governors, appointed by the king, who had any number of official subordinates, ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ), is simply not true. There indeed was a class of people who felt oppressed, unrepresented, and it is largely that class who rebelled, led by "elites" like Washington, Samuel Adams, et al -- or are you actually suggesting they rebelled for no reason? While you keep asking for sources you've yet to produce one for your contention that "there were no royal peers in America." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC) In the modern sense of the term, there were classes in colonial America and that persists today especially in the use of the term "middle class." While DTParker1000's edit doesn't use the term feudal, it is clearly referring to a pre-modern class structure that does not exist today. ("Society was layered, with the king at the top, then the peerage (those with titles of nobility), gentlemen, common people, and slaves at the bottom. One's life was determined by one's birth.") When I said that Washington was part of the elite, I was summarizing Wood's interpretation which you cited as a source. Whether or not I agree with Wood is irrelevant since we are discussing what the article should say, not my interpretation. The problem is that your view that there was an elite composed of a court of royal courtiers isn't supported by your source. Your new links explain the positions of royal governors: they were appointed by the Board of Trade which was a committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain, and acted under their instructions. In other words they were as they are today effectively appointed and instructed by the British cabinet, not the king. Your last source says that George II opposed the appointment of Amherst as Governor Virginia. Yes British monarchs sometimes oppose government policy (watch The Crown to see how that works,} but ultimately the decision is with cabinet. There is only one reference to numbers of royal officials in your sources. It says that the British cabinet officer responsible for the colonies began appointing a number of colonial officials after 1763. That was like 11 years before the Revolution. You should also be aware that loyalists came from all classes and although some royal officials became loyalists, others remained. The colonial governors Jonathan Trumbull and Nicholas Cooke continued as governors after the Revolution, debunking the theory that all colonial officials were puppets of the king. it is sometimes called the first American civil war, because it divided families. TFD (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

continued...

I was the one who produced sources that said while Loyalists came from all classes, they very often came from privy classes closely associated to Royal Governors and their circle of constituants. In general, the Loyalists were older, more well off and had associations with Parliament and the king. Are you also saying that your "British cabinet officer"(s) were in the same class as the common colonist and had no more association to Parliament and the Crown as they? Parliament, the King, implemented taxes, acts, etc via a privy class of Royal governors and the various officials that worked under them. This was ended after the ARW. To think they let the common colonist make these impositions on themselves would be and is nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am saying that there were very few imported colonial officials, most of the imports were career civil servants or military officers, they did not form a social class, most officials were members of local wealthy merchant or planter families, most of whom remained in America after the revolution. America wasn't France or Russia, where an aristocratic class was overthrown and became emigres. For example, George Clinton who would later become governor of New York and Vice President of the United States was appointed Clerk of the Ulster County Court of Common Pleas by the royal governor, George Clinton. Unlike France and Russia, there was a lot of continuity. And of course a lot of the colonial officials were elected, especially at the municipal level. Mostly, royal governors ruled worked with local worthies rather than bringing in their own people. The only exception as one of your sources said was that before the Revolution they imported officials to enforce the unpopular tax and navigation acts. TFD (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Very few"? "Imported"? Okay, the discussion is getting a bit fuzzy. "Imported" or domestic, "very few", or more, these individuals were a privy class, most of whom became loyalists, who, at the onset of the ARW, typically migrated north to Nova Scotia, or to the south, and were indeed in a class apart from the common colonist who largely comprised the Continental Army. I fail to see what is so amazing about this that this must be hacked out in such a lengthy capacity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Very few would mean usually the governor and his secretary. However in some cases the governors were elected. TFD (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Copy-pasted from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests

• American Revolutionary War Former C-class, anonymously rated Start-class without explanation. Over the past eight months several have made substantial contributions to the article. My request is for a B-class review; an overview of improvements follows for each criteria item to assist the Reviewer. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

detailed article progress Apr-Oct 2020

--Article progress, Apr-Oct 2020 B1. Suitably referenced and cited. All paragraphs end with a citation; all direct quotes are attributed; All 588 citations now conform to HarvRef format. Redundant footnotes at each cite have been removed, over 45 items. Oldest redundant references, usually from the early 1900s without footnotes elsewhere, are moved to “Further reading”. REMOVED vandal footnotes referencing nonsense, Apple-apps, et al, & WP:blocked Lulu-published works, identified self-published websites for future Talk-page removal. B2. Reasonably covers the topic. Article top hat: "This article is about military actions primarily." Narrative trimmed over 15% to “readable prose size” by using copyedits and three substantial moves of text-footnote-references to wp:Talks at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War, and British Army during the American Revolutionary War. B3. Defined structure with a lead section. The lead section is reduced to five paragraphs of summary material from the article. The body is reorganized into six topically focused sections, with half the previous TOC sections. B4. Free from grammatical errors. -- New images B5. NEW Supporting infobox and images. Our collaboration at wp:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop published a COLLAGE at Infobox, three images related to the article Top-hat “about military actions primarily”. PORTRAITS: two of the three British CiCs in America; War Chief-Colonels with regular British & US commissions; Mississippi R. conquerors with independent commands: Spanish General Galvez and Virginia Colonel Clark. MAPS: North American Indian tribes & languages; British and Spanish claims, French cessions immediately prior; King’s Proclamation Line and parallel Indian Treaties; SECTION American Logistics & landing scene. -- New balance. pro-British political image; state-house and 1st Continental Congress scenes; American victory in South scene; British fleet Hudson scene; French-gifted USN ship; Dutch credit in caption at HMS Serapis scene; French fleet at Newport RI; British at Charleston; Galvez with Spanish at Pensacola; (first-last) USS Alliance image; pair portraits for Vergennes of ancient regime & Lafayette of Enlightenment French; Ms. Hart captures 6 British infantry; pair portraits of British Tory-Am-war & Whig-Am-peace Prime Ministers; George III in Speech from the Throne robes for American independence, peace and trade. -- New sub-sections. British off India; British off Saintes, Caribbean; British defense of Gibraltar scene. AFTERMATH IMAGES, Territory section: paired portraits of of Jay for evacuating British forts & US Gen. Wilkinson for a Spanish agent; scene of Revolutionary graves with mass grave at Saratoga.

separate GA assessment issues

--GA-class assessment issues (1) Nature of the American War: As previously discussed here, whether Infobox should follow “Belligerents” in War of the Austrian Succession, or include “Combatants” in Spanish Civil War, viz. American Indian tribes on both sides, American-side state militias, British-side “Hessians”. - (2) To accommodate contributors, much detail is maintained in article “Notes” with a HUGE Kb count in an effort to stabilize the article, avoid edit wars, and slow the additions of Talk sections. - (3) An important group of page editors “source” to references that do not meet wp:reliable source standards. Purging those references and their assertions will inevitably stir substantial controversy again, as it has this year. - (4) Scope of the American War, whether to apply (a) the definition of an “American War” by founder Jimbo standard with a “commonly accepted reference text”, such as the scholarly reference Encyclopedia Britannica here, “an insurrection” among British subjects, or an internationally accessed Dictionary.com by Random House for the general reader in the English language here, “war between Great Britain and its American colonies”, or - (b) turn to another methodological approach --- all items for further Project assessment beyond this B-class review request, imo, for later. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

discussion & compliance

Comment: The prose checker is clocking this one in a 115kb of readable prose. Per WP:TOOBIG, 100kb is about the max that's generally feasible to have in an article for readibility issues. Any way some of this can get sloughed off into other articles to fix that issue? Hog Farm Bacon 14:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC) CONCUR: I have independently tried to reorganize the article. shuffling paragraphs, renaming sections and refocusing them; 3+ years ago jump from 89kb to 108kb; three months ago trim off 110kb; additions since, especially Global war and diplomacy. --- HOWEVER, copyedits have consolidated the “main thing” of the article in four (4) sections: Introduction; War in America; Revolution as civil war; and Aftermath, allowing for easy trim. @Hog Farm: were you to Review the article, I would follow your suggestion to move 50% of Background and political developments, 75% of Strategy and Commanders, and 75% of Global war and diplomacy to their respective articles, American Revolution, Continental Army, British Army during the American Revolutionary War, and Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War. - The narrative text, footnotes, and references can be moved administratively to the target article Talk-page, showing ’Citations’ with {{reflist}} and ‘Bibliography’ of {{cite book}} references. Each moved reference can be added to Further reading. I did the same administratively without complaint for hefty chunks of ARW-kb to Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War, and British Army during the American Revolutionary War. --- Thanks in advance, I look forward to our collaboration. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Feel free to disagree, as you've done a lot more on this article than I probably ever will, but I think one of the bloat areas are in the armies descriptions. One idea might be (I'm not sure if the sourcing would permit this split or not, so this is just shooting an idea out there) that stand-alone articles could be written about the logistics challenges faced by the two sides, with some of the material from here split out of there. I'm not suggesting that any of this content should be lost, just that it may have other homes. Another thing I notice in the way of working this up to B-class is that the lead is focused mostly on a summary of all of the campaigns, while a sizable portion of the article is about armies, strategy, logistics. The lead will need some work to reflect the full scope of material expressed in this article. Hog Farm Bacon 17:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC) First reflex-response is to trim the armies descriptions. (1) “Logistics” sections are certainly the low-hanging-fruit to the purpose: administratively move logistics sections into their respective army articles; more to follow. (2) Noted, the lede needs to be reworked after the article trim. - (3) More “touchous” may be any “reduce-here-move-there” for the narrative within Global war and diplomacy for (a) the First British Empire more broadly, and (b) Euro great power “Peace of Paris” sorting empire, but without American signatories. Some page-editors advocate for an “international perspective” including battles without evidence in commander-documents that can connect engagements to the ARW, those "after Yorktown" as Mahon (1890) has it in his chapter titles. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC) The background might be a trimmable part, too. We still need to keep a decent background, but American Revolution is a separate article which is intended to cover the origins of the actions. There's a decent amount of overlap between the two articles, so that's something to keep in mind, too. Hog Farm Bacon 18:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Agree, 'Background' is more "fertile ground" for trim, first of all. I'll get back to you here on the results at both 'Logistics' and 'Background' efforts. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC) 1. (-7916 B) Move ‘American strategy, American logistics’ to Talk:Continental Army. Copyedit here. -- 2. (-4976 B) Move ‘British strategy, British logistics’ to Talk:British Army during the American Revolutionary War. Copyedit here -- 3. (-6662 B) Remove political detail off-topic for military strategy and campaigning in ‘Background, Taxation and legislation’ to Talk:American Revolution , copyedit here -- 4. (-913 B) Trim; Move detailed material to Talk:British Army during the American Revolutionary War, copyedit here -- 5. (-360 B) Trim ‘British strategy, Hessians’: some copyedit, move some supplementary detail to Notes. Copyedit here -- 6. (-5 B) trim 'North Ministry collapses' & 'Treaty of Paris': align images to text; trim 'North Ministry collapses' & 'Treaty of Paris'. copyedit here -- 7. (+3 B) ‘Global war and diplomacy, Peace of Paris, reduce detailed international mission exchanges to a Note. Copyedit here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

previous updates

The ARW now passes the Wikipedia:Summary style test for word count. Article prose size (text only)’ now shows 16,144 words, “readable prose size” at 101 kB, where the upper limit is to be 100 kB of 20,000 words. -- The three-day total kB reduction = 20,832 Bytes by the ARW article ‘Revision history’. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC) - Section-by-section copy edit for paragraphing, sequence, transitions and style, pending. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)  Done: This date, ARW is 15,888 words (80% limit), and 100kB prose size, text-only (limit) per guidance here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC) After a line-by-line copyedit, the article is 99kB and 15708 'prose size' (text only). - 29 editors and 3 bots recent assists: AnomieBOT, FrescoBot, Citation bot, TheVirginiaHistorian, Gwillhickers, Adamdaley, Arjayay, AustralianRupert, CitizenKang414, Countraymond, Davemck, Eastfarthingan, Freezingwedge, Grimes, Gsquaredxc, Hog Farm, IslandHopper973, J4lambert, Jessicapierce, JHunterJ, Jules Agathias, Kieth D, Kirchhoff, Nick Number, Matthewrbowker, Michael V. Gold, Muwatallis II, RL0919, Rofalilu, Robinvp11, StaffChief, Truth is King 24, Utzli. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC) - ARW Update. (1) Maps gallery of European claims, British empire, and Native American language and tribal distribution is relocated at the renamed “Prelude to revolution” section to immediately adjacent and above “War breaks out” for better reader reference; (2) Bibliography improvements; (3) copyedits for focus, style and trim to NET 98 kB & 15531 words “readable prose size”. - ARW meets all articulated critiques of the article for B-class assessment for 71 uninterrupted days (since 30 August), admitting additional improvements without any controversy or disruption. Good article criteria, note 6, "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyeditor Tenryuu has been invited to make a comprehensive copyedit review of the article American Revolutionary War. It has an Under Construction template box at its top as a notice to visiting editors. While under construction, the Talk page has a section for editor to add their suggestions. This procedure has been followed for article improvement with success across several Wikipedia projects.

- At the Talk:American Revolutionary War section Copyedit request, each section that is has been copyedited in an agreed upon comprehensive review has its own subsection. Immediately below each "resolved" collapsed box. The “Pending” editable section just below that gives an opportunity for interested editors to note any additional interests and concerns they may have for each section.

- In the most recently article main-space disrupted, that is found for the American Revolutionary War#Strategy and commanders section here for editor comment.

- All here are collegially invited to participate at ARW Talk in this two-week-long, on-going process, as noted for you in the large box at the top of the article for your information and use at the article Talk page. Thank you for your patience and cooperation for this limited time. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day TheVirginiaHistorian, sorry for this belated note, but this sort of thing really needs to be raised on the main Milhist talk page, not here. It is clagging up a page that usually has quick turnover and is focussed on straightforward B-Class and below assessment, and only a small number of Milhist regulars use this page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The 5-item criterial are met. This is a quick turnover for B-status; there is no rationale to delay. One editor a while back anachronistically ruminated about the ARW "insurrection" (Encycl.Brit.) Infobox should be that of a great power (1700s Austria), before the US got its first "Articles" passed. But that is not germane to determining whether the article meets the 5-item criteria for B-status.

The article clearly does not meet the criteria for B Class. There are unreferenced paragraphs, which prevent B1=y. I am not going to go through an article of this length to see why someone decided there was a problem with the grammar. In my quick scan of the article, I saw no "major grammatical errors", so it seems the C Class assessment was along the project guidelines. As @Peacemaker67: said, we need to move this crud, which has been clogging this page for two months, somewhere else. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This last week, I salvaged several Military history project articles with a project Good Article-status such as the Battle of the Chesapeake, as it did not meet the B-1 standard for citations that is met at American Revolutionary War, anonymously reduced here from C-class to Start-class.

Is that proper Wikipedia Project procedure? Is there a link to that policy you can share with me? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Military history project assessment request

status and updates

At the 28-day old Military history request for this article, the update reports, - ARW Update. (1) Maps gallery of European claims, British empire, and Native American language and tribal distribution is relocated at the renamed “Prelude to revolution” section to immediately adjacent and above “War breaks out” for better reader reference; (2) Bibliography improvements; (3) copyedits for focus, style and trim to NET 98 kB & 15531 words “readable prose size”. - ARW meets all articulated critiques of the article for B-class assessment for 71 uninterrupted days (since 30 August), admitting additional improvements without any controversy or disruption. - Good article criteria, note 6, "Reverted vandalism, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC) Updates as they occur (that's over 800 edits in 71 days since 30 August, and over the last 30 days, 29 editors and four bots with positive contributions incorporated into the article). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC) No further comment at the Assessment page this date. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Guidance from Peacemaker67 suggests an RfC at wp:MILHIST project Talk on the article title, if I understand him correctly. Pending. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

A note on captions

William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs in England and installed his own innovative government.

Some few recent edits for captions on the page seem to reflect the work of an avid art historian. I encourage all to explore the Wikipedia Manual of Style, WP:CAPTION. The following are my takeaways for a lengthy history article such as the American Revolutionary War.

“A good caption explains why a picture belongs in an article.” Details of artwork provenance are available to the reader by a “click through to the image description page”. The guidelines explain, “If you have nothing to say about it, then the image probably does not belong in the article.” In the example coded to the right, using the 'thumb' image, the parameter 'upright=1.0' allows easy tweek of pic size; the parameter 'alt=text description' is used to describe the image for sight-impaired readers.

The purpose is to “draw the reader into the article”. Image captions should be succinct and informative. “Identify the subject of the picture.” Editors here populated the article with an image every 400 words to add visually interest within extended sections of text. But to balance that many images, captions are kept succinct; most are 2-3 lines to avoid either crowding image frames into adjacent sections below, or opening large white spaces between sections.

In this example, the reader becomes curious about William of Normandy's new form of government and reads the text adjacent to learn what it is. The example is meant to illustrate a passage about William of Normandy's innovations in monarchial government, such as 'trial by jury' for a manor's peasant in the King's court composed of one's "peers", that is, local residents other than the Lord of the Manor's relatives or his soldiers-at-arms. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A welcome for Robin copyedits for encyclopedic summary style

In view of the good copyediting by Robinvp11 – in a summary encyclopedic style – first of my contributions on African American participation here, then just now, his two most recent in Early engagements here, and here, I look forward to his further contributions as a writer.

I still maintain a substantial disagreement against his imposition of off-topic European diplomatic history into this American military history, and his method of imposing it, undiscussed and unsourced. His POV is contrary to mainstream interpretation of the ARW in the unimpeached gold standard for scholarly reference in the English language, the Encyclopedia Britannica.

- The American Revolutionary War was an insurrection within the British Empire between British subjects over (a) colonial political independence and (b) their constitutional revolution from monarchy to republic --- for an American self-governing people separate from those in Britain. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Article size

• Needless redundancy aside, I am from the school of thought where the more context an article can offer the better, and strongly oppose the idea of removing content simply to get a prose size 'number' down. This is not the way to write. Some encyclopedias devote several dozen pages to important/famous subjects. While there are dedicated articles for virtually every topic on the ARW, this is the main article, a high-traffic article, and the only WP article that comes up in google searches for the ARW, and as such should have a healthy amount of content overlap with sister articles. This way, when readers chose to jump to another article they are already primed to delve further into the given topic. The readers really shouldn't be forced to jump to a dozen+ different articles just to get a comprehensive idea of the ARW. If this approach results in an article with one toe over the line then so be it – page size 'guidelines' allows for exceptions for exceptional articles. Having said that, I will be mindful of page size, but this should not be our major concern when authoring the article. Context and good writing should be our primary concern. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not read Wikipedia:Article size? Guidelines are there to produce better, more readable articles for users, not simply as a form of bureaucratic stupidity; if you put the Footnotes back in (which you need to) rather than one toe over the line, this article has a whole leg. It needs to be considerably shorter to come anywhere near size guidelines.

Some encyclopedias devote several dozen pages to important/famous subjects. "Good writing" for an online encyclopedia is concise, clear and simple; the article on the ARW in the online Encyclopedia Britannica is considerably shorter than this for a reason;

Wikipedia research shows 60% of users only ever look at the Lead, more if they're accessing it using a mobile platform, which is nearly 70% for this article. My point is (a) huge chunks of this article aren't read by anyone and (b) the longer it is, the less likely they will. Why make it harder?

Readers shouldn't be forced to jump to a dozen+ different articles just to get a comprehensive idea of the ARW. (a) Comprehensive is not the same as long, (b) that misunderstands the entire nature of online consumption and design.

If you feel this article is essentially fine and doesn't need to be shorter, just say so and I'll happily return to the 17th century. This is an important point of principle and trying to persuade each otherwise is not worth the energy. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be nice if you assumed a more friendly tone. Rather than just "saying so" I thought it would be better to explain so. No one said a long article is the same as a comprehensive article. As was clearly explained, to present the many topics in context, room is often needed. Please be reminded that every guideline banner says there are exceptions to the rule. There are plenty of GA and FA articles whose length is around the 100k mark. Not being from the 17th century, people these days use discretion when they are faced with rules and guidelines. I'm assuming the exception clause above every guideline was included for good reasons, and it seems you've just presented us with one, as you seem eager to remove content just to get a prose number down. You're one of the primary editors of the French Revolution article. It is currently at 91k prose size. The Napoleon (Good) article is at 110k, and no one is making an issue over their length.

"Wikipedia research shows 60% of users only ever look at the Lead, more if they're accessing it using a mobile platform, which is nearly 70% for this article. My point is (a) huge chunks of this article aren't read by anyone and (b) the longer it is, the less likely they will. Why make it harder?"

As I've already indicated, most people only read the lede and perhaps one or two sections of interest. They will do this regardless of how long the article is. The assumption that much of the text will not be read simply because the article happens to be long is without basis. Readers interested in the subject will read until their heart's content, esp if the narrative presents the topics in context, with some depth. It seems you haven't given us anything that would tell us otherwise. We are not writing for only 60% of the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Mass deletions, undiscussed, proving disruptive

(This is a reply to a ping that was made here.)

@Tenryuu: — Yes, some of the wholesale deletions also resulted in citation errors. This occurs when a defined 'ref=' statement is removed. The first time a mass deletion occurred, with no discussion, two editors took exception, here on the Talk page. Then just recently, yet another mass deletion occurred by the same editor, again with no discussion, and with one coverall statement about General Gage in edit history, which hardly explains the bulk of the text removal. Perhaps we should revert the article back to here (Nov.25), just before the last mass deletion, and take it from there, with all editors, including yourself, cooporating and dealing with individual issues one at a time, as we were doing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: For the immediate future, I have asked Tenryuu to make an exception here to the usual work flow. Instead of working through the entire article as a whole, I've asked for a piecemeal treatment of the three remaining stable sections: #Revolution as civil war, #Aftermath , and #Commemorations of the Revolutionary War.

ASK of our fellow editors: Until the "under construction" notice is removed from the top of the page, please do not revert Tenryuu's copyedited sections. Any revert such as proposed above should be explained at the revert of the disrupting post with a reference to this section, and an additional informational note of how we are collegially proceeding on this page posted directly to the disrupting editor's Talk.

@Robinvp11: At the Talk:American Revolutionary War section #Copyedit request, each section that is has been copyedited in an agreed upon comprehensive review has its own subsection. Immediately below each "resolved" collapsed box, there is an opportunity for interested editors to note any additional interests and concerns for each section in the dedicated sub-section titled "Pending". In the most recently disrupted article main-space disrupted, that is found for the American Revolutionary War#Strategy and commanders section here. You are collegially invited to participate in this two-week long on-going process, as noted for you in the large box at the top of the article for your information and use at the article Talk page. Thank you for your patience and cooperation for this limited time. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I've posted the informational notice to the Military history Project 'status review' page under the ARW section, at Robins Talk, and made an update at Tenryuu Talk, noting my restoring the "under construction box", the informational posts, and my ask that the copyedit process be continued at the three stable sections, while we await cooperation or forbearance from Robin for the limited time remaining to complete the Tenryuu comprehensive review. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers At my ARW article page edit here, I moved the previous 'under construction template' to the section under edit review, ‘Strategy and commanders’.

- Using the parameters described at Template:Under construction, I edited the template to post this:

{{under construction |placedby=TheVirginiaHistorian |section=Strategy and commanders |nosection= |nocat= |notready= |comment=EDITORS: <u>Prior to editing this section</u>, please go to Talk and add your editorial comments under the section, (a) #Copy edit invitation, (b) 'Strategy and commanders', (c) “Pending” sub-section at the bottom. Begin your Note left-justified with an asterisk (*). Your contribution can then be integrated into the consensus building there among page editors. |category= |altimage= }}

Tenryuu, As Robin has acknowledged at the section I posted on his Talk, “Happy to stop,” he in wp:good faith did not understand the global copyedit sequencing workflow you were attempting to accomplish, I hope you can reconsider, and take one section under review at a time.

- Perhaps using this format going forward, you might initiate a new copyedit review, leap-frogging forward to the ‘Aftermath’ then ‘Commemorations in the Revolutionary War’ sections, using the Under Construction template parameters for each section as you tackle it. And Gwillhickers and I can "worry that bone" [meaning #2] back at the 'Strategy and commanders' section? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your words of conciliation and excellent efforts at diplomacy. Glad to see this didn't escalate into a Talk page battle and edit war. — Humbly we go forth. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Primary editors (Gwillhickers—TheVirginiaHistorian—Robinvp11), I can start looking at the three aforementioned sections ("Revolution as civil war", "Aftermath", and "Commemorations of the Revolutionary War") tomorrow, so long as everyone is okay with the current text and its future revisions. Please try and discuss other contentious prose in the relevant sections elsewhere here on the talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Onward and upward! - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• The edits are not intended to be disruptive and I've tried to avoid major sections, so apologies if that has been the case. This is a big article and it doesn't need to be.

There are three reasons for this; (a) a lot of repetition (I take the point you can't always say "Its been covered elsewhere" but how many times do we need to mention Dunmore's proclamation, Saratoga etc) (b) its over-written (eg often using 10 words where five will do) and (c) I've mentioned this before but I've never seen so many footnotes in one article; they look like attempts to do an end run around the size parameters by adopting Enron accounting techniques :). That causes two problems; it removes the need to be concise and often leaves out stuff that should be in the article.

INSERT: see Gwillickers * thread below - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A personal 'aaarrrrgh;" :) I know the Declaration of Independence refers to George III (because the drafters wanted to avoid a fight with Parliament) but Britain fought a series of bloody civil wars to establish the fact Parliament made decisions, not the king (one of my own ancestors signed the death warrant for Charles I). So every time I see 'George III decided/negotiated etc' it shows a lack of understanding of the British political system and how decisions were made; he was a Tory country gentleman of limited intelligence who ultimately did what he was told by his ministers - the only exception to that was Catholic emancipation. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Robin — If the King functioned little more than as a figurehead, then we should say so if the sources say so. However, at least according to Thomas Paine's Common Sense, a very influential work in both the American and French revolutions, which criticized both Parliament and the King, the King was indeed allowed a good measure of authority: The passage in question reads:

"But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check
the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check
the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; ..."

Having only a basic knowledge of the relationship between the King and Parliament during the ARW, I will leave such matters to those more familiar with the topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the last time a monarch withheld royal assent was in the case of the Scottish Militia Bill of 1708, upon the request of her ministers, i.e., the cabinet. There is an ongoing debate over whether the Queen has the right to veto legislation at the request of the PM, but she has no right to do so on her own initiative. Cabinet also has the power to give royal assent if the king is unwilling or unable to do so or for any reason whatsoever. TFD (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

A word about redundant statements

With the assumption everyone already knows, sometimes things need to be said regardless: Often times a statement of fact can be made in one section, while the same general statement can be made yet again in a different section, only in context with another topic. As a friendly reminder to all, when we encounter a statement that, by itself, seems redundant, we should make certain we are not removing any important context before we decide to remove it. No one is saying that this has occurred recently, btw – just a word of caution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

George III and his ARW role

As I chipped in somewhere in the discussion above, it seems that even George himself saw his role as that of agent for the authority of Parliament ("fighting the battle of the Legislature" as he wrote).

He may have periodically expressed strong opinions, but these shouldn't be taken as evidence of a strong influence on policy.Svejk74 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editorial policy and process in this example can be treated in four steps.

Review the literature.

(a) English gold standard scholarly reference Encyclopedia Britannica. The [George III George III - North ministry article is written by British scholar John Steven Watson, The Reign of George III: 1760-1815 (1960). (1) By 1770, George III was "still as obstinate as ever and still felt an intense duty to guide the country" […] he "used executive power for winning elections […]" (2) "So the king prolonged the war, possibly by two years, by his desperate determination." And, “North wearily [publicly] repeated his wish to resign, thus appearing to be a mere puppet of George III. " George III insisted, and so North stayed on until the week of a “no confidence” vote in Commons, when the King relented but still fuming, “I’ll never forget this [personal betrayal].” (3) At the time people believed that corruption alone supported an administration that was equally incapable of waging war or ending it. This supposed increase in corruption was laid directly at the king’s door. (4) At backing William Pitt the Younger in the general election March 1784, the country, moved by reform sentiment," as well as by treasury influence, overwhelmingly endorsed the king’s action.” George III subsequently withdrew from direct intervention in Parliament, allowing Pitt’s administration over His Majesty's objections, after the American Revolutionary War.

(b) The Hibbert biography sourced in the ARW article, linked and quoted above here at Talk.

(c) H.T. Dickenson in Britain and the American Revolution (Routledge 2016 [2014) writes, “A visceral hostility to ‘unnatural rebellion’ seems to have gripped some British politicians, together with a belief that the Americans – and their British friends and abettors – were engaged in a deeply laid plot to destroy the balance of the constitution by undermining executive authority and creating an unchecked ‘democracy’.

Note: From a perspective of British legal history, (Maitland et alia) the Americans looked to their English Stuart King colonial charters that guaranteed them the "rights of Englishmen as though they lived in England". George III, tutored by Bute, believed the colonies akin to his German family provinces in Bruswick. Legally the colonials were seen by George III as living on his personal domain, like peasants on his lands in Sherwood Forest, and he could change the boundaries of their cottages and fields at will; residents there were to him as his HRE serfs, and he could also change their local constitutions at will. Englishmen on both sides of the Atlantic took objection.

(d) The Anglican Bishop, Stephen Conway contributed a chapter in Dickinson (ed) Britain and the American Revolution gives 1 view of 9 scholars who do not have a George III monograph of their own: Bishop Conway writes: George III was blamed "[...] with the loss of the American colonies, even though the constitutional clashes [...] centred on the claims of the British parliament not those of the crown. [...] Once the conflict began the king [...] was consulted on the conduct of the war and [...] he gave his opinions freely [...]; but he was not the key decision-maker [...]". To uphold the editorial theme here, that "There no great men in history", Svejk74 posts above at Talk: "George certainly played a role, but it shouldn't be overemphasised at the expense of, for example, the cabinet generally." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A few points. First, splitting my comment above off under its own heading in isolation from the comment I was responding to makes it near-impossible for me to follow the thread of the conversation, let alone anyone else.

Second - you state "The Anglican Bishop, Stephen Conway contributed a chapter in Dickinson (ed) Britain and the American Revolution gives 1 view of 9 scholars who do not have a George III monograph of their own". Conway is a history professor at UCL, not a bishop, and an 18th century specialist with an interest in George III's reign. Not sure what the "Bishop Conway" and "no George III monograph" stuff is about other than an attempt to deprecate my source? It's certainly more representative of modern scholarship than Watson's 70 year old text.

Thirdly this is not about a 'theme' of "There are no great men in history" but about the fact that George's power was limited by the Parliamentary system, and that neither descriptions of his personal opinion or of the popular perception of his role particularly alter that.Svejk74 (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Svejk74: Apologies to Dr. Conway. -- The FIRST thread was on disruptive deletions. Your SECOND thread deserved the new section: George III and his ARW role. It goes well for your reputation as a wp:editor that it was near-impossible for me to follow the thread connecting the two, as there is objectively no connection there between (a) disruptive edits in the article, and (b) your stated interest in George III and his political role in the ARW.

Our colleague editors who clutch to the abstract notion that, "There can be no 'great men or women' in history.", are also fond of alluding to a secret "reality" in the events of history that are "facts" existing apart from the actual participants, and further, as Svejk74 so eloquently puts it, "neither descriptions of his [the participant's] personal opinion or of the popular perception of his role [as seen by event witnesses], i.e., evidence from among those living and acting at the time, can particularly alter that. That is, there is nothing from the past that can be brought into a discussion of the secret no-great-men-or-women "facts". That preconceived editorial "reality" can never be "particularly altered" by any well-sourced accounts to the contrary from history.

Here Svejk74 promotes an unsourced POV with the novel assertion that George III was figurehead in 1782-1783 as he was "limited by the Parliamentary system". But that system, before the King's voluntary withdrawal from active intervention and control of Parliament (a) allowed George III to appoint Lords to manufacture the King's majority there, (b) used rotten boroughs that never seated a member of his Loyal Opposition, and (c) his "Treasury" paid for seats in Commons. George III relented actively pressuring Parliament following his thumb-on-the-scales to seat Rockingham PM (Dr. John Steven Watson in Britannica).

- Those familiar with British constitutional history and government are aware of significant differences among Crown and Parliament and their shared powers from first, William and Mary to George III, transition at George III, and second, George III to Elizabeth II, of whom you speak as a figurehead. No "18th century specialist with an interest in George III's reign" fails to note the difference, a Dr. Conway does not say there was no change in the British constitution over that 260-year time span, you have no quote from him to say so. Svejk74 just made up their own POV and misrepresented poor Dr. Conway who is without a prominent author's page online at a browser search. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm perfectly familiar with British (and Irish) constitutional history, thanks, especially the period between 1640 and 1800 or so.

It's important to understand the ways in which the historiography of the reign of George III has changed substantially over the years. 19th century 'Whig' historians presented him as a meddler who made a concerted effort to reassert the power of the Crown, partly by comparing him with his supposedly 'inactive' predecessor George II. This 'averted slide towards tyranny' narrative has long been superseded. Namier, writing in the early 20th century, demonstrated that most of the assumptions about party divisions made by 19th century historians were wrong; the situation was far more fluid and parliamentarians far more independent-minded. It's also since been argued that George II was not the indolent figure he was once presented as, and that the balance of power between Crown and Parliament was in fact relatively consistent throughout the period. We can now understand that 19th century historiography is best regarded as a product of its time.

I fail to see how I am misrepresenting the views of (Professor, not Dr) Conway when I quoted directly from him as follows: "In popular mythology, George III is inextricably linked with the loss of the American colonies, even though the constitutional clashes [...] centred on the claims of the British parliament not those of the crown. [...] Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed. He was consulted on the conduct of the war and asked to approve plans and proposals; he gave his opinions freely and at times was certainly influential; but he was not the key decision-maker. No single person filled that position". That seems to me completely clear. I did not say George was a "figurehead" (that's your term); I said that his power was limited. He is best regarded as one of a set of competing influences on the war's conduct - this is not a "novel POV". We were asked, on the Military History pages, to contribute to the discussion on ongoing edits and this is precisely why I think @Robinvp11:'s recent edits are a big improvement: they remove overemphasis of the monarch's active role in the conflict.Svejk74 (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Re the discussion above by TheVirginiaHistorian, the point of the 'great man' stuff escapes me, but this is not how the late 18th century British constitutional system worked. The suggestion "George III was a figurehead in 1782-1783" and "limited by the Parliamentary system" simply reflects mainstream modern historiography.

As the first English-born Hanoverian, George was more Tory than the Tories, (North was the first nominally Tory PM since 1710, with the odd exception) and was routinely attacked by the Whigs for allegedly favouring them (hence the criticism he receives from 19th century Whig historians like Macaulay).

George III did not own any boroughs, rotten or otherwise; individual aristocrats did (the History of Parliament provides details of exactly who owned which if you're curious). The idea he could create peers when needed is simply wrong, as is the suggestion he controlled the Whig-dominated Lords;

Like any 18th century aristocrat, he had powers of patronage but the vast bulk were vested in the Treasury, which was controlled by the government. In fact, on becoming king he signed over the Crown Estates in return for a civil list annuity granted by Parliament, while MPs were specifically banned from holding 'offices of profit under the Crown'; it survives today in the legal fiction known as taking the Chiltern Hundreds.

If you lost a motion of confidence (as North did), the government resigned and a new one was created, which then controlled these powers (this system survives in the modern US, where the number of political and/or administrative positions filled by the President are way, way, way more substantial than those available to Boris Johnson).

Like other Tories, he didn't want to be responsible for losing what was seen by both colonists and Parliament as an integral part of Britain; once France and Spain entered the war, it also became a matter of national prestige. As king, he felt it more but his influence was largely confined to saying "No". He did not direct government policy and when North lost a majority in the House, he resigned regardless of what George wanted. That's the point. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I would note also that the language of the Declaration of Independence and other documents seems to view George III as very powerful. But it has to be read in context of the constitutional theory that the Founding Fathers held, for example as expressed by John Adams in Novanglus. The American colonies were founded in the early 1600s when the king was extremely powerful. Following the 1688 Revolution, most of his powers were transferred to the English Parliament. However, the colonial view was that the English Parliament had no jurisdiction in America, instead it was colonial legislatures. By "comb[ing] with others," i.e., the English parliament, the king had broken his personal obligation to his American subjects. TFD (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Thank you for the reasonable and well grounded response. I would add that the Stuart charters meant to attract large scale immigration to overmatch Spanish and French colonization in the New World, well that was the aspiration. That became the bedrock of colonial resistance to George III re-conception of British North America. The N.Am. colonists believed that they and their posterity would have "all the rights of Englishmen as though they still resided there." I do not intend any of the following to be directed towards you. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How does this address the points made at some length by myself and Svejk74? No one's disputed the Stuart Charters or how the colonials viewed themselves, this is a discussion about the role of George III. There are still numerous examples of this confusion in the article - I'm happy to correct them, but its hard to tell from this if you disagree. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

My point was that the language of the Founding Fathers made it appear that George III was an absolute monarch. ("The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.") That view has entered the collective memory. In reality, George was constrained by Parliament and we need to accurately reflect his actual role in the ARW. TFD (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It would seem we can all agree that both the King and Parliament had a given measure of authority. Given the biased historiography of both Whig and Tory minded historians, debating the rather subjective idea of 'how much' authority King George wielded has proven to be a never ending debate, as has been demonstrated in this discussion. It would be best to simply outline the statements in question, here in Talk, currently found in the article, and address them on a per statement basis. Remembering that this is the 'war' article, we are not going to be covering the relationship and roles of the King and Parliament that much to begin with. I think we can also agree that the King and Parliament shared authority, and we should leave it at that. Statements involving the King and Parliament should be confined to terms involving established facts. If the sources in question are somewhat conflicting, we simply say so in neutral terms. It was my impression that, for most, if not all of, the war, both the King and Parliament were on the same page up until the surrender at Yorktown, where the Parliament became somewhat divided as to whether the war should be continued. Can anyone outline the actual statements in question that need attention in that regard here in Talk? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers:  Robinvp11 and Svejk74 are manifestly unfamiliar with British-American constitutional and military history in the last half of the 1700s. One says (a) no reputable scholar claims George III was a “figurehead” in making military decisions in the ARW (my word alone it is said, for monarchs who defer to their minister's and their cabinets in all things but ribbon color and wig perfume), while the other maintains (b) as to making military decisions in the ARWm, "'George III was a figurehead in 1782-1783' and 'limited by the Parliamentary system' simply reflects mainstream modern historiography".

- They both ignore my posts, direct quotes and RS links provided for editor inspection. There is no counter to my posts, only both say the referenced RS are not so, on their own wp:editor authority alone, without any scholarly authority to back them up. - We do have the sidebar about the one as-yet-to-be-confirmed "professor" without a doctorate - hmmmmmm, by 1980 Virginia community colleges did not allow instructors to be even temporary adjuncts without a doctorate from an accredited university, never mind their more stringent qualifications for tenured professors. We have a 'smell test' yet to pass here.

But I’ve sourced from THE mainstream scholarly reference in the English language for the 20th and 21st century, Encyclopedia Britannica. --- In this case, for Britannica’s article on George III here, the historiography is originally authored by American scholar updated on 31 May 2020. It is directly quoted for editors here in this thread above. Britannica’s current (31 May 2020) scholarly authority is not overturned on a Talk thread by blind assertion using wp:bully attacks.

My second reliable source views the American Patriots as undermining EXECUTIVE (Crown) constitutional authority --- the directly quoted and linked from British scholar Harry Thomas Dickenson in his 2016 edition of Britain in the American Revolution. These RS and their international standing in English-language 21st century scholarship by both an American (updated 2020) and a Briton (2016) is not yet impeached on this page. They are not likely to be.

The article has not had any "overemphasis of the monarch’s active role", only characterizations that are carefully drawn from reliable sources, now directly quoted and linked for editor inspection. Wikipedia asks of its editors on the Military History pages to enter into discussion with reliable sources and goodwill, not article disruption with coordinated empty denials and rhetorical rabbit trails on its Talk. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to try and be as concise as possible here, for the benefit of everyone involved. You start by saying we've not addressed the quotes provided by you, so I'll deal with that first.

In support of your argument for George III's significance, you've cited a quote "A visceral hostility to ‘unnatural rebellion’ seems to have gripped some British politicians, together with a belief that the Americans – and their British friends and abettors – were engaged in a deeply laid plot to destroy the balance of the constitution by undermining executive authority and creating an unchecked ‘democracy". Firstly, this says nothing about George; it's talking about the attitude of "some British politicians" to what they saw as an attempt to undermine the government. If you actually read Britain and the American Revolution, the book this is taken from, you'll also note this is not written by Dickinson (the editor) but from a chapter by Stephen Conway, the academic who elsewhere in the same book writes "Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed".

You also offer a series of quotes from the Britannica entry on North's ministry. Several of these say little about George's actual influence, only that he, for example "still felt an intense duty to guide the country", or that he was blamed for a "supposed increase in corruption". We know George had strong opinions and was not afraid to air them; the issue is that whatever his opinions, sense of duty, or efforts to interfere with government, his capacity to actually do so was limited.

To back this up I've offered, originally in this edit, what I thought was a reasonably balanced modern perspective given by Stephen Conway (in Britain and the American Revolution). I'm not sure why or how I've become sidetracked into a question of his academic credentials, but here he is: his major publications may be of interest.

For the avoidance of doubt, here's what he writes, again: "In popular mythology, George III is inextricably linked with the loss of the American colonies, even though the constitutional clashes [...] centred on the claims of the British parliament not those of the crown. [...] Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed. He was consulted on the conduct of the war and asked to approve plans and proposals; he gave his opinions freely and at times was certainly influential; but he was not the key decision-maker. No single person filled that position". I think this is a crystal clear statement, from a reliable source, of how power was exercised.Svejk74 (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping the rhetorical device of denying my 21st century sourcing as 19th century Whig propaganda. We may be getting somewhere to collegially arrive at consensus. Let's explore Introduction, p.9

(1) "The King's role was less than has been assumed", is of course Dr. Conway's reference -- why would you contentiously contradict me by saying Conway, the PhD, is not qualified to the title, "Doctor" knowing full well otherwise? ah! it must be like my Brit TV detective mystery binge watching, "playing at silly buggers" with me. It was silly of me to take offense. LOL sorry, apologies -- start over.

(1) Perhaps, "The King's role was less than has been assumed", is Conway's reference to those who would make George III out to be a Frederick the Great -- Straw man alert -- but George III is NOT put forward as an example of the European Enlightenment "Absolute Monarch" anywhere in the article. The article has not had any "overemphasis of the monarch’s active role", only characterizations that are carefully drawn from reliable sources, now directly quoted and linked for editor inspection.

(2) The reference may also be to the passage on page 347, Britain in the late 1700s, was like that of 1793-1815, "[...] a weak British state, dependent upon a great number and variety of interests beyond its control, even for the organization of national defense." --- This comparative weakness in Britain during "the last war of the ancien regime" as Conway quoted elsewhere, is a characterization of the state compared to that of the nation-state developed in WWI. It is NOT Conway's characterization of the role that George III played in military affairs within that regime during the ARW. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: We may be getting somewhere to collegially arrive at consensus. Bollocks to that, you need to start by apologising for a series of snide and condescending comments, culminating in this completely gratuitous and unfounded insult "Robinvp11 and Svejk74 are manifestly unfamiliar with British-American constitutional and military history in the last half of the 1700s." Let me be honest in return.

I don't make a big deal of it but I have a degree and a PHD in history, specialising in late 18th century/early 19th century Europe. One of my tutors was John Ramsden, whose focus was the development of party in post 1760-Britain; I also studied the American War in the army, as my regiment was a direct successor of the Royal Americans (the British treasure their defeats more than their victories). So yeah, I know what I'm talking about. If you care. Which I don't. What about you?

Its not always easy to answer your points because (like much of the article) the prose is often so dense and convoluted its hard to figure what they are. I still have zero idea what the 'great man' stuff is about, but I answered each of the others in specific detail. Which you've ignored, then complained they haven't been answered - which seems like a 'heads I win, tails you lose' approach.

You have fundamentally confused the nature of executive power in the colonies (which was vested in the Crown, ruling through governors) and who exercised it - not George III but the Crown, as expressed by the British government. Why that is so hard to understand escapes me.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I freely and gratefully acknowledge your superior writing skills. You and other visiting editors may see that by the mounting count of my public 'Thanks' to you for copyedits at this article of my contributions and the contributions of others.

Second, No, you cannot 'put me in my place' by wp:bully here, bragging that (1) your ancestors were important and so by inference more important by bloodline pedigree than mine, or (2) that in some metaphorical way, your sheepskin diploma is bigger than mine. Now that is bollocks (Brit.). - Yes, we of English descent are so inbred that we are all directly descent of both the beheaded King and his beheading members of Parliament. Gotcha, we can all subscribe to ancestry .com and get a mail order English crest of knighthood with our names on it.

Third, I recall some months ago that you claimed a great personal authority on these pages, without responding at the time to my request for sources, because you say, you have been paid for by an unnamed think tank on the subject. But I note that it cannot be referenced here at Wikipedia as a reliable source (fishy smell test).

- I do recall seeing a purported 'Think Tank' cited as the "West Point Institute" in an ARW-related article supporting the same-old thesis, the "ARW spread worldwide". Somehow without human intervention, nor without any trace of document evidence to make the connection, the American (not Dutch) Patriot rebellion for colony national independence in a republic "spread" worldwide to found the Second British Empire. Every scholarly source referenced by them said, on inspection, that the Bourbon War against Britain was at an overlapping time with Britain's "American war" but the others' war on Britain was not an occasion for spread of rebellion to establish "colony national independence in a republic" within either the French empire, or the Spanish empire.

- On investigation of the "West Point Institute", I could find no such 'Think Tank' organization associated with the USMA. In fact the website claimed that it was a group of eight Russian and Ukrainian soldiers at a convention. The website for the "West Point Institute" had a webmaster link to a Facebook account "West Point Institute" showing the image of a handsome bright-looking young man standing alone on a medieval-looking street (perhaps not an amusement park), but nothing much more (fishy smell test). You may be good looking, I'll say that for you.

Fourth, it is far from snide or condescending to observe that editors who are self-described Euros on Wikipedia pages are generally unfamiliar with the history available in Britannica about the ARW, the mainstream scholarly reference in the English language. Where to begin. I published a a link to the Britannica article on George III for editor inspection, and then an editor misrepresents it here as "the Britannica entry on North's ministry". While that is similar to Robinvp11 substituting "Lord North" for "George III" three times in disruptive article edits that were not supported in on the cited pages, in this case at Talk, it is too obviously wrong to be deceitful -- it is just sloppy thinking and intellectually lazy. No one who read history under the tutelage of John Ramsden could be guilty of such a thing, even in his sunset years. I fear that there may be occasionally a sock-puppet that impersonates our gifted writer-contributor Robinvp11.

- to be continued.

- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll just point out that your own link to that particular Britannica section called it "George III - North's ministry". What's the problem here?

As for "self-described Euros on Wikipedia pages [who] are generally unfamiliar with the history available in Britannica about the ARW"; well, first, that's not actually what you wrote; and secondly, I'm sorry but familiarity with Britannica isn't a mark of anything. Leaving aside the "self-described Euros" bit for the moment, we're certainly familiar with a lot of the best contemporary scholarship on the period (including that of a UK academic who has written extensively on the ARW and George III, yet who you managed to confuse with the Bishop of Ely). The ARW isn't one of my favourite subjects, but as it happens it has a strong bearing on the lead up to the 1798 rebellion in Ireland, which is, so I make sure I understand the issues involved.

Incidentally it's unfortunate that you regard Robinvp11's stating his academic credentials as 'bullying': it's not, and secondly if you question people's level of knowledge, as you've done repeatedly, you have to expect them to defend it. Svejk74 (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruption without discussion

These massive deletions made with no discussion while everyone else is taking the time to discuss matters in a line by line fashion is indeed disruptive. I would have have restored the deleted items in question on the spot. If you decided to make the corrections of which you refer you have my support. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers:, thank you. I am reluctant to respond with anything that third-party administrators might view at first glance to be an "wp:edit war" (been there, done that). Better to allow the misrepresentations to stay up in the article, misleading some 1000 readers per day for a week (my estimate of how many of the 7000/day who will read down to Robin's disruption), and first document the case before taking action. An disruption sanction from the arbitration committee might better protect the page for the future long-run, rather than an off-handed response that gets me suspended for a week for edit-warring. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

7000 mislead readers a week is sort of a high price to pay for someone else's arrogant editing practice. Rolling over only encourages more of the same behavior. I would simply make a few corrections, and if they are deleted wholesale again, you could simply drop a note to Tenryuu where he can see what's going on for himself. If the sources support your statements it should earn any editor's support - you would think. You did not initiate any edit war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all, in and amongst the disruptive edits, Robin has done some good copyediting, trimming, rewriting, linking, that I do not want to lose or have to later replicate. Robin is a good writer, that's a fact to be taken advantage of here.

The really sticky part is coming up soon. Just a reminder, Robin is the same fellow at the Military history Project who is a self-described expert, who authored a scholarly paper, for a noted think-tank, but all are anonymous, and to backup footnote can be found in the literature, only appeals to overlapping timelines. He is the editor who thought the article was not worthy of C-status at the Military history Project because he believed the ARW 1775-83 Infobox should be modeled on the European great power "Austrian War of Succession" without listing "Combatants" as is done at the "Spanish Civil War" Infobox.

When I observed that the Continental Congress in 1775-1783 was NOT a "Great Power" as the United States after the fall of the Soviet Union, I was met with "crickets", no response either here at Talk or at the Military history Project discussion page --- and so we await yet a second one-month-13 day delay with no response to the upgrades here and posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests.

1) I'd like to keep all the good contributions that Robin made, and not blank all of them out indiscriminately. (2) I'd like to keep my powder dry for just a day or two more. Then approach the problem in two stages, the first "before Treaty of Paris" edits, when I'll restore the relevant sourced material lost without disturbing the several positive edits, and the second stage, "after Treaty of Paris". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your words of conciliation and caution are appreciated. Eight sections were committed here in Talk, mentioning the editor in question, which I was in agreement with. No one wants to blank out all of anyone's edits based on a couple of so called 'bold' edits, but at the same time it seems you shouldn't let your well sourced edits be removed so easily. A "good writer" doesn't merit a blank check, esp when we are at a stage where the article is being gone over with a fine toothed comb, and we are discussing article content first, before making significant or major edits. I'll leave the issues in question to your discretion. ~~ Gwillhickers (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyedits by TVH

• Robinvp11 removed image of the King choosing PMs before and after the political effects of Yorktown here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This is wp:original research without sourcing or discussion at Talk. Robin rationale: replace picture (again, because this makes it seem as if George III was far more active than he actually was).

- The replacement was a blown-up image of only one (1) of the two (2) parties in Parliament that George III chose from for his Prime Ministers during the American Revolutionary War.

- It is a violation of wp:BALANCE to omit or otherwise censor the constructive role George III had in the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War. He was the principal in the history event i.e. he was “actually” an active agent, rather than a passive figurehead of some description unknown to history. In his 5 December 1782 Speech from the Throne to a public joint session of Parliament, George III declared for American independence, peace and trade. No, he did not finally retire as a princeling of the Holy Roman Empire in Brunswick, despite rumors in London parlors. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The Speech from the Throne is written by the prime minister, in this case, Lord Shelburne.(See Edmund Burke, Vol. 2, p. 13[4].) Parliament then debates and votes on the speech. In this case, Burke attacked the speech and the Chancellor of the Exchequer defended it. TFD (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and Ted Sorensen once wrote, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.". But it does not necessarily follow that President John F. Kennedy was a nullity in the history of Anglo-American relations for using it in his Inaugural Address.

- Although there is a doctrine to dismiss "great men" influencing history, surely you do not presume to assert generally that George III and John F. Kennedy should be treated as nullities in historical narratives, or to specifically deny here that George III had a substantial role in ending the ARW? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The speech from the throne is entirely different. That Elizabeth II or her representative reads a speech every year to the parliaments of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and 11 other sovereign states as well as 10 Canadian provinces, 6 Australian states, 15 overseas territories, two associated states and in the past dozens of other independent states and their provinces is a formality. She doesn't personally decide the government policies of all those territories. The reason that the prime ministers of each state write the speech is not that they are particularly qualified in speechwriting, but that they use the speech from the throne to outline what they intend to do in the current session of parliament. Presumably Kennedy agreed to the policies and opinions that Sorenson wrote in his speeches. TFD (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bon, good. Thank you for improving my understanding of the "Speech from the Throne" in the modern "Commonwealth" era of British Empire. That British "commonwealth" of independent nations is akin to what the First Continental Congress imagined in its Olive Branch Petition, to my understanding.

- I see that you and I are agreed in this: Incoming PM Lord Rockingham was of importance in ending the ARW, significant historically and relevant to the ARW article. Lord Rockingham influenced the King's new policy for American independence. Perhaps you can support my restoring the now Robin-reverted gallery portrait of incoming PM 'Whig' Lord Rockingham paired with the outgoing PM 'Tory' Lord North, I will do shortly. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My point was that we cannot know a sovereign's views from the speech from the throne because the speech reflects the PM's views, although the speaker may add to it. George III exercised more influence than modern monarchs and may well have added to the speech or changed it. TFD (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• #1 of 3. Robinvp11 imposed POV that George III was not significant in ending the ARW here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In an unsourced editor's wp:own proclamation without sourcing or discussion at Talk, Robin's POV: ”George III did not conduct government or strategy”. This violates wp:reliable sourcing. The undiscussed revert blanked what the what the RS says: Hibbert, Christopher (2000) in George III: A Personal History. King George III had determined that in the event that France initiated a separate war with Britain, he would have to redeploy most of the British and German troops in America to threaten French and Spanish Caribbean settlements. In the King's judgment, Britain could not possibly fight on all three fronts without becoming weak everywhere. - Hibbert 2000, p. 160. – This source may be replaced with yet another using a reference that I have not yet inspected. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment on this: the Hibbert quote confirms George's opinion, but that doesn't in itself mean he had substantial power - indeed with respect to America (as elsewhere) even George regarded himself more as the "executive agent for the maintenance of Parliamentary authority" (Ditchfield, George III: An Essay in Monarchy', p.110) in the spirit of the 1688 political settlement. He could influence policy through selection of ministers, but his power was severely limited - I realise American historiography may be different here.Svejk74 (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Svejk74:, thanks for the reply.

Does Ditchfield not acknowledge a Parliamentary party of "the King's Men" in George III pay from 1770 to 1785? The Edward Gibbon article infers his Commons seat was a sinecure of the King. I understood from a scan of the Cambridge Modern History v.6 (1925, Oxford University Press) for the late 1700s, that "Honest Billy" Pitt proposed some reforms, enhancing his reputation, such as abolishing Rotten boroughs in Commons (achieved in 1832) and restricting the Crown's ability to appoint Knighthoods at will to make a majority in the House of Lords (as political circumstances might require for the pleasure of "His Most Britannic Majesty").

Were there no British constitutional reforms touching on Crown and Parliament 1688-1953, William and Mary to Queen Elizabeth II? I concede that I may have misunderstood the term of art, "in the spirit of 1688" in British historiography, which does seem a bit of a sweeping generalization from the perspective of American historiography. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, British scholar John Steven Watson, The Reign of George III: 1760-1815 (1960), writes a recap of George III's direct Parliamentary influence, at Britannica, George III. It notes variously, (1) By 1770, George III was "still as obstinate as ever and still felt an intense duty to guide the country" […] he "used executive power for winning elections […]". (2) "So the king prolonged the war, possibly by two years, by his desperate determination." (3) At the time people believed that corruption alone supported an administration that was equally incapable of waging war or ending it. This supposed increase in corruption was laid directly at the king’s door, for North wearily repeated his wish to resign, thus appearing to be a mere puppet of George III. (4) At backing William Pitt the Younger in the general election March 1784, the country, moved by reform, "as well as by treasury influence, overwhelmingly endorsed the king’s action.” George III subsequently withdrew from direct intervention in Parliament, allowing Pitt’s administration over His Majesty's objections. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, I think George's own opinions and the popular perception of his role and influence needs to be tempered with an understanding of the limits of that influence. Stephen Conway in Dickinson (ed) Britain and the American Revolution gives a balanced view: "In popular mythology, George III is inextricably linked with the loss of the American colonies, even though the constitutional clashes [...] centred on the claims of the British parliament not those of the crown. [...] Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed. He was consulted on the conduct of the war and asked to approve plans and proposals; he gave his opinions freely and at times was certainly influential; but he was not the key decision-maker. No single person filled that position". George certainly played a role, but it shouldn't be overemphasised at the expense of, for example, the cabinet generally.Svejk74 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Robinvp11 deleted Tory - Whig image balance representing the two parties supplying George III with PMs here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Robin deletes the two gallery portraits of successive Prime Ministers to George III, Lord North, and Lord Rockingham, leaving only a blown-up image of Lord North alone to lead the article.

- Robin persists in foisting an unrelenting POV bias on the article, without sourcing or discussion at Talk. That Lord North portrait is now placed it at the top of the section, renaming the section with the purpose of describing the Fall of the North Ministry to an unwarranted and undiscussed Exultation of the North Ministry. And as noted before, the edit-post removed King George III, the sovereign who appointed both Lord North and Lord Rockingham as his Prime Ministers during the American Revolutionary War. Again, an unsourced and undiscussed revert to advance the misapprehension that George III had no significant role in ending the American Revolution. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• #2 of 3. Robinvp11 altered source attribution for George III, posted here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Source Hibbert wrote, "George III still had hoped for victory in the South." (Hibbert 2008, p. 333)

Robin misrepresented the source: North still hoped for victory in the South, [...] - without a source, without discussion at Talk. Robin persists in a POV about the end of the ARW, that it is somehow disconnected from and unrelated to the ruling Monarch of Britain, George III.

- George III was known to have influenced Parliament by corrupting both members in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons who were in his pay. The repeated edits dismissing George III's role in American independence, peace, and trade with Britain is unwarranted disruption of the page.

- There is no sourcing to support Robin's assertion, coloring, or bias to be introduced into the article. There is no discussion on his part to find a consensus here to overturn mainstream historiography on the topic that supports an effective rule by pre-dementia George III as king. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Robinvp11 removed first step to Euro peace: international armistice ===

posted here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Source authors Green and Pole enumerated two initiatives by the British Parliament in Paris: (a) "Parliament began its negotiations in Paris" [with Americans separately from Bourbon French and Spanish], and (b) "a British-US-French-Spanish armistice was negotiated there, subsequently honored in North America among all sides, thus ending worldwide conflict related to the American War for Independence." (Greene and Pole 2008 (2000), p. 325)

- Robin misrepresented the two-step process as sourced: "Peace discussions were held in Paris, leading to the Treaty of Paris, ending worldwide conflict related to the American War for Independence."

First and foremost: This article is a military history of British subjects in their (a) insurrection, (b) rebellion, (c) constitutional "Revolution", or (d) "War of Independence", depending on various mainstream historiographic interpretations. It cannot reasonably be expanded into a diplomatic history of great European powers. when there is already a stand-alone Wikipedia article on Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War.

- Regarding the end of the ARW as military actions, explained to all as the scope here in the article top hat: (1) First the shooting war was stopped by truces negotiated by local British and American commanders in Yorktown and New York in 1781; (2) British offensive action in North America against Congress ended in the "American war" by Act of Parliament in April 1782;

- (3) An Act of Parliament initiated peace with Congress without the Bourbon kings, leading to an Anglo-American Preliminary Peace that met all the unanimous Congressional war aims in November 1782: independence, British evacuation, territory to the Mississippi with its navigation into the Gulf, and Newfoundland Banks fishing with curing rights. Congress ratified that agreement on 15 April 1783 (Library of Congress "Memory"). Euro armistice worldwide was in early 1783, followed by Euro worldwide peace in late 1783.

- The end of the ARW as a military enterprise came with the end of the shooting war in North America. It was not defined by the formal "conclusive" Anglo-American peace delayed "at the pleasure of his Most Britannic Majesty". -- (An editors here observed that "shooting war" was a term unknown to him [in Euro diplomatic history?], falsely asserting the term is TVH "made up" only for the purpose of discussion here.)

- That bit of European diplomatic history of various "conclusive treaties" in Versailles awaited the French April 1782 failure in the Caribbean and the Spanish October 1782 failure at Gibraltar, both engagements related to the Britain's Bourbon War (Am: Mahan 1890, Brit: Syrett 1998). They were apart from the British colonial insurrection for independence in North America, they occurred without any document evidence of participant connection to Congress or American independence. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Robinvp11 POV removed 'American War' opposition in Parliament, Tory and Whig===

posted here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Robin, without sourcing or discussion at Talk, deleted the following account of Parliamentary opposition to continuing the 'American war', both Tory (Edward Gibbon) and Whig (William Pitt the Younger).

- The mood of the British nation had changed since the 1770s. Member of Parliament Edward Gibbon had believed the King's cause in America to be just, and the British and German soldiers there fought bravely. But after Yorktown, he concluded, "It is better to be humbled than ruined." There was no point in spending more money on Britain's most expensive war, with no hope of success. Whig William Pitt argued that war on American colonists had brought nothing but ineffective victories or severe defeats. He condemned effort to retain the Americans as a "most accursed, wicked, barbarous, cruel, unjust and diabolical war." Lord North resigned. George III never forgave him. (Hibbert 2000, p.161, 164).

- Colonial Americans did not "exceptionally" single-handedly overthrow the greatest naval power on earth and seize independence from a despotic "Mother Country". There were Opposition Whigs in Parliament at every step of the American taxation crisis and throughout the Revolutionary War. The Patriots were grounded in Whig history, philosophy, and politics. And they were supported by British Whigs publicly in Parliament throughout the American Revolution. The British lost its second army in America at (Yorktown October 1781). The catastrophe had resulted from the Tory administration of a hard war policy that Lord North had staked his political fortunes on, so that failure allowed for the ascendency of the Whigs in Parliament (William Pitt the Younger in Commons). The "Country Gentlemen" in Commons defected from the Tories to the Whigs to oppose the "American war". These included Tories such as Mr. "it is better to be humbled than ruined" Edward Gibbon, in a seat that had been bought and paid for him through the patronage of Lord North. Parliament ended further prosecution of the "American war" in April 1782.

- British patriotism reasserted itself. The Bourbon invasion of England by their (Armada September 1779) had failed a little over a year before only from the happy circumstances from bad weather combined with widespread shipboard illness and death among the invading fleet. With no further prosecution of war by Britain in America, the ranks of regular British regiments and county home-defense militias were filled, both officer and enlisted.

- The deleted passage not only bears directly on the end of the American Revolutionary War, but it is also relevant to the pivot by King, Parliament and the Briton populace, to answer the direct threat of the Bourbon War on the British homeland, Caribbean, and India, apart from any subsidiary assistance that France or Spain had been forwarding to the efforts of the rebel - independence Congress among those British subjects beforehand. The passage should be restored - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• #3 of 3. Robinvp11 altered source attribution for George III here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ferling source: "George III abandoned any hope of subduing America militarily while simultaneously contending with two European Great Powers alone. (Ferling 2007, p. 294) Robin misrepresentation: "North abandoned any hope of subduing America militarily while simultaneously contending with two European Great Powers alone." (Ferling 2007, p. 294)

- For the third time in this series, Robinvp11 inserts a POV of unsourced and undiscussed posts diminishing the role of the ruling monarch of Britain, before the onset of his later dementia, and while George III was still actively corrupting Commons seats to confer on his favorites, and adding seats in the House of Lords to guarantee his "King's Party" majorities in Parliament's votes. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Robinvp11 removed reference to the Second Hundred Years' War here, with a rationale explaining, "You'll very rarely find any British historian who refers to the Second Hundred Years War and isn't needed anyway". Previous text: "Beginning in 1778–9 as a part of what European historians know as the Anglo-French Second Hundred Years' War, France and Spain again declared war on Britain."--- Robin's misdirection: "Beginning in 1778–1779, France and Spain again declared war on Britain." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(1) The ARW is an article on American military history. Unlike the ARW for British colonial independence in a republic the Anglo-French wars of the Second Hundred Years' War 1689-1815 concerned the two major European great powers vying for a favorable Balance of power on the Continent, and extending their imperial reach by colonial conquest and trade agreements (Larrie Ferreiro, Brothers at Arms: American Independence and the men of France and Spain who saved it, "British scholar Robert Seeley's name for the eight Anglo-French wars 'stuck'").

- Without reference to the British historiographic category of a Second Hundred Years' War, there is no reason to include any reference, not even tangentially, to any diplomatic or military history that is not directly related to the American Revolutionary War as defined by Encyclopedia Britannica. The on-topic material for this article must then be restricted to subject matter relating events in an insurrection of British subjects against their British government for national independence in North America for the purpose of establishing a republican government.

(2) The Wikipedia military history project must adhere to a consistent editorial policy across its articles. None of the Wikipedia articles on four North American wars are written so as to comprehend the related European great power imperial wars that overlap them for some period of time. The ARW of 1775 cannot be made to do so as a one-off, stand-alone exception.

- Only at the ARW have editors tried to merge not one, but two European great powers war articles into an existing American war article. The undisrupted, stand-alone American wars are to be found at 1689 King William's War, 1701 Queen Anne's War, 1739 King George's War, 1754 French and Indian War. The as yet unmerged great power wars are the 1689-1697 War of the Grand Alliance, the 1701-1714 War of the Spanish Succession, the War of the Austrian Succession, or the French and Indian War.

(3) One Wikipedia project should not single-handedly and inconsistently dictate that the article for the ARW of 1775 fought in North America and the North Atlantic for national independence in a republican government, should absorb sourced narrative accounts for the Anglo-French-Bourbon War of 1778 (naval history scholars Am:Mahan 1890, Brit:Styrett 1998) that was fought worldwide over the European balance of power and their respective imperial colonies. Editors there should not throw in the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War in the North Atlantic and Caribbean, and the Second Anglo-Mysore War in India and the Indian Ocean as add-ons.

- That is especially so, since all the great power Anglo-French wars 1689-1815 are a part of the British historian Second Hundred Years' War, which as a stand-alone artic'e itself needs expanding at Wikipedia to become "comprehensive", were editors there be so inclined. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

to be completed

(-) to be completed.

Comments:

to be completed. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyedits - Strategy and commanders

resolved 'Strategy and commanders'
empty as of 6 December 2020 - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Strategy and commanders introduction - pending

• #1 In the American Revolutionary War, the national strategies for victory and the commander operational choices for success were different for the two sides. The Continental Congress had to field an army to outlast the will of the British Crown and its Parliament while maintaining its republican governance among constituent states.

#1 discussion

- This is a mixture of what the English call 'the art of the bleeding obvious' (strategies are different) and needlessly confusing ('while maintaining its republican governance among constituent states'). Why not say "To win, the British had to defeat the Continental Army early in the war and force Congress to terms, the US had to outlast the British will and ability to continue." Simple and agrees with the Mays reference provided - the original does not. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Good. Yes. brevity. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) - rewrite-tvh: "The Continental Congress had to outlast the British will and ability to continue, the British government had to defeat the Continental Army early in the war and force Congress to terms." - rationale: a) chronological sequence, Congress initiated the rebellion; b) links for terms should be renewed at the beginning of each of the seven (7) numbered Table of Contents headers. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• #2 In London, the British government had a track record of successfully subduing a rebelling countryside in both Scotland and Ireland by enlisting local landowners to administer county government of the realm, and admitted local Members of Parliament for the Scots after 1704.

This sentence makes no sense, nor is it supported by the Mays reference; where does it come from, how does it relate to the American War and what's the point? It should be removed. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

- How Westminster put down rebellions before is relevant to how it might put down the one at hand in America. By 1775 Westminster had faced rebellions within the Cabinet's personal memory in Ireland and Scotland. Mays says that British government could never decisively decide how to choose from among their previous strategic options that had been successful in the past: a) crushing the rebellion ruthlessly with hangings, beheadings, draw-and-quartering, heads on pikes, and importing King's Men to be the new Lords of the Manors in the local estates -- b) reconciling with rebels whose leaders would disperse their troops, elevating them to titled nobility, and allowing membership in the House of Commons and House of Lords, -- or c) a one-two sequence in policy by crushing active armed resistance in the field, then embracing rebel landowners who took an oath of allegiance, permitting them to represent their local ridings in Parliament.

- All three courses of action had found a successful result, but uncertainty in the case of the American insurrection was compounded in four dimensions: a) the King-Lords-Commons never settled on one strategy at any time prior to 1781 Yorktown and the collapse of public and Parliament support for their "American war", b) Whig Opposition in Parliament was vocal with London merchant and newspaper support, c) the most experienced British Army and Royal Navy senior officers refused to accept an appointment to come out of half-pay to put down the American rebellion, and d) factions in every Great Power Court of the Enlightened despots were sympathetic to the American Cause in Russia, Prussia, Sweden, Austria, Spain, Portugal, and Serbia. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I honestly don't the energy to follow this - why does it take you so long to make your point? Wtf is a "local riding"? And what is this obsession with "enlightened despots"? Why not just say "Parliament had a choice between ruthless repression or co-opting local leaders and for various reasons could never decide which one to follow." Robinvp11 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, progress even if it is under protest. This is good collegial copyediting that furthers our editorial process for the ARW article. We are progressing from an initial place wondering, Whether editors here can relate (a) previous British rebellion policy to (b) policy alternatives for the British in their "American war", without another dispute between us. Thank you for your respectful consideration here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of the British government's "track record" of subduing rebellion, this wasn't so much a conscious strategy as simply the way that such forces were traditionally raised, wasn't it? In Scotland for example the local heritors were responsible for raising militia or fencible regiments - the kind that dealt with Argyll's Rising for example. They were also generally responsible for the administration of local government and justice - again, this wasn't about a "rebellion policy" or imposition of some kind of martial law, it was just the way these things were done; would you agree this was accurate @Robinvp11:?

Secondly on the larger point of a choice between 'strategies', I'm not entirely convinced that any rebellion "in living memory" of the Cabinet in 1775 had been put down with conspicuous brutality; 1715 was very lightly punished and there hadn't even been a rebellion in Ireland for nearly a century at that point. Even 1745 was handled with a minimum of executions - mostly of English Jacobites, deserters, and various figures like the Earl of Derwentwater considered to have been given enough chances already. What's the "b" strategy supposed to be - it sounds a little like the Tudors' policy in Ireland, but what does that have to do with 1775 in America? This all seems a strange point for Mays to make.Svejk74 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Svejk74, okay, I hear you and I’ll try to be collegial as best as I know how. (a) Let’s use “policy” rather than ‘strategy’ in this case. I imagine that you find ‘strategy’ is too formal a "military term" for a policy of state, even though it was sustained by English rulers since "1066 and all that" for 700 years by the time of the ARW, though various lines of their monarchy. Though, RS information relevant to the page should be admitted according to wp:due weight, whether wp:editor POV imagines something RS sourced as "a strange point for Mays to make", or not. Multiple RS interpretations and scholarly frameworks are meant to be used in every wp:article according to Wikipedia Foundation policy, an issue taken up on this page only in the last 60 days or so.

- (b) The political choice to put down rebellion was certainly action taken with deliberate intent by agent-participants in British history, yes? Was there no correspondence between the local lord and the central administration of government at all? Or can it be as Svejk74 have us believe here: "it was just the way these things were done", spontaneously by independent local action in splendid castle isolation? ---

- But, no that is not so, and we need look no further than the good link provided by Svejk74 in his post here, to see where that is wrong: In the account linked to at Argyll's Rising#Bute and Eilean Dearg, it notes that "Government soldiers crossed from Langs and destroyed [rebels trying to cross there]". And, ‘shortly after’ 11 June, rebels at Elphinstone "... were attacked by a Royal Navy squadron including [three frigates]".

- (c) Svejk74 posts here to say, I’m not convinced any rebellion … had been put down with conspicuous brutality […] Of the 1745 rebellion in living memory of the British Cabinet, Svejk74 writes that it must be a) discounted in document accounts from American colonialists then, and b) ignored by wp:editors writing article narrative now. --- Why? Because those executed by the English were "given enough chances already". But that requires we Stalin-like expunge all British North American references to “cruel and unusual punishment” throughout the 1700s.

- Why? It cannot be that our wp:editorial policy will be, “If the English did it, it cannot be conspicuous cruelty.” I do not think I can follow this reasoning very far, so it has limited utility for me. I am not persuaded that this is the historiography that page editors here should adopt. - < small>TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• #3 The rest of this section purports to be sourced from Mays Pages 2 & 3; some of it is, a lot of it isn't eg By 1775, British American colonies supplied raw materials for British ships and one-third of its sailors and they purchased British-manufactured goods that maintained its industrial growth. Newly enforced and expanded mercantile regulation restricted previous international Caribbean trade and colonial laissez-faire smuggling.

#3 discussion and drafts

Where does this come from? Not from Mays certainly. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) This is where we part ways, here: You do seem self-assured, "Where does this come from? Not from Mays certainly." -- So please take the time to carefully answer these four (4) points of (a) sourced information paraphrased at ARW and (b) the related transcript taken directly from the source verbatim: From notes at the cited May's third edition 2019, Rowman & Littlefield: - part-1. ARW British American colonies supplied raw materials for British ships and one-third of its sailors = Mays cited "Great Britain required an American colonial supply of raw materials for its ships and one-third its sailors", (18 words paraphrased to 15 = 3 fewer words). - part-2. ARW purchased British-manufactured goods that maintained its industrial growth = Mays cited "they purchased British-manufactured goods in markets to maintain industrial growth", (11 words paraphrased to 9 = 2 fewer words). - part-3. ARW newly enforced and expanded mercantile regulation = Mays cited "and they were to conduct trade with others only in accordance with Parliament’s rules meant to benefit the British Empire", (20 words paraphrased to 6 = 14 fewer words). - part-4. ARW restricted previous international Caribbean trade and colonial laissez-faire smuggling = Mays cited "These last proved to be as abrasive to Americans as direct taxation from abroad", (14 words paraphrased to 10 = 4 fewer words). - I look forward to your explanation shortly. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC) -I've copied this direct from Mays Page 2 (verbatim); The requirements that American colonies provide Great Britain with raw materials, purchase British-manufactured goods and conduct trade with other areas only in accordance with British rules proved to be as abrasive to Americans as taxation. I've checked it on Kindle and Google books eg https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Historical_Dictionary_of_the_American_Re/e35_DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 -If I'm reading your note correctly, in your version Mays has written this; (1) "Great Britain required an American colonial supply of raw materials for its ships and one-third its sailors", (2) "they purchased British-manufactured goods in markets to maintain industrial growth", (3)"and they were to conduct trade with others only in accordance with Parliament’s rules meant to benefit the British Empire", (4) "These last proved to be as abrasive to Americans as direct taxation from abroad" -Either one of us is transcribing wrongly or we're looking at different books. Your wording in the article is very specific eg "restricted previous international Caribbean trade and colonial laissez-faire smuggling" or "British American colonies supplied raw materials for British ships and one-third of its sailors". It may be true but I cannot see how this can be "deduced" or "summarised" from the Mays reference. -"Where does this come from? Not from Mays certainly". I stand by that statement. In this post, you somehow inverted the two elements. You claimed that what I transcribed from the text was my claimed attribution to Mays. In a way, that is simply an unchanged restatement of your earlier misconception of the point at issue, without taking into account my previous post. Without trying to sort out the conflation here, I'll incorporate elements sourced to Mays in my "Recap" sub-sub section below. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC) @TheVirginiaHistorian: You're wrong and we both know it, but I was polite enough to let it go, rather than belabour the point. If pretending I'm a moron who can't read means we don't have to waste more time arguing this point, then ok. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC) -Restrictions placed on American trade by British commercial regulation were as great a source of conflict as taxation policy. This is a reasonable summary of what Mays says. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Mays presents a logical, coherent and easily understood summary of the key strategic issues; this rewrite manages to be none of those things. Avoiding plagiarising does not require doubling the length. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Commonly known information to those familiar in the field does not require separate citation, but often explanatory material must be provided for context. The encyclopedic style for the general reader does not allow for the scholarly luxury of two chapters to "set the stage". - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Mays conveys this information in less than one page, not two chapters, which is why I'm a fan. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Suggested rewrite (tied to Sources provided in the original) a.1 "Although defeating one of the world's leading military powers seemed unlikely, the Americans only needed to outlast the British will to continue fighting, and battlefield victories did little to change this dynamic. The longer the war went on, the more the odds favored the Patriots; failure to defeat the rebellion in its early stages and force Congress to make terms was fatal to British success." - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Better. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) a.2. Better "Although defeating one of the world's leading military powers seemed unlikely, the Americans needed only to outlast the British and battlefield results did little to change this dynamic. Failure to defeat the rebellion in its early stages was fatal to British success, since the longer the war continued, the more the odds favored the Patriots." Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Best. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC) b. "The American Revolutionary War was one of the first colonial conflicts but also a civil war affecting all thirteen colonies; estimates suggest roughly one third of Americans were Patriots, one third Loyalists and the rest neutral. Particularly in the south, many battles were fought between Patriots and Loyalists with no British involvement, leading to divisions which continued after independence was achieved. Lastly, it was part of a global war between France, Spain, the Dutch Republic and Britain, with America as one of a number of different theaters." - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Good statement overall. We will want to include (a) Modern scholarly estimates estimate 30-40% Patriot, 10-20% Tory, as I recall. The unexamined 1/3 Patriot, 1/3 Tory 1/3 neutral is from Adams papers, and most scholars are careful to attribute it to him. Does Mays? - Well done in the last sentence! After trying several variations on my own again just now, I believe your expression accommodates all editor interpretations here at Talk the best way I've seen so far (on a knife's edge). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) The figures 'one third, one third, one third' are given by Mays. I don't know what the right figure is but if its different, it needs a Source. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Rewording (the splits have been included in section on "Political reactions) "The American Revolutionary War was one of the first colonial conflicts but also a civil war affecting all thirteen states, each of which was split between Patriots, Loyalists and those who preferred to remain neutral. Particularly in the south, many battles were fought between Patriots and Loyalists with no British involvement, leading to divisions which continued after independence was achieved. Lastly, it was part of a global war between France, Spain, the Dutch Republic and Britain, with America as one of a number of different theaters." - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• #4. The Dutch wanted the right to trade with their former colony in New York [...] (really?), the French and Spanish to regain lost territories in the Americas and Europe. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

#4 discussion and drafts

The Davenport reference is wrong and this is one instance of where it could usefully be longer. The Grainger reference is misleading (without the Dutch, very little to do with trading with America), plus I was intrigued to hear about Russian squadrons being sent into the Med, etc; may have happened but doesn't appear in the reference. - Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) GOOD. @Robinvp11: Re: "Proposed rewrite; expanded and with better references" below. Your citations are better and can cover the material with less assumed common knowledge, so yours is better. See your paragraph below with citations from Scott 1988, pp. 572-573, and Grainger 2005, p. 10. But, yes, "really". It is common knowledge that (a) the British port named 'New York' in 1664 was the occupied Dutch port 'New Amsterdam' in the North American colony New Netherlands - The American Dutch door is not a corrupted 'Deutche door', but the [Dutch 'farming door'], widely available home improvement stores. - (b) Prior to 1775, most Dutch trade with the American colonies was to the port of British-named 'New York', first as a British ally, then as smugglers. Dutch sailors manned ships of American state navies, including the South Carolinian. New York merchants also sailed the shorter, more reliable sea-route down the Atlantic seaboard to the Dutch Leeward Island, Sint Eustatius which lies to the eastern edge of the Caribbean Sea in North Atlantic Ocean currents. All phrases in the last three sentences can be given RS citations. Please denote which elements are not common knowledge to the general reader, and they can be readily provided. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC) This is unclear as a copyedit critique. Both elements of the passage from Davenport and Grainger are faithfully conveyed? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC) - rewrite. "In addition, Russia, Sweden and Denmark formed the First League of Armed Neutrality, later joined by Austria and Prussia; this was intended to protect neutral shipping from being stopped and searched for contraband by belligerents, including Britain and France."" (This is what Grainger says) - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Agree. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Proposed rewrite; expanded and with better references. a. "In the secret Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), Spain supported France's war with Britain, in return for help in recovering Gibraltar, Menorca and the Floridas. The terms were confidential since several conflicted with American aims; for example, the French claimed exclusive control of the Newfoundland cod fisheries, a non-negotiable for colonies like Massachusetts. Charles III of Spain did not formally join the war in America or recognise the United States, since he was concerned by the impact of the Revolution on Spanish colonies. Prior to the war, Spain had complained on multiple occasions about encroachment by American settlers into Louisiana, a problem that could only get worse once the United States replaced Britain. One enduring and less well-known impact of Aranjuez was a deep and abiding American distrust of 'foreign entanglements'. In 1778, the US committed not to make peace without France; since France in turn agreed to keep fighting until Spain recovered Gibraltar, this effectively made it a condition of US independence, without the knowledge of Congress." b. "Although the Dutch Republic was no longer a major power, prior to 1774 they still dominated the European carrying trade, and Dutch merchants benefitted from their neutrality by shipping French-supplied munitions to the Patriots. This ended when Britain declared war in December 1780 and the conflict proved disastrous to their economy. The Dutch were also excluded from the First League of Armed Neutrality, formed by Russia, Sweden and Denmark in March 1780 to protect neutral shipping from being stopped and searched for contraband by Britain and France." Robinvp11 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Good. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC) - A reservation about a. above = "In the secret [[Treaty of Aranjuez (1779)][...]" , may find a better home reworked into the American Revolutionary War#Foreign intervention section. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Working draft – recap: #1, #2, #3, #4

• Section intro 1-of-2 paragraph: "The American Revolutionary War was one of the first colonial conflicts. Like contemporary rebellions in Latin America,[n] which were it was an economic war between a European state and its territory that was settled for its own economic strength. But it was also a civil war affecting all thirteen states, as each was split among Patriots, Loyalists and uncommitted neutrals. Lastly, it was part of a contest between France and Spain against Britain over the balance of European power in America and globally,, [ADD and a trade war with the Dutch. ADD Davenport source]"

- The three-part colonial economic war-civil war-international war is taken from Mays’ Introduction as referenced. This draft uses Mays terminology, at both “economic war ” [between a European state and its territory], and “balance of power” [among Great Britain, France and Spain in North America]. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC); modify draft as noted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Why are we re-opening discussions we've already had? "The American Revolutionary War was one of the first colonial conflicts but also a civil war affecting all thirteen colonies. Particularly in the south, many battles were fought between Patriots and Loyalists with no British involvement, leading to divisions which continued after independence was achieved. Lastly, it was part of a global war between France, Spain, the Dutch Republic and Britain, with America as one of a number of different theaters."

Why can more than one editor contribute in a copyedit? Because no editor can wp:own the article by wp:bully. TVH and Robinvp11 both agree in wp:good faith that Mays (2019) is an RS that applies in this section of the ARW article. Well, Mays has a three (3) part paradigm that your unsourced POV to the contrary should not be allowed to suppress in the ARW article.

Mays says the ARW is three (3) kinds of wars: 1) "economic" Mother-country colony (like contemporary Spanish colonial American rebellions); 2) a "civil war" (details your suggest addressing one of the four theaters in North America come in later sections, reference to aftermath comes later in the Aftermath section); 3) a war for European great power "balance of power in the author's words. --- That is not Robinvp11 unsourced POV that the ARW for Congressional national independence and republican government was "part of a global war". It is not in Mays, as directly quoted and linked for editor review above.

The TVH draft uses language from Robinvp11 taken from this Talk, highlighted in green italics: "The American Revolutionary War was one of the first colonial conflicts. Like contemporary rebellions in Latin America,[n] it was an economic war between a European state and its territory that was settled for its own economic strength. But it was also a civil war affecting all thirteen states, as each was split among Patriots, Loyalists and uncommitted neutrals. Lastly, it was part of a contest between France and Spain against Britain over the balance of European power in America and globally. [ADD- and a trade war with the Dutch. ADD- Davenport source]" Note: Mays uses the phrases in "an economic war between a European state and its territory", and the phrases in "a war for European great power balance of power".

So Robinvp11 gets 39 words, and TVH gets 39 words, but those of TVH only complement the structure and thrust of Robinvp11's draft from the same RS source, and only to a) disclose all three of Mays 3-part paradigm, and b) use Mays terminology war for a "balance of power", to replace the alien and unsourced "part of a global war", and c) [ADD- and a trade war with the Dutch. ADD- Davenport source]" to match Robinvp11's draft mentioning the Dutch. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Section intro 2-of-2 paragraph: "The British additionally made war on the European shipping trade of their former ally the Dutch Republic, and antagonized the Russian led the First League of Armed Neutrality, including Prussia, Austria, Sweden, and Denmark to protect neutral shipping from being stopped and searched for contraband by Britain and France. France played a key role in assisting the Americans with money, weapons, soldiers, and naval vessels. French troops fought under US command in the states, and Spanish troops in its territory west of the Mississippi River and on the Gulf of Mexico defeated British forces. From 1778 to 1780, more countries with their own colonial possessions worldwide went to war against Britain for their own reasons, including the Dutch Republic for its right to trade with its former colony in New York, and the French and Spanish to regain lost empire and prestige in the Caribbean, India, and Gibraltar."

- This second paragraph treats the Dutch apart from the French and Spanish. The Dutch are a declining military power who still have much of the European North Atlantic-Caribbean carrying trade, and they are declared war on by Britain. The second paragraph continues a description of the belligerents apart from the Mays paradigm in the first paragraph, to address the military activity of the French and Spanish on the North American continent that serve to make them belligerent and co-belligerent with the Americans in their Revolutionary War for independence from Britain.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Again, what's wrong with this? "Although the Dutch Republic was no longer a major power, prior to 1774 they still dominated the European carrying trade, and Dutch merchants made large profits by shipping French-supplied munitions to the Patriots. This ended when Britain declared war in December 1780 and the conflict proved disastrous to their economy. The Dutch were also excluded from the First League of Armed Neutrality, formed by Russia, Sweden and Denmark in March 1780 to protect neutral shipping from being stopped and searched for contraband by Britain and France.

This discussion is ended. I've been pretty patient but we're now re-opening discussions we've already had. So put in what you want, I'll come back in a couple of months and rewrite it in comprehensible English. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Section re France

• To begin with, the Americans had no major international allies, as most nation-states watched and waited to see developments unfold in British North America. Why not just say "To begin with, most outside powers waited to see how the war developed." Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Better. - - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Over time, the Continental Army acquitted itself well in the face of British regulars and their German auxiliaries known to all European great powers. What does this mean? - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps better: "Over time, the Continental Army could meet and overcome both British regulars and their professional German auxiliaries in combat." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the point Over time, despite limited battlefield success, the Continental Army showed it could not be destroyed by British or German regulars.

The context extends further than that. The Continental Army did not only clash, withdraw, and survive. That is not the whole story.

- It also defeated British regulars on the battlefield, counter attacked in pursuit, and captured two entire British armies, one in the woods, and one with elaborately engineered trench approaches and its light infantry storming Redoubt No. 10 at Yorktown.

- This martial development at arms in the Continental Army is addressed in American historiography, but it was considered noteworthy at the time by military advisors to Royal Courts of all the European great powers, including Frederick the Great personally. -- It is also true that the British and German soldiers were better man-for-man as professional soldiers. Thus all American victories required some tactical advantage that could be attained by surprise, or being dug in, or Indian allies on the field after the Indian allies of the British deserted, or via artillery integrated into their regiments in the Prussian manner - after General von Steuben and Valley Forge, etc. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This isn't meant as a critique of professional ability but the idea of an "army in being" eg no one doubts the US army could outfight the NVA, but they couldn't wipe them out - central principle of asymmetric warfare. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: What is your source that untrained, unorganized and unequipped local county militias whipped the British because they were a "army in being"? Except for the Saratoga-fight-in-the-woods, all major battles of the American Revolutionary War were fought by infantry line formations on terrain like that of the battles fought in Europe by the great powers. No serious RS is proponent of the view that Americans overthrew of British regulars and German professionals as untrained farm boys of 16 taking pot shots at red coats and then disappearing into the woods. --- Although I have read such a summary account online in home-schooler "textbooks-for-Patriots". What is the Robinvp11 source?

- What is the Robinvp11 source that US forces in Vietnam were felled by French colonial peasant men in black pajamas? Not only were the North Vietnamese regular fighting men comparable to the best in the world (and almost all Communist South Vietnamese ethnic officers had been killed off in suicide attacks during the Tet Offensive). But a few months after US withdrawal, China determined to take the newly united Vietnam's northern borderland for its own, just at the time that Vietnamese divisions were committed to occupying Laos and Cambodia. China sent massive human wave assaults against Vietnamese dug in positions, which were duly vaporized by professional Vietnamese artillery using sophisticated "rolling barrages" in the mountainous terrain. After a week or so of self-destructive military catastrophe, the Chinese released a statement that they had demonstrated their "point" against Vietnamese "aggressions". I never did get it all sorted out at the time. But I do know that the largest world trade partners of Communist Vietnam has been the United States for several decades now. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: What is your source that untrained, unorganized and unequipped local county militias whipped the British because they were a "army in being" What is the Robinvp11 source that US forces in Vietnam were felled by French colonial peasant men in black pajamas I suppose its useless for me to point out that I never said either of these things.

I made a simple and fairly uncontroversial statement about asymmetric warfare, which didn't even really need a response, let alone four paragraphs of increasingly irrelevant waffle (I lived in Asia for 15 years, I don't need lectures on its history). My mistake, I always forget how sensitive Americans of a certain age are about Vietnam. Have you ever come across the idea of 'is it worth arguing this point?' This madness is reflected all through the Talkpage ie pointless wittering about abstract points of detail whose only purpose is to demonstrate to the author their own infallibility. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Let’s take a look-see. First, points of abstract categories are not historical detail. Second, let's address a misconception that may be abroad about how international scholars of military history use the term "asymmetrical warfare". Misuse of a term of art in one's professed field of expertise is "controversial" on the face of it, regardless of its intended effect at Talk. (TVH on the other hand, holds that he has an acquaintance with Virginia history.)

- TVH suggests here:, "the Continental Army could meet and overcome both British regulars and their professional German auxiliaries in combat." --- Robin replies, “the point is,: ““despite limited battlefield success [SIC], the Continental Army showed it could not be destroyed“.

- TVH here: "The Continental Army did not only clash, withdraw, and survive. That is not the whole story. It also defeated British regulars on the battlefield, counter attacked in pursuit, and captured two entire British armies, one in the woods, and one with elaborately engineered trench approaches and its light infantry storming Redoubt No. 10 at Yorktown." --- Robin answers here, there is no need to relate Continental Army [or “US Army”] professional ability, but [only] the idea of an "army in being" central principle of asymmetric warfare [SIC]. --- TVH here: What is your ARW source from an RS that suggests an “asymmetric warfare” in the fighting under discussion including those at Trenton, Monmouth, Saratoga, and Yorktown.

- For editor FYI, “asymmetric warfare” is conducted between significantly unequal militaries, such as a professional army against resistance movements of unlawful combatants. “The term is also frequently used to describe what is also called "irregular warfare" --- In contrast to asymmetrical warfare, the ARW was symmetrical: i.e. the Continental Army and the British Army in North America had "comparable military power and resources [at the point of contact] and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution." --- QUERY: There is no RS cited in the article assessing the Continental Army as "irregular lawbreakers". So, the TVH ask of Robinvp11 is provide an alternative RS to support the Robinvp11 (to date) unsourced POV purporting to ascribe his “asymmetric warfare” characterization to Mays (2016). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Battles such as the Battle of Bennington, the Battles of Saratoga, and even defeats such as the Battle of Germantown, proved decisive in gaining the attention and support of powerful European nations... This doesn't seem consistent with accounts earlier in the article of how and why France came into the war; - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

How is it not? Bennington, Saratoga, and Germantown all demonstrated the developing effectiveness of American arms carried out by soldiers of one-year enlistments, admired publically by Frederick the Great at his court, and by military advisors in other great power courts.

- The French would not aid the Americans until (1) the French would not have to carry the fight alone, the American cause was not a loosing cause, (2) the French had a chance to humiliate the British in North America, but that chance would come to an end if King-Lords-Commons would reconcile with Congress --- the loss of a British army at Saratoga did in fact prompt peace-making sentiment in the country and in Parliament to reconcile with the rebel Congress ... (3) the French might yet regain 'western Quebec' North America as shown in the maps provided the Shelburne administration during negotiations in 1782 (Shelburne's papers). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly - elsewhere, the article says American victory at Saratoga brought France into the war because it was worried the Patriots would win too quickly and they'd lose an opportunity to win an ally. This point isn't doesn't make that clear - nor is it clear why Frederick's admiration mattered. - Robinvp11 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

See the reply above beginning, "This martial development at arms in the Continental Army".

And, Both elements referenced are true, but in sequence. First, the Americans had to demonstrate that they were not rag-tag, not ambush and withdraw to survive to another day, leaving port cities and the countryside to control of British troops and Loyalist militias. Becoming good fighters with staying power on the battlefield, win or lose, was good, but capturing a British army at Saratoga changed the political equilibrium in Britain and in Parliament

- Second, with the possibility of an early Westminster-Congress reconciliation imminent, the French Court decided to 'pull-the-trigger' to make a treaty with the rebel Congress because Vergennes took his sense of urgency in the moment to persuade Louis XVI to do so. When Vergennes succeeded, he outmaneuvered his rival in the French Court who was more concerned about French Treasury finances and taxation than short-sighted revenge on Britain. His name escapes me, but there was one such Frenchman at Court in 1788.- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Reword Victories at Bennington and Saratoga, or even defeats such as Germantown, showed the Continental Army could hold its own against British or German regulars. As well as formal support from France, it brought limited backing from nations like Prussia. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• ...such as Pacte de Famille Link is wrong; this is a treaty between the two nations and it should say "France and Spain" - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is this? can you give an eleven-word snippet? The French and Spanish agree to taking Gibraltar from Britain to cede to Spain at the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), which several British diplomatic sources say is an extension of the Third Pacte de Famille.

- France and Spain then undertook a war against Britain that is not connected with American independence with a republic in North America. The new war elsewhere with new aims is (a) without the knowledge of Congress, (b) Congress is not signatory to those war aims, (c) nor is there any participation of Congressionally commissioned officers in the "Bourbon war", as the naval historians, both American Mahan and British Syrett, style it. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

This has now been covered in section above. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

-

• and the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War.. As above; should be the Dutch Republic, the war is separate. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is this? can you give an eleven-word snippet? The British Royal Navy sweeps the Dutch merchants and its Navy from the North Atlantic, ending the Dutch trade with the Americans first to the former New Amsterdam, then from New Haven, Connecticut and Sint Eustatius, Caribbean. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately, I'm not sure why this is a separate section. I think it should be folded into the one above - less confusing. - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, reader confusion comes from conflating the two: (a) Britain's "American war" with the rebel Congress in North America (Britannica), is other than and separate from (b) Britain's "Bourbon war" with European great powers, primarily at sea and touching four continents (naval historians Am. Mahan 1890, Brit. Syrett 1998).

- There are differing elements of historiography between them, relating to time, duration, place, causa belli, war aims, and treaty provisions that are well documented as ways to distinguish Britain's American war versus Britain's Bourbon war. That both were conducted against Britain over the period April 1789 to August 1781 is not sufficient to join them artificially without any document evidence of a connection to the rebel Congress or its commissioned officers. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

side discussion on procedure

Ok. Although I think this could be titled 'France and Spain' - having written the article on the Treaty of Aranjuez plus others, the Spanish contribution is often underestimated (eg their agreement to defend the French West Indies allowed de Grasse to blockade Yorktown). When do these become 'final' or resolved? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC) @Robinvp11: (1) I think that until a third editor becomes actively involved, once you and I agree on a clearly stated item, give it a calendar day, then I'll move the item into the "resolved" collapse box. I see three (3) items for immediate action to publish in the article main-space, and there are (many) more "hanging fire" for just as soon as I get a clear picture of what-is-going-where: Strategy and Commanders intro: - "In the American Revolutionary War, the national [...]" - "Altough defeating one of the [...]" (third version, best) Strategy and Commanders/American strategy/France: - "To begin with [...]" (2) I like very much more, but I cannot find some of the phrasing under discussion in the current text narrative, so I am not sure where we may be "on the same page". (3) I'm going to try to restructure the conversation a bit more to allow me to freely agree with your critiques and rewrites in more places. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome Svejk74

@Svejk74: Welcome to our ARW tag-team event as Robinvp11 declares his withdrawal for a couple months. … I offer the following collegially as a general guide to the ARW Talk of 2020, beginning in March-April or so.

- Fair warning, I will read the links that you provide here. Almost the entirety of my contributions over the last ten months to this page have been taken from sources referred to me by those disputing the editor page consensus here, the American Revolution was an insurrection by Congress against Britain for national independence and republican government in a political revolution.

- At this Talk since March 2020, only one scholar has failed to distinguish among the wars against Britain 1779-1784. All others sourced and linked differentiate between a) the British “American war” insurrection, b) Bourbon war for empire elsewhere, and c) British war to suppress Dutch trade. That one exception is our “not-RS” University of Alabama assistant professor Lockwood (2019). The only scholarly journal review I could find for it damned the work by faint praise as authored by “a vivid storyteller “ just as the publisher promises, but one who “tried to connect the dots where there are no connections.” :- Hence the repeated refrain here on my part, “What is the document evidence?” supplied in the RS account used for editor inference and extrapolation here at ARW. FYI, I am not degreed, titled, nor ancestored into authority on the ARW, as other wp:editors have claimed on this page. I only have what I learn in scholarly history journals found on JSTOR and the RS that I find mostly from referrals from pro and con editors here at Wikipedia, one of my hobbies in retirement.

- Alternatively, when editors merely assert a generalized chronological coincidence for events 1789-1784 with the only commonality being “arms were taken up against Britain”, that chronological point has been repeatedly stipulated here by all parties contributing at Talk. But to be clear, events are not found to be within the scope of the American Revolutionary War if they are merely contemporary military engagements with Britain by parties unrelated to engagements known to Congress in its American Revolution and regarding diplomatic issues by others unrelated to its Anglo-American Treaty of Paris (1783).

- Re: scope in a war article. It is consistent policy here at Wikipedia, that an article about a conflict that spreads worldwide does not take the name and scope of all coincident conflict that occurred worldwide involving one or more of the belligerents or their respective allies. Thus a) the French and Indian War does not absorb the narrative and scope of the Seven Years’ War, and b) the Second Sino-Japanese War (1936-1946) does not absorb the narrative and scope of World War II, though they are connected chronologically and by Anglo-American and German allies respectively during the overlapping years of conflict. Likewise c) the American Revolutionary War is not to absorb the narrative and scope of the Bourbon War (per Am. Mahan 1890 and Brit. Syrett 1998), engagements found at Wikipedia in the Anglo-French War (1778) and the Anglo-Spanish War (1779). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion notes to sources

- * copyedits - Robinvp11 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyedits by Gwillhickers

Yes, if there are any statements that are deemed to be over-emphasizing the King's role, we need to see them outlined, here in Talk. Otherwise we'll forever be absorbed in another lengthy source debate, which would be uncalled for since the article only mentions the King briefly, esp in relation to Parliament. The debate is somewhat out of proportion to the amount of coverage our article lends to these entities.

Below are the five statements in the narrative, with citations, that cover King George in terms of the war effort and its aftermath. If there are any issues here they need to be addressed specifically.

• Even after fighting began, Congress launched an Olive Branch Petition in an attempt to prevent war. King George III rejected the offer as insincere." <Ferling, 2007, pp. 38, 113>  Fixed

• "Tories stiffened their resistance to compromise, and George III himself began micromanaging the war effort." <Ferling 2003, pp. 123–124> <O'Shaughnessy, 2013, p. 186>  Fixed

• "In London, news of the victorious Long Island campaign was well received with festivities held in the capital. Public support reached a peak,<McCullough 2005, p. 195> and King George III awarded the Order of the Bath to Howe." <Ketchum 2014, pp. 191, 269>

• "Meanwhile, George III had given up on subduing America while Britain had a European war to fight." <Ferling 2007, p. 294>

• "Despite these developments, George III was determined to never recognize American independence and to indefinitely wage war on the American colonies indefinitely until they pleaded to return as his subjects." <Trevelyan 1912a, pp. 4–5>
  

If any of these statements are inaccurate or completely in error, we need to see the sources that supports that idea in no uncertain terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: @Gwillhickers: I set up this section for your expressed, specific copyedit concerns.

It is meant to match that of Tenryuu, Robinvp11, and my self in a parallel structure, implying a comparable "domain" for your editorial direction and control --- since this Talk seems to slip off the rails so easily in so many sections, in so many directions, initiated by so many editors of different views and alternative purposes here.

And, regarding the four copyedits itemized by you here at Talk, Were you the editor who struck out and labelled two items that you raised as  Fixed? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

discussion 30 Nov - 1 Dec

The first mention of George III is in the lead: "King George III promised American independence and Anglo–American talks began. The preliminary articles of peace signed in November, and in December 1782, George III spoke from the British throne for US independence, trade, and peace between the two countries." I would replace George III with the British government. The King was forced to appoint a pro-peace ministry and accept their "advice." (Although it is called advice, the sovereign is obligated to follow it.) TFD (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC) It was King George who made the promise, but I think we can assume he had the backing of the Parliament. It was the King who was addressed in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, and like the President of the U.S. would, he spoke on behalf of his country. It would seem King George was more than just an empty suit with a crown on his head and had an appreciable amount of influence with the Parliament. For purposes of the lede, it seems mention of the King is most appropriate. I've no issues, however, with clarifying any other statements in the body of the text, where warranted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC) In the UK and other Commonwealth realms such as Canada and Australia and their provinces and states, the Queen or her representative reads a speech from the throne every year written by the PM, explaining the government's agenda, and she or her representatives approve all legislation, issue all executive orders and declare war. Every government promise is made in the name of the Queen. Do you think that the queen personally develops government policies in all those places? Is it just a coincidence that when government changes hands, so does the policy that Her Majesty follows? TFD (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC) The source for the sentence beginning "Even after fighting began" merely says that the king refused to read the petition. Adams wrote, "My hopes are that Ministry will be afraid of negotiation as well as we and therefore refuse it." Notice he was referring to the British government rather than the king. They would decide what response if any would be made. TFD (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC) TFD again, the second post is a reasonable on your part, but it is not a summary statement of the King's overall military role in the ARW 1775-1783. It is only his tactical comment on a narrow political maneuver in John Adams' prayerful assessment of one of the several other-than-George III "levers" of government. That much is of course conceded. But that ancillary consideration is not the overall assessment of the King's power to direct a British military effort to retain the rebelling colonies, as sourced. If the King did not respond and reconcile --- as was done at the First Rockingham Administration withdrawing the Stamp Act --- then the casus belli is removed for widespread Atlantic seaboard colonial rebellion, constitutional revolution, and national independence in a republic -- John Adams's personal goal, as a "great figure of history". A Ministry frozen in place into George III's stubborn policy of denial could possibly result in the conditions for a spread of military confrontation against Royal Governors outside of New England. (For another take on a related political process, reference Lenin and the Reds trying to gain support outside center-metropolis cities. Were the Czar to have had actually learned and spoken in the Russian language to the surrounding population ... better for the Revolution that the monarch be stubbornly in control, without a clue from his Ministers.) Unfortunately, the first post above is another allusion to the 21st century British constitution of Queen Elizabeth II. As such it is not applicable to the ARW period of British-American colonial relations, an anachronism, and bad history. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Sorry, the Stamp Act was repealed by Parliament in a vote of 276-168. The legislation was originated by Rockingham not by the king. It received royal assent as did every other law passed by parliament during George's 60 year reign. The king had no power to withhold royal assent without the "advice" of cabinet. Cabinet had the power to provide royal assent if the king was unable or unwilling to do so in person, which actually did happen during his illnesses. It's quite a stretch to compare the British constitution with pre-revolutionary Russia. TFD (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC) The confusion seems to stem from the fact that the language used refers to the king. Laws are passed by the King-in-Parliament, executive orders are passed by the King-in-Council, judgments were made by the King on the advice of the Board of Trade, the king is the Commander-in-Chief. That is because historically the king had absolute power which later devolved to constitutional institutions such as parliament, the cabinet, and the supreme court following the revolution of 1688. While Adams did not recognize the authority of any of these institutions in America, he was aware that was how British government worked. TFD (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC) That may well as may be, passing a law in Britain during the reign of George III was not by monarch fiat. That much can be stipulated. However, the sausage-making of parliamentary legislation is not related to the article's sourced characterization of George III significant role in military affairs during the ARW. LOL, my long-time friend. The comparison is meant to be this, and only in this limited way, as an ancillary, illustrative aside: Adams is to Monarch (clueless un-reforming ruler is good for Revolution) -- is as -- Lenin is to Tsar (clueless un-reforming ruler is good for Revolution). Hope you are in good health. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC) While we don't have to know or explain the English constitution, we need to be precise when we attribute actions of its governments. We shouldn't say for example that George III enacted and repealed the Stamp Act when it was the imperial parliament. Or that he rejected the Olive Branch Petition if it was the cabinet. We wouldn't say today for example that Elizabeth II closed the Canadian border to the U.S., or took the UK out of the EU, or sent troops to Iraq. While George III exercised far more political influence than Elizabeth II, the view that he was an absolute monarch is a myth. TFD (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• "indefinitely wage war on the American colonies indefinitely" The sentence repeats "indefinetely" twice, when only one instance is needed. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Unfortunately, the first post above is another allusion to the 21st century British constitution of Queen Elizabeth II. As such it is not applicable to the ARW period of British-American colonial relations" The main article on George III mentions his role in a "constitutional struggle" in 1783, and the king directly causing the fall of the Fox–North coalition.:

• "Immediately after the House of Commons passed it [the India Bill], George authorised Lord Temple to inform the House of Lords that he would regard any peer who voted for the bill as his enemy. The bill was rejected by the Lords; three days later, the Portland ministry was dismissed, and William Pitt the Younger was appointed Prime Minister, with Temple as his Secretary of State. On 17 December 1783, Parliament voted in favour of a motion condemning the influence of the monarch in parliamentary voting as a "high crime" and Temple was forced to resign. Temple's departure destabilised the government, and three months later the government lost its majority and Parliament was dissolved; the subsequent election gave Pitt a firm mandate." Dimadick (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar. (1) This is another anachronistic, bad history allusion to British constitutional history after the ARW, and (2) it bears on post-war India Bill legislation procedure, not on the George III military role in the ARW as monarch.

(3) As noted before, after the personal humiliation losing the American colonies, George III withdrew from his former extensive interference in Parliament while influencing the course of his "American war". As you note, not all at once but first from the House of Commons, then from the House of Lords. His miscalculation leading up the the 17 December 1783 motion in the House of Lords meant that he was used to, and confident in, his right to dictate outcomes in the House of Lords, even after the revolt of the "country gentlemen" in the House of Commons.

Note: this event takes place over a year after the Paris signing of the Anglo-American Prelimary Peace in November 1782, granting the US independence, British withdrawal, territory west to the Mississippi with free navigation to the Gulf, and Newfoundland Banks fishing with beach curing rights. Congress ratified it unanimously on 15 April 1783, and it resolved a Proclamation "End of hostilities" between the US and Britain. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Even after fighting began, Congress launched an Olive Branch Petition in an attempt to prevent war. King George III rejected the offer as insincere." <Ferling, 2006, pp. 38, 113>

(1) Page numbers provided for Ferling do not tie in; (2) British intelligence intercepted a letter from Adams deriding the offer, which they took as indication of lack of sincerity; (3) the government had already prepared the Proclamation of Rebellion and did not present the petition to George. I have updated this accordingly.

Re the 18th century British constitution; just because George read speeches does not mean he wrote them (this continues today when the Queen addresses Parliament and talks of 'my government.') He often wrote letters to North supporting a policy - that does not mean he made it. Yes, he had more power than in modern day Britain, and a greater willingness to exert it - but he did not make policy. In the end, he did what his government wanted. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, no one said George wrote the speech, but then, that begs the question -- who did? Your estimation here suggests that the king had no say, or authority, whatsoever. If that was the case what was his purpose? Did he not have the power to withhold bills? According to Paine: "But as the same constitution which gives the Commons a power to check the King by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the King a power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills; ..." It would seem this would afford him some leverage and say so regarding laws, acts and so forth. It seems it would be best to refer to the King and Parliament jointly when mentioning the various acts and laws put forth by Britain. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above and provided a source, the PM wrote the King's speech. There is a dispute over whether the king may withhold bills at the request of cabinet (this was last done in 1708), while others claim no such discretion exists. There is no claim that the British sovereign can withhold royal assent, although this actually happened five times during the reign of William III. The cabinet has the ability to provide royal assent if the king is unable or unwilling to do so. Anyway, you should use more recent sources than Common Sense, which is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

So the sources are conflicting. The question still remains -- what was the King's purpose during the ARW? Common sense is a primary source, and can be referred to as such. If that work is not a RS, than neither are the Washington papers, the Jefferson Papers, Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs, etc, all of which are routinely referred to by scholars. However, if an item in a primary source is contested, secondary sources should be consulted, which I have no problem with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

None of them are reliable sources for our purposes. Historians use their papers, and other documents and try to determine what happened. Wikipedia editors use the findings of historians as sources. I believe that George III had his favorite ministers. But they were only able to carry out their policies with the support of the House of Commons. And sometimes the Commons switched their support to the opposition and they formed the government. But to the Founding Fathers, none of this mattered because the colonies were not represented in parliament. TFD (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources are allowed and have been used in numerous GA, FA and other articles for years.
"Policy :' Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. "
No one has made an unusual interpretation based in Paine's source. I doubt Paine spun his contention out of thin air. Thus far, no one has been able to nail down the idea of what King George's actual function was. All I'm getting overall is that he was little more than an empty suit, which begs the question, why did Britain people even bother with the King? Meanwhile, I have outlined above a number of statements that mention the King. Only one of them has been addressed, while the Talk continues. Apparently it would be best if we contacted some credentialed and/or British editors and see what they have to say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

In The Men who Lost America ] (Yale University Press 2013), Chapter 1 "'The Tyrant' George III", Andrew Jackson O'Shaughnessy explains the actual powers of George III and how they were deliberately misrepresented in revolutionary rhetoric. He discusses Paine in section III. Paine's genius was to transfer American anger from an abstract Parliament to a living person, even if that meant misrepresenting George's actual powers. But then, the first casualty of war is the truth. I don't understand anyway why the writings of the Founding Fathers should be put on a par with the Bible as divinely inspired and infallible. TFD (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Continued

You mentioned how "O'Shaughnessy explains the actual powers of George III", but fell short of relating those powers to us here in Talk. Was Paine wrong when he said that the King had the "power to check the Commons, by empowering him to reject their other bills"? Did O'Shaughnessy say outright that this was a false assertion? It would seem your impression that the writings of the founding fathers has been "put on a par with the Bible as divinely inspired and infallible", a straw man accusation, is really your own. Do you harbor the same opinion in regards to the various British writings? All that has been discussed is whether the King had any power. You still seem to think the King was only a figurehead puppet and that he was above any criticism in terms of any ARW involvements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

O'Shaughnessy writes,

"In Jefferson's mind, George III always would be the villain, the antagonist in America's primordial narrative, its myth of origin. For Jefferson, this was not propaganda but objective truth.

"In reality, George III had less power than virtually any other monarch in Europe. During the seventeenth century, Britain had two revolutions of its own in which the supporters of Parliament successfully deposed Charles I and James II. After the execution of Charles I in 1649, Britain was a republic for eleven years, and following the fall of James II in 1688, Parliament negotiated a revolutionary settlement in what became known as the Glorious Revolution. It included a Bill of Rights (1689), which became the foundation of the British Constitution and ensured that the crown would henceforth govern through Parliament. The monarchy retained the power to appoint the government, but its choice was limited in practice to prime ministers who had support in Parliament. Although the system of elections was corrupt and the crown had considerable influence through patronage, the survival of the government was always dependent upon the support of independent members of the elected House of Commons. The British consequently regarded their political system as a bastion of freedom and liberty, in contrast to the absolute monarchies of Europe.

O'Shaughnessy further says that John Adams regretted going along with this misinformation. Also, "The colonial opposition embraced conspiracy theories claiming the king had destroyed the traditional balance of government by gaining total control over Parliament to establish a tyranny in Britain and America."

It was not the author's intention to provide a point by point rebuttal of all the misinformation in the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense. But he does show they are not reliable sources for British constitutional law. Bear in mind that the author is Vice President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello in Virginia, the Saunders Director of the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello, and Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His book was published by the Yale University Press and won the 2014 George Washington Book Prize for best book on the founding era of the United States. That makes his book an expert source and reliable for the facts.

As I pointed out, the cabinet had the power to give royal assent to bills if the king failed in his obligation and in fact did so during George's illnesses. Eventually they assigned his ceremonial roles to his son, who became Prince Regent. There is a distinction between the person who wears the crown and the corporation sole which is the symbol of authority. The Horseshoe Falls in Niagara is crown property for example, but that doesn't mean that if Queen Elizabeth is running short on cash she can sell it to a bottled water company. Or do you think she can?

TFD (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It's understandable that criticisms of the Crown would be called "propaganda". Did Adams himself refer to the various criticisms as "misinformation"? This is not at all consistent with the idea that Adams helped Jefferson in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and was its strongest supporter in Congress. We know that various items in the original draft of the Declaration ' were deemed too inciteful, esp in regards to Britain bringing slaves to the colonies, and were criticized on that note. No one around here made the claim that the king had assumed all power, so responding as if someone did only gives the appearance that you are addressing such arguments. Also, you still haven't presented anything that would prove that Paine's claim, that the King could withhold bills, as false. Neither have you singled out any item in the Declaration of Independence as "misinformation" . Referring to the Declaration ' as "misinformation" sounds like propaganda. Thus far you've given us a lot of promotional claims about O'Shaughnessy's book, but nothing concrete. I believe TVH has outlined matters and addressed your points of contention more than adequately, below, so these will have to considered along side these somewhat generic claims, per O'Shaughnessy's book. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If you like, I can post to RSN whether Paine's pamphlet is a reliable source for British constitutional law. If you're interested in the king's powers, I refer you to "Giving Royal Assent to Bills" in The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy, p. 25. The term propaganda in its modern sense was not used in the 1700s and I was using O'Shaugnessy's description.

Anyway, what's your argument? That George III was a tyrannt because he could veto legislation although he didn't?

TFD (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

King George's role during the ARW

@TheVirginiaHistorian, Eastfarthingan, XavierGreen, and Lord Cornwallis: — There seems to be some disagreement as to the actual role of King George III before and during the American Revolutionary War. On the one hand it is claimed that he was little more than a figure head, with no joint authority shared with the Parliament and only made speeches, appearances and so forth - on the other, that he had the authority to hold back various bills put forth by the Parliament, and this sort of thing. Currently there are several statements in this article that mention the king, outlined above. Any light that could be shed on the matter would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The Britannica sourced role George III played in directing British military affairs in the ARW at George III: (1) By 1770, George III used his executive power to win elections. (2) The king prolonged the war, possibly by two years. - to be continued. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was my understanding, that the King had a significant measure of executive authority. For example, it is the prerogative of the monarch to summon or discontinue a session in Parliament. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a cautionary note on editor contributions and sourcing, and a newfangled social media term of art, “firehose of falsehood” incorporating George Orwell’s Doublespeak. One disrupter on the article page and at Talk left citations in place in the article in three places misrepresenting two sources, substituting ”Lord North” for the sourced “George III” - a classic switch described in the novel.

- A second account here made reference to Britain and the American Revolution, with a contributing editor Stephen Conway, who is himself a legitimate RS. Conway's meaning is manipulated for POV. There is indeed a Conway snippet: "Once the conflict began the king's role was likewise less significant than has been assumed". --- But nowhere has the ARW article ever made an overreaching exaggeration and "assumed" George III as a (straw man alert ->) absolute monarch akin to Frederick the Great on the basis of (straw man alert ->) a misinterpretation of the Declaration of Independence by wp:OR in a primary document.

- Article characterizations of George III were carefully research and faithfully represented in the article in neutral encyclopedic language. George III did substantially effect major British military policy decisions during the ARW, as sourced in at least three British and American RS. But the commentary filling Talk with a wall of double-speak hinges on manipulating (a) an RS characterization of the 18th century ancient regime state in Britain, compared to (b) reactionary or authoritarian states of the post-Napoleonic or post-WWI Europe without a legislative check on autocratic authority.

- The RS properly characterizes the British ancient regime as relatively “weak”, but the misleading posts turn the quote around for a POV to wrongly assign the “weak” characterization NOT to the RS 18th century “state” as compared to post-Napoleonic or post-WWI Europe, but to their own POV: "weak George III" who was indeed (True part of half-truth alert ->) the 18th century monarch ruling constitutionally as King-Lords-Commons during the British “American war”.

Additionally in acts of anachronism-bad-history, opposing posts allude to modern British constitutional monarchy or George III after the Anglo-American “End of Hostilities” was enacted unanimously in Congress 15 April 1783, ratifying the November 1782 Preliminary Peace (Library of Congress, American Memory). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your in depth analysis and points of contention. It seems we have more than adequate sources to deal with the existing article statements relating to the King, if indeed they misrepresent his role. As I've pinged several other editors, we should wait for their input, and then deal with those statements, if they actually need tending to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed 'Legacy' section

preliminary discussion

I wonder if editors could comment on how we describe the overall results. To me, colonial America was controlled by the British government, but had a great degree of internal self-government. While not a democracy, the colonial governments relied on local elites for support. They lost this however after the British parliament imposed "intolerable" legislation and sent colonial officials to impose imperial legislation. Many colonists, from all ranks of society, remained loyal to Britain and some 80,000 "loyalists" left the colonies after independence. The distinguished historian Gordon S. Wood saw colonial America as a stratified society that would change into an egalitarian society as a result of the revolution. Gwillhickers sees colonial America as a semi-feudal state with lords and ladies and personally controlled by the King of Great Britain. A class of colonial officials from England formed the upper class, but left following the ARW. I don't know how accepted Wood's view is, but I see no support for Gwillhickers' view in reliable sources. For the overall results section,[5] we need to distinguish the degree of support various views have. It reflects Gwillhickers' view and uses Wood as a source. I think that Wood's view is misinterpreted and is in any case a minority view. TFD (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Just generally, (a) I am reluctant to spend narrative space in extended discussion of historiography on any aspect of the article topic, except in a very few summary sentences in a final end-of-article "Legacy and commemoration" section. (b) The wholesale import of a political section from another Wikipedia article at American Revolution into the military article is (i) mirroring another article, a practice that is deprecated in Wikipedia policy -----, and (ii) off topic. The article top hat reads, This article is about military actions primarily. For origins and aftermath, see American Revolution. (c) The imported POV (I'm not sure that Gwillhickers should embrace it in a wiki-fencing match here) in the once named "overall results" section, mis-characterized American colonial society as "feudal" when that term of historiography has only a limited application to the colonial Tidewater Atlantic seaboard of the Chesapeake Bay, south (and the British Caribbean).

I propose, the following language, supported by RS footnotes, below. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Political legacy

The American Revolution established the United States and set an example to overthrow government by monarchy and imperial colonialism. The new republic spanned a large territory, justified to the world by Enlightenment ideals with widespread political participation. That participation was further expanded by land grants made to Continental and militia veterans. The French, Haitian, Latin American Revolutions were inspired in part by the American Revolution, as were others into the modern era.

In their home states, returning veterans sought to expand the voting franchise to include all those who had served in the American Revolutionary War, and to embrace all those who enrolled in their county militias from ages 21 to 60. During the elections for delegates to state conventions to ratify the US Constitution in 1788, that goal was attained in Virginia for that one election only. Most states did not expand the franchise to militia members regardless of property holdings until after the War of 1812 and later at the rise of Jacksonian democracy.

Returning veteran settlement included a variety of backgrounds. Enlisted men, several hundreds of whites and a few dozen free blacks, received land grants from Congress or their home states to settle on family farms on the western frontier, and thereby met the land requirement to vote. Germans who had fought for the British returned with their families to settle on the frontier, achieving citizenship within one year for their adopted states, before US citizenship. "Soft" Tories, the two-thirds of Loyalist militias who did not migrate to British colonies in Canada and the Caribbean, either made a home among their former neighbors, or migrated west to the western frontier.

Social legacy

The Enlightenment reasoning to abolish slavery was widespread among Revolutionary war veterans. They had seen black troops perform well under fire both in state militias and in Continental Line regiments. At the close of the war, Revolutionary officers North and South, supported freedom and land grants to all surviving black veterans, regardless of their previous condition of servitude, but they were outvoted in their state legislatures. Large numbers of enlisted veterans south and west of the Tidewater joined Methodist and Baptist religious sects that were racially integrated, admitting both free black and enslaved membership.

Revolutionary veterans made up majorities in the state legislatures that took actions to free slaves. By 1804, all the northern states had soon passed laws outlawing slavery. George Washington, personally manumitted his slaves and did so through his will without an Act of Assembly. Veteran majorities in both House and Senate passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves went into effect in 1808. John Marshall helped found the American Colonization Society, a manumission society to establish an African nation of self-governing freed slaves.

Washington's Continental officer corps, including Naval officers and French officers with Congressional commissions, founded a brotherhood of the Society of the Cincinnati to care for their fellow officer's widows, orphans, and one another in old age. In the early 1800s, state chapters with strong republican principles such as Virginia, self-dissolved the hereditary organization as the last widow of the Revolution's serving officers died. Later these chapters were reconstituted to memorialize their ancestors' service to the republic, and generally promote American patriotism.

Memory legacy

- a balanced discussion of mainstream historiography

---

Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC);

- updated.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

proposal discussion

Very well done – perhaps too well.  We've gone from an existing section of 1513 characters / 227 words, to a proposed section of 4266 characters / 644 words - a threefold increase. I would omit the details about Patrick Henry's and Washington's relationship with the Society and other details quoted below: ... including newly opened territory to become founding families in states such as Vermont in 1791, Kentucky in 1792, Tennessee in 1796, and Ohio in 1803. Despite fears of Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry of Virginia militia service in the Revolutionary War, George Washington did not orchestrate Cincinnati membership as a cabal to impose a national government on the United States. While he did encourage his former officers such as John Marshall to run for delegate in the Virginia Ratification Convention, Society members who were elected from their home counties split 50-50 over the final vote to ratify. ...including newly opened territory to become founding families in states such as Vermont in 1791, Kentucky in 1792, Tennessee in 1796, and Ohio in 1803. PS, how do I get rid of all this underlining in my reply? I tried using the </u> but it's not working. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC) I think I got rid of all of them; just a friendly note to TheVirginiaHistorian to remember to close their <u> tags. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks. sorry. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC) It covers exclusively the legacy within the United States. It does not cover the Rise of the "Second" British Empire (1783–1815) and how the Revolution changed the fate of Australia. Our article on the British Empire covers the changes: "Since 1718, transportation to the American colonies had been a penalty for various offences in Britain, with approximately one thousand convicts transported per year across the Atlantic. Forced to find an alternative location after the loss of the Thirteen Colonies in 1783, the British government turned to Australia. The coast of Australia had been discovered for Europeans by the Dutch explorer Willem Janszoon in 1606 and was named New Holland by the Dutch East India Company, but there was no attempt to colonise it. In 1770 James Cook charted the eastern coast of Australia while on a scientific voyage to the South Pacific Ocean, claimed the continent for Britain, and named it New South Wales. In 1778, Joseph Banks, Cook's botanist on the voyage, presented evidence to the government on the suitability of Botany Bay for the establishment of a penal settlement, and in 1787 the first shipment of convicts set sail, arriving in 1788. Britain continued to transport convicts to New South Wales until 1840, to Tasmania until 1853 and to Western Australia until 1868." Dimadick (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Dimadick has made a remarkably clear expression of one aspect of the 'worldwide ARW', as we have discussed at some length on this page. Its sweep is comparable to our assistant professor at the University of Alabama, a Dr. Lockwood, who writes in his book, "the imperial American Revolution spread worldwide" (Lockwood 2019). Widely acknowledged as a masterful storyteller, Lockwood shows examples of the economic ruin among Andes Indios and Australian aboriginals that occurred in his view as a direct result of the untoward effects rippling out from the worldwide economic disruption by the War of American Independence. While most serious scholars gave the effort little notice, one scholarly journal that did review the book observed that Lockwood had connected dots where there were no connections. In short, the scope of an article primarily devoted to the military aspects of the American Revolutionary War that established a struggling republic unable to subdue the disparate westerly Indian tribes of its own interior for over fifty years, did not establish of the Second British Empire, never mind did it have a reach to effect the outcomes of British colonization in Australia into the Victorian Era. To place our editor query in some historical context, we should ask ourselves, Which RS cites correspondence in George Washington's published papers, either as General of the American armies, or as President of the United States, addressing Queen Victoria on this topic, considering Australia as a British penal colony? --- Now, I will concede that it is of some note that a dozen or so Irishmen banished by Queen Victoria for risings in Ireland, later achieved the rank of Brigadier General during the American Civil War on the Union side for liberty, the republic and democracy. But I do not want that included in the 'Legacy' section of the ARW, whatever the intriguing connection may be. Let's put a chronological limit on the 'Legacy' horizon at Thomas Jefferson's Inauguration for his first term as President: the "Revolutionary Era", the "Constitutional Era", and the "Federalist Era" of American history, April 1775 - March 1801? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian, this is a great idea. I fully support this. Dswitz10734 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Role of George III and getting to Thomas Conway (UCL)

Three editors have objected to the article narratives relating to George III. They do not seek to add alterative mainstream RS views to the article following Wikipedia Foundation guidelines, they suppress any variation of their POV by fiat without discussion or sourcing authority to do so. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've ignored this thread for various reasons but the statement above is simply incorrect. You expressed frustration a few weeks back about lack of collaboration or collegiality; Wikipedia is full of editors making similar complaints and the reason is always the same. If you want collaboration, adopting a less obviously hostile approach would probably help.

I take strong exception to the statement "they suppress any variation of their POV by fiat without discussion or sourcing authority to do so".

The Talkpage for this article is full of similar discussions and while I'm happy to be disagreed with, being told I'm ignorant annoys me. So rather than engaging in a futile thread on interpretation, I did some work by looking at examples where this interpretation mattered. The first one was in the section on the Olive Branch Petition ie "King George refused to even receive it, claiming it was the product of an illegal body.

As discussed in the edit, I removed it because the Source provided does not support the claim. Its not even the right page number or anywhere near it; that is an ongoing problem - so far, most of the references I've checked are wrong.

I then went to the trouble of digging out a correct reference - which made clear the hostility of George's language was a factor in making things worse.

If you're going to have a discussion on use of RS (which I'm sure we all support), then (a) start by making sure yours are correct and (b) do people the courtesy of reading the edits, then criticise. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Supressed RS sourcing

(1) Narrative citing the gold standard Encyclopedia Britannica article on George III is suppressed, without discussion about disqualifying Britannica as an RS at Talk (likewise Britannica regarding the scope of the ARW). The George III biographic article is written by British scholar John Steven Watson, author of The Reign of George III: 1760-1815 (1960). He wrote at Britannica, George III, (a) By 1770 George III, who "meant to guide the country […] used executive power for winning elections […]". (b) "The king prolonged the war, possibly by two years, by his desperate determination." (c) George III’s Tory administration was seen as "equally incapable of waging war or ending it, [and that] was laid directly at the king’s door" by the British public at the time.

(2) Another George III biography extinguished at some citations, but not yet discredited at Talk as an RS is Hibbert 2000 p.160. The supporting linked quote is "King George III had determined that in the event that France initiated a separate war with Britain, he would have to redeploy most of the British and German troops in America to threaten French and Spanish Caribbean settlements. In the King's judgment, Britain could not possibly fight on all three fronts without becoming weak everywhere."

Submitted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing comments

I would ask why you are relying on an encyclopedia article written 60 years ago when we have an award winning book written five years ago by one of America's leading historians on the era. See Age matters. Also as I said above, there is tendency of some editors to confuse the person of the king with parliament or the cabinet because that is how laws and executive orders were phrased. When we say for example that Horseshoe Falls is crown property, it doesn't mean that Elizabeth II can sell it if she is running short on cash. TFD (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

INSERT - factual error alert: The article at Britannica’s George III was revised and updated 2006, and again in 2008. The Four Deuces year 2008 = 1960 is off-wp:balance, not to say POV dismissive of the gold-standard for scholarly reference of mainstream historiography in the English language. See discussion below at TVH bullet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The first revision was copy editing: King, Duke and Prince were changed to king, duke and prince, manoeuvre was changed to maneuver, etc.[6] The second revisiion added that George III founded the Royal Academy of Arts.[7] TFD (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Style copyedit only means that at the article review, nothing of substance needed to be changed to meet mainstream historiography as of 2008, since uploading the article to Britannica online. That is despite a) new interpretations published by RS but not yet generally accepted, and b) fringe contributions to the literature. All good, not an adverse criticism that might be otherwise implied by an unsubstantiated and unreferenced reference to Age matters, posted for no apparent reason, but resulting in disruption and misdirection at Talk discussion. In this case, noting that the editor assertion, "The Four Deuces year 2008 = 1960 is off-wp:balance", is the kindest, gentlest collegial characterization of the post that can be made, while still making a reply in wp:good faith. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not a credible argument that there has been no progress in historical studies of the ARW for over 60 years. TFD (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, progress and addition, but not suppression and extinction. Of course we adopt the idea of “progress” variously from Enlightenment-Whig-liberal-Marxist interpretations of history, all now modified by an insistence on "contingency" for events at the time under study, and so uncoupling any modern claim to "inevitable teleological history". There is certainly be progress as "unfolding development" in human affairs, including "the enterprise of Historical Studies of the ARW for 60 years. But 1) an interpretation is not misleading just because it has not yet been replaced (aged but reviewed for updates as needed), and 2) this thread addresses TWO sourced deletions, both interpretations depicting George III as an agent in British war policy 1778-1782, the Britannica Wallace article reviewed for accuracy and completeness in 2006, George III “prolonged” war. The other RS Hibbert published in 2000, George III “determined”. Also below RS Conway 2002, George III “blocked” Cabinet proposals.

- Wallace, Hibbert, and Conway all have mainstream interpretations of George III as an agent in determining British war policy 1778-1782. We must not exclude additional RS, but RS in the article cannot be allowed to be POV suppressed without preponderance of the RS to call it wp:fringe. An undiscussed redaction on the authority of a lone disrupting editor without RS is insufficient. Britannica is the mainstream expression of the preponderance of ARW literature – caveat: NOT by editor Robinvp11 wp:cherry pick snippets here, line 1,108 (answered here with source, link, and quotes), but the mainstream history is found by reading through a PARAGRAPH at a time. That and RS from 2000 and 2002 as sourced, linked, and directly quoted here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Older sources, and very old sources, are routinely used throughout Wikipedia, esp in history articles. Currently there are more than 40 sources older than 60 years in our Bibliography, some more than 100 years old. The Age matters guideline is largely ignored in historical articles, and rightly so, as older sources often provide us with a way to check the accuracy of the newer sources, which are often the product of acute peer pressure in various modern day academic circles. New discoveries can often change scientific accounts. Rarely, if at all, a modern day historical discovery significantly changes a given historical account. At this late date nearly all the significant facts have long been well established, so let's not carry on as if someone is preventing you from reinventing the wheel. Other than to remark on the age of the source, was there a specific item that was inaccurate or completely in error? If not, then all we really have is an assertion with the inference something is in error. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Why would favor a sixty year old tertiary source written for a broad audience over modern secondary academic sources written by leading experts? The only reason I can think of is that it reflects what you believe and you are unable or unwilling to change your views based on new evidence. Some events from the past such as the ARW, the War of 1812 and the U.S. Civil War become mythologized and collective memory is often wrong. But in these articles we should have the courage to explain what happened rather than what we were told growing up. TFD (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Still no grounds to question Britannica as the pre-eminent English language scholarly reference. No RS authority in the 21st century characterizes Britannica as "mythology". The Jimbo criteria at wp:due weight both support that George III had a role in the British King-Lords-Commons administration of their "American war": (a) "RS scholarly [English-language] reference [for mainstream history]", Britannica at "George III", (b) "prominent adherents" as sourced, linked, and directly quoted at ARW Talk, and by inline citations throughout the article.

- No source is presented by skeptical editors since the Britannica May 2020 scholarly update here. The last reference presented at ARW Talk by skeptical editor sourcing was from 1962. Courage indeed, the first step to get out of a hole is to stop digging.

- The article has not had any "overemphasis of the monarch’s active role", only properly sourced representations of George III role in British military affairs by King-Lords-Commons in America 1775-1783, ended 15 April 1783 when Congress unanimously ratified the British King-Lords-Commons preliminary peace of November 1782, and proclaimed the "End of Hostilities" in the mutually ended Anglo-American war. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• TVH — Yes, given the several brief statements about King George it certainly is something of a stretch to say there is any "overemphasis" occurring in the article there. As stated the Britannica article is written by John Steven Watson, and I think we can assume much of it is based on his 1960 work The Reign of George III, 1760-1815. It can be borrowed and viewed at archive.org -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• TFD — "modern secondary academic sources written by leading experts?"?? We're discussing O'Shaughnessy v the Britannica source, so let's not carry on as if all of modern day academia supports your view, that the King had next to no authority. Watson is not a scholar? Also, you seem to be making the assumption that modern sources automatically trump the older sources, apparently with the assumption that they offer some amazing new revelations that have changed the historical account, yet typically you fall short of offering anything concrete. No examples. This argument by inference is going nowhere. As I've indicated at least twice, the article statements about the King need to be addressed directly, and any contentions should be backed up with at least two noted reliable sources. I say 'with at least two', because the statements are being challenged, thus far, with not too much success. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• No one said the king had no authority, just that your view of Great Britain as an absolute monarchy is a myth you might have learned as a child but has no support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The only "myth" around here is your misplaced assertion that anyone has held that G.B. was an "absolute monarchy". Please read the discussion more carefully and stop misrepresenting my position, over and again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• For editors who would diminish, dismiss and exclude British Whig interpretations of history, and more particularly within the genre, American historiography, the counter claim at this Talk has been to a) the scholarly reference Encyclopedia Britannica's "American Revolution" as updated in 2018, b) prominent adherents to that view in the histories found among 15 of 16 ARW Pulitzer prize winners for scholarly history, and c) both British Whig and Tory historians on the subject of the American Revolutionary War, inclusive. Although there are RS that are not quite wp:fringe to be accounted for in article Notes, the preponderance of reliable sources support the view that the ARW was an insurrection in North America by Congress to establish the US.

- At Study.com, the top two ranking encyclopedias are found here: #1 Encyclopedia Britannica Online. - "The online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica is a trusted source used by more than 4,755 universities worldwide, including Yale, Harvard and Oxford." #2 Encyclopedia.com - "Encyclopedia.com is a free online encyclopedia that allows you to search more than 57,000 articles from the Columbia Encyclopedia. Each article contains links to images, as well as magazine and newspaper pieces. Encyclopedia.com also includes other reference works, such as the Oxford Dictionaries and the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia." Both references support an American ARW.

- It is of interest here as to what monographs were assigned to individual editors for "reading" by their "tutors", but even personal research for a doctorate in Britain is not necessarily determinative of editorial choice in an encyclopedia for the general international reader. Other considerations are wp:balance - include British Whig history and its American interpretation as well as Tory - and wp:due weight - do not exclude British Whig history and its American interpretations. Those general admonitions would apply to treatment of George III as a actor-participant in the ARW, with "agency" in its historical narrative. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Whig history: "A tendency among British liberal historians in the nineteenth century to overread the success of the British Empire of their day deep into the study of the past...." (The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations: S-Z, p. 1844)[8] TFD (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: You have misread and misapplied another RS source again. The ARW consensus editorial policy here is to avoid 'presentism' and 'anachronism' by imposing the present view of things on the past. So, 1) to understand British contemporaries 1778-1781 in the Atlantic-Caribbean community, we cannot dismiss everything of Whig history, because its interpretations were applied in the thinking, correspondence, and public expression of British Whigs in Parliament and Congressional Patriots in North America during the ARW period.

2) To understand Greenwood, we must read two entries, first "Whig History" and then the italicized term there, "liberal" requires a look at the "Liberalism" entry. The "Whig History" reads, Whig history ..."over-read" the First Empire as liberal. That does not mean we purge all "Whig history" reference as wp:fringe because Greenwood assesses its substance as overly optimistic and teleological. --- The "liberal" of Greenwood’s "Whig history" entry is italicized to lead the reader to another entry, a convention applied throughout the work.

- Greenwood defines "Liberalism", "A broad and (wp:due weight) historically enormously successful political philosophy championing, since c. 1750". It holds, "the natural freedom of individuals with respect to each other and the state; constitutional …civil liberties, … speech and the press and personal freedoms of association and belief;" --- "the right to own and dispose of property under full protection of an enforceable law of contracts; disestablishment of religion… basic human rights, increasingly broadly defined; and …also [in economic policy], most notably free trade."

-> "… By the end of the 21st century liberalism retained its nineteenth-century meaning in Europe, but in the United States it had become a surrogate term for what is in substance, and elsewhere identified as, social democracy." --- The Four Deuces, I hope a speedy scan over an array of browser search snippets did NOT mislead into the FALSE impression that social democracy world wide in politics, philosophy, and history is somehow to be deprecated here at ARW as wp:fringe "by the end of the 21st century", and now as you post in 2020. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I am quite aware of what the term liberalism means, and in fact have contributed to that article. I just don't know why you are using the term Whig history. TFD (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to catch up a bit. The ARW article consensus presented George III as an agent in British war policy-making 1778-1782 and in other things and in other periods before his 1813 dementia besides. The editorial choice here was a) convey the historical actors as they saw themselves and others in a contingent narrative, and b) source the article with RS from British historians and 15 American scholarly RS that you mistook as published in the popular press above here at Talk. American historiography on the whole is derivative of Whig history, interpreting an event (such as ARW) as "progress" in human affairs when it tends towards more human rights, and representative government with more personal liberty and political freedoms.

New editors presumed to suppress previously substantiated interpretations of George III, dismissing contemporary Patriots in Congress, Whigs in Parliament, and George III himself, variously: That was George III opinion of himself, and what Parliament Whigs and Patriot Whigs said, but modern British RS in the present say that's not what British monarchs did [example a.] after 1792, or [example b.] after 1952. That is anachronism, bad history. Reference to Whig history is required in a knowledgeable discussion of the ARW, as your Greenwood source says, "Liberalism" [and its progenitor 'Whig History' as you found, and collegially showed me] is "a broad and historically enormously successful political philosophy championing, since c. 1750...", then follows Greenwood's list of the governing principles which are adopted by the Patriot Congress at the AWR. That is of interest in the discussion here: religious and political freedoms, free trade, and so forth, Whig history interpretations of what may be classified as significant developments in the political affairs of a nation. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Editor critiques and links

Opposing editor posts variously (a) misstate sources used to support the article narrative, (b) anachronistically dismiss RS information by contradicting it with true things from a future time period of British constitutional history, or (c) impeach 21th century RS as "19th century Whig historians".

Robinvp11 here on 1 Dec: ”Yes, he had more power than in modern day Britain, and a greater willingness to exert it - but he did not make policy. In the end, he did what his government wanted." Svejk74 here on 27 November: "the Hibbert quote confirms George's opinion, but that doesn't in itself mean he had substantial power […] He could influence policy through selection of ministers, but his power was severely limited."

- Svejk74 represents Sir Lewis Bernstein Namier (1888-1960) in his 1962 Crossroads of Power with its critique of 19th century Whig historians to answer the post using a 21st century RS source updated in May 2019 here, "So the king prolonged the war, possibly by two years, by his desperate determination." Svejk responds here, "Namier, writing in the early 20th century, demonstrated that most of the assumptions about party divisions made by 19th century historians were wrong […]"

- The Four Deuces here on 1 Dec: ”There is no [RS] claim that the British sovereign can withhold royal assent […] The cabinet has [in 1775-1783] the ability to provide royal assent if the king is unable or unwilling to do so […].” But then after a challenge in discussion, TFD admitted that the British Cabinet overrode George III only after the onset of his dementia, here on 3 December, ”the cabinet had the power to give royal assent to bills if the king failed in his obligation and in fact did so during George's illnesses.” The Regency Bill allowing immediate transfer of George III’s reign to his son was 1788, and he was incapacitated as an administrator of government by 1801, sourced here. Again, 1788 or 1801 does not relate to George III’s role in the ARW. To do so would be anachronistic, bad history.

Submitted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Critiques comments

TVH, certainly there are times when public officials fail or refuse to perform the tasks they are required by law and under their oaths of office to carry out. For example, Kim Davis, who was the elected county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, refused to issue marriage licenses, which was required by law. We would not say she had the power to withhold assent to marriages. There were consequences for her and ultimately someone else issued the licenses. Also, in the event a king issues an illegal order, it is null and void as are illegal orders in the U.S.

I provided the example of the regency, not because it happened during the ARW, but it is one example of how parliament can assert its authority over a king who is not performing his duties. More severe measures that have been used by parliament or a cabinet with its confidence include forced abdication, replacement with another monarch and decapitation. TFD (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Comparing a 21st century county clerk to the King is not exactly the best analogy. No one has asserted that the King had absolute power, so there is no need to remind us that the Parliament could assert authority over the King in the event he didn't perform his duties. You still haven't nailed down the idea that the King could, within his power, withhold bills, as part of the checks and balances system. The idea that Parliament had absolute power goes against the idea of checks and balances. As for "forced abdication, replacement with another monarch and decapitation.", these are last resort actions that occur when a complete takeover of the crown occurs, as happened during the French Revolution. If it came down to where they were about to remove the king's head, it would be sort of silly to think he had the power to say 'no' at that point, so again, you're not really addressing the idea that the king, within the system of government, indeed had a significant measure of authority. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The King had the same power to withhold royal assent that a 21st century clerk has to refuse to perform to duties of her office. People aren't robots and there is no physical mechanism to force them to actually sign something. But when officials refuse to perform their duties then it is assigned to someone else and the official faces consequences.

Anyway, the British constitution is not based on checks and balances but on the supremacy of Parliament which was decided by the 1688 revolution. However it retains the language of absolute monarchy. That's why although language used says that the Queen owns Buckingham Palace, she cannot sell it for pocket change. You are aware of that, aren't you?

Incidentally, in France and Russia, the king or emperor had been deposed and a republic proclaimed before they were executed. In England, Charles I remained king until his death. Also he never provided royal assent to create the court that tried him.

TFD (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• George had influence in the British King-Lords-Commons-Cabinet administration of their "American war". The un-impeached sources in Britannica, Dickenson (ed.) and Conway all agree that George III influenced or stymied policy during the British administration of their "American war" 1775-1783. Britannica at "King George III" noted the King, George III extended the American war by two years, as cited, linked and quoted here at Talk.

- Conway 2002, p.15 notes that George III blocked North's cabinet proposals to recruit for the American war by awarding commissions to landlords an merchants who would raise and equip regiments at their own expense. But George III insisted on adding troops to existing regiments to protect existing patronage holders. “Despite the encouraging example of the Seventy-first Highlanders, George refused to countenance any further applications to raise new corps until the end of 1777.” -- That was a George III delay of nearly three (3) years before the British King-Lords-Commons-Cabinet began to follow the successful Scottish recruiting and funding example modeled on the American state militias --- according to a British scholar --- published in 2002.

- For the American military history article ARW, Anachronistic, bad history examples of British constitutional history AFTER the end to Anglo-American hostilities, mutually agreed to by Congress and King-Lords-Parliament-Cabinet, should not be given any currency in editorial decisions about what comes out the article narrative when it is reliably sourced. Alternative historiographic interpretations can be represented, but one editor'(s') POV must NOT be allowed to expunge all other RS representation in the article. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, you need to provide rs that the king could withhold assent. Obviously, since the king was not a robot, he could decide not to sign something, but then someone else would do it for him, as happened in the case of the U.S. county clerk. Not sure why it matters, since we aren't adding it to the article. It's just that you need to be careful to distinguish between actions taken by George personally and those taken as the figurehead for the government or parliament. Note the king was also the figurehead for all judicial appeals: decisions were orders in council made by the king on the advice of the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of all matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations. That doesn't mean the king literally sat in judgment. TFD (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again, comparing a modern day county clerk to the role of King George during the ARW, 250 years ago, is superfluous. The original contention was over the idea that the King's role was being "overemphasized", and so it's incumbent on those who have made that contention to provide at least one RS that supports that claim in no uncertain terms. This has yet to occur. In any case, none of the existing article statements involve that issue, so once again, we need to focus on those. Thus far we have been dragged into other issues involving new sources v old sources, etc. Can we please get this endless discussion wrapped up? If you have a specific issue with one of the actual statements, please quote the statement in question, explain your contention, and provide the RS that supports it. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The situation is exactly the same. An official who swears an oath fails to fulfill their responsibilities. That doesn't mean that they have a right to do so or that there is no legal remedy. TFD (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Conway's point in one of the sourced citations above, was that in one case during the American war, George III determined government war policy in this small-bore, but crucial way: recruitment to fight the American war would first serve the George III interest in patronage -- so the King cut off sea-first Cabinet members, and then successfully shelved land-first Cabinet members intent on winning the American war quickly for the first three years.

The chapter take-away related to not only (a) George III 1775 isolated Bennington and Sandwich for crossing the King's inclination, by their promoting a sea-first American war strategy, but also (b) George III 1775-end-of-1778 held off the North-Germain proposal for their land-first American war policy to raise new regiments officered by new ambitious men.

The King's and his policy carried the administration for the first three years of the ARW shooting-war with the Americans. It underwrote full pay for existing patronage place-holders who had been indifferent to contractor peace-time corruption. Without a full complement of men in their regiments, the second-son-officers from House-of-Lords families would have been placed on half-pay, which would have had reflected badly on George III and so compromised his influence in Parliament. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

An appeal to Conway (UCL) the commonly held RS

Two Conway citations may suffice to tip the balance in this discussion, as all concerned agree that University College London Professor Stephen Conway. Conway is in the mainstream of international historiography as expressed in the updated George III biography article at online Britannica:

(1) In The War of American Independence 1775-1783 (Conway 1995) we see why George III vetoed Lord North’s proposal for recruitment, delaying its implementation for three years. North advanced the successful campaign to recruit the Scottish Seventy Fifth Regiment to put down the 1775 American rebellion. The Cabinet proposed making new officers from among ambitious landlords and merchants who sought a commission by raising and equipping regiments at their personal expense. British peace-time army of annuity collecting place-serving officers led to inefficiencies and corruption. If their regiments were not brought to full strength, they would be put on half-pay. George III personally imposed the fill-in policy from 1775 to 1778, when he then relented to follow the three-year old Cabinet recommendation, and so modeling the successful American example for their state militias.

(2) In A Short History of the American Revolutionary War (Conway 2013, p.64-65) - Conway alludes to the previous George III prime minister, Whig Lord Rockingham (Rockingham’s first administration) and the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766, a reconciling gesture by King-Lords-Commons in response to colonial protest and prayerful petitions from American colonial legislatures. But in November 1775, the King in Parliament passed the American Prohibitionary Act for the Royal Navy to inspect merchants at sea.

- Before that time, American Patriots agreed their quarrel was with Cabinet and Parliament, not the King personally with the motto, "Resist a wicked ministry – leaving Majesty sacred." The hope was that George III would dismiss North and his government to return to a Whig prime minister more aligned to their free trade policy.

- But in August 1775, the King declared Americans in rebellion, in October George III announced his support of North’s use of foreign soldiers to subdue the Americans. He further effectively removed his protection of colonist English rights by supporting American-only punitive measures. Now John Adams could declaim, "King, Lords and Commons have united in sundering this country from that, I think forever […] [making] us independent in spite of our supplications and entreaties."

– George III eventually fulfilled the American hopes from the summer of 1775 in the First Continental Congress in April 1783 by appointing the Whig champion of American independence, Lord Rockingham for a second PM administration -- though George III did have to promise American independence before Rockingham would kiss his hands at the PM appointment.

Submitted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Conway comments

It would seem that the sources substantiate the idea that the King and Parliament both possessed a measure of authority in a checks and balance system of government. Indeed the colonists often addressed the King when they levied their grievances, and it would seem most readers half familiar with the ARW knew he was not the 'Lone Ranger' with in the British system of government. This debate was initiated over the statements involving the King, outlined above, so in the interest of getting through this discussion these statements, all well sourced by noted historians, need to be addressed directly, and any changes needed be made accordingly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have access to Conway's book. I can't find a Scottish Seventy Fifth Regiment from 1775. Do you have further information, such as where they were located, who their colonel was or what type of regiment they were?

King-in-Parliament is just another term for parliament, just as King-in-Council is another term for cabinet. We should avoid terminology that can be confusing. The same with things such as the king announced his support of North's use of foreign soldiers or he declared Americans in rebellion.

O'Shaughnessy's book, which is more authoritative, gives a different reason for Adams decision to transfer hostility from parliament to George III personally.

Also, the British constitution is based on the supremacy of parliament rather than checks and balances. Petitions to the king are in fact decided by cabinet rather than the king. See for example The Humble Petition of The Press Standards Board of Finance Limited, which was addressed to the Queen-in-Council. It would make sense to address petitions to George III rather the PM or Secretary of State for the Colonies, because the subject would be protected from prosecution under the Petition of Right 1628.

TFD (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course information from RS O'Shaughnessy must be included in this article, I believe he is already cited in three-or-four paragraphs. Yes, of course. But that does not mean a critical editor(s) can extinguish other RS in an article by fiat without discussion at Talk. No, wrong.

The link given for Conway 1995 works, but there is a return and a time limit for viewing pages, even if you buy the book. Even I have not yet used up my "trips to the well" yet to the "Look Inside"feature for Conway 2013.

It is well to keep in mind that the British Parliamentary system is other than the US Constitutional system. But no one here is confused on that point. Where is this fear coming from? Can you provide a Reflink. It cannot be obfuscation and disruption and smothering walls of words effectively shutting out additional editor participation here. NO - do not suppress RS Conway used in common by two other (opposing) editors. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

While we all agree the king had influence, we must not assume it was exercised unless reliable sources clearly say that, and bear in mind that 20 to 60 year old sources have been superseded by recent scholarship. As for anachronisms, we should assume that constitutional conventions were the same as today unless we have reason to believe otherwise. It certainly was closer to today that to the Game of Thrones enchanted kingdom one might imagine it to be. Supremacy of parliament, constitutional monarchy and the Bill of Rights had all been firmly established. All colonists wanted was to enjoy the same rights that people did in Great Britain. It wasn't the French or Russian revolutions. TFD (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

On what basis are you asserting that the "old sources have been superseded by recent scholarship."? By their date of publication alone? By new evidence which has rewritten the account on King in relation to the Parliament? Once again, assumptions are being offered instead of actual examples. Are there any new historical discoveries, lost documents, logs, diaries, that have changed the historical scene in this area? While the King didn't have absolute executive power over the Parliament it was he who appointment PMs, made appointments to the House of Lords, and it was he who held control over the treasury, the 'crown jewels', and as such, could indeed wield much influence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"George III took a keen interest in the military struggle and stubbornly refused to accept that America was lost, even after the disastrous defeat at Yorktown in 1781. Bowing to Parliament's refusal to continue the war, the King reluctantly parted with North. The King tried to maintain some freedom of maneuver by playing upon the rivalry between Shelburne and Rockingham, the leading opposition politicians who now formed a ministry. When Rockingham died unexpectedly in July 1782, George III appointed Shelburn as his successor. But Shelburn was unable to secure sufficient support in the Commons and was forced to resign following a concerted attack by the followers of Charles Fox and Lord North. The King viewed North's actions as a personal betrayal, and, in the context of the unprecedented and recent humiliation of the war, remained implacably hostile to the Fox-North coalition. He withheld confidence from his new ministers, refused requests for peerages, and created difficulties over financial provisions for the Prince of Wales." < Cannon, J. (ed) 2015, The Oxford Companion to British History -- article written by Ayling, S., George the Third / Brooke, J. King George III > -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: :Sorry about the terminology. Did you search on 'Seventy-first Highlanders', or 'Scots' or just '75th'? Conway did not spend much ink on small unit histories. I took no notice of any appendices at the back of the book. The focus of the sourced chapter was that George III successfully bent the Cabinet to his will over the issue of regimental recruitment for the first three years of shooting war in the British "American war" 1775-end-of-1778. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The source says the king intervened in recruitment and provides an example. I wanted to see whether that actually happened. Unfortunately I can't do that because I cannot identify the example he gave. Do you think it was the 71st Regiment of Foot, Fraser's Highlanders? TFD (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit previous 'Global war and diplomacy'

• Section header previous was Global war and diplomacy.

- replaced by: "Britain's "American war" and peace"

- After the Franco-American victory at Yorktown the article is not concerned about how many other belligerents that Britain may have engaged with around the globe. The RS show that Yorktown effectively ended Briton and Parliamentary support for Britain’s continued “American war”.

- Now, by 1781-1782, the military conflict in the American Revolution is not about all belligerents fighting Britain everywhere for all their various reasons. The section is about the close of the British-subject fighting in an insurrection for independence by Congress as the United States in North America (Britannica May 2019). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• First subhead previous was Fall of the North Ministry.

- replaced by: "Changing Prime Ministers"

- The article at this point is not about the long-term service of a Tory PM and his fall. This section is about the close of British “offensive operations” in its “American war” that was ended by Act of Parliament eight months after the Franco-American victory at Yorktown. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Acceptance of defeat led to the fall of the North Ministry (ie the North government); that is the normal wording used in this era - as in the Trump administration. That is clearly explained in the current wording - it has nothing to do with changing Prime Ministers but changing governments. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: Acceptance of defeat. More disruptive "trolling" at ARW: wp:editor claims authority without RS, misleads ARW editors, disrupts reliability in ARW pages. --- The editor replies to British RS in ARW Talk, George III's call for Lord Rockingham to be his Prime Minister was delayed when Rockingham insisted first on the King’s promise for American independence before Rockingham would accept.

- The disrupter posts here, "the fall of the North Ministry (ie the North government); that is the normal wording used in this era […] it has nothing to do with changing Prime Ministers but changing governments.". --- Not so, and widely known to be false to those educated in the British Commonwealth.

- The Cabinet (Government) was not first formed, and then a Prime Minister found for it. The Prime Minister is chosen first based a majority coalition in Commons. At the King’s call and his acceptance, he ceremoniously kisses the King’s hands, and then the Prime Minister forms a Government (Cabinet), from among those seated in Parliament those who choose to accept to serve King and Country under the leadership of that Prime Minister. On occasion, if accepting a Cabinet post meant losing another titled income, the King’s friends would make up the difference by direct payments to induce their acceptance. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Top hat – previous: See also Fox-North coalition.

- replaced by: "See also Rockingham Whigs and Fox-North coalition"

- The article section about changing Prime Ministers from North to Rockingham needs a top-hat link for readers interested in the loyal Opposition that assumes the government at the collapse of the North administration. The link to the subsequent post-American-war administration is useful for readers to easily access the Parliamentary instability until George III could successfully back “Honest Billy” William Pitt the Younger. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

No it doesn't because there was no such thing as a "Loyal Opposition" in this period. This is the recurring problem; you don't understand the late 18th century English constitution or how ministries were formed. Its why this article is so long, so confusing and why discussions on this Talkpage drag on interminably - because you're not clear and you think you are. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: loyal Opposition. More disruptive "trolling" at ARW: wp:editor claims authority without RS, misleads ARW editors, disrupts reliability in ARW pages. --- The editor replies to British RS in ARW Talk that call 1770s Whigs in Parliament, "the loyal Opposition". The disrupter posts here, ”there was no such thing as a "Loyal Opposition" in this period”. :::Not so, and widely known to be false to those educated in the British Commonwealth. See the House of Commons Library, "Her Majesty’s Opposition" from the Parliament and Constitution Centre (2006).

Durkin and Gay reference constitutional commentator Nevil Johnson in his chapter, "Opposition in the British Political System", Government and Opposition (1997), “Parliamentary opposition as a feature of normal political life gained recognition during the 18C”, further cited to S. Archibald Froord, His Majesty’s Opposition 1714-1830 (1964). There, chapter VII is titled, "The Rockinghamite Era—1760-1782". The period of British history that encompasses this article in British contemporary and classic RS literature applies "the loyal Opposition" to 1770s Whigs in Parliament. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I don't mind being disagreed with but I strongly object to being disparaged as a 'disruptive troll" for doing so. Whenever I've encountered someone who repeatedly quotes Wikipedia protocols, its invariably a bad sign.

You give the impression of constantly seeking to prove how much more you know than anyone else - which is hard - and often do not appear to understand the concepts (and the 1960 EB is not the "Gold Standard" RS, thank you very much). Constitutional historians use "Loyal Opposition" in a very specific way (don't rely on the Wikipedia article); it generally assumes a party system where one falls, the other takes over. Prior to the 1800s, creating another government was a negotiation between different factions; my old tutor John Ramsden argued the term is inaccurate in relation to modern usage until the 1830s. So using this phrase is misleading.

BUT here's what drives me crazy: it doesn't even appear in the article, its simply a Comment on a Copyedit.

So (a) It's yet another of these pointless discussions over details which litter this TP and don't impact the article (George - Tyrant or whatever, Asymmetric warfare etc) (b) your arguments are invariably convoluted, always too long and written in CIA-speak; and (c) I have yet to see you change your mind on any of them. So what is the incentive to discuss them?

I've said this before and you'll ignore it again - inserting 'collegial' at regular intervals into your posts does not make you good at collaboration. I've given advice to others (and I should follow my own suggestion, so my bad) not to follow you down these irrelevant rabbit holes. I've literally never seen a TP like this and it sucks so much pointless energy and causes so much unnecessary irritation. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Maintaining reliably sourced information online is not "Robinvp11-CIA-speak". I do oppose deliberate editor POV error in the face of collegial correction at Talk. As posted previously here, Britannica is up to date as of 27 August 2020 for its mainstream historiography of the “American Revolution”, an insurrection by Congress for US independence in North America. The Wallace article has been updated in detail by the numbers crossing the Delaware River here in 2013, and more broadly by the Dutch contributions here in 2018. So no, it is off-wp:balance to assert that Robinvp11 year 2020 = 1960 in Britannica's historiography.

The Four Deuces and I have collaborated over the last three years or so to ratchet back several of the more egregious examples of American triumphalism and American exceptionalism found on US History Project pages. I think you will find that my contributions on Wikipedia are less dedicated to CIA-counter-Russian-propaganda, and more like the self-critical United States Information Agency (USIA), quietly but accurately patriotic to the promise of advancing the ideal of a democratic republic with personal liberty and political freedom. Only I am more critical of the USG than they were. --- Though I have been criticized here for advancing a “revisionist” history of anti-militarism and anti-nationalism, it is possible to maintain a belief in publicly stated and widely shared ideals as a standard to criticize one’s own national policy, without becoming a "Moscow historian/propagandist", in my view. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Image previous was a lone portrait of PM Lord North.

- replaced by a "two-image gallery featuring the two PM portraits: the-Before-and-the-After". These two PM portraits juxtaposed in a gallery illustrate the British change in policy from forcibly subduing the American insurrection (North), to that of ending hostilities, making peace, developing international relations, and restoring trade (Rockingham). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• Image previous was a cartoon ridiculing the North Cabinet.

- removed: There is not sufficient text to support more than one image in this subsection; the image relating inadequacies of the North’s administration’s internal workings and personality conflicts and peculiar vanities among North’s Cabinet are not salient elements to convey in the narrative describing military-related events in the American Revolution. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

As usual, it took me a few minutes to interpret this rationalisation - so you think the popular view of the North administration as incompetents in handling the war are not salient elements to convey in the narrative describing military-related events in the American Revolution. Why not just write "I want my picture." More accurate and shorter. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: North-Rockingham portrait gallery. More disruptive "trolling" at ARW: wp:editor claims authority without RS, misleads ARW editors, disrupts reliability in ARW pages. --- In ARW section "British 'American war' and peace", "Changing Prime Ministers", the disrupting wp:editor removed the two-portrait gallery of the before-and-after Prime Ministers here, without prior discussion at Talk.

- This Talk has linked British RS for the turning point April 1782 after Yorktown, that marked the change of British Government leadership and policy direction for the British "American war". It occurred at the King-Prime Minister-Cabinet-in-Parliament decision to a) abandon its "American war" to suppress independence Congress rebellion to pivot its focus on the Bourbon war at sea and its invasion of England, and b) enter into a peace treaty to formally acknowledge US independence (i) trade British goods to its expanding population, and (ii) isolate the US from France as a military ally in the future.

- The disruption continues at Talk by the same editor here belittling the attempt to restore before and after, images for Tory and Whig Prime Ministers. The impression must not be conveyed to readers that with America's arch-rival defeated and the evil Lord North removed, the Americans achieved independence by a miraculous intervention by Providence. No, at the elevation to Prime Minister of the backbencher who had championed the American cause in Parliament for six years, the Congress began negotiating a favorable peace with his Government that met all unanimous Congressional war aims: independence, British evacuation, territory west to the Mississippi with free navigation to the Gulf, and Newfoundland Bank fishing with beach curing rights. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC).

You remove a picture without discussion, then yet again accuse me of being disruptive for wanting it back in again. If you think that's the case, then please report me; in fact, I insist on it. Let me know. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

American Congress signs a peace

• The section title previous is reworked: Peace of Paris.

- replaced by: " American Congress signs a peace "

- The nominal phrase, "Peace of Paris" is an artifact of European historiography. There is no such document to which Congress is signatory relating to its "insurrection […] to gain independence" ([Britannica May 2019]). However, the Congress does sign an Anglo-American Preliminary Peace in November 1782 that meets all of its unanimously agreed-to war aims, then ratifies it unanimously on 15 April 1783 with the proclamation, “Hostilities Ended” between Britain and America in the Cause for independence. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Per your favourite source, the EB; "Peace of Paris, (1783), collection of treaties concluding the American Revolution and signed by representatives of Great Britain on one side and the United States, France, and Spain on the other." Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Careless half-truth in a partial citation is disruptive and misleading., the EB source for Peace of Paris, (1783) says -> a) "[...] the Preliminary Treaty of Paris [was] signed at Paris between Britain and the United States on November 30, 1782. --- "three definitive treaties were signed—" -> b) "between Britain and the United States in Paris (the Treaty of Paris) and -> c) "between Britain and France and Spain, respectively, at Versailles". -> d) "The Netherlands and Britain also signed a preliminary treaty on September 2, 1783, and a final separate peace on May 20, 1784." - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the full sentence; Peace of Paris, (1783), collection of treaties concluding the American Revolution and signed by representatives of Great Britain on one side and the United States, France, and Spain on the other. Preliminary articles (often called the Preliminary Treaty of Paris) were signed at Paris between Britain and the United States on November 30, 1782.

What you've done is to leave out the first part (presumably to justify your rationalisation), add in the second part, then claim I'm only providing a partial half-truth and am being disruptive (the default accusation for anything you don't like). Robinvp11 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Top hat – previous: See Treaty of Paris (1783) for the Anglo-American peace, formally in effect at the conclusive peace with Anglo-French peace.

- replaced by: See also [[Treaty of Paris (1783) for the Anglo-American Preliminary Treaty in November 1782, and its conclusive treaty September 1783. Additional reading in European diplomatic history at Peace of Paris (1783) for preliminary British treaties signed at Paris in January 1783 with France 1783, Spain 1783 with their respective conclusive treaties signed at Versailles September 1783, and the British preliminary treaty with the Dutch Republic in September 1783 at Paris, then conclusively signed in May 1784."

- The whimsical POV disruption inverts RS sources as cited and linked. It now reads correctly. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

What whimsical POV disruption are you referring to? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Paragraph previous: The Paris talks involved separate discussions between Britain, the US, France, Spain and the Dutch Republic. Naval victories such as the Battle of the Saintes in April 1782 allowed Britain to retain their position outside North America, especially in the Caribbean whose sugar islands were considered by many more valuable than the 13 colonies. Both France and Spain had little to show for their vast expenditure; although the Spanish regained Minorca, held by the British since 1708, they failed to capture Gibraltar, whose main impact was absorbing British resources that might otherwise have been used in America.

- removed: The information provided does not relate to Congressionally sanctioned engagements, combat or correspondence with its commissioned officers, nor anything that Congress is signatory to. All information is readily found at the top hat reference Peace of Paris (1783) and links found there. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

So you want the article to include Spain and the Dutch as Belligerents in the war, reference them under Foreign Involvement but not bother saying how their war ended because it does not relate to Congressionally sanctioned engagements? While referencing the Peace of Paris, an article which includes the American treaty, but which you've earlier suggested is an artifact of European historiography"? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are well-sourced RS distinctions to maintain in the article.

- (a) You misstate the article here, with a post just as half-baked as the one above, and that disrupts this Talk again: The Spanish and Dutch are "co-belligerents", "waging war in cooperation against a common enemy, [...] generally used for cases where no alliance exists." --- (b) Formal peace treaties, respectively for (i) the Spanish war on Britain at Versailles, (ii) the French War on Britain at Versailles, and (iii) the British war on the Dutch in Paris 1784, those treaties, do not involve the Congress, as must have found by reading the link above and here: EB, "Peace of Paris, (1783)".

- You persist in pushing an unsourced POV asserting something that is not so. This is merely a case of rehearsing the Reification (fallacy) by making an artifact of conceptual Euro historiography into something concrete that you might hold in your hand. --- I regret to inform you that there is no document evidence of a treaty paper with the title "Peace of Paris" inked at the top and with signatures of the Congressional peace delegation. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yet again, disagreeing with you is "disruptive"; let me put this in really simple terms, because I honestly cannot follow how all these bits tie in.

If I understand correctly (and its hard to be sure) you oppose any direct mention (I had one sentence) of how the Spanish or Dutch ended their war with Britain, despite their participation being referenced throughput the article, with the details included in a lengthy note (al).

This doesn't need a lengthy explanation; 'Yes" or "No" will do. Robinvp11 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Paragraph previous: Isolated by this agreement, France was now desperate for peace; the British relief of Gibraltar in February 1783 strengthened their position, while weakening Spanish resolve. The 1783 treaties with France and Spain largely returned the position to that prevailing before the war. The Dutch treaty was not finalised until May 1784, but the war proved an economic disaster, with Britain replacing them as the dominant power in Asia. This expansion meant that while British domestic opinion viewed the loss of the American colonies as a catastrophe, its long term impact was negligible.

- removed: The information provided does not relate to Congressionally sanctioned engagements, combat or correspondence with its commissioned officers, nor anything that Congress is signatory to. All information is readily found at the top hat reference Peace of Paris (1783). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Reorder paragraphs, copyedit paragraphs

Article copyedited here. The edit note: see additional elements at Talk section # Copyedit previous 'Global war and diplomacy' for discussion at Talk.

• Reorder paragraph sequence and rewrite paragraphs a) Spanish & French; b) British strategy-American demands-preliminary peace; c) Congress endorsement of preliminary-conclusive peace

- reordered paragraphs: "a) American peace delegation; b) British negotators-preliminary peace provisions; c) British strategy-French & Spanish strategy; d) prelim peace-US ratify-conclusive peace-British evacuation".

- The lead paragraph for an American history article in the “American Congress signs a peace” section, should lead off with a paragraph on the Americans, rather than “The Spanish backing the French” in opposition to the Americans. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• Paragaph #1 rewrite here: When Lord Rockingham, the Whig leader and friend of the American cause was elevated to Prime Minister, Congress consolidated its diplomatic consuls in Europe into a peace delegation at Paris. All were experienced in Congressional leadership. The dean of the delegation was Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania. He had become a celebrity in the French Court, but he was also an Enlightenment scientist with influence in the courts of European great powers in Prussia, England's former ally, and Austria, a Catholic empire like Spain. Since the 1760s he had been an organizer of British American inter-colony cooperation, and then a colonial lobbyist to Parliament in London. John Adams of Massachusetts had been consul to the Dutch Republic, and was a prominent early New England Patriot. John Jay of New York had been consul to Spain and was a past president of the Continental Congress. As consul to the Dutch Republic, Henry Laurens of South Carolina had secured a preliminary agreement for a trade agreement. He had been a successor to John Jay as president of Congress and with Franklin was a member of the American Philosophical Society. Although active in the preliminaries, he was not a signer of the conclusive treaty.[n].

- The subsection introductory paragraph gives a basic introduction to the American peace delegation. The background and preparation among the delegation explains that something other than an exceptional “miracle” of history took place at American independence.

- Note: passage may need ‘citation needed’ tags as required. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

What has any of this got to do with signing the Peace? All of these characters have already appeared and its ludicrously over-written. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Introducing the American figures doing the signing has something to do with the signing The general international reader will understand. What members signed was the document, Preliminary Treaty (November 1782), and the document, Treaty of Paris (September 1783). No American signed a "Peace of Paris" in part because there was never any such concrete piece of paper to sign, nor did Congress ratify any such preliminary "document" on 15 April 1783.

The material is certainly more germane to the topic and cogently related to the rebel Congress and the British fighting their "American war", than the previous paragraphs about Anglo-French sea battles in the Indian Ocean without document evidence to or from Congress or its commissioned officers on land or sea. --- Nevertheless, maybe the passage could stand some trimming without losing the substance. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The general international reader will understand. Hard to see how you reach that conclusion.

"The material is certainly more germane to the topic and cogently related to the rebel Congress and the British fighting their "American war", than the previous paragraphs about Anglo-French sea battles in the Indian Ocean without document evidence to or from Congress or its commissioned officers on land or sea".

Here is exactly what was in this section before I rewrote it; After Parliament resolved to end offensive military operations in North America in April 1782 to seek an "American settlement" with Congress, internationally the British still faced three active European belligerents; France, Spain and the Dutch Republic. She was under attack around the world – in European waters, the Caribbean and in the East Indies Indian sub-continent. Britain's strategic reply was to center her offensive war in these areas.[506][cr] British Admiral of the Fleet George Rodney's decisive defeat of French Admiral de Grasse in the Caribbean Sea at the Battle of the Saintes in April 1782 ultimately cancelled a Franco-Spanish invasion of Jamaica.[cs] More British victories followed, culminating in September 1782, when they repulsed the anticipated Franco-Spanish assault at Gibraltar – the largest battle the British engaged in during this period.[512][ct] Britain signed preliminary agreements with France and Spain to end their European war in separate treaties, signing an additional conclusive Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles on 20 January 1783 and then the conclusive Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles (1783).[518][cu] These two addressed issues of mutual Great Power concern, such as a European "continental balance of power", reciprocal colonial territory swaps, and trade agreements among their respective worldwide colonial empires.[519][cv]

You know better than me who wrote this convoluted and often inaccurate mess (and if you add in the notes, its even longer); I condensed all of this into three lines - so why was it ok before I rewrote it, then irrelevant after? Robinvp11 (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Paragaph #2 rewrite here: The Whig negotiators for Lord Rockingham and his successor, Prime Minister Lord Shelburne, included long-time friend of Benjamin Franklin from his time in London, David Hartley and Richard Oswald, who had negotiated Laurens' release from the Tower of London.[n] The Preliminary Peace signed on November 30 met four key Congressional demands: independence, territory up to the Mississippi, navigation rights into the Gulf of Mexico, and fishing rights in Newfoundland.[n]

- Further understanding is conveyed to the reader of the human connections between Parliament’s Whig caucus and the Congressional Patriots. Independence was achieved by American agency, but not by self-righteous fiat over the mythically monolithic British bad-guys, as though American independence was secured by a miracle akin to the parting of the Red Sea engulfing the hoards of Pharaoh's pursuing chariots to free God's Chosen People.

- Faulty historiography that leads some to "American exceptionalism" can be overcome by clearly relating document evidence.

- Note: passage may need ‘citation needed’ tags as required. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

Yet more verbiage which doesn't make the point you claim it does. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)