Talk:American Revolution/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Archives

Esperanza collaboration discussion

Proposed outline of article

  • Background
    • Trends in liberal thought
    • historic trends to revolution
    • colonial history
    • British history
    • Religious history
  • Immediate causes
    • European dynastic wars
    • mercantilism and trade policy
    • American expansion
  • The actual revolution
    • The political revolution
    • American separatists
    • The revolution in Britain
  • The Revolutionary War (and see main article)
  • Building the United States
    • Under the Confederation
    • Continental Congress
    • Consitutional Convention

User:LouI|Lou I]] 00:14 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Origins Section

This is a kind of status update. I've already altered the outline proposed above, but I have completed what I think of as broad origins and created a stub-like paragraph for the immediate causes. We could use an article specific to the American Enlightnment, as well as improvement and expansion in the Great Awakening and the Enlightnent articles. My main efforts are still concentrated on biograpohies and the Revolutionary War, so feel free to expand this article. Thanks for your patience, Lou I 20:50, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An anonymous user inserted a reference to the Renaissance into this section. Rmherman reverted it, and I agree with his action. But, one element in the addition was a reference to Gottfried Leibniz. Leibniz may deserve a reference here. His Essays on Understanding was in Jefferson's library, and was undoubtedly read by others of the founders. I just wanted to record this note for future updating. Lou I 16:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I compare the origins of the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War to the Cold War; Every series of events that lead to every war should be considered as cold wars. - John Edward Alexander V--Ed Telerionus 20:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletions from Origins

Here's the text I removed from this section, with explanations:

European Dynastic Wars, as experienced in the French and Indian Wars, raised several important ideas among the North American colonist.

Simplified this to discussion of the impact of F&I War.

One of these was the importance of self-reliance for their own defense, and a recognition that the European military establishments were less effective when applied on a continental scale. The Albany Congress taught them the value of cooperation between otherwise divergent colonies. Armies and techniques that might protect Great Britain, France, or the Netherlands could not be extended over thinly populated North America.

I think the above sentences are, in order: arguable, false, and too vague to be useful. :-)

Another result was a rising sense of frustration, when victories earned in part by their blood and wealth were negotiated away for a gain in Asia or the Caribbean.

Vague generalization.

At the same time, political changes in Britain, itself, brought to the fore, leaders inclined to be more forceful and active in the governance of Britain's colonies. The Seven Years' War had resulted in a huge expansion of the British Empire thoughout the world, encouraging imperial thinking and ambition. The accession of George III introduced a politically active monarch into British politics for the first time in fifty years, and encouraged the rise of a new Tory party, which would govern under Lord North during the period of the American Revolutionary War. The authoritarian assertiveness of the Tories tended to be magnified in the perceptions of the colonists into intended tyranny. Whigs, who were inclined ideologically to be sympathetic to American aspirations to liberty and self-governance and relieved of the responsibility of governance, became important allies of the American cause in Parliament.

Restating this later in the article, within a timeline, rather than in a summary up front.

Economic Changes gave further impetus ...

Ditto.

--Kevin Myers 02:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should there be any mention of the Socio-Economic theory, a la Hugh Bicheno? It seems a little biased to not mention this view, unless it is already there and I just haven't seen it. 203.45.15.218 01:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Enlighten a poor amature... what does the Socio-Economic theory, a la Hugh Bicheno, say? Blueboar 02:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The theory was popular 1910-1940 but historians no longer use it. J. Franklin Jameson, Arthur Schlesinger Senior proposed it. (currently held by Jesse Lemisch) Said that there were 2 revolts: one against Britain and a civil war at home of the poor rising up against the rich (many of whom were Loyalists). Historians have now looked in depth at every state and there were some instances of that but far more often it did not happen. It was popular among the political left but they mostly have switched to talk about Indians and blacks & women. Rjensen 02:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh... that Socio-Economic theory. (I have heard it... I just didn't know who said it). I would agree that the theory is discredited. However, NPOV does mean that it can be mentioned as such if someone really feels it should be included. Personally, I don't see it adding anything significant. Blueboar 02:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not an old theory nor a leftist (well, depending on where you put the center) theory. It was the basis of a book -- The Unknown American Revolution, by Gary Nash of UCLA -- published last year. Kjb 02:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Direction of this article

...to decide the future of this article. Personally, I think we should scrap the 70% of it that deals with eighteenth century America as a whole. But we should also do some thinking about what it is we actually want to talk about here. What was the Revolution, as distinguished from the Revolutionary War? Was the Revolution something that happened before the War and made the War inevitable? Or are we talking the social and political transformations wrought through the Revolutionary upheaval, including the impacts on religion, demographics, Native/White relations, slavery, the colonies' economy; but perhaps most of all colonial independence and the politically radical decade from 1776 to 1787. Personally the second view makes more sense to me, and I'd hesitate for that reason to put these things into an "Aftermath" section. On the other hand, sections on pre-Revolution America should really go mostly to an article on the (social) history of the Thirteen Colonies. QuartierLatin1968 00:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

These are good observations. I think the previous version of the article consisted of too many generalities -- an overview or interpretation of the Revolution (vaguely defined), rather than a history of it. I think there's a better approach. To state the obvious, revolution is about change, so an article about any revolution should fall into three broad sections: (1) the way things were before the revolution, (2) what happened during the revolution, and (3) how the world was different after the revolution. Easier said than done, of course. I don't think the article should just be a countdown to the war (which I don't believe was inevitable). I think we need more material about "What happened" (other than the war) and "how the world was different" -- the social and political transformations -- but without resorting to generalities. --Kevin Myers 02:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this explanation ought to be inserted into the introduction, rather like a health warning:-

"The American Revlution is often a misunderstood phenomenon. It has been mythologised as a rebellion of the American colonists against the British, but it was more in the nature of a civil war. Most of the participants initially thought of themselves as Brtish in some sense, identifying themselves with one of the two factions in the British parliament. The rebels incorporated the union jack in the first version of their flag, and referred to the colonial loyalists as 'Tories'. Many loyalists enlisted in scratch British units (some of them serving under the infamous Banastre Tarleton). In turn, there are many instances of loyalist civilians being 'tarred and feathered' or driven from their homes and busineses in a form of 'political cleansing'. In Britain, the governing elite were split down the middle. Some British officers resigned their commissions rather than fight the rebels. The war was so unpopular that the government resorted to employing Hessian mercenaries."

--Train guard 11:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Loyalists

I believe it is inaccurate to say that: "Loyalties It should be noted, however, that a large proportion of the population did stay loyal to Britain, or at least remained neutral during the war. Loyalists, known as Tories, included members of the aristocracy who had a lot to lose, as well as recent immigrants who identified more with their birthplace than their new home. Both during and following the war, Tories were forced to flee to Canada or Britain. Many Native Americans also opposed the revolution, believing that they were likely to suffer more at the hands of independent Americans than the British. An estimated 10-15% of colonists were Loyalists, and about one-third of them left the United States. Some 70,000 Loyalists fled, along with 2,000 Native Americans. 50,000 of these Loyalists went to Canada, where they helped form the colonies of New Brunswick and Ontario. Some black Loyalists went to Sierra Leone." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Revolutionary_War)

AS it is seemingly unsupported and in that:

regarding the American Revolutionary War of Indepdence (please not this as my response to the issues earlier stated) that "One-third loyal, one-third patriot, one-third undecided." (John Adams (“2. Loyalists a. 100,000 left the colonies4. Declaring Independence (WAYCROSS COLLEGE DR. COREY LESSEIG http://www.waycross.edu/faculty/coless/Am1lec.htm)

(which I recall was corroborated by Dr. Herbert Apteker in lectures attended by Andrew Zito) and in that:

“Loyalists, that sizeable pro-British element, perhaps a majority when open war began, who had stood by established law and imperial unity against revolutionary upheaval” (http://www.canadianheritage.org/books/canada4.htm) “New York City, which was at that time more pro-British than England itself.“ (The Tribes and the States W. J. Sidis chapter 23, http://www.sidis.net/TSChap23.htm)

The question the colonial elite must have repeatedly asked each other is if the growing class hatred developing in the colonies could be focused against the pro-British elite, and be deflected from themselves, the national elite? (Lecture Notes 3 - The American Revolution African American History - Spring 1999 Department of History, St. John's University by Omar, Ali http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/4275/StJohnsLec3.html ). "about 40% of the population was pro-British. (The Presbyterian Rebellion ( by Harry Seabrook (harry@littlegeneva.com" http://www.littlegeneva.com/docs/presbyterian.htm )

The lectures and notes that Zito cites are intersting but not entirely accurate. First, we must know that no one knows the TRUE numbers of rebels, tories, and indifferent population. That said, New York City was originally a hotbed of the revolution. From 1765-1775 as many incidents happened ther as the more widely known ones in Boston. By the end of 1775 the royal governor had to leave, and withdraw a small garrison with him. The notes cited claim that there were a great many loyalists in New York. By the summer of 76, there were. Open fighting in New England caused numbers of Tories to leave home. When the British left Boston in March, Tory refugee centers became NYC and Nove Scotia. Everyone expected the British Army to come to New York.
To net this discussion, I haven't seen anything to cause me to want the article changed. However, eventually the loyalist-rebel or Tory-Whig notes should go to the revolution article, not the war. Lou I 16:06, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Choosing Sides

It might be relevant to change the titles in this section from conservative and democratic to conservative and liberal, and perhaps clarify a bit as how those have changed over the years. The political issues of the time and wheather or not they can be converted to our time is debatable. The article points out the slave irony but leaves it at that. To quote salvidor dali "a man can go from liberal to conservative in 20 years without changing a single thought" and thats especially true in america, i don't want to change this because im a pretty bad writer and don't have time to research, but maybe someone does.

I removed the following assertion from this section... By an anonymous editor: "In the States of New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Georgia, the majority of the population remained loyal to Britain [See article Loyalist (American Revolution).]". I know this to be untrue for New York, and doubt it for all except maybe Georgia. Seems controversial enough to need a source or citation... Lou I 19:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Magna Carta

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

With at least links to English Civil War, Glorious Revolution, and Divine Right of Kings - these formed part of the context of revolutionary thought.--JimWae 19:45, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Disagree. Perhaps, but not essential, would be mentioning the Magna Carta in relation to the U.S. Constitution (I believe they both share "due process" phrases). However, it was the 17th and 18th century thinkers that motivated the actors in the American Revolution. In a historical aspect, the Magna Carta and American Revolution were both movements against an percieved unjust king; but there were a lot of such movements in European history, just being one isn't enough to connect it the movement in the U.S. Interesting theory, though, if you could cite U.S. revolutionaries explicitly justifying themselves based on the Magna Carta. I have never come across such references.

"Conferation" and "Confereration" should be "Confederation", no? And James Crowley was in it and he died though too!!

Dashing ahead

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


Joseph Brant

My source for saying that Brant was not the son of a Mohawk chief and that he did lead Tories is Isabel Thompson Kelsay's exhaustive life of Brant (Joseph Brant, 1743–1807, Man of Two Worlds, Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1984. ISBN 0815601824 (hardback); ISBN 0815602081 (1986 paperback)). Also, note that power in Iroquois society descended matrilineally. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Revolution's influence

The American Revolution's influence cannot be so large, especially in the Netherlands (see 80 Years War). Further more, it is safe to say that is was because of the French Revolution that the democracy took a big step forward.

- I agree. Additionally, the French Revolution was certainly not spurned by the American Revolution in a direct ideological fashion. The French governmental military operation in support of the colinies' war of Independenc certainly had a direct influence on the budget of France royality. This indirectly contributed to spurn the foot riots etc. . However, the american revolutionary ideas did not ideological influence the French writers such as Sieyes. It remains to be shown by the authors of this article how this influence exists. If it does not, I can't succumb to the idea of the great influence of American Revolution within Europe. The French Revolution cited by authors such as Kant had a great influence. If there is no direct link between the American and French Revolution then the believed American's revolutions influence is an americo-centrism.

Or your denial of it is Eurocentrism. You have produced no evidence for your opinion either. Rmhermen 18:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
the article makes clear this was an early example of the Atlantic Revolutions all of which influenced each other. The fact that the French spent all that $$$ helping the American Revolution means they did not ignore it. Rjensen 18:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that the French spent all that $$$ helping the American Revolution means they did not ignore it." This is just ridiculous Rjensen, the King of France send money, fleets and soldiers to support the American Revolution, the French made roll his head, this have nothing related at all. Otherwise nice to see how american-centered is this article, two lines on the help of France, like for its decisive help in the fall of Yorktown... This is a shame.

The international aspects of the war are covered at American Revolutionary War--this is more about internal politics in which the French did not play a role. The Americans were getting rid of a British King. The first part appealed to the French but not the second part. Rjensen 21:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The War for Independence of the American Colonies, and the resulting United States, were of great interest to the intelligentsia of Europe during the 1770s and 1780s, and beyond of course - witness de Tocqueville and his journeys. Educated people in Europe, and in the British colonies in North America, had received education in many of the same Enlightenment texts, and Europeans recognized this influence in the writings circulated from America concerning political goals and ideals. Whether American actions, pamphlets, or broadsides had any direct impact on the actions of the French Revolution is difficult to discern, as French historians tend to dismiss any influence of the American Revolution upon the actions of 1789, and American historians tend to overstate whatever influence there may have been. There is understandable chauvinism regarding this on both sides; reference to scholarly work from other nations may help to clear this up.PJtP 03:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Patriots

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

What about the Tories?

Under the section Crises, 1772-75, "The patriots controlled over 95% of the territory and 99% of the population, and were ready to declare independence" stuck out as inaccurate. A considerable segment of the population was sympathetic to England throughout the war, thought you wouldn't really know that by reading the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.4.113 (talk • contribs).

Agreed, it seems unsupportable. I have removed it. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No it's true. Every study of Loyalists explains that they controlled no territory in mid 1776 after Brits left Boston and before they took NYC-- that was the window that allowed for the Declaration of Independence. The statement does not say that 99% of the people were patriots--it said the patriotswere in control everywhere.Rjensen 23:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but the ""99%" and "95%" sounds like a degree of precision that is just not supportable. If you want to rephrase it in more reasonable language, I have no problem with that. It would be good, though, to make sure that it didn't imply that there loyalists were negligible in number. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Considering the wide reports of rough music during the prewar and war years, I think you could account for more than 1% of the population's worth of Loyalists in court records alone. There were a good number of Loyalists, and if I had to make an unprofessional educated guess (which would not go in the article),: I'd put it between ten and fifteen percent, if not more. Fearwig 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of people were Loyalist in July 1776 but they controlled no territory at all. Rjensen 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin was not a Patriot until just before the revolution began. His "Unite or Die" picture was not designed to unite the colonies against british rule, but UNDER British rule (albany congress).

Thoughts on Pending Tasks box

In the Pending Tasks box above the last item says: Recommend revision or reference to opening statement of "The American Revolution was a revolution that ended two centuries of rule of the Thirteen Colonies by the British Empire" Please justify TWO CENTURIES. That would place Brtian in North America in the 1500's. If you go by the first English claim to North America (made under Henry VII of England) the statement is accurate. And it is only 25 years off if you go by the first attempts at colonization in what would become the 13 colonies (1783-1607 = 175 years). perhaps the sentence should read "...ended close to two centuries of rule..." Another question to think about is the use of the term "British Empire". Most people (perhaps erroniously) think of the British Empire as what England gained AFTER they lost the 13 American Colonies. Others (especially some British Historians) call the American Colonies the "First British Empire" and India, Australia, Nigeria, etc. the "Second British Empire". Would it be more accurate to say "British" or even "English"? (just tossing all this out for comment... I really don't know how I would word it.) Blueboar 03:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

it has to be "British" (lots of Scots were involved). 200 years is close enough--Gilbert tried to establish colony in 1583, and Raleigh did so in 1584. As for "British Empire" -- the term was in common use long before 1776. for example Nathaniel Crouch's The English Empire in America (1685) covered the mainland colonies from Newfoundland to Carolina, then discussed the islands from Bermuda to Jamaica. Also John Oldmixon, The British Empire in America, Containing the History of the Discovery, Settlement, Progress and Present State of All the British Colonies, on the Continent and Islands of America (London, 1708)Rjensen 04:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Add Smithsonian Education link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian Institution's Center for Education and Museum Studies, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Revolutionary Money," about paper currency printed during the war, is available for free at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/revolutionary_money/index.html

If you think your audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

Good idea--I added it Rjensen 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

American Independence

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

There's a lot of history here, and while that's an exciting bit I don't see why this particular page is lacking for it. It's already getting huge, to boot. I agree that the Second Continental Congress page makes more sense. Fearwig 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

liberalism of John Locke

I'm a little uneasy with the description of this in the Republican ideology section. It is not clear that the Lockean 'rights' to life, liberty and property was only extended to the white population. I'm fully aware that this is a sensitive issue, so rather than 'wade in' and start editing the article, I would rather discuss it here first. Markb 09:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Lockean liberalism is different from republicanism, and the text tried to say that. In the states Lockean rights were extended to the free population (including free blacks and "civilized" Indians) and all whites, but not to slaves. Rjensen 10:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. did that include women? Markb 08:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
yes. Rjensen 08:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.Markb 13:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone recall whether Locke addressed that subject himself? He was a radical, but I think he still had a similar concept of social hierarchy to that of say, the Founding Fathers, which would include the subjugation of women, blacks, and other "child-like" or "morally vulnerable" people. Anyway, it's a generalization to say these rights were even extended to whites. The Declaration said a lot of things the Founding Fathers believed more in words than in action, and the 'pursuit of property' was something most of them thought better left to the landed class. I think most of this discussion is historically idealistic. Fearwig 16:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The war debt and repayment

I've added significantly to the section on the war debt, mostly to detail the contemporary and historiographical controversy surrounding its repayment. If this is insufficiently supported, feel free to tell me--there are texts that will support my statements, but if you make me research it for citations I'm probably just going to wind up writing more! All that said, I think I just outlined the basic principles of a very large topic that's been covered by dozens of historians. The sources are there, though: Morris, for instance, was very vocal about his belief that the common man had no idea how to spend money and thus shouldn't have any more than he needs to subsist. If I recall, he was also pretty vocal about the dangers of democracy--but then, so were half the members of the Constitutional Convention. Anyway, that's a tangent--I've tried to be NPOV in the article edit (moreso than in talk), but if I've failed, feel free to talk it over with me (or edit away). Fearwig 04:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit which noted that this occurred in the 1790s, but as previous authors of this article have noted, the revolution itself didn't end in '83. This is of direct and extreme importance to the revolution. I think it's a big enough issue to warrant an individual article, or at least an offshoot of Shay's Rebellion, but a few paragraphs certainly earbelong here, too. Thoughts? Fearwig 18:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrites

I'm taking it on myself to rewrite some parts of this article, including the introduction. The old version was redundant (repeating the same phrase three or four times in two sentences for no reason) and didn't really say much about the revolution itself. I hope others will join me, and maybe we can whip this thing into shape. With some research and work, it could make a decent feature. Fearwig 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Happy edit war! Discuss here, thanks, not in your edit summary. Fearwig 17:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

One revert does not an edit war make. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Apologies, you've been very civil. I mistook you at first for the one who edited away the above section, as well (the MO was the same, I must say). Hopefully what's there now is more of an overview of social concepts surrounding the revolution than a revisionist editing spree. It seems like a big change for the first paragraph, I agree, but the plan is for the article to include these ideas and to expound upon them, considering their importance to the social revolution. As I said before, I'd love to see a broad cleanup of this article, considering the significance of the event. I think it's better to do it piecemeal, even some parts seem out of place until the final product, if only because this lets people do what we're doing: argue it out bit by bit. Fearwig 17:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

debt controversy

The Issue of paying the war debts was a major political debate of the 1790s. I summarized it. The old version was full of POV and was unsourced; it was not based on recent scholarship of 1790s (like Elkins and McKitrick or Ferguson). This is basically a postwar issue not a wartime issue. Rambling POV about class warfare/ rich vs poor was poorly done and not connected to wartime issues. (for example section on Morris--author did not mention the main events or Morris going bankrupt) Rjensen 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a seperate article for the War of Independence--this article is not, in general, about wartime issues. While we're at it we should remove everything on the concept of republican motherhood, since that didn't really kick in until the 1790s. I'll do so now, if we're streamlining the article according to these standards. There is additionally a great deal of scholarship available (most of it very recent--in fact you're adopting the "classical" argument by my interpretation) which supports the war debt as a class issue. Morris's bankruptcy was not directly related to the topic, but rather he was used as an example of the principles guiding the Federalist argument. Fearwig 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, Jesus, is this what you wrote?

"A political debate arose in the 1790s over whether the new fedearl government should pay the war debts at face value. Thomas Jefferson, who hated debts, wanted to pay only a fraction of the debt, arguing that honest soldiers and farmers had sold their debt certificates to speculatoirs who did not deserve full pay. Alexander Hamilton prevailed, saying that the national honor and fututer borrowing power required that all state and national debt be paid off at 100% of face value. Hamilton won and the debts were paid off in the 1790s at 100%."

I don't want to be a jerk, but I'm going to revert this and see if I can cleanse it of POV later. I can see how some of the points raised were POV (the nature of a controversy, as was elaborated), but this is inadequate and inaccurate ("Thomas Jefferson, who hated debts..."--the hell?)wi. Fearwig 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson hated debt--read the Sloan book (Principle and Interest: Thomas Jefferson and the Problem of Debt by Herbert E. Sloan 2001). All new material has to be thoroughly sourced. and cut the POV about populism. Rjensen 21:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but stating that Jefferson hated debt (which is true in a vague sense--he thought specifically that economic depdendence was necessarily detrimental to a republic) is not related to the debate and paints his arguments in a cartoonish light. The populism material is not strictly POV. See "Breaking Loose Together: The Regulator Rebellion in Pre-Revolutionary North Carolina" by Marjoleine Kars (UNC 2002) for just one example. This was a huge influence in the popular-opinion side of the revolution, which is just as important as the political side. If my populist opinions come through, feel free to show me how, because they should not. But the argument itself cannot be POV--it existed, these were its terms, and this was its outcome. Fearwig 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The Regulators have their own article and are not part of the mainstream of the Am Revolution--certainly not a "huge influence" (if you think so then rewrite the Regulator article first). The Kars book does not link the Regulators to the revolution--she says most of them were neutral or opposed the Revolution! (Kars p 213-4). The reason the debt issue in 1790s was so important was that Jefferson fought it and built his new party (in part) on that issue. He of course lost to Hamilton who argued that repudiation of part of the debt was a bad start for a new nation. In Wiki we start with solid scholarship. Rjensen 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The war debt and the populism issues aren't necessarily united, and it was likely a bad example to cite that source, though my purpose was more to refer to popular attitudes and expectations of revolution in general. I can't say I've got sources right in front of me, and it will take time to produce citations, but I am not in doubt that they're available. More importantly than all of this, I just think it needs to be clear that the war debt wasn't just a question of whether debts in general were going to be paid off. It's a misrepresentation of the issue. I probably expressed it poorly, and it's good that there is a peer review process to point this out, but your assessment of the war debt issue is simplistic. This isn't just about Jeffersonians, but about the nature of the revolution itself (which is why I'm arguing for its inclusion here)--if the government paid its soldiers in notes, and as a result of the circumstances those notes were bought by individuals en masse who had a notable say in whether or not those notes were paid at face or at market value, you have an issue worthy of mention! Historiography aside. Your scholarship on this issue is superior to mine, and I say that without a trace of facetiousness. But I argue wholeheartedly that this is significant, and unless you are willing to cite evidence saying that the speculator-legislator relationship I have just described did not exist, I don't see how I can be entirely incorrect in my assessments. I think I have qualified the situation poorly, especially for an objective medium, but I also think there is something here that the article as it was (and as you attempted to rewrite it) is missing completely, something essential to the qualification of the revolution. Fearwig 21:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to back down on pretty much all the social statements in the article so long as the war debt controversy is retained. Because it involves the very nature of the national debt and the payment of active participants in the revolution, I don't see how it can be argued as irrelevant. I think your rewrite of the introduction is apt. Fearwig 21:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
during the war itself there was no debate (everyone assumed the notes would be paid 100% face value). The speculator purchase of the notes happened after the war and the debate about repayment erupted in 1790, and it properly belongs to analysis of Washington Administration. This article covers the sums borrowed and to whom owed, as it should. Articles have boundaries, and items that fall outside the normal time boundary do not belong. (Speculators could buy notes for 20% because people had lost faith in their government--which was exactly Hamilton's point in full funding = restore full faith and credit. Rjensen 23:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, save that it's misleading to indicate that the only reason the notes would deflate would be a specific loss of faith in the government. I'm aware that this has been upheld by historians of that opinion, but working even with the basic facts it should be clear that either point may be argued with some validity. A glut of notes always deflates the value of those notes when they can't be exchanged for a grounded currency. This was a time when notes not based on metal were automatically suspect, after all. People who needed to buy goods to survive sold the notes, therefore, to people who could afford to sit on the money--it has nothing necessarily to do with the faith of the seller in the money and everything to do with the fact that they had to sell them, and as such there were people who were going to receive them--at profit. Hamilton was as manipulative in his words here as he was in Federalist 84. The movement of notes was uniformly upward--I don't have the sources of these stats in front of me, but I recall some old lecture notes which were sourced. By the end the wealthiest one or two percent of the population (a large proportion of whom were in politics, regional or national) held over some ninety or ninety-five percent of the notes. Now, if it weren't for the six percent interest to boot, I'd say the conservative analysis might still be believable, but you can't honestly say that the payment of so many millions via standard regressive taxation directly into the hands of the people who were responsible for determining whether interest, etc. would be paid was entirely founded on the basis of national welfare. This isn't some class warfare dogma I'm spouting, it's plain good reasoning, and it's been disguised by the painting of the Founding Fathers as men of perfect morals. Now, as for the article, I can tentatively agree with the notion that it is not necessarily the place of this article to go into such depth on the topic of the war debt, despite the fact that (as I and others have noted in their material here) this is -not- about the revolutionary war, but about the revolution, its causes, and its consequences. I'm not pretending Wiki should house some silly expose on the Federalists, I'm just saying it is (in my opinion) important to the discussion of the revolution to note that the people who were being paid for the war wound up paying for it. Does this make my stance clearer? Fearwig 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
there was a market price for the notes and it fluctuated for political reasons--if people thought there was a 40% chance of getting their money they would sell them for 41 cents and be happy about it. The 1780s were reasonably prosperous and there is no evidence that many of the note holders were suddenly forced into dire poverty that they had to sell for 30 cents when the market price was 40 cents. The g basic problem: people distrusted the Continental government (which had no source of tax revenue and couldn't pay off its debts no matter what it did. ) In terms of the political debates of 1790, Virginia had already paid its state debt and did not stand to gain as much as the other states, hence the opposition. Much of the "speculation" in fact took place after 1787 when the prospect suddenly appeared that a strong government could pay the debt, maybe. then the notes went up in value. In any case this is a postwar debate and does not belong in the article. Rjensen 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Gah, I want to end it, but if you're going to get the last word you'd better make them smart ones. A) Poverty was the rule, and not the exception, for much of the population in this period. They had to exchange the notes because they were a sole source of pay for many during the war. While the 1780s were relatively prosperous, this fact did not change the rule. Whatever your Adam Smith voodoo doll might say, the market price for something that cannot currently be exchanged for material goods is necessarily less than the market price for something that can--if you pay me with a $10 I.O.U. written by your (very presentable, I might add) friend, I am not going to trade it for ten hard dollars (say, in goods or gold), no matter how much I might trust that friend. It's not just about trust, but about a base-level uncertainty that comes with any soft currency, one that would've been higher in a time when the majority of exchange was made with hard currency. B) Those being paid were still those who made the determination as to how much would be paid. C) This is not an article about the war (which exists elsewhere), but an article about the revolution. I believe I said that before. Thus a "postwar" debate is (within reason) a debate about the revolution. I am aware that history is just a succession of battles for most of your leaning, but I dare say the ramifications of the war are as important in this instance.Fearwig 15:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Those are imaginary arguments: please cite your sources. Rjensen 22:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
They are no more "imaginary" (or unsourced) than your own in the previous paragraph. I say that poverty was widespread in the 1780s, despite a period of relative prosperity--that is not a controversial and thus sourceworthy statement. In a discussion (not an article), logic is as useful as are sources, and I see that logic is not our mutual friend. But as this has degenerated into a private debate, and one which is as impertinent now to the article as it is unsatisfying, I think I'll remove my watch from the article and let things be. I would say that it was nice sparring with you, but... Fearwig 18:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Native American involvement

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

References / Citations

Why is it that we have such an incredibly massive collection of references, and only one (two?) citations? It's somewhat impossible to legitimately "trim" references once they're there. I have the feeling someone went to their bookshelf and added every American Revolution text they owned, then did the rest from memory (or simply neglected to note what information came from what source) (I am talking about someone in particular, now. See if you can guess who you are. Fearwig 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)). This strikes me as a problem, in the long-term. If we can't remove some of the sources, and we don't know which were used where, we will eventually have sources that aren't actually involved in the present article (as material is edited away) but which are referenced regardless. Fearwig 18:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I added many of the references and I used every one of those for this article. So yes, it's legit! Rjensen 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(Resolved) Plagerism in references?

The site http://www.americanrevolution.com/ (listed as an external link) contains at least one plagerized article, the one about the battle of Saratoga (http://www.americanrevolution.com/BattleofSaratoga.htm). It is either them copying this other site (http://www.saratoga.org/battle1777/history.html), or it is the victim. I would assume the former since it has advertisements sprinkled all over it while saratoga.org has no advertisements and appears to be from a more respectable source (the "Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce")

If you read the article on americanrevolution.com, everything after the first paragraph is the entire content of the other article down to the punctuation. Even the images are the identical. No credit is given on either page. -Zorroness 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they both credit United States National Park Service; look at the end of each article-- "These articles and maps were taken from the Official Guide to the Saratoga National Historical Park from the United States National Park Service." -- Mwanner | Talk 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel dumb :| I dont know why I missed that -Zorroness 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone can get rid of this section if they want —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zorroness (talk • contribs) 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Republicanism

I'm bringing some of this to the talk page to prevent an edit war, though I am re-editing the section in question, Rjensen. The key point of my edits was not to remove republicanism's primacy as the cause for the revolution, and I'm not sure why you came to that conclusion. I am retaining your characterization of Americans as being "primarily" (rather than just "heavily") influenced by the "country" Whigs, since I don't think it is a point of worthwhile contention.

  • Republicanism was a radical ideal in Britain, and Loyalists were necessarily tied to a belief in the Monarchy--they supported the maintenance of the British Monarchy over more democratic forms of government, which should be exemplified by the fact that they were Loyalists. As such, it is unreasonable to state that most Loyalists were republicans without citation.
  • There is nothing inherent in republicanism that emphasizes the duty of the citizen to fight for his country when needed--this is nationalism, patriotism, what have you, and while it may exist IN a republic, it is not an aspect of republicanism. By adding it here, you derail the
  • Lockian ideals were not distinct from republicanism, but the a very formidable foundation of the ideology during this time. As such, they were not distinct from republicanism, hence my removal of this clause.
  • Additions concerning the specific rights that Locke's statements expanded on those to which you reverted. He advocated the specific right of citizens to overthrow regimes that violated the social contract.
  • "Republican Motherhood" should be "republican motherhood," unless you are living in the 1770s, and as such capitalizing every word or phrase of apparent significance.

If you'd like to argue these points with me (as I hope you shall), I would be happy to learn the rationale behind your various conclusions. Please read the Wikipedia entry on John Locke if you would like to see a justification for my statements on that topic, though I can pull up his own words if you are especially curious. Thanks! Fearwig 23:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this would be an edit war now? There is nothing specifically inherent to republicanism that involves the defense of the nation. That's (apologies for bluntness) total drivel, and unrelated to the topic. While specific virtues are relevant to republicanism (as specific virtues are relevant to any political system), "being virtuous" is not really relevant either, and I'd like an explanation or a direct source (as you demanded of my edits). I realize that you are "making concessions" by reverting smaller and smaller parts of the section, but my trust in your edits is declining as you continually re-introduce material just because you wrote it (this is my interpretation--correct me if I am wrong by defending your edits). Fearwig 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
(re: Rjensen reverts/edits) Are you specifically talking about "greater good"-style civic virtue? If so you should be clear. Virtue can mean absolutely anything, and the problem with your addition here is that it is incredibly broad and fluffy and (as a result) reads as POV, not to mention lacking in factual relevance. If you mean something specific, say something specific. Fearwig 04:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No need for edit war. I argue that Wiki should reflect current scholarship. Republicanism was the dominant force behind the Revolution, in the view of most historians and textbooks today. The leading scholars are Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, John Pocock, Pauline Maier, Joyce Appleby. Fighting for your country was a central theme–especially as discussed when women come up (see Mary Beth Norton and Linda Kerber). Historians separate Lockean liberalism as a second intellectual strand. As for the Loyalists, the great majority stayed behind and became good republicans, while others returned from exile and were welcomed. Those who went to Canada were definitely anti-republican, but they were less than 10% of the Loyalists. As for civic virtue, that is one of the great central themes as in the virtue of the yeoman farmer vs the corruption of the Royal court. I suggest that these republicanism themes remain powerful in the 21st century (as we debate the military service of candidates like Clinton and Bush, and emphasize virtue when we impeach presidents or depose Congressmen.) For a good short discussion by senior historians see [1] Rjensen 05:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes: "The republicanism of the Revolution rested upon such assumptions of an actively engaged and virtuous citizenry both in and out of the military. " Holly Mayer in Greene ed. Companion to the American Revolution (2004) p 312. "It was precisely this quality of “civic virtue” that was missing from past republican experiments and led to their demise. ibid 427. Rjensen 05:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is not about whether or not Wiki should represent current scholarship (and I am not here to debate that topic, as I agree with it), but about what is and isn't cited or portrayed accurately from sources--some things you said here are citable, but should be better-phrased to reflect what the sources mean to say. I agree that noting the issue of civic virtue is important, but it is not the same as saying that republicanism is about "being virtuous"--it's easy to misquote (or indeed misrepresent) this sort of thing by accident. Every institution has its professed virtues. That republicanism stressed civic virtues is important, because what made it different was the "common good" (the "civic") mentality, not the "virtue" part ("virtue" really just means "adherence to social norms", in the sociological context). So by all means, include the matter of virtue, but be clear what it is you're talking about, or it will sound dogmatic. Now, on the matter of military service, this IS important to republicanism, but it's also important to (again) essentially every political system. So while it makes sense to note in a text that it is an important part of a successful republic (along with adherence to virtues), it is not significant in a summary to say that republicanism was distinctly related to military service--this is militarism or nationalism, which can be (and usually are) an aspect of a republic, but not a defining aspect of republicanism in itself. What we should have here is a very basic overview of Article:republicanism, in order to give people an idea what we're talking about--we shouldn't be redefining the term. Discussion of what are really minor facets of the ideology is not beneficial to this topic. So, before you show more citations: yes, citations will show that these are aspects of republicanism, but they need to be defining aspects to be listed here, or else they are misrepresentative. If you think military service is a defining aspect of a republic, please rewrite republicanism. I agree on the virtues, though--you just need to be clearer in stating that civic virtues are what make republicanism different from monarchism. Fearwig 05:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
As (again) for the Loyalists--I scarcely need to source that most people, despite their personal beliefs, are going to accomodate themselves to a new system of government before packing up their bags (though some on fringes will take the latter course). But disregard that if you want: because the very nature of being a Loyalist adhered them philosophically to monarchism, they did NOT accept republicanism, and it is highly illogical to state as much based on migration statistics. If they became involved in the new government (even as voting citizens) after the revolution, that is one thing, but at the time of the revolution they resisted the establishment of a republic in favor of the monarchy. That is a better indicator of their philosophy at that time than actions that would take place years or decades later. This portion was misleading in the extreme. In addition, use of historical statistics to produce a non-obvious synthesis is definitely across the NOR line. Fearwig 05:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
1) Agree it should refer to civic virtue. 2) Military service was a component at that time OF civic virtue/republicanism. That was new in the world--which always had professional or mercenary armies to fight their battles. (Napoleon changed that.) 3) As for the Loyalists who stayed in the US, they were of course watched and there are no reports that they were monarchists. I reject the assumption that republicanism required a rejection of the monarchy--that came only in 1776 (with Common Sense). 4) There was no NOR here--every historians since 1783 says that most Loyalists remained behind. (it is not original research when one part of the article says there were 800,000 Loyalists and another part says less than 100,000 left to conclude that 700,000 stayed behind. Rjensen 08:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The OR has nothing to do with Loyalists staying behind, and everything to do with the assumption most of them were republicans. You cannot defend this with migration statistics, but if you can produce a source that agrees explicitly with your analysis you might be able to say in the article that some historians have made this analysis. Living in a republic has nothing to do with believing in republicanism, especially if you are an avowed supporter of the British monarchy. The rest can be fixed mostly with rewrites (your new explanation of the military matter is apt, but it did need expansion to be accurate in its depiction I think), but this Loyalism bit is incomprehensible nonsense. To clarify once more (since we tend to confuse each other sometimes): 700,000 Loyalists refusing to leave the country does not mean they were republicans, meaning they believed in or touted the ideals of republicanism. While it is possible that some of these people did believe in republicanism while simultaneously thinking it was bad to seperate from the empire (for one reason or another), it absolutely is OR (if not pure speculation) to make any kind of claim about how many people believed what, especially when they made direct acts or claims to the contrary. For all you or I know, every single one of those 700,000 believed the monarchy was preferable, but were unwilling to abandon every single piece of property they own to stand up for that belief. Until you find and cite specific research that somehow can verify the political ideals held by 350,001 or more of those people, you should not go around saying that most of them were republicans. It's original research, bad research, and a very bad thing to put in any source of information since you have no verification of its accuracy as an analysis. Fearwig 15:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, reading your new edit. I'll pick it apart. I like the other changes, but this one is the one I'm going over now: "Many if not most Loyalists also adhered to it. (Note that the decision to reject monarchy came only in 1776 and was not an ingredient of republicanism.)" This is actually a reversed reasoning--there was a sentiment to seperate from Britain before the declaration, but in '76 it was finalized. Now, Loyalists were those people who did not agree to seperate. Republicans were those who believed in the establishment of a republic over the maintenance of the monarchy (or the creation of a new monarchy), especially through seperation from the empire. This means that the actual date of the declaration isn't really important: those who wanted to seperate were not the same as those who wanted to remain, and if (as you, I, and most historians would say) the revolution was inspired by the ideals of republicanism, those who did not agree with the revolution were not inspired by those ideals of republicanism--or at least it would be unwise to assume that they were. This bit really needs to go, man. I'm not sure where you came up with it, but it's really not worth defending. If you're going to quote more migration statistics, read the above, though I think this paragraph might be more to-the-point. Overall though, regardless of the factual basis of your point, this is definitely synthesis and definitely OR. The only aspect of your argument that you defended as not being OR is that a large number of Loyalists stayed in the new nation--that doesn't prove that they are republicans, then or later, and as such it can't be taken as such an obvious synthesis as to escape the parameters of NOR. Fearwig 15:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

edit wars over "The Patriot"

We seem to have an on going edit war over inclusion of "The Patriot" in the Films and Plays list... so let's work this out once and for all... should it be included? If so, why? If not, why not? Blueboar 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete I haven't done any reverting (since it seems others are quite willing to take the effort for me), but I don't see how a film of such negligible value to those wanting a historical perspective on the event should be included. It would actually be preferable to remove the "films and plays" section entirely (unless you'd like to see a list of literally every film or play having anything to do with the American Revolution--probably hundreds--and I can't see why you would). The list has the potential to detract from the meat of the article itself, as is evidenced by the fact that an edit war has been occurring over something as mind-numbingly pointless as the inclusion/non-inclusion of The Patriot in a list of related films. Fearwig 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... the more I think of it, the more I agree with Fearwig... Delete the entire list, not just "The Patriot". Blueboar 12:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
OK... I tried removing the list entirely, and was reverted. I guess we need to discuss it further and reach concensus. The edit summary for the reversion reads: "the movies belong here-- in fact many schools use them to teach the Revolution". All I can say to that is, no wonder our students are so ignorant about history! As much as I enjoyed 1776 as a musical, and as exciting as "The Patriot" was as an action film... they are not good history. They are fictional stories based (loosely) on historical events, and they full of inaccuracies. And, as Fearwig says above, the list could grow to huge proportions. Why not include "Johney Tremain"? How about that mini-series on Washington that starred Kelsey Grammer? Or the one with what's his name (the mayor from "spin city")... or the one starring... etc. Blueboar 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The article does not, I think, depend on the movies for any of its information, and of course we do not say the movies are factual or annotate them in any way (probably we should annotate them). But they are real cultural responses or reinterpretations of the events and have had more influence than most of the books we list. Our movie can grow but I don't think there are all that many films to list (if there are then a separate article can spin off). Different people are interested in different aspects of a complicated, long episode that shaped the nation. Wiki does a reasonably good job, I believe, in helping most users.
I could probably add another 20 or 30 titles to the list just by going to the History Channel web site and copying their title list. If we are going to base inclusion on cultural influence, we should probably include the "Liberty Kids" cartoon series (since that has probably influenced more students under the age of 10 than any other film adaptation). And if cartoons are OK, then there is that Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs helps write the Delclaration of Independance. Talk about cultural influence! Blueboar 20:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can add 20 serious full-length feature movies please do so. It's like the bibliography: we do not list lots of short articles but instead report the major long books. Rjensen 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and it's just like the bibliography--bloated nonsense. Citations are fantastic, but I would again swear this is someone's bookshelf, and not a real list of resources that were used in writing the article. That discussion aside, the movies are "real cultural responses", but they're not material to the article. Wikipedia needs lots of things, and filler isn't one of them. Volume isn't the only issue--it's relevance that matters. People take the "related media" stuff way too far, into the realm of listcruft. Fearwig 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I could probably list about 10 feature fillms... several feature length Television productions... and around 30 television documentaries (which tend to be more accurate in their history than the dramatic films, and so should be listed if the dramas are). Tell you what, since I don't think they should be added to the article in the first place, I won't put them into the article... but I will compile them and post them here to give you a sense of the volume that can be generated. Blueboar 21:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
IS it perhaps that Blueboar assumes that only Truth should be mentioned in Wikipedia, and that if he thinks a movie is somehow misleading then we should not tell readers about it. That seems to be the wrong way to approach historical debates. The movie of course has its own article, which should be linked The Patriot (2000 film). Rjensen 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it perhaps that we prefer to put words in other people's mouths than to actually respond to their statements? These are fictional representations of the article's subject, but that doesn't make them significant in the context of the article itself. It's not because they're false--it's because they're really not relevant to the material at hand. They don't add anything, certainly nothing of scholarly value. If it were a situation where one single popular film had been made about a relatively obscure historical topic, then inclusion might be useful, but adding any and every film about the American Revolution (much less those with such an infantile regard for history) only serves to pad an already very lengthy article. Fearwig 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The popular image of the American revolution is one of its long-term impacts, and (in USA) film is the most important medium. We are not providing new facts about 1776, we are providing facts about how Americans have handled 1776. That is important. And that puts the feature films in a much more useful category than made-for-school documentaries. Rjensen 01:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, that's not what this article is for. Additionally, if you think The Patriot is the legacy of the revolution, I fear for your sanity. Fearwig 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's not be narrow-minded about what history is all about, please. Yes indeed The Patriot is part of the legacy. Is it "accurate"? The legacy and memories of wars is an important subject (see the WW1 article for a good example that covers poems, movies etc). Rjensen 04:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, argue that point all you'd like, it was more a semantic issue. The real point is that while it might be what history is about, it's not what this particular history article is about. As such it has no place here. Create a new article, or a list, if you are truly concerned with representing the cultural influence the revolution has had upon half-witted action films. Fearwig 21:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
My problem with adding a list of Movies and plays rests on the fact that they are, by definition, fiction. No matter how well researched, or how "historically accurate" they may be, they do not belong in an encyclopedia article about actual historical events. I could (perhaps) see documentary films being included... while they are not usually seen as "accademic" as text accounts, they do at least attempt to represent what actually happened without adding fictional elements. (I would, for example, approve of listing the Ken Burn's Civil War documentary as a reference in the American Civil War Article).
If this article contained a section discussing the cultural perceptions of the Revolution and how these changed through the years, I could see adding fictional accounts as examples of these changes. However, to simply list modern films and plays without any discussion of why they are listed gives them no context. Readers may end up looking at them as reliable sources of accurate information - which, as fiction, they are not.
And if we are going to include fictional accounts from film and stage adaptations... why not allow cartoons, comic books, and other media. Perhaps you are biased and feel that these are not valid forms of expression? And we should probably include a section on novels and poems. Certainly Longfellow's "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" deserves as much of a mention as "The Patriot". Oh... and then there is visual Art... We should have a gallery of thumbnails with paintings such as "Washington Crossing the Delaware" and such... after all, if film is culturally relevant, so must be other media. Need I go on? Blueboar 13:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we edit these arguments to include votes, to be clear? Fearwig 21:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Fearwig seems to have something against the movie- which can be discussed on that movie's page. Historical memory is indeed a hot topic and a section on the cultural representations of the war is an excellent idea. Note that the WW1 article has a long, unannotated listing of poetry, novels and films, and could be the model. Rjensen 22:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I, too, have something against the movie... it is a fictional story, loosely based on history. I would also include the other movies and plays listed in that objection. That is why I supported Fearwig's suggestion that the entire section be deleted. As it is, this article does not contain a section on "cultural interpretations and relevance". I do not think it should, for there are far too many conflicting interpretations and to do them all justice (and not be POV) the article would be five times as long as it is. However, if you were to add such a section, I would be willing to include movies and plays as examples of those interpretations.
On a side note... "The Patriot" was, in part, based on the exploits of Francis Marion... the so called "swamp fox". I would think that the 1960's Walt Disney film "Swamp Fox" should be listed if "The Patriot" is. I know it has more "cultural relevance" for me than "The Patriot" does. I am of that generation. Blueboar 00:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I do have something against the movie, because it happens to be thoroughly unintelligent, propagandistic garbage. That does not affect my opinion that a list of all fiction set in, around, or otherwise relating to the event does not belong in an article summarizing the events and themes of the American Revolution. That is simply nonsense. Create a list article. That is where most everyone else on Wikipedia puts their useless, obsessive-compulsive collections of vaguely related material scarcely anyone will ever have a need to reference. Meanwhile we have an article here that lots and lots of people will reference, one that shouldn't be cluttered with pop culture hack-and-slash interpretations of a significant historical event. It's not the place.
...a section on the cultural representations of the war is an excellent idea... An *article*, possibly. Meaning a list. A section? An absolute, unqualified tangent. Fearwig 02:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's not go off the deep end here. No serious editor uses terms like "unintelligent, propagandistic garbage...simply nonsense ...useless, obsessive-compulsive..." etc. That is unacceptable to the level of quality of this very good article. (We're talkinh about a short list of major Hollywood movies, with links to their own articles.) Rjensen 06:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's separate the specific objections to "The Patriot" in particular from the more general objection to including any list of movies. For all the reasons I have stated above, such a list just does not fit in the article. I also disagree that we are talking about a short list... yes it is short now, but I think it could easily grow out of control as people add things that they consider "relevant".)Blueboar 20:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Historical memory is important, and it is shaped by scholarship and by popular history, like Hollywood feature films. Popular memory has become an important component of WW1, WW2 and Civil War studies, and should not be excluded from the Am Rev. When the list becomes too long then we can spin it off. Rjensen 20:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
::Let's not go off the deep end here. No serious editor uses terms like "unintelligent, propagandistic garbage...simply nonsense ...useless, obsessive-compulsive..." etc. That is unacceptable to the level of quality of this very good article. -- As I said, that is about semantics. I am very serious about the quality of editing in this article and others, and that is why I take this point up with you--I don't argue for fun, and I don't stick to points just because I've already made them, as some do. The Patriot does happen to be propagandistic garbage, and as you indicated that I seem to dislike the film I thought I should enunciate that this is true, but as I have repeatedly stated, the problem is not with the film itself but with the inclusion of such irrelevant material in what should be a trim, effective article. We can argue about the film itself via IM if you'd like (though I would probably tire of the conversation quickly), and I would prefer it if you'd stick to what we've repeatedly stated as the main point of this discussion. Wikipedia is not a repository for random information--it comes close sometimes, and when it does we should at least reorganize less-relevant information into more specific locations so that it does not detract from material of quality. This is NOT an article about popular opinions of the war, about re-imaginings of the war, or about feature films which in some way refer to the war. This is an article about the American Revolution, as the title subtly indicates. If anything shows a disregard for the "seriousness" of editing, it is the stalwart defense of any fanciful position that one takes or edit that one produces without consideration of the article or indeed the site's purpose. This discussion aside, I've seen more persistent "agenda" editing here than on any other article I've edited, and I have come to think your defense of the inclusion of the film in the article is tied with this motivation. Perhaps I am mistaken. Fearwig 22:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Fearwig is indeed mistaken in what history is all about. The concept of historial memory has become one of the major new approaches to history, with a big impact on Civil War studies for example. If Fearwig does not like it he

can ignore it. However it is important to the tens of thousands of teachers who will use the article. As starters he should look at the film reviews in the Journal of American History and the American Historical Review. That is where history is at--having moved well beyond 1911 scholarship. He should in particular read the reviews of the Patriot American Historical Review 2000 105(4): 1439-1440 (by Brian Taves) and Journal of American History 2000 87(3): 1146-1148. by William St. George. Here's a sample (Taces): "The Civil War and Reconstruction have provided the background for hundreds of motion pictures, many of them classics. By contrast, the American Revolution has been highlighted in surprisingly few movies—most notably Scouting for Washington (1917), The Spirit of '76 (1917), Cardigan (1922), America (1924), Janice Meredith (1924), The Scarlet Coat (1955), Johnny Tremain (1957), John Paul Jones (1959), The Devil's Disciple (1959), 1776 (1973), and Revolution (1985)—none of which achieved either popular success or critical favor. The most popular features set in colonial times elided themes related to the struggle for independence in favor of the Western's motifs of settlement and conflict with the Indians, such as Allegheny Uprising (1939), Drums along the Mohawk (1939), The Howards of Virginia (1940), and the many film versions of The Last of the Mohicans. Television offerings have included the short-lived series "The Young Rebels" (1970–1971), which tried to draw parallels with the radicalism of the 1960s; the two miniseries George Washington (1983, 1986), starring Barry Bostwick in the title role; and the miniseries "The Swamp Fox" (1959–1960), still frequently repeated on Disney commercial and cable programming. From a commercial standpoint, the Revolution was the main American historical conflict that was adversarial for Hollywood's longtime principal secondary market, England. From the 1920s through the 1950s and beyond, Hollywood treated British history and institutions gingerly because that country's censorship could keep any unfavorable depictions from reaching British screens, rendering such productions predictably unprofitable. D. W. Griffith's America turned the Revolution's antagonists from the British to a fictional Walter Butler, an American Tory whose ultimate goal was establishing his own dominion. The Scarlet Coat was so skewed toward Anglo-American unity as to cast its English hero as a true visionary, while for the Americans, whether Tory or revolutionary, the ends justified the means. In "The Swamp Fox," the antagonists of the rebels were invariably referred to by such euphemisms as redcoats or His Majesty's troops; they were never called British even in Walt Disney's historical introductions. Only in very recent years, with such historical adventure pictures as Rob Roy and Braveheart, has the pro-British bias shifted. The motivations for the American Revolution may also be too complex to adapt easily to the screen. A film about the American Revolution requires the implicit admission that the United States was once a colony, subject to an overseas power. More importantly, American audiences may be uncomfortable with the radicalism of their forebears. The dominant interpretation of the themes of the American Revolution has therefore been undertaken by Hollywood in metaphorical terms, as historical adventure films. The genre's political motif emphasizes the overthrow of tyranny and injustice and the triumph of the political values that underlie democratic institutions, with middle-class insurrections led by such cinematic figures as Robin Hood, Zorro, or William Wallace. The adventure genre's remote, often ill-defined setting allows all audiences to applaud a hero espousing these goals, regardless of their own nationality, with Hollywood applying fundamentally contemporary American political attitudes to any historical period." (etc) That is how the leading history journal approaches the issue at hand and Wiki should be up to speed. Rjensen 22:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus christ! I am not reading that, Rjensen, but I will respond to your first sentence, so let's hope it was representative. I do not CARE what "history is all about"--or rather, sure, I do care, but this Wikipedia article is not about the wider scope of history. This Wikipedia article is about the American revolution, and it should aim to provide specific and concise information about it. It is clear from the above barrage that specific and concise are words yet to be included in your vocabulary. That is all. Really, all. We're not getting anywhere with this if you can't stick to the point. I still suggest a vote. Fearwig 23:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
well if you don't read you don't learn. people like that--who cares what their personal views may be--shaped perhaps by an 8th grade teacher years ago. Wiki has to keep up with the latest scholarship. Rjensen 23:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Correction, one can learn quite a lot and still do no more than skim absolute drivel. It's not hard to spot. I responded to your points in full. This is not about current scholarship, and you degrade absolutely every conversation by implying that your passing fancies are somehow the pinnacle of scholarly achievement. This is about keeping the article accurate, concise, and useful--and about keeping it free of peripheral nonsense. I think if we all relied on our "eighth grade teachers", we'd agree with you that The Patriot is integral to the story of the American Revolution. As it is, we seem to have other ideas. Fearwig 17:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, are you going to add all of those movies and TV shows to the list? After all, if "The Patriot" is worthy of inclusion so are "Drums along the Mohawk" and "Swamp Fox". Personally, I wouldn't add any (I think this is better done in an article on "Historical Memory") ... but if you have some, you should have all.
Well I'm not obsessive about compiling complete lists. A few major Hollywood films will do to illustrate how the war is perceived by most Americans--and allow users to actually study the films in question. (an encyclopedia does not list all the signers and Congressmen and generals and patriots and battles--only the important ones.) Rjensen 13:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
But how does one define which are "important"? ... An historian over the age of 50 is likely to have been influenced by "Drums along the Mohawk" while a boomer is more likely be influenced by "Swamp Fox" ... "The Patriot" is now over six years old, and "1776" is almost 35 years old ... a teenager is likely to have never have seen them (and anyone yonger than that will probably be more influenced by the animated "Liberty's Kids"). To leave some out means you are inserting your own POV about which are important. Blueboar 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Wiki does not list all 100 generals, 200 battles, and 300 local events of the Revolution. Instead we have skilled editors who read the scholarly literature and report the consensus of experts on which are important and ought to be mentioned. Rjensen 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
True, but we also should cite the scholarly literature and experts to verify that those things are important. So can you cite scholarly literature and experts to verify which of these movies and plays are considered "important", or are you just going by your oppinion? Blueboar 15:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite a good point. I personally find it doubtful that many scholarly texts or articles have addressed the importance of The Patriot to the modern historical concept of the revolution. It would be an enlightening experience to read such an article. I expect there is the remote possibility that one exists, if only to illuminate the nature of the atrocious historical fantasies to which so many Americans subscribe (one of us here among them, by all appearances). If we are going to create an article devoted to historical representations of the war, or a list providing the same, then I could see using a less discriminating standard, but as it is, mentioning The Patriot and other fictional films below a list of factual information demeans the article itself while drawing focus from its true topic. Fearwig 18:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Many scholars have written about The Patriot -- here are three full-length articles people can use, with links to the extended H-Net discussions:

1 Sickels, Robert, ed. The Patriot On-line: Discussion Network Posts from H-film and H-war. Film & History 2000 30(2): 63-68. ISSN: 0360-3695 A selection of 13 historians' responses to The Patriot (2000) posted on two H-Net discussion networks shows how such venues on the Internet provide a forum for the substantive treatment of issues related to historically based films.

2 Moore, Lucinda. "Capturing America's Fight for Freedom." Smithsonian 2000 31(4): 44-48, 50, 52-53. ISSN: 0037-7333 Fulltext: [ Ebsco ] Abstract: The makers of The Patriot (2000), a Revolutionary War movie centered around the resistance efforts of a local militia in South Carolina, enlisted the help of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History for information about battle formations, weapons, uniforms, furniture, and anything else that would maximize the authenticity of the film.

3 Glancy, Mark. "The War of Independence in Feature Films: the Patriot (2000) and the "Special Relationship" Between Hollywood and Britain." Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television [Great Britain] 2005 25(4): 523-545. ISSN: 0143-9685 Fulltext: [ SwetsWise | Ingenta ] Rjensen 16:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The only one of these that I have been able to access on line is the Lucinda Moore abstract "Capturing America's Fight for Freedom.". The abstract does not mention anything about why "The Patriot" is important. It is a review of the film (or rather an announcement of the film). All it really says is that the some people from the Smithsonian helped advise on the movie (which does not make it "important"). And by the way... who is Lucinda Moore? Is she a recognized expert on the American Revolution? I don't find any publications listed on Google or Amazon.
It does look as if the others are at least published authors (on the history of film), so I suppose it is possible that they may discuss the film's "importance". I will try to dig up these essays in hard copy and see. Can you cite any experts for the other films you have listed? Is there anything that compares the importance of different films? Blueboar 19:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Citations are a magic discussion-ender--they don't have to discuss the material at hand so long as they're obscure and unverifiable. Just throw out as many as you can that have the topic in their title, they can't possibly read them all! Anyway, if you want to go to The Patriot (2000 film) and write about how it's relevant to the modern conception of the Revolution, go ahead! That would actually make a lot of sense, so long as you're referring to proper sources, as you may very well be (the last one looks potentially relevant, by the title). The point is that merely listing The Patriot as a film that referenced the Revolution doesn't add in the least to this article, while it does open up the slippery slope toward listcruft. Fearwig 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Films and Plays

the discussion was getting too long, and I hate scrolling down that much... so here is a continuation...

Let's get away from "The Patriot"... to me the issue remains, is a list of any films or plays needed in this article. I still think the entire section should go. It does not add to the article. There is no expert opinion or public consensus to indicate this group of films or plays are more important or relevant than this other group of films or plays... so if we are going to include some, we would need to include them all.

Yes, you can probably come up with comments by individual critics or historians that say a given film or play is relevant or important ... but what we do not have is something that compares them to others that may be MORE or LESS relevant or important. The analogy to generals is apt. In a biography of Henry Knox, the biographer is going to say that Gen. Knox was important. What he will probably not say in that bio is if Knox was more or less important than some other general, say Washington. However, when writing about the entire revolution we can rely on general concensus to clearly state that Washington is more "important" than Knox. We can even rely on expert opinion... In lists of the 100 most influential and important people in History, Washington gets listed while Knox does not. We do not have such concensus or such lists to rely on with films.

So... either we have to list every dramatic rendition and give them equal weight, or we need to list none of them. Since such a list would double the size of the article, I feel we should list none of them. How do other editors feel? Lets take a non-binding straw poll. Blueboar 15:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we keep the list of Plays and Films?

1) No, it adds nothing to the article. (also includes Move to seperate article)

2) Yes, it adds something important to the article.

Comments:

  • Keep - This long arguement is ridiculous. There's no reason not to have it. Equinox137 08:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - I have stated why above Blueboar 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has the sort of accurate and useful information that some users will want to find. The Revolution as Adams said happened in people's minds--and it is still happening in terms of images and memories, with films playing a role.Rjensen 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Obvious listcruft. If they're really relevant to the modern conception of the revolution, explain why, with sources--in the article about the film. Fearwig 17:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, although I'll note, as I noted in my previous edit, that particularly significent works of art or scholarship about the revolution could be worked into the text in the form of a paragraph (or even a section) on 'public views of the American Revolution' or somesuch. Just dumping information at the end of an article in the form of a list, though, should generally be avoided unless that information is extremely central to the subject and can clearly only be expressed in the form of a list. --Aquillion 06:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

(note... I have re-ordered some of your comments into a slightly different form... I did not remove anything substantial to your comments, but I know people get touchy about others "messing" with their posts... if I have offended, I appologize.)Blueboar 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Note - I have entered an RFC on this so we can get more input from neutral editors. Blueboar 13:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me. Blueboar 14:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I endorse listifying the section. I hate the problems with listcruft but I'm also tolerant and recognize it will just come back again and again. Might as well hide it out of sight ;-) or hope that hte list is well-maintained. This is such a vast topic and there are so many productions. --Dhartung | Talk 05:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, via RFC and per Blueboar's unchallenged reasoning in the above section.EricR 15:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment the following was added by an anon, in the process deleting other comments. There is no User:Obow2003.

  • KEEP. The movies tell so much that we should be able to see them. Obow2003 16:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
(note: the comment above and repost of the Keep vote by the anon posting as Obow2003 were posted at 20:48, 5 August 2006 by EricR - this comment by Blueboar 21:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
Unless someone objects I am going to discount the vote and comment by anon... I suspect it was not an attempt to really help solve this issue, but pure vandalism (deleting other people's comments does not lead me to assume good faith). Blueboar 21:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP The movies tell so much that we should be able to see them. I have now officially registered as obow2003. Obow2003 21:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you haven't... you would not be a redlink if you had registered. I will assume good faith and that you are intending to register however, and will not delete your comment out of hand. We will move your vote to our tally when this happens. Blueboar 23:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
AH... correction... you have registered, but have not created a user page. Your vote has been counted. Thanks for participating.
  • keep The films go back 100 years and show how Americans have "seen" the Revolution. That is useful information for teachers like me working with K12 audiences. Teachers and librarians do not have easy access to this information otherwise, and we have discovered that students definitely respond more to films than to old monographs. Jozil 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (from RfC) some of them might make good See Also links, but a link to the proposed list would be better. Most of them should go, even as See Alsos. Septentrionalis 23:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Results of Straw Poll and RFC

OK, we have polled the regular editors, and put out an RFC. So far the concensus is clearly in favor of deleting the list of movies from this article, with several editors commenting that it could be shifted to its own page. Have we given it enough time, or shall we wait a while longer? Blueboar 12:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

let's give it a couple more days. This is vacation season. Rjensen 14:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem... that's why I asked. Blueboar 14:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK... the RFC has been up for more than a week and a half... the concensus seems to be that the list is useful, but that it should be moved to its own article (expanded, I would suggest, by some commentary on how the different films have demonstrated the shifting cultural views about the Revolution through the years). This is an approach that I can support. Any further comments or suggestions? Blueboar 12:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this approach.--Atemperman 00:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

worry

Invariably, this is going to need some protection soon. [2] — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Clarification Note on "No Taxation Without Representation

It should be noted that it was not simply general representation but actual consent to be taxed. This is clarified in the Declaration of Independence where the 17th Grievance presents one of the definitions of Tyranny " He (the King or government) has taxed us without our consent". There is a sharp difference being represented for, and that of being represented by - through the action only of and by consent of those being represented. Contribution from Richard Taylor APP - Chair, American Patriot Party.cc

List of plays and films about the American Revolution

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

RfC

Having come to this topic somewhat late in the process, I'll share the successful experience of another Wikipedia page. For over two years the Joan of Arc article had a similar list at the end of the text - a prime example (many editors might say) of listcruft. However, no one actually deleted this list and it grew from diverse contributions, mostly regarding popular culture.

Late last year that list broke off from the main article and became its own page due to space constraints. With additional categories for literature and fine arts, and translations from a related page at the French Wikipedia, it grew to a substantial page of its own. None of the "crufty" entries proved to be a hoax and most were verifiable. The result is a unique resource: Wikipedia's Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc has become a featured list. It also appears to be the only list in existence that compiles references to Joan of Arc in graphic novels, computer games, and Japanese anime. The potential value of such information to parents and teachers should be obvious. While I'm not necessarily a Wikipedia inclusionist, the success of that experiment should encourage other articles. It takes minimal effort to copyedit and alphabetize the new additions, and by having kept the list with the main article for so long the entries really did accumulate well. Regards, Durova 23:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

29 Colonies?

What is this line about? "By 1763, Great Britain possessed a vast holding on the North American continent. In addition to the twenty-nine British colonies, victory ..." should that say 13 colonies? Or is it referring to some Canadian holdings or something? --Awiseman 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

it counts lots of islands (like Jamaica, Bahamas) and even counts Florida twice because they had their own governor Rjensen 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh ok. Maybe it should just say "in North America" or "in the New World" or something, since the islands aren't technically on the North American continent. --Awiseman 19:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sytax correction to Origins: Taxation without Representation

I believe the phrase "Protests led to a powerful new weapon, the systematic boycott of British goods." sholud read "Protests led to a powerful new weapon, the systemic boycott of British goods."

systemic. adj : affecting an entire system;

(n.d.). WordNet® 2.0. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=systemic&x=44&y=7

as opposed to...

systematic. adj 1: characterized by order and planning;

(n.d.). WordNet® 2.0. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=systematic&x=30&y=16


My thoughts being the boycotts weren't as organized as they were complete.

Tom P.

Creating New State Constitutions

The above referenced section seems to be confused regarding which states did and did not continue state-sponsored religion and when the practice discontinued.

Considering the subjective nature of disestablishment (is state religion established when the state mandates worship? when the state pays clergy salaries? when non-worshipers are banished?), perhaps the blanket bullet-point statements (continued state religion; disestablishment) should be expanded or removed.

As an example of the overbroad stroke, the New Jersey constitution granted free worship to its residents but required a religious test for public office. Yet New Jersey is listed as having disestablished religion. And New York is listed in the section that continued state religion, when in fact the 30th Article granted free religious worship and the 35th Article prevented all laws that would establish or maintain state-sponsored religion. Citation: Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America, New York 1902, p 502.

It is not so easy to say that the states that were bicameral continued state religion while the unicameral did not.

New Jersey permitted a religious test; but there were Irish Catholic officers in the NJ militia, so it is doubtful it was applied; and it was certainly abolished by 1799, when the legislature enacted a new oath of office. Septentrionalis 03:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest a semi-protect

Given the frequent vandalism this article faces, I think it needs to be put on a semi-protect block (which blocks unregistered and new users from editing, but lets more experienced editors continue editing). Any objections? Blueboar 16:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There has been much anonymous vandalism recently. (Duribald 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC))
Request made. Blueboar 17:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I also agree --Pentaman 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Join or Die cartoon

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

Citing References

If we ever want this article to be taken seriously, we need to work on citing which references back which statements (or at least which sections) in this article. I have therefore tagged the article with a {{references}} tag. Blueboar 18:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A hearty well done to Rjensen for adding citations. A HUGE improvement. Thanks Blueboar 23:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
blush---) Rjensen 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Patriotic Mythology

This article has been much improved since I first saw it. But it still contains large remnants of popular American patriotic mythology which need to be removed. The following sentences, for example, are out of place in a serious history article:

The most radical impact was the sense that all men have an equal voice in government and that inherited status carried no political weight in the new republic. Thus came the widespread assertion of liberty, individual rights and equality which would prove core values to Americans. The greatest challenge to the old order in Europe was the idea that government should be by consent of the governed and the delegation of power to the government through written constitutions.

The reality was less romantic. The new federal constitution enshrined slavery and led to its retention in the USA for over thirty years after it was abolished in Britain’s colonies.[1][2][3][4] Even free blacks were denied the vote in most states: By 1855, only five states allowed non-whites to vote, “and these states contained only 4 percent of the nation’s free black population. Notably, the federal government also prohibited blacks from voting in the territories it controlled.”[5] The extent of racial disenfranchisement in the United States is illustrated by the refusal of the federal government to grant citizenship to immigrants of oriental races until 1952[6] and, of course, by the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II.[7] Among whites, the right to vote and to hold office was at first limited in most states by property qualifications, some severe (see Keyssar). There were also religious restrictions. Most of the original state constitutions banned non-Christians from holding government office and several extended that exclusion to Catholics.[8][9] Some, such as Texas, disallow non-believers to this day.[10]

The vast majority of women in the United States did not get the right to vote until 1920.[11]

Indians were not well treated, of course. They were barely viewed as humans and had effectively no rights at all. They were often hunted like animals. The Indian Removal Act of 1830[12] began the sad final chapter in the genocide of Native Americans in the United States.[13]

These facts, and many others, do not support the claim of “the widespread assertion of liberty, individual rights and equality which would prove core values to Americans” or “the idea that government should be by consent of the governed.”

We must also be careful not to be too insular in our viewpoint. The majority of North American colonists were of British descent, many very recent, and were proud of the British democratic system on which our colonial governments were based. It was widely regarded both in Britain and in the colonies as the finest system of democracy in the world at that time.[14] Much of what the current author might be implying we invented we really borrowed from Britain.[15] The idea that "government should be by consent of the governed" was by no means new to Europe.[16]

Wikipedia articles should document patriotic mythology much in the same way they should document religious belief such as creationism. But they should not misrepresent these beliefs, however popular, as fact. This remains a problem with many articles on American history, perhaps largely because of the nonsense put out by Hollywood but I suspect in part history is not well taught in our schools. - Kjb 23:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of what you're espousing seems to be anti-American POV, or at least revisionist history, that is often found in Wikipedia. Of course the reality was far less romanitic - everyone knows that. However, there is no "mythology" about it. The founders didn't seek to create utopia, they created the first nation in modern history who's founding documents even bothered to mention concepts such as "liberty", "individual rights", or "consent of the governed."
As far as Indians, I couldn't disagree with you more. The fact is, they were conquered nations, and were treated far better than any other conquered nation up to that time.
We have to be careful in judging those that lived in the 18th century by 21st century "progressive" standards. Equinox137 08:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
"British democratic system" was noit a term in use in the 18th century. People talked about the rights of Englishmen and complained that Parliament was violating them. Indians in Massachusetts were full citizens and had the vote. Actually the article is based on pretty solid scholaship. As for "consent of the government--which European country had that in 1776????

References

  1. ^ Slavery
  2. ^ Slavery in the United States
  3. ^ Blumrosen and Blumrosen, Slave Nation: How Slavery United The Colonies And Sparked The American Revolution (2005), Source Books. ISBN: 1402204000
  4. ^ Dred Scott v. Sanford, U.S. Supreme Court, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
  5. ^ Aexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (2000), Basic Books. ISBN: 046502968X. p. 55
  6. ^ Naturalization
  7. ^ Japanese American Internment
  8. ^ Religious Oaths and Tests (in early constitutions)
  9. ^ Original State Constitutions
  10. ^ Religion in State Constitutions
  11. ^ Women's Suffage
  12. ^ Indian Removal Act
  13. ^ Population history of American indigenous peoples
  14. ^ For example, Benjamin Lewis Price, Nursing Fathers(1999), Lexington Books. ISBN: 0739100513
  15. ^ Pauline Maier, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (1998), Random House.ISBN: 0679779086
  16. ^ For one of many possible examples, see John Locke

Edits?

After the most recent set of vandal attacks, I have tried to revert back to what I know is a clean version. The article is not accepting my edits. Are we under a complete lock? Blueboar 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... it is accepting other people's edits, so the problem must be with me. In any case, the article seems to be back to a correct version, so all is well. Blueboar 18:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Edits by ECOTM

Changed opening to shorten intro (ideally, the Intro should be short enough for the table of content to appear near the top of the article.) Also made a few copy edits to the text. Did not remove anything, just some reorganization. --Jayron32 20:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, the introduction should be 2-3 paragraphs and "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and describing its notable controversies." I think it was better before. The longer intro also reduces the amount of blank space between the table of contents and first header too. – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  05:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the longer lede, basically taking into account WP:LEAD, the long table of contents, and even added two images to balance out the whitespace. Titoxd(?!?) 06:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like concensus is for the longer lead-in. I am fine with that too then. I was of the opinion that a shorter lead would improve readability, but in light of WP:LEAD and the justifications here, the longer lead may be more preferred. I will change it back. --Jayron32 06:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Vandalism/Tim Allen

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

Popularity of the war

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

England ended the war

Can we have some evidence please, just i keep being told America was given indepence from england after it had finished somthing (disambiguity). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.230.40 (talk • contribs) 18:50, December 12, 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Some issues...

The British government sought to tax its vast North American possessions, primarily to help pay for its past wars, most of the costs of which occurred in Europe.

Costs don't "happen." What does this mean?
Corrected to say Most of these wars occurred in Europe. --Banana04131 03:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

During this time of liberalism and republicanism as part of US national identity and the people believing strongly that the theory of the social contract, which said people had the right to overthrow their leaders, therein lay a huge hypocrisy. Who was defined as ‘the people’? Europeans. And While they were fighting what they considered corruption and fighting for their independence and freedom from British rule, they were simultaneously building a society centered and based on corruption, slavery, slave labor, racist ideology, and white superiority. This obviously did not spell out freedom for anyone else not considered European, and therefore not included in their social contract.

POV commentary at best. You can say that some scholars have argued "this was hypocritical," as indeed many have, but you can't say "this is hypocritical" in wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, the heuristical question isn't stellar prose suitible for an encyclopedia.
Paragraph has been removed as POV. --Banana04131 03:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Proclamation of 1763 restricted American movement across the Appalachian Mountains. Regardless, groups of settlers continued to move west. The proclamation was soon modified and was no longer a hindrance to settlement, but its promulgation without consulting Americans angered the colonists.

Some time modifier would be helpful here. Does this mean that even though the act was changed the fact that it had ever been written angered colonists, or somthing different?
I am not sure why this confused you but I have changed it to say The Proclamation of 1763 restricted American movement across the Appalachian Mountains. Regardless, groups of settlers continued to move west. The proclamation was soon modified and was no longer a hindrance to settlement, but its promulgation and the fact that it had ever been written without consulting Americans angered the colonists.--Banana04131 03:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Intolerable Acts included...

This kinda comes out of nowhere, and is a list, rather than prose. Prose is to be preferred.
Written into a rough paragraph. --Banana04131 03:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The revolutionaries, known as Patriots, Whigs, Congress Men or Americans

I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be Whigs, Congressmen, or Americans. That is, unless a source directly calls them "Congress Men." Even still, it's "A, B, and C", never "A, B and C" unless you're a newspaper.
Changed. --Banana04131 03:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, most importantly, your citations are questionable. I'm pretty sure you've got to actually cite page numbers, not just general chapters of a book. So I'm putting this on hold, although I see much potential and I think this could reach GA easily if some issues, especially the references, were ironed out. Thanatosimii 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Objections not adressed, so I'm failing GA nomination

Boston Massacre

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

Second Try

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

Monetary figures

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

There were no US dollars in 1783. - Duribald 19:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

Right. Excellent article! I'm putting it on hold for one reason only: inline citations. The article could generally do with a few more. You particularly need to adress the instances of "citation needed" banners, there's at least 5 of them towards the article's end. I also think this part is in desperate need of a citation:

In Pennsylvania, the landowners were horrified by their new constitution (Benjamin Rush called it "our state dung cart"), while in Massachusetts, voters twice rejected the constitution that was presented for ratification; it was ultimately ratified only as a result of the legislature tinkering with the third vote.

Tinkering with votes is a rather strong claim to be made, so back it up with an inline citation.

Other than that, there's two minor quibbles, which are really nothing in and of themselves, but I think there may be some room for improvement there. This section: "Military history: expulsion of the British 1776" seems a bit out of place, and the final section (National debt) doesnt tie in with the narrative quite as seemlesly as one would hope.

Overall, once the issue of citations has been addressed, this article can easily get GA, and probably also FA status.

Cheers! Druworos 16:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

These are all parts marked with the citation templets I could find. Please let me know if I missed any.
At one end of the spectrum is the older view that the American Revolution was not "revolutionary" at all, that it did not radically transform colonial society but simply replaced a distant government with a local one.[citation needed]
Citation added. --Banana04131 22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, much of the financial support in the South of North America for the American Revolutionary War came from rich slave owners, who feared that the British ban on slavery (see abolitionism) would soon be applied to colonies {{Fact}]
Removed --Banana04131 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment only wrote that common people had the right to overthrow unjust governments.[citation needed]
Removed.--Banana04131 22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The Revolution had a strong, immediate impact in Great Britain, Ireland, the Netherlands, and France. Many British and Irish Whigs had been openly indulgent to the Patriots in America, and the Revolution was the first lesson in politics for many European radicals who would later take on active roles during the era of the French Revolution.[citation needed] Jefferson's Declaration had an immediate impact on the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789.[1]
Fixed. --Banana04131 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The last paragrpah also has the problem of an external link. I will begin to try and find wources for these sections or remove them. --Banana04131 21:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As for this paragraph
In Pennsylvania, the landowners were horrified by their new constitution (Benjamin Rush called it "our state dung cart"), while in Massachusetts, voters twice rejected the constitution that was presented for ratification; it was ultimately ratified only as a result of the legislature tinkering with the third vote.
I can find no citations for it so I will remove this paragraph. --Banana04131 23:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job addressing inline citations. There is still one issue though, you seem to have missed this spot:

Ironically, much of the financial support in the South of North America for the American Revolutionary War came from rich slave owners, who feared that the British ban on slavery (see abolitionism) would soon be applied to colonies —[citation needed]

After that has been addressed, I'll be more than glad to pass the article. Druworos 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I could not find a citation and removed it. --Banana04131 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA

Like I've already said, great article, and it's a great read. I believe the last section on National Debt doesnt tie in too well, as already pointed out, but nonetheless, it's a great article overall. I'm quite glad to pass it for GA, and will be nominating it for FA promptly. Druworos 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article blatantly does not meet the GA requirements. Proof positive that the GA process needs reform. —ExplorerCDT 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like from the discussion above it was approved for GA status? →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If you don't think it deserves GA status, would you mind explaining what needs improvement? Blueboar 02:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • See my comments at this article's FAC for details. —ExplorerCDT 05:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I did see your comments... and have requested that you list the areas that need work here on the talk page. As near as I can tell, you removed the GA status because you feel that the artice is a "clusterfuck"... that is not really a helpful comment, as it does not tell us what needs improvement. The goal is to improve the article so that it becomes a GA (and eventually FA). To do this we need constructive comments as to what needs to be improved. Blueboar 13:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the GA process doesn't work, it is too easy to be listed as a GA article, but this article passed the review in good faith. It is not a case wherein the person who passed it was heavily involved with the article or created a puppet to pass or lacks experience. I am RELISTING it as a GA on principle. If you believe it should be delisted, then you need to follow the steps to delist.Balloonman 16:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the relisting, your comments ("This article blatantly does not meet the GA requirements.") are not helpful to those trying to improve the article. I think it does meet the requirements for GA status, anyway. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 20:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

O.K. After another look, I'll grant you that it could be included as a GA, despite being badly written (poor style, grammar issues, etc.) and that the notes need to be expanded to full citations per WP:CITE and that it does not include much or substantial discussion about many things (political developments between 1775-1783 when the revolution was going on) or the Enlightenment. I also think this article is not named correctly, as it is confusingly masquerading (as many have thought) as a copy of American Revolutionary War. GA is only as strong as its most lenient judge, and frankly, this article's inclusion makes GA look like a joke. And if you seriously think this article is a worthwhile FA candidate without repairing these (and at least taking this to PR), you're self-deluded and I'd laugh if it weren't so painful to think that some people are just clueless as how lacking this article is. —ExplorerCDT 21:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

FAC

I put the article up for FAC, so concerned editors may want to check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Revolution. Cheers! Druworos 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As most of the comment at the FAC state, it is way to soon for this to be nominated for FA. We are having enough of a debate over whether it is worthy of a GA. Blueboar 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

French Angle

Isn't there any consideration given to the fact that if Britain wasn't fighting France, the French wouldn't have helped the rebels ? This would, of couse, have meant that it was likely both that Britain would have won over the rebels, and that, of couse, a more just government would have come out of the whole affair. See www.pavefrance.com. Anon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.23.127 (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I think you have your timing a bit backwards. While France had been assisting the Americans/rebels monitarily well before officially joining the war, it was not until after the Americans won battle of Saratoga that France declared war on England and officially joined the conflict. You are correct that, once France did this they became a major factor in the strategic thinking of the British (the southern campaign was a response to the need to keep troops closer to the carribean and a potential French invasion of Jamaica and England's other island posessions). As to whether the Americans could have won without active French participation, that is open to debate. The war certainly would have lasted longer, but whether this would have aided the British or the Americans is not knowable. I will discount your last comment (about a just government) as an attempt at humor. We certainly don't know that any such government would have been more "just". Blueboar 18:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandals - Protection

Time for some semi-protection again? There's been serious vandalism the last couple of days. -Duribald 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Blueboar 19:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. I think the page is a magnet for school kids --AW 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, don't forget to warn vandals. I'm using the {{anon vandal}} one a lot, it's good --AW 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've put in a request for semi-protection. Let's see what they say. :-) -Duribald 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We have protection! :-) -Duribald 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Patriots vs. Insurgents

The use of the word "Patriot" to describe colonist advocating and actively working towards a government independent of Great Britian is approriate based on it's historical use. However using it in lieu of the word "Insurgent" is an example of ethnocentrism; and thus evidence of strong bias. Articles describing similiar historical events use the term "insurgent" and no debate is required. Thus i feel it would be most appropriate if the origin and significance of the term "Patriot" be included, but the actual forces involved in the movment be reffered to as "Insurgents" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edc04001 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, besides the fact that there is nothing "ethnic" about the word (I think you mean Amerocentrism or something), I do understand what you are trying to say. However, "insurgent" is not right either... It implies a level of guerilla warfair, and "street fighting", that did not take place in the American Revolution. I can agree that if a NOPV term could be found, it might fit better with Wiki policy... but since (as you acknowledge) the term "Patriot" has become accepted by the majority of historians, I think this is the term that should be used here. Blueboar 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not just write "revolutionaries"? "Patriots" seems somewhat biased (I'm sure king George didn't call them that), it could be seen as inaccurate (since they fought against their country in favour of universal principles of human rights) and I have to confess to never having seen the term used in a history book written outside of the USA. I hav e reacted to the term myself, but not wanted to start a war of reversions on the matter. I think that it's good that there a discussion on the matter, at least. - Duribald 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the problem... the term pops up to discribe one of two factions (essentially political parties) of Americans in the colonies: the Loyalists (also called Torys) on one side and the... well, the accepted term is "Patriots" (and as far as I know there isn't another term used). This word has become a "term of art" in American History. It is in essence the common name of a political party. Loyalist and Patriot... It's like Roundhead and Cavalier, Tory and Whig, or Republican and Federalist... Yes it sounds POV from a British perspective, becuase the word has a broader meaning outside of American History. But in the context of American History it has a specific meaning. Using it isn't the POV of editors writing this wikipedia article... its the name given to a particular faction by generations of scholars. As to POV... Remember that from a US perspective one could argue that was the "Loyalists" who were the traitors. Rather than open a can of worms, and invite unending revert wars (which is what I think will happen if we try to be PC about this), I feel we should stick with the accepted terms of art... Loyalists and Patriots. Blueboar 03:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
the dictionary definition works fine: (Webster's 3rd;) " one who advocates or promotes the independence of his native soil or people from the country or union of countries of which it is a part (as a colony)." the question of celebrating or denouncing the patriots is another issue. Rjensen 04:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm just saying the issue should be discussed. On one hand, one could argue that the term is extremely POV, especially as it is used in America in normal conversation. On the other hand it could be used with reference to, yet again, American historical tradition, claiming that it should be seen as a purely technical term. If I were to write a book, I'd use other terms. But since Wikipedia has a policy of favouring American terms in articles about America related topics, I can live with it. Perhaps there should be an explanation about this in the beginning of the text? My Longman Dictionary, BTW, defines "patriot" as "usually appreciative" and "someone who loves and is willing to defend his country". I think this is closer to the normal use of the term in most languages. - Duribald 04:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The british OED defines patriot as "c. spec. (orig. U.S.). A person actively opposing enemy forces occupying his or her country; a member of a resistance movement, a freedom fighter. Originally used of those who opposed and fought the British in the American War of Independence.: I think the article is correctly using the term in that sense. As for neutrality, there is a misunderstanding here. The Wiki POV rules deal with disputes among experts today-- we are supposed to cover all major interpetations. (The article should represent the POV of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue.') It usually comes up when some set of facts or interpretations is under or over-represented. That does not seem to be a problem for this article. The rules do NOT say Wiki should be neutral among the contestants in a war 200 years ago. Fact is both the Americans AND the British leaders and people were split on the issue of independence. A strong minority in Parliament opposed the King on this issue, and in fact finally seized power and rejected the King's position. Rjensen 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Rjensen, that definition was even more biased, since it means the article as it stands defines the British troups as occupants fighting against freedom. ;-) The POV thing was meant in general, referring to bias, not to Wiki policy. Anyway, I think your OED definition (which is clearly meant to cover American usage of the term in a specialized context - biased or not - Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary makes no mention of such a meaning of the word) highlights the point I made about "patriot" being a biased word. Nevertheless I'm willing to yield to the majority opinion, if there is one, provided that an explanation of the usage of the word in the article is added. - Duribald 07:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
My other point is that Wiki POV rules do NOT apply here. I think our rreaders are smart enough to read the article and understand there was a big fight going on and what the issues were. When both the big guns -- OED and Webster's 3rd -- agree with us on the definition we use, I think that's good enough. Rjensen 08:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
History writing should be unbiased if possible. That has nothing to do with Wiki POV policy, which I have already pointed out. And the OED definition proves this concept biased, even in the specialized technical definition in which it is used in this article. I would say that the term "patriot" as used about the American revolutionaries is highly ideological. Virtually all Americans would say that they are patriots and they would definitely connect that patriotism with love for America, a willingness to stand up for and defend America AND connect this with the virtues they see in the "original" patriots. I don't think historians are an exception to this rule. The American revolution is part of the story, or myth, that makes up the core of American nationalism and national identity. Anyway, as I have already stated, I will not start a war of reversions on this subject. The word patriot can stand. But I do plan to write a small piece on how the word should be understood in relationship to this article. Let's see if you like it or not, shall we. -Duribald 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The article is unbiased. "patriot" was the common word used by everyone at the time. Americans love the patriots, indeed, and CVanadians love the Loyalists. Is it biased also to call them Loyalists? Rjensen 09:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if it was commonly used in that way at the time, the term could be interpreted as biased and the explanation is called for. - Duribald 09:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I can agree that an explanation might be called for. Blueboar 14:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that the term "patriot" has connotations quite different from terms such as "revolutionary", or "insurgent". "Patriot" evokes feeling of prestige and good deeds, while "insurgent" has a more balanced connotation but clearly of the undesirable kind (this connotation may in fact be caused by its use in contrast with the alternate term). The effects of this wording in the recorded literature is profound because of this: the term "patriots" being used in recorded history in juxtaposition with the term "insurgent" is actively conditioning those exposed to it the idea that two different acts that are extremely similar technically have opposite connotations. More so it conditions one to believe that certain peoples are morally right in "revolting" while others are not.--137.99.150.9 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"patriot" was used by everyone at the time in the meaning used for the article, so it fits exactly. "insugent" was not so used (it was rare before 1810). The politics is important, because the patriots immediately (in 1775) drove out all the Royal officials. After that it was fighting between the locals and the invading army. (The loyalists never had control anywhere). People seem to be worried that "patriot" sounds too good. But Wiki allows that. The NPOV rules have to do with current (2007) debates in which all expert views should be included. In 2007 most experts use terms like "patriot" and "loyalist" because they are accurate and precise. "insurgent" is ambiguous--does it mean a patriot fighting the Crown, or a loyalist fighting the patriots who are in control?. As for "revolutionary" it was a new word coined in 1774 by the Americans to describe their ideas or policies. "Revolutionaries" as people was an 1850 coinage says OED.Rjensen 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously the term isn't precise. I've checked six dictionaries and patriot is exclusively defined as I described before in all of them. We are writing an encyclopedic article for people from all around the world in 2007. Most of them are lay people. The term "patriot" carries a lot of bagage, and it should be explained how the term is used in this context. -Duribald 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh lots of terms carry baggage--"Loyalist" for example. Our use is explictly sanctioned by the two most important dictionaries (OED and Webster 3) and is nowhere forbidden by Wiki rules. Rjensen 02:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dictionaries don't sanction or endorse the use of terms. They simply describe how they are used - whether good or bad. In this case it is a use that goes outside of what is common usage of the word, especially outside of the USA. I don't really get why you oppose clarifying how a word is used in an article? It seems important to you, for some reason. Don't you want people to get what you mean? -Duribald 02:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.