Talk:American Revolution

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024

Please change "1765–1791" to "1775–1791"

The American Revolution did not start in 1765, it started on April 19, 1775. This is according to the University of Rochester., and The Library Of Congress, along with many others. Watwily (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Might be a bug but the citations doesn't show anything. Weird... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are the two links:

"Three things you didn’t know about the American Revolution" (University of Rochester)

"The American Revolution, 1763 - 1783: Overview" (Library of Congress) TFD (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Date inaccuracy and suggestion of rephrasing

I noticed that in the Independence and Union section it says “the articles were fully ratified on March 1, 1781… and a new government of the United States in Congress Assembled took its place the following day, on March 2, 1782…” This must be a typo since the next day would be in 1781. Also, the way it’s worded implies that the Congress began on March 2nd. There seems to be a consensus when I look it up and even when I click on the link about the United States in Congress Assembled within this article, that it is March 1st. The first assembly did take place on the 2nd, though, which might be the source of confusion. So, I would suggest phrasing it something along the lines of: The articles were fully ratified on March 1, 1781. At that point, the Continental Congress was dissolved and a new government of the United States in Congress Assembled took its place. It convened the following day, on March 2, 1781, with Samuel Huntington leading as the presiding officer. It’s just a minor change but I think it avoids the confusion that I felt when I read it. I hope that helps but either way, the 1782 year date is something I think definitely needs to be fixed. Annalyssia (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Um, I have never heard of the American Revolution used in this way

Usually the American Revolution and the American Revolutionary War are used synonymously. Every other encyclopedias "American Revolution" article refers to the war. See say https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Revolution. I've never heard the term American Revolution to mean a "political movement" and I don't see any sources in this article referring it to as such.

This should be split into two articles. One which is the "Build up to the American Revolution" or "Origins of the American Revolution" and another about its aftermath Earlsofsandwich (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Earlsofsandwich, I think its probably a matter of convenience. If the military aspects of the revolution were included, the article would be way too long. Ltwin (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting they include military aspects of the revolution. But that the article is renamed to better align with what it coveres Earlsofsandwich (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Splitting, "If an article becomes too large...it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles." This article contains greater detail on the military conflict than would be appropriate for the main article, which has a restriction on length. TFD (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that "American Revolution" and "American Revolutionary War" are basically synonymous terms in American English which makes the naming of these two articles a bit confusing, although I don't know what the best solution would be (or if there's a better one than the current status quo). I'm trying to think of other historical parallels, in the sense that the political revolution is almost considered identical to the associated independence/civil war itself, but I'm kind of drawing a blank. My first thought would be the Haitian Revolution, but that article has all the information on one page and is pretty close to being worthy of a split itself. The American Civil War is also a potential parallel in terms of a political revolution (so to speak) having such direct ties to the military conflict, but that article is very focused on the war itself (understandably so given the title) and lacks a lot of detail on the political changes tied to it, so it's not a great example either. Anyone able to think of other examples that might be useful here?

I do agree with your main point though -- I think the other two comments are missing that you aren't suggesting fully combining these two articles, just reconsidering how we handle the split. Rovenrat (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe look at textbooks for title inspiration? One that I see is "American Revolution Era." Or Britannica has an article "American Revolution: Causes, Battles, Aftermath, and Facts" which could be a source of inspiration here. Earlsofsandwich (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually looking at this article a bit more, I think we could (should?) basically follow the structure present in the Template:American_Revolution_sidebar already used on this page. Currently the "Origins" section on there just leads back to the "Origins" subsection of the American Revolution article, but that could probably be split out into it's own article to save space on this one, leaving more room to pull in info from the American Revolutionary War article. Realistically there wouldn't be that much to pull in -- the American Revolution article already loosely covers the war, and in my opinion the American Revolutionary War article has way too much detail on things that are better covered in separate articles (and often already are, anyways). Rovenrat (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

And what would this article be renamed to? Or is the idea that with a lesser emphasis on the origins and effects the article would now match the title Earlsofsandwich (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Appendices

The way this article handles sources and citations is messy. We have a "References" section that includes full references and short footnotes. We then have a "General Sources" and a "Bibliography" divided up into subsections. The Bibliography appears to be functioning as a "Further reading" section. However, it's probably too long and could be trimmed. I think the "General Sources" section is supposed to function as a place to list sources that are actually cited in the article. To clear up confusion, I think we should rename the "General Sources" section to simply "Sources" and the "Bibliography" to "Further reading". Ltwin (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ltwin: Yes, it's a terrible mess. I've just restored some sources which had recently been removed for no apparent reason causing no-target errors, and moved some sources out of Further reading into the Sources section. There are several undefined short form references as well. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Nature of the USA in 1783.

"About 60,000 Loyalists migrated to other British territories in Canada and elsewhere, but the great majority remained in the United States. With its victory in the American Revolution, the United States became the first constitutional republic in world history founded on the consent of the governed and the rule of law."

1. Sentence 1 contradicts sentence 2. 2. Women "governed" by the USA did not get the vote to "consent" until 1920. 3. Slaves had to wait until the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 4. In 1783 Native Americans did not have the vote. 5. Democracy was invented in ancient Athens circa 508 BCE, not in the USA. 6. Sentence 2 is not backed-up by giving any references. 80.47.215.23 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Consent of the governed does not mean one person one vote. While you may question the concept, it is correctly applied here. Athens was not founded as a democracy. Loyalists who remained in the U.S. consented to the new republic and their British nationality was eventually deemed to have been revoked. TFD (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Anachronisms under Class and psychology of the factions - Role of women

A line in the "role of women" subheading mentions "Some of these camp followers even participated in combat, such as Madam John Turchin who led her husband's regiment into battle," which cites the source "Roles of Women in the American Revolution and the Civil War." But as best as I can tell, barring some very strange historical coincidence, that comes from the "Civil War" part of the text and refers to Union Brigadier General John B. Turchin and his wife "Madame" Nadine Turchin, who were both born well over 40 years after the end of the Revolution. 141.156.138.204 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)