Talk:American Revolution

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

Please return the page to how it originally was prior to today. Someone removed the following from the beginning of the “Origin” section:

Summary of the Causes of the American Revolution

By and large, the people who chose to come to America were a freedom-loving, independent-minded people to begin with (and they were the type of people energetic enough to take action). For example, the Pilgrims and the Puritans felt that the Church of England had corrupted the teachings of the Bible, and were willing to accept the enormous risks that coming to America entailed in order to gain religious freedom (and be left alone by England).[5][6][7]

Americans were a literate people. Unlike most people around the world, Americans could read and write. That began with the Puritans, who came beginning in the 1630s, and were great believers in education. The Puritans wanted their children to be able to read the Bible, themselves. They didn’t want their children to have to take the minister’s word for it. The Puritans wanted them to be able to read it. The literacy rate in Massachusetts was higher in colonial times than it is today. As John Adams put it, “A native of America who cannot read and write … is as rare as a comet or an earthquake.” By the time of the American Revolution, there were 40 newspapers in America (at a time when America had only two cities with over 20,000 people in them). America’s high literacy rate (particularly in Puritan New England) led to an attitude of freedom and independence. Americans’ ability to read enabled them to think for themselves, make their own decisions and run their own lives (the objectives of freedom and democracy). America’s independence and freedom can be traced directly back to the Puritans teaching their children how to read.[8][9][10][11]

The American colonies, for the better part of the first century and a half, were under a British policy referred to as Salutary Neglect, in which trade restrictions and customs duties were largely unenforced. England did this intentionally. This era of lax regulation enabled the colonies to thrive economically and become good customers for British manufacturers, thus benefiting both England and the colonies.[12][13][14]

The colonies got used to running their own affairs and solving their own problems.[15][16][17]

However, in the decade leading up to the American Revolution, this changed. England (whose national debt had doubled as a result of the French and Indian War) imposed direct taxes on the colonies (as opposed to just duties on imported products), began limiting the right to a jury trial, and began issuing Writs of Assistance (which were essentially blanket search warrants, enabling British customs officials to search anyone’s house, anytime, anywhere). In addition, thousands of British soldiers were sent to America, and Americans were required to house them. Americans felt that they had the same rights as any other British subjects, such as the right to taxation with representation (but not without), the right to a jury trial, and the right to be secure in their own homes against government intrusion. Americans complained bitterly that their “rights as Englishmen” were being trampled upon.[18][19][20][21][22]

It has been said that if the average American before the revolution had been asked, “What do you want from the British government?” that the answer would have been: “Leave me alone!” That “Leave-me-Alone” sentiment pervades all three of America’s founding documents. Most of the Declaration of Independence consists of a long list of grievances against the British government, all of which can be summed up in three words: Leave me alone. The Bill of Rights is another long list of things that the government cannot do to its citizens, which can also be summed up in three words: Leave me alone. And, the Constitution is a document that is designed to create a government that will have enough power to do what it has to do, but otherwise will leave its citizens alone.[23][24][25][26] 24.1.163.179 (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: Intul, the deleting editor, if they want to explain the deletion in a bit more detail here. I do agree with their edit summary though, that section doesn't sound very WP:IMPARTIAL. There is some useful information that can be salvaged, but I honestly don't feel up for the task of completely rewriting this section. Restoring the section and tagging it with Template:Tone or Template:Essay-like also works. Liu1126 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. It appears that this is not an uncontroversial edit. As such, a consensus needs to be built here before using the "edit request" template. PianoDan (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:MOSCAPS § Founding Fathers of the United States

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MOS § Founding Fathers of the United States on whether the expression "founding fathers" should be in lower or upper case. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Length and Chronology

Irregardless of Length, can we all agree that the lead should have some degree of chronology at least in terms of history? Organizing the history into a chronology was my main goal in revising the lead. I wanted to remove excess detail but I feel that it is not my place to do so in total without the consent of other editors. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 05:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Your good faith edits to the lead have much to commend, but seemed to remove too much. Before implementing can a few other editors have a look? Thanks. I particularly liked how you added the European Enlightenment in the first paragraph. Very ambitious edit, and will get back to this discussion tomorrow, but would like to call in at least a few editors, Rjensen, Allreet, Gwillhickers, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, thanks for pinging me. At a glance, I believe the first paragraph as proposed by FictitiousLibrarian is a marked improvement, though you're correct about the excised detail being important. Accordingly, it would make for a good second sentence. Overall, I agree the lead is too long and a better chronology is in order. The origins—three lengthy paragraphs on events leading up to the revolution—should be summarized into one and the remaining detail left to the Origins section. Without getting into other specifics, I'd say even the nine remaining paragraphs are a bit much, especially considering their lengths. I'd favor aiming for shorter graphs and perhaps 1-2 less. A final thought: we need to balance our inclination to tell a more complete story with visitors' desire to get the gist. The aim should be to draw readers into the body, whereas a dense lead tends to drive them away. Allreet (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"we need to balance our inclination to tell a more complete story" Honestly, the lead of articles can not cover more than a few details from the body. The proposed length is at most 3 or 4 short paragraphs, which are not enough to fully place events or people in their historical context. That is why we link to other Wiki-articles on related topics. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

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)