Proposed RfC language:

Shall the American Revolutionary War (ARW) article follow the editorial direction of

(a) an “American Revolutionary War” (Am-ARW), as a discrete historical event, in North America and the North Atlantic with its arms: Caribbean Sea, North Sea, Irish Sea, and English Channel; or that of

(b) a “Global-American Revolutionary War” (Global-ARW), that is comprehensively “the American Revolutionary War beginning at Lexington and Concord and spread worldwide”, a single historical event in many theaters of war that globally touch on five continents.

Here are the specifics, from the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Wars. "The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey":

• #1 The name of the war: American Revolutionary War, or the War for American Independence
• #2 When did it happen?

2a.1 Am-ARW. shooting war. Lexington and Concord (April 1775) until Yorktown (August 1781)

2a.2 Am-ARW. formally. Declaration of Independence (July 1776) until Anglo-Am Preliminary Treaty November 1782, Congress ratified April 1783), or Anglo-Am. Treaty of Paris (2 September 1783 in effect 3 September 1783)

2b.1 Global-ARW. shooting war. Lexington and Concord (April 1775) until Euro Armistice (April 1783) and Mangalore surrender to Tipu Sultan (January 1784)

2b.2 Global-ARW. formally. US Declaration of Independence (July 1776) until (i) (ii)Anglo-Bourbon Treaties of Versailles (3 September 1783), (iii) Anglo-Dutch Preliminary Treaty 2 September 1783) or Anglo-Dutch Treaty of Paris (May 1784), and (iv) Treaty of Mangalore (March 1784)

• #3 Who fought in it?

3a Am-ARW. Those engaged in a British-subject insurrection, for or against US national independence in a republic.

3a.1 Am-ARW. US Congress, Britain, France in US alliance, Spain as US co-belligerent, Dutch Republic as US cobelligerent

3a.2 Am-ARW. Combatants with US Congress: State militias, Vermont, Canadian & Canadien regiments, Native Americans

3a.3 Am-ARW. Combatants with Britain: German auxiliaries, Loyalists, Native Americans.

3b. Global-ARW. Those engaged in all wars carried out against Britain by anybody, anywhere, for anything.

3b.1 Global-ARW. US Congress, France in US alliance, Spain as US co-belligerent, Dutch Republic as US cobelligerent

3b.2 Global-ARW. France and Spain allied war under third Pacte de Famille, Dutch in Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, Mysore in Second Anglo-Mysore War.

• #4 Why did it happen?

4a. Am-ARW. Continental Congress of 13 colonies sought local self-government, then political independence.

4b. Global-ARW. The American colonial insurrection against Britain spread worldwide as additional actors made war on Britain: the great powers with overseas colonies: France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic. The casus belli for the American Revolutionary war came to be a definitive, humiliating defeat of British sea power and the expansion of Bourbon overseas imperial territory, with the declining Dutch Republic seeking free trade with the rebel Congress.

• #5 What was the outcome?

5a. Am-ARW. US Congress war aims were met: independence, British evacuation, territory west to the Mississippi with navigation to the Gulf, Newfoundland fishing with curing rights.

5b. Global-ARW. US independence, Britain unconquered and sea power intact. British Gibraltar, Jamaica Bahamas, British East India. Spanish Minorca, East Florida, West Florida. French expanded Senegal Africa, and Tobago Caribbean. Dutch East Indies maintained in Ceylon & Negapatnam.

• #6 What was its significance?

6a. Am-ARW. US Congress and British joint peace aims: an independent US with territory and international trade to be self-sufficient from military aid from Bourbon France and Spain in the future. Britain maintained trade with an independent US. Continuing Anglo-American financial ties allowed for London banks to underwrite Hamilton’s US Treasury to assume all US states war debt, retire French war loans, and pay down British and Loyalist war claims.

6b. Global-ARW. An independent US and the Second British Empire. France failed to overthrow British sea power, failed to re-establish American continental possessions. Spain failed to overthrow British sea power, failed to gain Gibraltar. Dutch Republic continued its decline.

Thanks for any advice you have for this RfC. Sincerely - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day TheVirginiaHistorian. An absolutely critical factor in getting a useful result from a RfC is that it is highly focussed, simple and clear, as well as neutrally-worded. Complex RfCs often fail as the discussion gets far too long, goes off on tangents, and becomes WP:TLDR, putting off potential participants. What is above is neutrally-worded, but the amount of cascading questions will almost certainly scupper a single RfC. What you have here is effectively six or seven separate RfCs. I strongly recommend that you start with the foundational question of what the title of the article should be, which should be followed by another RfC about which way the war should be presented on Wikipedia, as Am-ARW or Global-ARW as you have defined at (a) and (b). I have to say up front that a quick look at GoogleBooks Ngram says that despite a drop off in the 1970s to 1990s, American War of Independence is far more the common name of this conflict than American Revolutionary War. See [1], so I would expect that to be reflected in the outcome of the first RfC. Once you know the outcome of that, then go on with the subsequent RfCs, which may be easier. An effective RfC also provides links to a few high-quality academic sources that support all the options presented. For the first one, I suggest something like:

What should the title of this article be, American Revolutionary War[2][3][4] or American War of Independence[5][6][7]? Google Ngrams [8] indicates that over 60% of examples favoured American War of Independence over American Revolutionary War up to 2008 and while instances of American Revolutionary War have been steadily increasing, American War of Independence has remained steady since about 1990.

Something like that anyway. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much good thought to sort through.

re: article title. Since before the onset of the internet, English had largely replaced French as the "lingua franca" (funny, that) in world commerce. Now if the Americans would only reciprocate and go metric for weights and measures (What would Benjamin Franklin do?", sigh). As both Japanese and Chinese learn the British dialect of English (and the Japanese drive on the left! side of the road),

- it is no surprise that a browser search for terms for the "American war for (a) national independence and (b) constitutional revolution into a republic", might result in more "Wars of Independence" than "Revolutionary Wars".

Nevertheless, at At National varieties of English, wp:TITLEVAR, it instructs, "If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English." And the Jimbo criteria at wp:due weight is (a) JIMBO: "RS scholarly [English-language] reference [for mainstream history]". ARW article: Encyclopedia Britannica “Revolutionary War American Revolutionary War”, "insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence” with (b) JIMBO: "prominent adherents".

- For the ARW article: At The Pulitzer Prizes], a search for “American Revolution” and “American War for Independence”, bring titles that use the phrasing, “American Revolutionary War” and “American Revolution” in their titles or in their narrative as the frame of reference for their readers:

1924 The American Revolution -- A Constitutional Interpretation, by Charles Howard McIlwain, 1930 The Founding of the American Republic, Volume II: The War of Independence: American Phase, by Claude H. Van Tyne, 1966 The Life of the Mind in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War, by Perry Miller, 1968 The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, by Bernard Bailyn, 1983 The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789, by Robert L. Middlekauff, 1990 Finalist: The Image of the Black in Western Art, Volume IV: From the American Revolution to World War I, by Hugh Honour, 1993 The Radicalism of the American Revolution, by Gordon S. Wood, 1996 William Cooper's Town: Power and Persuasion on the Frontier of the Early American Republic, by Alan Taylor, 2001 Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation, by Joseph J. Ellis, 2002 John Adams, by David McCullough, 2005 Washington's Crossing, by David Hackett Fischer, 2009 The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family, by Annette Gordon-Reed, 2015 An Empire on the Edge: How Britain Came to Fight America, by Nick Bunker, 2017 Finalist Brothers at Arms: American Independence and the Men of France and Spain Who Saved It, by Larrie D. Ferreiro, 2020 The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America, by Greg Grandin

.

The Pulitzer prize-winners in history that have been noted at Talk:ARW are unchallenged by any editor to date as RS related to the ARW article on war for a national independence with a republic in North America. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: title, that is all very well, but those arguments need to be ventilated in a community forum and decided by the community. It is foundational to have a firewalled article title before getting down in the weeds about the scope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ... thanks ... response pending ... - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey:

(1) Thanks for the comment at the RfC on the American Revolutionary War. Four other editors have mentioned that there is too much packed into the RfC as presented.

- Conclusion: If participation is not more responsive over the next two weeks, say by December 20, I’ll circle back around to this some time in February after soliciting more input and guidance.

- imho, the scope for the article ARW needs to be clearly defined with a title that means that scope as sourced to (a) a scholarly reference source, and (b) with prominent adherents, like wp says, and no more, “precise scope”, wp says.

(2) One proven friend editor actually suggested I’m wp:bludgeoning!

- Conclusion: Until December 10, no more from me on the RfC, other than maybe updating new discussion points. -- wp:guidelines say, “pause”, so be it.

(3) The query is, “Which title to choose to define the scope of the article?” Easily half-a-dozen editors in the first two days replied essentially, “The name is the name.”

- Conclusion: They cannot ALL be wrong. I’ve misfired on my RfC composition here, clearly.

(4) One editor reported seeing no connection between the RfC as to choosing scope & title, but it was my intent that the discussion box provide the two titles and their respective scopes.

- Conclusion: Somehow the information in the boxes was not conveyed, not at all, in some cases.

(5) Two editors did get my drift, but to my amazement, he denied there was any difference between the two historiographies, “they are the same”, that is, in American historiography, siege Gibraltar = siege Yorktown, and port Savannah, Georgia = port Trincomalee, Ceylon - in their relative weights and importance to the American history of the Revolutionary War. – No joke.

- Conclusion: back to the drawing boards without a turnaround in the RfC responses by December 20.

Any further observations and suggestions you may have for the February trial run would be welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I suggested breaking it down into a series of concise and highly focused RfCs and running it past me or another experienced admin first. One of the things you personally need to try to avoid in general, especially in RfCs, is WP:TLDR commentary. If you feel you must provide it, put it in your sandbox and just post a link. Sadly, RfCs like the one you posted tend to drive editors away, and very rarely get a robust outcome for that reason. I also feel like your comments are really bludgeoning the process in your preferred direction, and many editors resent RfCs that are not presented in a strictly neutral way. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]