Former good articleAmerican Revolutionary War was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 14, 2005Good article nomineeListed
September 30, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
October 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 19, 2004.
Current status: Delisted good article


Mysore?

Mysore Fought in Second Anglo-Mysore War Which was a part of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, which was part of the American Revolutionary War. 2405:201:200F:71E7:39C8:DF:F2C7:E7F8 (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourth Anglo-Dutch War occurred simultaneously in connection to, but as part of the American Revolutionary War. Even if it was, Mysore's contribution would not have been substantial as to be listed in the infobox or anywhere else in the article, frankly. Remsense ‥ 论 11:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the mysorean rockets captured from the Mysore wars, were modified and use in the American Revolutionary War, which are now part of the one of the anthems of America.
Also Mysore had a great amount of political influence on founding fathers on america ,especially on the anti-britsh sentiments 2405:201:200F:71E7:39C8:DF:F2C7:E7F8 (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine and should be mentioned in other more relevant articles, but do not merit mention on this one. Remsense ‥ 论 11:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I atleast mention it in the "American Revolution" one tho? Considering Mysore did influence the founding fathers. 49.43.33.84 (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source to that effect? Remsense ‥ 论 11:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will add a reliable source don't worry 2405:201:200F:71E7:39C8:DF:F2C7:E7F8 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also any idea why did my IP just change ? In the above above reply? 2405:201:200F:71E7:39C8:DF:F2C7:E7F8 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be dependent on your own internet situation. If you would like such things to remain private, I recommend creating an account. Remsense ‥ 论 12:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Second Anglo-Mysore War was certainly a part of the same global conflict that erupted as a result of the American Revolution. Mysore should be listed as a co-belligerent, since that's what the very definition of a co-belligerent is, a party that fights on the same side as another in a war without being formally allied to it. Mysore had much more involvement in the war than many of the other parties listed in the infobox, such as most of the indian tribes, the Canadian regiments or the Florida colonies.XavierGreen (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely true, Mysore should be added alongside France and Dutch 2409:4080:EECF:E497:EB0B:166A:A4AE:9AB8 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Peyton Randolph, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin listed as leaders for the US side?

In the infobox, separated with a line above the military leaders, are what I assume to be the political leaders. Obviously this makes sense for Britain with the king and prime ministers, but what is special about the three men on the American side? There was no chief executive at this time. Randolph and Hancock both served as president of the the Continental Congress, but so did several other people and Franklin did not. mossypiglet (talk) Go blue! 18:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"End of the First British Empire"

I would ask this to be removed. There was no such thing formally known as the "First British Empire". Seems to only exist as a concept by one historian (Simms) in one book (Three victories and one defeat), which is cited as the source. Seems to be confused with French Republic numbers which are formal things, "the end of the first French Republic, formation of the second French Republic" which would be valid statements to make. 86.25.3.182 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty numbers

by most modern estimates the casualty and death numbers in the stat sheet in the introduction are wildly wrong. Can someone look at them and update the numbers if need be. 2600:1700:9900:5950:65DA:1CD9:D230:7A9B (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would very much help if you could specifically mention any of these modern estimates. Remsense ‥ 论 02:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Smallpox counting as a casualty? 24.153.157.38 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for references to specific sources. It's not a rhetorical question and I'm not doubting the concerns, it would just make my or other editors' jobs easier. Remsense ‥ 论 19:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the smallpox epidemic during that war that killed 130,000 people does not belong. BTW, that source says 134 out of 800 U.S. soldiers were killed at the Battle of Oriskany, while the article says it was 385. 227 out of 360 U.S. soldiers were killed at the Battle of Wyoming, while the article says it was 302. TFD (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Obviously the smallpox epidemic during that war that killed 130,000 people" Do you mean the 1775–1782 North American smallpox epidemic? The main article states that it had minor effects on the Continental Army, because of George Washington's inoculation efforts.: "Along with quarantine, another one of Washington's methods for keeping his men healthy was with the use of inoculation. Washington, like others of the time period, was not intimately familiar with the exact mechanisms of the virus. However, he and others were able to realize that men who had previously contracted and subsequently recovered from smallpox were unlikely to become ill a second time. Thus, early on Washington recognized the strategic advantage of these individuals. During an outbreak in Boston, Washington sent troops made up only of men who had previously been infected with smallpox. With this, he was able to both protect his soldiers and take advantage of the vulnerability of Boston and its British inhabitants during the smallpox outbreak of March 1776."[1] ... "Initially, George Washington was reluctant to inoculate his troops. But as he watched many of his men fall victim to smallpox, Washington believed that he would be able to keep his troops healthy through sanitary and quarantine methods. There were several events that contributed to the change of Washington's policy. First, Washington recognized that quarantine and attempted cleanliness were not enough to keep his vital troops healthy and in fighting form. Additionally, many prominent members of colonial society were having themselves and their families inoculated. Eventually, even George Washington's wife, Martha Washington was herself inoculated. It was not long after this that Washington initiated the inoculation of the American troops. Washington recognized the dangers of inoculating these men; many patients died as result of the infection caused by inoculation. However, the importance of keeping his men healthy outweighed the risks, and almost all Continental soldiers were inoculated against smallpox."[2] Dimadick (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the total is for all of North America, including Mexico, the Pacific, and British soldiers and loyalists, not just the U.S. TFD (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Smallpox".
  2. ^ Abrams, Jeanne E. (2013). Revolutionary Medicine: The Founding Fathers and Mothers in Sickness and in Health. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-8919-3. JSTOR j.ctt9qg62f. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Revolutionary_War
No tags for this post.