[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Patriot (American Revolution)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Names

[edit]

Patriots is the name that those who rebelled called themselves. The Loyalists did not call them patriots.

  • those who rebelled called themselves: Patriots
  • those who rebelled were called by those who remained loyal to the crown: rebels
  • those who remained loyal to the crown called themselves: Loyalists
  • those who remained loyal to the crown were called by those who rebelled: Tory's.

BradMajors (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Additional information...

  • The term “Patriot” was in use by American colonists prior to the war during the 1760’s, referring to the American Patriot Party (ref: Murray, Smithsonian Q & A: The American Revolution, 31).

ColWilliam (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot is POV

[edit]

To call the pro-independence Americans 'Patriots' is POV. It could be argued that the Americans were not patriotic, rebelling against their Motherland, and allying themselve to Britain's bitter enemy France. It also by default implies that the American Loyalists were unpatriotic. We should seriously consider moving this article to another title. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, however, that the term "Patriot" is consistently used by reliable, peer reviewed, historical sources. Sticking with the term consistently used by historians of the era is the best way to insure a NPOV. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What country are these historians from? Patriot is a term used almost exclusively used in the United States. It is not used in British and Irish sources, and Canadian historians are unlikely to use the term either. It would not be understood by many people. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case you would need to make is that the majority of historians on the American Revolution are not, in fact, from the United States. United States historians dominate the field so the terminology they use is most appropriate for Wikipedia articles on the subject. For example, Robert Harvey, from England, wrote "A Few Bloody Noses" that tells the story of the Revolution from a British perspective -- his bibliography is predominantly from American works. Why do you suppose that is?
The use of "patriot" in this article will be understood as soon as someone reads the first sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are more Americans, and therefore more American historians, it does not make the use of the term "Patriot" correct. This is an international wikipedia, there is a problem with calling this title by a name almost exclusively known in one country alone. This is why I have tagged this article indicating it does not present a worldwide view. This article needs a less POV title even if it something less catchy like Supporters of the American Revolution. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the tag is inappropriate. If you go to the applicable project page you will see that it clearly says:
"Generally, this project concentrates upon remedying omissions (entire topics, or particular sub-topics in extant articles) rather than on either (1) protesting inappropriate inclusions, or (2) trying to remedy issues of how material is presented."
Besides, your argument makes no sense. You are saying, in effect, that American historians use an incorrect term purely because, according to you, foreign historians don't use the term. Different usage in different countries of a term doesn't make a term incorrect nor does it make it POV -- it simply makes it different. Your solution, to substitute some minority usage for a majority usage, is equally nonsensical -- why exactly is the non-American term, used by reliable sources, less appropriate that a term used (allegedly) in other countries? Why exactly should Wikipedia ignore a term used by actual people in the 18th Century to describe themselves? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting Americans historians shouldn't call them Patriots, they are free to call them what they like. This is an international wikipedia, not a purely American one and it needs to use widely understood and neutral terminology. "Patriot" is both a term limited to use in one country (USA) term and also a POV one which ignores other viewpoints (Loyalist Americans and non-Americans). The article should be moved to a more neutral title Supporters of the American Revolution and within the article it could be explained the different popular names for such supporters, and where they originated from. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please show what reliable, historical sources use the expression "Supporters of the American Revolution" to refer to the Patriots of the 1770s and 1780s. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to popularize new terminology.
I agree that Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Of course, the leading historians of the American Revolution, while being predominately Americans, also write for an international audience and these views and research by Americans must be addressed in order for any non-American writing on the subject to be taken seriously by other historians -- just as American historians must, and do, address the works of non-Americans BTW, the American dominance is not, as you suggest, simply the result of the population of the country but is directly related to the natural interest of Americans in one of the most pivotal periods in our history.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the purpose of wikipedia to come up with names that are acceptable and undertstood around the globe. Supporters of the American Revolution and Opponents of the American Revolution (for Loyalists) would be able to cover a much broader area and are more neutral. Patriot as it stands is an unsatisfactory term.

No, it's not. The purpose of wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, to record about facts. Instead of popularizing new terminologies, what wikipedia does is to use the already existing terminologies. 67.85.190.202 (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still contend that Patriot is POV. Its use is confined only to one country, and the historians of that country. It is not used, and scarecly heard of in other countries. Please provide some evidence of extensive use of the term Patriot by Loyalists and Non-Americans. Where does the term come from? The article mentioned an American Patriot Party, but all I could find on wikipedia was a white supremacist party. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to an American Patriot Party is footnoted. Since I didn't add the source, you're going to need to find the book. You can check out http://www.samueljohnson.com/tnt.html for several instances where Dr. Johnson refers directly to American patriots. You're not bringing in any arguments that I have not already addressed. My objections stand and I probably won't respond further until some other editors weigh in. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, its a bit unproductive to keep slugging away on this argument. I won't post again on this topic until I have gathered together some moure sources, at which point I may propose a move. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels called themselves "patriots" - whether that was a correct title is arguable. But such an argument is irrelevant, since that it what they are known! However I do take issue with the introduction suggesting that their "rebellion was based on the political philosophy of republicanism". It wasn't about republicanism at all - many rebels were royalists. It was about political autonomy (or "freedom", in their POV), not republic/monarchy.JohnC (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Patriot' was a contemporary term used by the rebels themselves and is wholly appropriate. I suggest that Lord Cornwallis reads a book rather than launching into unsubstantiated wild attacks on historiography that are motivated more by emotion and clear heartache for our wayward cousins than any desire to display objectivity. Please don't embarass us Brits that do pursue history. Henners91 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henners 91: Disagree. The usage of "Patriot" is more modern and is the vocabulary of American myth-building. Those fighting the rebellion would have been more likely to refer to themselves as "Whigs" or "Revolutionaries". See for example: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-revolution/1915 . I agree with the original poster that "Patriot" has a distinct US POV. Compare with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion_of_1798 for example. Loyalist and rebel is a more neutral nomenclature as it reflects who supports the status quo and who rebels against it. It is descriptive in nature. "Patriot" is value-laden, and revisionist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zapallon (talk • contribs) 18:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Tag

[edit]

I have removed the tag on this article as further reading has convinced me that Patriot is an acceptable term, althrough one largely used in the United States, and is used as an equivilant of Loyalist to speak of one faction in the American War of Independence/American Revolution. This is part of an ongoing discussion on the Talk page of the "American Revolutionary War" article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as pointed out by Northshoreman, the reason why "Americans" predominantly use it is because American's predominantly write American history. We tend to accept, unless theres an especially good reason otherwise, the terms used by historians of a specific country since they also tend to write the most scholarly sources upon which to base history off of. Otherwise we end up with a situation where we've neutered the language of an article in an attempt to "internationalize" an article and up losing the point. We use language that has common currency in scholarly publications for a reason; it is often the most precise, the most accurate, and even when its "ambiguous" in relation to the larger world, within the context of its field its meaning is well understood. SiberioS (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

…7:08 P.M. E.S.T. Patriot was a term used especialy by the Sons and other representatives of the Colonial Period, preferably during or after the French and Indian Wars.

Oliver DeLancey alighned a trooping From the erea's of New York and posibly abroad to conduct a measure of securance with the crown in the effects of the north being overtakin by the French and Indians, With the method of the Six Nations the attempt was a Memorable event. The capabilities of the outcome were as history points out a recomendation of effort to secure an erea of circumstance, not much of name calling is added.

During the return of the (Men) the ordinance of a Police Force was now in conduct and or to be well adjusted as well. To be a Patriot is almost a recognition of something already done and or to be recognized .

Perhaps a Patriot is something of a Patriarch. In early times a Patriarch is someone whom represented their Fathers and such perhaps other peirs, though a Family reprentational task was for sure in a history setting. Perhaps if it is considered a Modern term Patriot or perhaps even the more Patriots to give a more respectfull allowance as just a singulkar and almost if used as a singukar then it could be as a repremandor a quest for giving someone a compliment.

Perhaps a Patriot still in duty over nothing would just be to Police the erea and conduct the influencials of carrector. This in time could be adjusted towards a position of reasoning, as to a mob being gathered to represent a conclution, i supose were all trained to be sonething in the end. So far it has some respect.

7:21 P.M.David George DeLancey (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot is not POV

[edit]

In the interests of Wikipedia good faith and neutral POV, a footnote (and inline quote) is now included within the article from a book about Loyalists published in Canada (i.e. non-POV), referring to the Patriots in colonial pre-war Massachusetts. The article is also expanded to include historical perspective of the patriot terminology in colonial America.

Regards, ColWilliam (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

questioning semi-protected

[edit]

I just stumbled upon this article, and wondered why the article is semi-protected. There seems to be no discussion on this talk page that calls for any level of protection. Unless someone provides a good reason for the page's protected status, I intend to unprotect the article in the near future. Gentgeen (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figure it must have simply been forgotten about since the semi-protection was applied on 28 November 2007. You might want to ask Wwoods (talk · contribs) about it since he was the admin who applied the protection. Cheers!—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the note left when Wwoods protected the article, it was to prevent persistent vandalism. I think over 9 months is enough time for the vandals to have gone away, so I'll unprotect this article in a few days unless someone provides me with a compelling reason not to. Gentgeen (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's see what happens. —WWoods (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you like what's happening? Methinks the vandals never "went away", they (as with other popular articles), just keep at it, given the chance. (diff between today and September 10, about 250 edits) Magic♪piano 22:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, apparently the IP address and new user vandalism is taking up a large percentage of the edits to the article. While some new or anonymous users have made constructive edits, they are very much outweighed by the vandalism. However, I'm not convinced the frequency of attacks is enough. RC patrol and the anti-vandal bots seem to be keeping up with the vandals quite nicely, additionally, there are weeks when no edits take place on the article at all. I wouldn't oppose either leaving it unprotected or semi-protecting it again. Gentgeen (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

examples before 1760?

[edit]

None of the references actually quote anyone in America using the term "patriot" or "patriot party" before the 1770s. Nor does the OED. The OED (uder "patriot") reports that in England by 1740s the term "patriot" was one of ridicule and derision and no one in England called himself one. When amateur historians refers to people in, say, the 1680s as "patriots" they do not necessarily mean that specific word was used at the time. I have not seen any examples of scholars using the term pre 1770s. So I just erased the sections. No historian has found a pre 1800 group in America named the "American Patriot Party" (whether capitalized or not)--It is the name of a late 20th century group.) Rjensen (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not qualified to comment on whether "Patriot" had notable use in North America before 1760, it seems to me after a brief search that there is a similarity of political thought between the North American Patriot movement and the British Patriot Whigs that should be explored here -- that of questioning and/or resisting the (possibly perceived) elites holding power. Magic♪piano 17:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the similarities in ideas have been explored by Bernard Bailyn. But the Americans did not use the word "patriot" to describe themselves until the 1770s. OED gives a Ben Franklin quote from 1773 as the earliest use. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
to reiterate, no serious historian or dictionary (like OED) has found any use of the word "patriot" or "patriot party" or "American Patriotic Party" in the 13 colonies before 1770. The citations are by amateur historians who say that such-and-such event was LIKE what the Patriots of the 1770s did. Yes, but they did not use the term "patriot" or anything like it. There are a few British uses that have nothing to do with the Americans (for example talk in the 1740s of the British king as a patriot king). Laking verifiable sources the stuff has to go. Rjensen (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view. However, I also believe that the section (which I wrote) was well-referenced. In the interests of Wikipedia objectivity and neutral POV, perhaps we can retain a section on this issue, keeping both my original write-up, but also adding your perspective. -ColWilliam (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked each quote and NONE of them support the argument. None of them shows the use of the word "patriiot" in any variation by an American before 1770. They fail the "reliable source" criteria: specifically:
        • Murray, Stuart: Smithsonian Q & A: The American Revolution, HarperCollins Publishers by Hydra Publishing (in collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution), New York (2006) p. 31 does not give any quote with "patriot" from anyone pre 1770.
        • The Outlook, Vol. LXXXVI, May-August 1907, The Outlook Co., New York (1907) p. 61. does seem to say the Virginians used the word, although he quotes no one and mentions no names. The author reprinted the article in a book a few years later and left out the statement, so he no longer believed it. No other historian repeated his mistake until Wiki dug it up just now.
        • Ryerson, Egerton: The Loyalists of America and Their Times, Vol. I, Second Edition, William Briggs, Toronto (1880) p. 208. is a popular Canadian textbook that does not quote anyone.
        • Minot, George Richards: Continuation of the History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I, James Whit and Co., Boston (1803) p. 51. is another popular book that does not quote anyone.
      • the standard historical dictionaries like OED and Mathews Dictionary of Americanism found no quotes either. So to reject the dictionaries and assert the term was used some real evidence is needed.Rjensen (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology

[edit]

This entire section seems to be based on the notion that opposition to rebellion is somehow a mental illness, or due to a lack of something. The opposite would seem to have been the case.JohnC (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also very much a flawed section, implying that the Loyalists were not as diverse a group as they in fact were: What about the tenant farmers, sharecroppers, new emigres, slaves and other groups from a whole gambit of classes that sided for the British out of reasons of pure self-interest? I'm studying this topic for my dissertation at the moment and I'm finding material that attempts to identify some common psychology rather nauseating: It is practically irrefutable that there were sizeable elements (the rank and file... does anyone really think that wealthy New York Merchants would be the majority of loyalists under arms?)sided with the loyalists because of fissures already existing in colonial society. Might I point to the estates of the Hudson River Valley where tenants opposed their landlords because the latter aligned with the Whigs? There was a very strong strain of thought amongst the poor and destitute that felt a British victory would result in the punishing of the Whig gentry and result in revolutionary change for society Henners91 (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historians have long studied the psychology of the participants--asking indeed whether they were paranoid (Wood, “Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style,”; Hutson, “The Origin of 'the Paranoid Style in American Politics"; Bailyn has stressed the apocalyptic fears, the exaggerated suspiciousness, and the conspiratorial fantasies of the Patriots;) or what? Wiki's job is to report what the scholars say.Rjensen (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Middling sort

[edit]

Currently there is a sentence that reads:

"Among the most active of the Patriots group were highly educated and fairly wealthy individuals. However, without the support of the ordinary men and women, such as farmers, lawyers, mechanics, seamstresses, homemakers, shopkeepers, and ministers, the struggle for independence would have failed."

I think what is meant is what was called the "middling sort" represented by the professions such as doctors and lawers, and merchants, and educated artisans, craftsmen, and skilled tradesmen.[1][2][3] (It was this class that Richard Baxter described and identified as pivitoal in the success of the Parimentary cause in the English civil War and has since been presented as a factor in the war by many historians.[4][5][6])

If that is what is meant then please explain it as such rather than terms such as "ordinary men and women" and the rather abitary list that follows. -- PBS (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Patriot' or 'patriot'.

[edit]

I think the central problem here is the presence or absence of a capital letter.

Much confusion exists because the popular media rarely if ever distinguish between 'patriot' and 'Patriot' when writing about the American War of Independence (or First US Civil War, or Rebellion, or Revolution).

It would be useful to point out in this article that any reference to 'patriots' in any medium worldwide about this period of US history should be treated with extreme caution since its use is so often, ideed usually, imprecise.

No doubt this imprecision is aided by the subconscious, and highly questionable, assumption by many in the USA today that all 'Patriots' were self-evidently also patriots, and vice versa, all being 'patriotic' to the fledgling USA.

All countries have foundation myths, and this 'Patriot/patriot' business seems bound up with US foundation myths as well as the concept of 'American Patriot' in modern 'propaganda'. (See Plymouth Rock, George Washington's Cherry Tree, Taxation, Representation etc). It is clearly more comforting and better politics-speak to persistantly describe ones founding fathers as 'patriots' rather than 'unpatriotic, disloyal, terrorist revolutionaries, little better than communists' - even though both descriptions can be said to be equally 'true' depending on ones perspective.

My point however is simply that the two meanings are confusingly blurred and it's important to point this out, and explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.97.176 (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot/patriot II

[edit]

Patriot Games, The Patriot, Patriot Missile, the Patriot Act of 2001 all seem to feed into the collective US psyche and cultural identity, playing upon and enhancing the lasting perception that the Patriots of the War of Independence were 'pure' patriots rather than members of a political party called the Patriots - a name chosen no doubt in time-homoured political fashion for its perceived spin value rather than any literal truth.

Present day politicians clearly believe in its spin value too.

Lastly I can't resist adding Samuel Jonhson's famous observation that 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.215.47 (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the dictionary (Webster 3rd unabridged) has this definition: "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)." that is the meaning used here. Johnson had a low opinion of Americans--they were almost as disgusting as Scots in his mind.Rjensen (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing tag

[edit]

I've tagged the article as confusing because it cites differing percentages for support of the Patriots and Tories without any explanation or attempt to deconflict. The first percentages leave little to the Tories (45-50% Patriots while half tried to stay out of the matter, that leaves 0-5% Tories), while in the very next paragraph the commonly taught 1/3-1/3-1/3 is cited. Changing back and forth between numbers for white males and numbers for all is also confusing and seems out of place without saying percentages of non-white males or of white females. The block quote is useful but the following paragraph speaks as though the quote isn't even there ("In addition, many people remained neutral" - this was just discussed in the block quote, so it's not "in addition").--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problem. the 1/3-1/3-1/3 estimate is rejected by Allen (2010) as false (the text had cited him as endorsing it). The Calhoun quote explicitly says "Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent." and there is nothing there about 0-5%. Rjensen (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Category:American terrorism to this article.

[edit]

Since Wikipedia brands the Jewish resistance group against British imperialism, the Irgun, as terrorists, it should also brand this American resistance as terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.127.28.67 (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of prominent Patriots

[edit]

Not knowing enough about Wikipedia and this subject, I won't touch the article. But I was referred to it through a link under John Jay and I don't see him on the list. 76.116.209.139 (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added

[edit]

I added Benedict Arnold because he was a general during the American Revolutionary War, and I put him as defected.Allied Rangoon/Anti-VandalBot (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patriot (American Revolution). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Labaree is standard history

[edit]

His book on Conservatism has been very well received-- I know of no serious attacks or major disagreements -- and we have upwards of three thousand citations by historians listed at https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=CONSERVATISM+%22Leonard+Woods+Labaree%22&num=10 It's the viewpoint that has been accepted by many many scholars in the last 70 years Rjensen (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and I have no problems with your recent edits. The section needed improvement; I drew your attention; you improved it. Team effort. —Dilidor (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

[edit]

@Dilidor: Please what's "inaccurate" about this?

"Colonist who rebelled against British control in the American Revolution,"

and provide the "accurate" one sentence summary. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: I have done so. —Dilidor (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you should've said it from the beginning. You're not comfortable with the word "rebelled" rather prefer "rejected", not went overboard and claim that it was incorrect. –Ammarpad (talk)
Whatever. It's all good now. —Dilidor (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

[edit]

The Terminology section states that "In Britain at the time, the word "patriot" had a negative connotation and was used as a negative epithet for "a factious disturber of the government", according to Samuel Johnson." The source provided is "'Patriot' in Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed. online 2011)." The 1st edition of the Oxford English Dictionary wasn't published until 1884. A Dictionary of the English Language (which was published by Samuel Johnson himself in 1768) has "patriot" defined as "One whofe [sic] ruling paffion [sic] is the love of his country."

There is no evidence that 'patriot' was a negative term in late-1700s Britain, and the line suggesting so should be removed.

Link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language/03Q7AAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Patriot APA: Johnson, S. (1768). A Dictionary of the English Language.... Ireland: W. G. Jones. 75.63.7.107 (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I have access to the OED, and can confirm that it's in there. I'll fix up the footnote to be a little clearer. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this “article” even exist?

[edit]

Was reading the Wikipedia entry on George Washington and came across the linked entry for “Patriot.” But, other than the small portion of the article noting how the rebelling colonists used the term for themselves, the entire rest of the article is ACTUALLY ABOUT attitudes towards the Revolution itself, the people who participated in it, etc. Hence the question: WHY does this article even exist?

If a NEUTRAL POV is applied to it, there appears no reason for its stand-alone existence. The portion of the article discussing the HISTORICAL use of the term “Patriot” might easily be absorbed into the main article on the American Revolution. At the risk of being indelicate, I believe the recent (modern, not contemporaneous) resurgence in the use and/or co-opting of the term for modern political purposes is the only reason this article exists. I hope fellow Wikipedians will consider condensing its info into the main Revolutionary War topic(s) as applicable?

BTW: Even if there is consensus with my opinion here, I won’t be making such changes myself — my Wikipedia editing skills are too old/out of date! But I’m hoping someone is brave enough to step up? Thanks for your consideration, everyone. 

 Signed, Grammar Nazi & Paper Patriot .... lol  =) Cynthisa (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Failed citations

[edit]

The Gale company has shut down its Questia service, so the "online versions" don't work. All the references need to be converted to full citations. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary usage of the word Patriot

[edit]

I found my way to this article wanting to know when the term "Patriot" came into use during the revolution. The infobox, a very recent addition, gives specific dates for the existence of a patriot party, but no source is given. It even mentions predecessor and successor parties. However, no Patriot party is mentioned in the article Politics of the United States. The article List of Political Parties in the United States mentions two patriot parties, but they are both modern. The article American Revolution uses the term freely from the outset, without giving a source.

I have looked at some of the early discussion of the name for this article. I don't want to revisit that. But it would be nice to know when and how the term came into use, especially since Johnson purportedly said it had negative connotations. In Origins Of The American Revolution, Miller dives right into using the word without tackling its origin. There are two instances of "patriot" in quotation marks early in the book, but Miller gives no source for the quotes. Bailyn only uses the word when referring to modern patriot historians in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. (This reference is absent from the Wikipedia article.)

NGram Viewer shows the capitalised word Patriot peaking in 1753, then declining quickly into the early 1800s. Small bumps are shown in the early 1940s and early 1990s. Without a capital letter, there are peaks in 1768, 1780, 1803, then a long decline to the present. Combined, usage is greatest between 1733 and 1754, after which it declines rapidly.

And so, that brings me to my last resource, the big Oxford English Dictionary. It informs me that "The name has been at various times borne or assumed by persons or parties whose claim to it has been disputed, denied, or ridiculed by others. Hence the name itself fell into discredit in the earlier half of the 18th century, being used, according to Dr Johnson, ironically for "a fractious disturber of the government". So, sometimes, at a later date, "Irish Patriot". The OED would likely place American patriots in that category as well! Macauley wrote "the name of Patriot had become, about 1744, a byword of derision." And further "Horace Walpole scarcely exaggerated when he said that… the most popular declaration which a candidate could make on the hustings was that he had never been and never would be a patriot". All the definitions and usages apply to what I would call lower-case patriots; in other words not as a label for a faction of the American colonists. Nevertheless, the OED redeems itself in the supplement, which adds a third meaning: "Patriots day US April 19, the anniversary of the initial skirmishes in the American war of independence at Lexington and Concord in the state of Massachusetts." The 1909 source is given as the Springfield Weekly Republic referring to 22nd of April 1911 "...the celebration of Patriots' Day, the 134th anniversary of the battles at Lexington and Concord. The day is a legal holiday in Massachusetts and Maine."

What does it all mean? I suspect that usage of the word Patriot, in its modern American sense of a label, began with growing nationalism in the second half of the 19th century. It can't be pinned down because it undoubtedly began to be used in many places about the same time. But it seems reasonable that common usage began following the Civil War and in the lead-up to the hundredth anniversary.

I can't add my own work to the article. But if anyone knows of a source that resolves the question, it would be a worthwhile addition. I would particularly like to know when Patriots' Day became a legal holiday in Massachusetts and Maine. That should be easy for people who know their way around government records. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

[edit]

I feel this whole page should have a re-look.

There are some things written here that seem to be new analysis based off multiple sources, but the citations are just books without paragraph or page numbers, and most of the hyperlinks don't work. 2600:4040:2081:3C00:784A:341B:622C:96CE (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Request on 16 December 2024

[edit]

Would someone please add one, and connect it to Anti-Federalists? – 216.49.130.46 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patriot_(American_Revolution)&oldid=1263454908"