Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–1783)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge proposal

Merge: This article should be merged (back) with France in the American Revolutionary War. Both articles are very much the same, the nomenclature is also dubious given this is part of the American Revolution and very few historians have named it such. It was moved without authorisation while there was an ongoing discussion here. I should also note that a lot of this articles content was added by User:Red Rudy, User:AdjectivesAreBad, User:SuffrenXXI who is a well known Sock User called User:Vinukin. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge per User:Eastfarthingan. This is a content fork of France in the American Revolutionary War. Virtually no sources call the subject matter "Anglo-French War (1778-1783)". A similar content fork created by the Vinukin sock puppets entitled Anglo-Spanish War (1778-1783) was already merged into Spain in the American Revolutionary War, this situation is identical and the remedy should be the same.XavierGreen (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't merge. There are plenty of sources that cover the Anglo-French wars, and refer to them as such, during the 18th century. Also, here is another direct reference to the Anglo-French wars that occurred in 1778-1783:

"From 1778 until 1783, with or without their continental European allies, the French continually contested British naval dominance in the English Channel, the Mediterranean, the India Ocean, and most importantly, the West Indies." The first fleet action in European waters came early in the Anglo-French war, on 27 July, 1778. <Stoker, Hagan & McMaster, 2009, p. 51>

The article France in the American Revolutionary War covers France, as a major belligerent in the American Revolutionary War. The Anglo-French wars were their own wars, fought between Britain and France over trade and shipping, having nothing to do with the actual fight for/against American independence overall, and merits its own article. Also, as much as I frown on sock-puppetry, if the editor in question has added sourced information, it is just a credible as sourced info added by an IP or other editor, so let's not try to discredit any work with some 'guilty by association' process. In any case, observe the Table of Contents in the Anglo-French War (1778–1783) and the France in the American Revolutionary War articles. These articles are not "very much the same", and to make such a ludicrous claim only creates doubt as to the motives behind the attempt to merge, the likes of which came under heavy criticism from numerous editors on the American Revolutionary War Talk page not long ago. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't merge. The Library of Congress catalogue uses the term, "Anglo-French War, 1778-1783". -- The Open Library website, “Anglo-French War 1778-1783”, charts some of the listed 32 books dedicated to the subject, clustered in the 1790s, during the Victorian Era, and in the mid-20th century, most recently 1983, 1998 and 2005. - - Related is the "Anglo-Spanish War, 1779-83", with a chart showing 20 books. The clusters are in the 1790s from participant-contemporaries, in the Victorian Era, 11 books in the 1970-80s, 12 books in the 1990-2000s, most recently 2003, 2007, 2009.

- Most current online, British scholar Tony Bunting at Britannica, “Siege of Pondicherry: Anglo-French War (1778)” begins,

"Siege of Pondicherry [1778] (21 Aug-18 Oct 1778), engagement in the Anglo-French War.
The outbreak of war between Britain and France over French support for the rebel United States of America had repercussions in India.”

In our wiki-fencing over "American Revolution-related historiography", "AWR-global" editors seek all-embracing “War of American Revolution” references conflated into their wp:original research "American Revolutionary War-Global" to subsume both the “Anglo-French War (1788)” and the “Anglo-Spanish War (1789)” into the "ARW-America" conflict of British subjects in America.

To counter, there is RS to separate them: Simms (2007), Amazon (or Simms (2007), Google) and his “European war 1778-1783” among the British against French & Spanish. The RS view of a WoAR separate from ARW-America -- and NOT the wp:OR-conflated ARW-Global -- is found in the narrative by Clodfelter (2017), Google (or Clodfelter (2017), Amazon), and Eggenberger (2012), Amazon. We should have a full discussion in each case on the merits of our best sources going forward, using the DISTINCTIONS the RS give us. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't merge. Per Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian. Appears to me that there are more than enough RS's to justify this having its own page. Vyselink (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a content fork of France in the American Revolutionary War, per Wiki:COMMONNAME it must be merged into that article. There are only a handful of sources which use "Anglo-French War" as a term for the subject content of this page, while there are hundreds which use American-Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Content fork? It's a completely different topic, albeit, remotely related to the ARW in some instances. It's as if you're saying all the battles during the Anglo-French War were automatically part of the ARW, where in reality only a couple of them were remotely connected. The France in the American Revolutionary War article involves France and French belligerents in the fight for American sovereignty. This article however, primarily lends itself to the battles between Britain and France over shipping and trading disputes in the West Indies, and elsewhere, having nothing to do with the actual war over American independence overall. Yes, there are sources that define and use the term Anglo-French Wars. This appears to be yet another attempt to remove the term Anglo-French War from the radar screen. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

SUBSTANCE reply: You and Eastfarthingan have indeed provided three dozen "sources" that you claim support editor conflating (a) the "American Revolutionary War in America", ARW-America among British subjects over the constitutional establishment of the US Congress (rebellion or independence) - and -

(b) your wp:original research for an ARW-Global, expanding the scope of the "American War for Independence" into a struggle for worldwide imperial dominance by European Great Powers. In your ARW-Global, the "American theater" plays but a "small part" in independence for the United States, including sources deprecating the "imperial American Revolution" (Collingwood, Eggenberger).

The foremost ARW-Global proof: the worldwide Euro conflict in 1782 AFTER American armistice and US armies furloughed home (1) English victory at the Battle of the Saintes in the Caribbean Sea, (2) English victory at the Great Siege of Gibraltar, and (3) British celebration news of a withdrawal by Tipu Sultan in the Second Mysore War, ALL THREE YEAR-LONG 1782 INTERNATIONAL EVENTS COMBINED TO FORCE Britain to grant the US Congress independence and so cause the loss of its North American empire. ARW-Global editors CLAIM there may be RS that suggest it was NOT the British defeat, Siege of Yorktown November 1781 that led to the March 1782 bill in Parliament to end offensive war in America, the fall of war Prime Minister Lord North, and British-initiated peace negotiations.

But on INSPECTION of three-dozen (36) sources supposed to support ARW-Global, we find only editor posts of misunderstanding, misapplication and misdirection claiming that a string of BRITISH VICTORIES worldwide on land and at sea uninterrupted, EVERYWHERE FOR A YEAR were crucial to bring about the LOSS of the First British Empire in the course of world military history. I for one, am not yet persuaded. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge. This page is a WP:POVFORK of the proposed target. Regardless of what terminology sources use, there was only one war Great Britain and France were involved in between 1778 and 1783, and that is the American Revolutionary War. -- Calidum 18:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Close overturned: see below discussion, Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–1783)#Proposal to Merge denied. (t · c) buidhe 20:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't merge but structure to avoid content fork From what I can see it is distinct but can too easily be used as a content fork. If the material on the American Revolutionary was a paragraph with a reference to main article that would overcome the issue and allow wider development -----Snowded ^TALK 06:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge. When I read two articles, there was no much different between articles. Both articles are talking about how France had invovled in American Revolutionary War. Then we should think about merging, because one article is about the war, and the other is written with broader context. Well, as there are some articles such as "Spain and the American Revolutionary War" or "Germans in the American Revolution", which has a similar context. Like France, Germans and Spain had military conflicts during American Revolutionary War, but they also played significant roles in politics, and economy. I think France had a same role during American Revolution, so it is not awkward to merge them. But I think we should write some articles about military conflicts in France in American Revolutionary War. -- Wendylove (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This reasoning akin to Snowded earlier: "Don't merge but structure to avoid content fork. From what I can see it is distinct but can too easily be used as a content fork." So ---leaving this article as 웬디러비 (Wendy love)'s article about military conflicts,

- "If the material on the American Revolutionary was a paragraph [here] with a reference to main article, that would overcome the issue and allow wider development." -Snowded, 2:13 am, 15 August 2020, Saturday (28 days ago), posted above.

CONCUR, with a BLENDED 'Snowded': Don't Merge but avoid fork and 'Wendy love': Merge; write an article about military conflicts'. So, I say, Don't merge the article elements of 'military conflict'. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@웬디러비: - Wendylove. The reason there are two articles is because one article covers the Anglo-French wars of this period that only involve conflicts between France and Britain over their possessions in the West Indies and elsewhere, having nothing to do with the fight for independence. However, the France in the American Revolutionary War article involves only those battles fought by the French helping the Americans gain independence, with a summary paragraph about other battles fought over disputes about possessions in the West Indies, etc. This is why we have two dedicated articles for each set of battles, rather than dumping all the other battles into the target article. Hoping you will reconsider based on that idea. Thanks for your interest, no matter what you have decided. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Why don't we merge the articles by handling every conflicts that French had involved during American Revolution? I think it is simple issue.... Well if there wa

Wendylove - A number of battles fought by the French against the British during the Revolutionary War had nothing to do with the fight over American independence -- they were fought for their own specific objectives, involving contested French and British Possessions. We also don't dump all the coverage of these battles into one article because that would tend to over-shadow the idea of the American-French alliance to win American independence. The France in the American Revolutionary War article covers how the French helped the Americans win independence. The Anglo-French War (1778-1783) article covers battles fought by France and Britain over their possessions, involving no Americans. As I've always maintained, these are two separate sets of battles, which is why we've always had two dedicated articles for each. Trying to bunch them all together into one article will only create months of continued controversy and endless debate, and we've been at it since early June. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

NOTES ON PROCEDURE

Now we have additional confusion ADMINISTRATIVELY because wp:Proposed article mergers are supposed to be formally initiated at the TARGET article, in this case the proposal to merge Anglo-French War (1778) into "France in the American Revolutionary War" should initiate at France in the American Revolutionary War. and all discussion is to be confined to the TARGET Talk page.

• wp:Merging#Step 1: Create a discussion, "This is usually done on the proposed destination page's talk page. include the proposal itself, the list of the affected pages, and a merger rationale."
• wp:Merging#Step 2: Tag the relevant pages, "To propose a merger of two or more pages, place the following template at the top of each page or section: If you know which page should be removed, use {{merge to|DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal}},on the source page, and on the destination page,{{merge from|SOURCEPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal}}. Please use the discuss parameter to direct to the same talk page. Otherwise, two separate discussions could take place."

Guidelines recommend notification to all interested WIKIPEDIA PROJECTS: WikiProject Military history, WikiProject France, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject United States, and Version 1.0 Editorial Team. - posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia article titles

Much has been made of previous "sock-puppet" bad actor pulling off "unauthorized" maneuvers to manipulate POV article structure. XavierGreen and Eastfarthingan have agreed to proceed "as before". But this time, Why not initiate a merge using titles in accordance with wikipedia procedure?

• considering changes at the heretofore XavierGreen-mentioned wp:common name, “Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.”

- HOWEVER, in this case, the merge is initiated on the WRONG Talk page, and NO notice at REQUESTED MOVES.

• Article titles criteria: Precision – "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article."

- HOWEVER, in this case, a military article about a war "Anglo-French War (1778)" between - two nations (FR & GB) joined by a third (SP), worldwide - is to be entirely HIDDEN into an article about ONE of them (FR) as an ally with a FOURTH (US) in America "France in the American Revolutionary War", where Spain agrees NOT to make war on territory claimed by GB in America at the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779).

• Article titles criteria: Consistency - "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles."

- HOWEVER, in this case, as previously mentioned in this thread, see Anglo-French Wars to leave this article alone WITHOUT a merge, and Anglo-Spanish War to RESTORE the Anglo-Spanish War (1779) article.

- posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Merging by edit

NOR SHOULD RELATED MERGES be attempted again by edit campaigns as during June-July 2020 at American Revolutionary War, to add the material from the Anglo-French War (1778) and the Anglo-Spanish War (1779) into the scope of the American Revolutionary War.

• MOS Strong national ties to a topic, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation."

- HOWEVER, in this case, scholarly references among BOTH American and BRITISH wp:reliable sources, used by the general reader in the English language worldwide, mother-tongue AND second-language, commonly understand the "American Revolutionary War",

viz: the American Revolutionary War is a conflict 1775-1783 in North America & North Atlantic among British subjects and their respective allies over colonial independence by the United States Congress, formally concluded at the Treaty of Paris (1783) between Britain and the US alone.

See both 'gold standard' (1) Britannica “American Revolution: United States History” by Willard M. Wallace; and (2) Routledge Dictionary of War “American Revolution (1775-83)” by George Childs Kohn (1999).

- posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You are simply restating the same thing over and over again, at the end of the day per wiki:CommonName this needs to be merged into France in the American Revolutionary War. Many of the sources you cited do not use the term "Anglo-French War (1778-1783), and many such as Clodfelter plainly reference the actions described here as occurring in the American Revolutionary War. This article was created as a content fork by a banned sock puppet and it needs to be merged just like the corresponding Anglo-Spanish War page was. Your arguments are clearly being made in bad faith, as "Anglo-French War" is clearly not the common name for the subject matter of this article.XavierGreen (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to add there very few sources using Anglo-French war in comparison to those using American Revolutionary War, where there many many more. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You wish to overturn a category "Anglo-French War [1778]" used at the Library of Congress on your own authority, claiming that my reference to an important scholarly institution for scholars using the English language is "in bad faith". You have nothing to dismiss it other than your own wp:ad hominem attack, "same thing over and over again". Clodfelter at “American Revolution, War of” explains the conflicts "overseas" (Clodfelter) from the "American Revolutionary War" (Clodfelter) are best historiographically classified as the "War of the American Revolution" (Clodfelter) -- in the first three sentences of his article on the topic.

Those Great Power conflicts "elsewhere" (Clodfelter) occur in the TIME PERIOD of the American Revolution 1775-1783. They do NOT occur in among related EVENTS of the shooting-war contest of the American Revolution 1775-1781, a conflict primarily among British subjects over independence by the US Congress -- with territory only in British-ceded land, ending by the British-US Congress Treaty of Paris (1783) between them, signed by them alone.

At wp:Common name, it calls for wp:good faith editing that you refuse to do (to date): “Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made." It is controversial to overthrow LOC categories of military history on your own authority. "Two wrongs don't make a right," as the English idiomatic expression has it. You are not justified in adopting a procedure copied from a bad-actor sock-puppet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Your esoteric remarks make it difficult to follow exactly what your arguing. However, Clodfelter plainly puts events in the scope of the events covered by this page (Such as the Battle of the Saintes and the Siege of Gibraltar) in his chapter on the American Revolutionary War, he does not use the term "Anglo-French War" to refer to these events. Likewise, it was proper for Eastfarthingian to open a discussion here to see if there was opposition to the move. Since there is, and you and Gwillhickers are obviously going to do everything in your power to oppose it (including apparently resorting to brigading [[1]]), its quite clear this needs to be escalated further up the dispute resolution chain.XavierGreen (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing "esoteric" about it: There is a difference between “coincident occurrences” in a Timeline alongside one another, and “connected events” in History related by a common intent.

You will find on consulting another editor, there is no grounds for any disciplinary action against editors seeking to implement wp:Proposed article mergers, while you insist on using a bad-actor sock-puppet procedure by your own admission in this thread.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

English usage for “occur in”

Editors of history articles must DISTINGUISH between two English usages of the phrase occur in:

(1) Historical Era, TIME. Events may occur in the same time period as other events, concurrent with them, without being of those same events, related in any substantial way. Scholars in history have not adopted a causation model of 'butterfly-to-hurricane-on-the-other-side-of-the-globe'.

(2) Historical Event, RELATED SEQUENCE. Events may occur in among events sequentially, when they are related to them, connected by evidence, but necessarily at the same time (day, month, year).

In the case of global conflicts during the historical era of the "American Revolutionary War", unrelated to the events leading to US independence granted by Britain, BOTH the reliable source Clodfelter, AND the popular best-seller Adkins apply the phrase, occur in, using the English usage related to TIME, as directly quoted for you and linked to their books for interested editors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Many sources have often referred to the wars and battles in question with the less misleading term, Anglo-French War, a term that has been used to define almost all the wars between Britain and France before during and after the 18th century over their continued shipping and trading disputes. The Anglo-French wars occurred again and again many years before the ARW, and continued through and long after that war. ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ) To assume these wars were, all of the sudden, 'not' part of the Anglo-French War because the war for American independence was occurring on a different continent has little basis, other than the idea that some of these events may have come up, after the actual war, during the Treaty of Paris -- most did not. Some of the things we should ask ourselves in deciding if a given conflict was "part of" the ARW is if there were any American belligerents involved, and if the British and French belligerents were actually fighting over American independence, rather than their own interests, and if these remote events were even involved in the negotiations at the Treaty of Paris. If a given event doesn't meet this three-point criteria it should not be referred to as "part of" the ARW, per Due-Weight and NPOV considerations, and should not be covered in the France in the American Revolutionary War article, merge or no merge. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The common name among scholarly sources for the conflict is American Revolutionary War, neither you, TVH, or anyone else can show otherwise and have not been able to for the months this dispute has been going on on the American Revolutionary War talk page. Your assertions are your own synthases and cannot be used as a basis for deciding what this article title should be. Should there be an overarching article covering the entire history of the multi-century conflicts between England and France? Yes. But many of those subject conflicts article's titles are not "Anglo-French War (insert year)" because the commonly used title in scholarly works is different as is the case here. For examples see the Napoleonic War', French Revolutionary War, Hundred Years War, War of the Spanish Succession. By your logic, the title of the Napoleonic War should be changed to "Anglo-French War (1802 to 1815)".XavierGreen (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• (Insert) Double talk. All we would have to do would be to say that some of the Anglo-French conflicts were part of, or involved with, the Napoleonic wars. This is not a two-dimensional, or an either-or matter. It is possible for a topic to be part of two other topics. We give weight to the topic that a given event is most involved with. In the case of the Anglo-French wars, weight is given to where the most involvement lies. Since the conflicts in question have more to do with the ongoing trade and shipping conflicts between Britain and France, than they did with the ARW, by far, weight is given to the idea of an Anglo-French war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah! The old reducio ad absurdum debate trick, and again, no reference, no link, no direct quote, no page. It’s like saying another editor mischaracterizing you in a post, “By your logic, the ‘French Revolutionary War’ should be merged with ‘France in the American Revolution’, as the American Revolution spread onto the European continent.” - - But that is not serious, it is absurd, and you were not seriously absurd, either.

(1) You provide: Nothing to overthrow the Library of Congress catalogue category, “Anglo-French War [1778]”. Instead, you refer to browser-search snippet-counts for a "common name", but that includes non-wp:RS best-sellers, by amateur authors, from popular press publishers, reviewed in chain newspapers -- for lots of hits, okay, but without reading the substance of the snippets, then making an editorial judgement about them using Wikipedia wp:reliable source policy, guidelines, and essays. Not best practice here.

(2) You provide: nothing to dismiss the non-profit Open Library site published by the Internet Archive, “Anglo-French War, 1778-1783”. You refuse to read referenced, linked posts from other editors who do not share your POV. Instead, you answer with nonsensical misstatement of my posts under the wp:weasel cover phrase, "by your logic". Not best practice here. 14:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You are again acting in bad faith, as I said before your simply regurgitating the same things you've said and posted over at the American Revolutionary War talk page. The library of congress and open library links you provide are merely categories of documents by search terms, some of the links on the Open Library page have nothing to do with the conflict in question but rather with the French Revolutionary War. Others link to books which specifically use "American War of Independence" rather than the term you are touting, like Alfred Mahan's "The major operations of the navies in the war of American independence" [[2]].XavierGreen (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken to think that scholarly research 'categories' cannot be history 'topics' for an encyclopedia article. As you can see on the chart found at the Open Library link, Mahan, an amateur historian seeking to promote Congressional funding for the US Navy, chose a term at publication most familiar to his audience at the time of President "Bully Pulpit" Teddy Roosevelt, not using a term in his title beginning with "Anglo", at a time when British banks and cruisers are compromising American imperial interests throughout Latin America.

- That's sort of like your ARW-Global "RS" Adkins. The author you misunderstand, misapply or misstate, who says the Gibraltar peace came by the Preliminary GB-SPAIN 20 Jan 83 treaty after SPANISH defeat, and NOT your claim the Preliminary GB-US 20 Nov 82 treaty after BRITISH Yorktown defeat awaited British VICTORY at Gibraltar for Britain to give up its rebelling North American colonies. - - - The Adkins' publisher blurb on the reverse of his book proclaims the importance of the Great Siege of Gibraltar in the "Napoleonic Wars", so as to boost sales among readers who are more connected to something "Napoleon" than anything "American".

- For publications using the term, you must look at the CLUSTERS of publication under the topic, such as among the publications in the 1780-1790s among the participants and historical contemporaries, and again in among the late 1800s Victorian Era authors, and again among late-20th century monographs.

In any case, when you call me names here, you do NOT compromise or negate the Library of Congress category, "Anglo-French War [1778]", for all the scholars researching the military history TOPIC who are reading English worldwide. The TOPIC has current significance to justify an stand-alone article in Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think its rather disingenuous to call Mahan an "amatuer historian" when global naval doctrine was dictated by his works for a period of at least 50 years XavierGreen (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you should consult an English dictionary to discover what terms have a 'pejorative' connotation: you surely would not knowingly, gratuitously, insult me now that we are both calling administrator attention to our discussion. You are again demonstrating a lack of fluency in the English language: FYI 'Disingenuous' means without sincerity, but I sincerely mean that Mahan was not a professional historical scholar, but an advocate with an agenda to effect political outcomes, without pretense to the encyclopedic wp:neutrality called for in these pages.

- It is true that Mahan has had, and is having, international influence in military affairs. Indeed, today his extensive writings are more current in military literature among Chinese Navy publications than those of the US -- see this years' articles in the scholarly journal, United States Naval Institute Proceedings. However, your inability to editorially assess Mahan by impartially applying criteria found in this encyclopedia's wp:reliable source guidelines, and your using ONLY ONE of his important titles for your generalization, is yet another indication that you are operating out of a native culture that elevates 'power' to trump 'reason' in your thought process. That's okay in personal affairs, not best practice here for this purpose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Historiography of the American Revolutionary War

Historiography of the American Revolutionary War

When over ten weeks of discussion, ARW-Global editors repeatedly dismiss 'purpose of conflict' as "useless", echoing mid-20th century material dialectic, they take away any ability by Wikipedia editors to convey that there might have been, among some of the British-Americans 1775-1783, a motivation to fight for a 'republic' in a world of 'monarchy', reimagined as an 'empire of liberty'. Without PURPOSE to the conflict, the article must be confined to an "imperialist American Revolution" (Lockwood 2019, Simms 2007) that "cheats the Spaniards" (Harvey 2004) of THEIR expanded empire war aims west of the Appalachian Mountains and EAST of their 1763 "Luisiana Territory" boundary with the British empire beginning at "the middle of the Mississippi River". OF NOTE: the ARW-Global "RS" includes the noted University of Alabama assistant professor Lockwood 2019, journal-reviewed as "a good story" but connecting dots without evidence to connect. Btw: American Marxist scholarship now prefers to apply a 'socio-ethnic analysis' to events instead of the now deprecated 'dialectical materialism' that was fashionable mid-20th century. Time to move on and accept valuable contributions from all wp:reliable source scholars. SEE modern American 'social history' and 'ethnic history' for their influential and fruitful result that is acknowledged generally throughout the professional field. Amazingly, it is not enough for XavierGreen and Eastfarthingan to use the European RS "War of American Revolution" (WoAR), with scholarly distinctions, no, there must be wp:original research to proclaim a new historiography at Wikipedia, an ARW-Global, subsuming ALL war against Britain everywhere 1775-1784 worldwide into an "OR-American Revolutionary War-Global" . . . and so we are to have the proposed merger of the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) into France in the American Revolution featuring British-French conflict in India among variously described Euro-related actors: 'allies', 'surrogates', or 'puppets'. Nonsense. Conflict that was NOT for or against the purpose of American independence is NOT 'among the events of', not topically, 'historiographically within' the American Revolutionary War - - even if those events may be found to be 'during the time of' the ARW coincidentally in Europe, Asia, Africa, or, as ARW-Global has it, Australia (Lockwood 2019 - see the tragic aboriginal biography brought about by his "imperial American Revolution" - connecting dots without evidence to connect). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC) NOODLING among journals online at JSTOR, I found Dr. Robert Shaw (?) in a series on “Peace & Conflict Studies” featured in The Military Engineer, July-August 1953. It is the first in a five-part series on “The ‘Fifth’ World War” 1778-1783”, “the American Revolution, in point of time, was the Fifth 'modern' world war. BUT PLEASE NOTE: the criteria to establish the “Fifth” World War, is time alone, which I DO NOT AGREE TO as a valid methodology for good history scholarship. His intro-survey of the “American Revolution” historiography: (a) sometimes “a purely ‘Yankee’ achievement, unique and without parallel”; (b) “one group of bourgeois (or bourgeois-nationalist) uprisings” … Oliver Cromwell, the great French affair of 1789; (c) “a civil war among Englishmen; (d) “the civil war within America [settlement]”. Dr. Shaw observes, "But a fact often forgotten is that the struggle became ... an exceedingly widespread World War which affected … the entire globe. For by 1780, embattled England had taken on, in addition to the Thirteen Colonies, three great Powers [in France, Spain and the Dutch Republic], and was threatened by three or four others, [the eastern European great powers]." Revolts against Britain were in America, Ireland, Scotland, India, Canada, and London itself, where the Cockney proletariat rioted … [and] set the pattern for the red Parisian mobsters in [the Terror of 1793-1794].” "Also [in the Fifth World War "American Revolution"], “there were international, conspiratorial networks", the Illuminati of Ingolstdt", and the “Lodge of Nine Sisters" with 'radical intellectuals' in the Court of France. Well, readings from 1953 Cold War "Dr. Robert Shaw" notwithstanding, I'm still not persuaded to overthrow both BRITISH scholarly references on the topic "American Revolutionary War" published by Britannica and Routledge, available to be online in 2020. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Flag edit by anonymous w/o User:Talk At the edit here, a drive-by mobile phone edit by anonymous without a User:Talk page, 2a01:cb18:84e1:ef00:1089:b613:18d1:951e, took out the Infobox flag of Spain without removing the citation justifying it. (?) I have updated the Infobox here with (1) a restored flag of Spain; (2) a link for “Spain” to the “Spanish Empire – The Spanish Bourbons, 1700-1808”; and (3) the small-text “Aranjuez 1779” with a link to “Treaty of Aranjuez (1779)” for clarification. Just in case there may be a good-faith misunderstanding about the connected events documented in European military history, 1778-1783, the "European war 1778-1783" (Euro-Simms, Amer-Morris), the "Anglo-French War [1778]" (Library of Congress). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Unsourced wp:Original research The "FOR MERGE" editors seek to eliminate this article using unsourced wp:original research for a justification. It seeks to expand the scope of the article "American Revolutionary War" in America (ARW-America) to become a worldwide conflict embracing conflict by Great Powers elsewhere (ARW-Global). These are admittedly fought for OTHER purposes than a conflict among British subjects over independence. That is, two statements are conjoined, one TRUE and one ERROR: A. True: Some RS refer to a “War of the American Revolution” encompassing early European Great Power activity (government, merchant, bankers) in the "American Revolutionary War" conflict in America 1775-1783 among British subjects over US Congress independence. That same historiography encompasses Great Power conflict globally against Britain for France, Spain, and Dutch Republic. THEREFORE: B. wp:error: There is NO WAR against Britain 1775-1783 (i.e. Anglo-French War, Anglo-Spanish War) OTHER THAN an “American Revolution” for Great Power empire, swapping territory, or trade concessions worldwide . . . So, in the terms of the RS cited Matthew Lockwood (2019), the noted assistant professor at the University of Alabama: the MERGE ARW-Global POV demolishes any claim of “exceptionalism” for a republic among 18th century monarchies, AND it erases any whiff of “good intent” for the benefit of mankind among those historical figures, as the Patriot propagandist Tom Paine would have it. Do stipulate: The US as a social “experiment” of governance is NOT, nor has it ever been “utopia for all”, not “heaven on earth”, it is not even the “the state beyond the state” so much sought after in the sundry blood-baths in the 20th century. Takeaway for Wikipedia: CONFLATE the “coincident occurrences” in a Timeline of the late 1700s, with “connected events” of a Military History topic, the American Revolutionary War, thusly, to wit, viz.: (1)  Done. Redirect the “War of the American Revolution” of European RS is to the “American Revolutionary War”. (2)  Done. Expand American Revolutionary War to encompass all European conflict with Britain worldwide 1775-1774, including the Second Anglo-Mysore War in India (see Talk:American Revolutionary War, June-July 2020). OR, failing that, Tag the article as POV. until the ARW-Global POV is imposed. (3) Merge related articles: - (a)  Done. “Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783)” into “Spain in the American Revolutionary War”, - (b)  Done. "Anglo-French War (1778-1783)" into "France in the American Revolutionary War"; propose by a sock-puppet procedure violating wp:Proposed article mergers. - (c) Fourth Anglo-Dutch War into Dutch Republic in the American Revolutionary War, (pending, see June 2020 Talk:American Revolutionary War), - (d) Second Anglo-Mysore War into Mysore in the American Revolutionary War, (pending, see June 2020 Talk:American Revolutionary War). Yes, I take exception to imposing inconsistent confusion in the titles and content for Wikipedia military articles: there is a difference between “coincident occurrences” in a Timeline alongside one another, and “connected events” in History narrative related by a common intent as found in the evidence of documentary record. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Criteria for article tites How you personally believe articles should be titled is of no consequence as synthases, all that matters is wiki:CommonName.XavierGreen (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Sources vary in their terminology, so in this case the idea of "common name" is quite debatable, as was demonstrated above. Aside from how a particular historian may refer to an event, the battles in question have everything to do with the overwhelming facts, that being, the Anglo-French wars were fought between Britain and France over trading and shipping disputes, involving no American belligerents, with no efforts made for/against American independence. When sources vary, we go with the one that can explain and/or verify their claim in terms of actual involvements. As of yet, no one can explain how the Anglo-French battles in question have more to do, if anything, with the ARW than they do with the Anglo-French war/battles. All along you have been attempting to drag every conflict Britain was involved with all over the globe, during the ARW, into various articles, which is par with your recent past comment, "American independence was merely just one issue". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Except that the sources don't vary, they overwhelmingly support the contention that the subject campaigns of this article are a part of the American Revolutionary War. Throughout your contentions across multiple articles you've cited literally less than 5 sources that explicitly use the term "Anglo-French War". The usage of American Revolutionary War is overwhelming in this regard as evidenced by the litany of sources myself, Eastfarthingian and other editors previously have shown.XavierGreen (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC) If I cited five sources that means the sources do vary, and you have yet to prove otherwise, much less that they "overwhelingly support" the idea that they were part of the ARW more than any other campaigns between Britain and France. Now, thanks to your objective research, we have yet another source that clearly refers to these conflicts between Britain and France as the "Anglo-French conflicts". — "Action then switched to the West Indies throughout the Anglo-French conflicts from 1689 to 1815.",  Clodfelter, p. 128 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC) When deciding the name for an article we go with the one that best defines the topic. i.e."Topic scope". Trying to lump in all the Anglo-French wars in question here, into an article whose title is France in the American Revolutionary War, flies in the face of that idea, as the Anglo-French conflicts in question have little to nothing to do with the ARW and the fight over American independence and involved no American belligerents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Your assertion that the subject campaigns of this article "involved no American belligerents" is factually incorrect. American vessels convoyed with French escorts and there were several naval actions in which French and American vessels fought side by side. See for examples Action of 12 December 1782 and Battle of Flamborough Head. If we follow your synthases, John Paul Jones's campaigns would not be part of the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC) I never said that all such campaigns never included American belligerents, only that most of them did not, and that if they do not, should not be listed as "part of" the ARW, contrary to your assertions. Please read the discussions more carefully. Btw, why is there no American belligerents listed in the info-boxes of the Great Siege of Gibraltar, Battle of the Saintes and Battle of the Mona Passage, for openers? All you seem to be doing here is obfuscating around the points you can't address legitimately. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC) None of your synthases is worth an iota insofar as the title of this article. You have not provided any evidence what soever to refute that this article should be merged as a content fork per wiki:CommonName. To assert that every belligerent must fight in a battle for it to be part of a war is a ludicrous assertion. By your logic, the Battle of Kokoda would not be part of World War Two because no Americans fought in it. Likewise, by that principle the Battle of the Chesapeake would not be part of the American Revolutionary War because no american vessels were in action, while in reality virtually every source on that battle (even children's history textbooks) plainly state it was part of the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC) What "synthesis"? You've been presented with many sources, including one which you found, that refer to the battles in question as the Anglo-French war. The best you have done is show some other sources where these battles are listed in books about the ARW, while none of them actually explain how these battles are part of the ARW more than they are about the French-Anglo wars involving trade and shipping disputes. The France in the American Revolutionary War article is about how the French belligerents actually fought with the Americans over American independence. This article is about conflicts between the ongoing Anglo-French wars during the ARW, the likes of which occurred before, through and after the ARW. Your attempt to drag into the that article coverage about every other global conflict between Britain and France, over shipping, trade, and other such global involvements, is not at all consistent with the basic theme of that article, and would create glaring Due-Weight and NPOV issues, which you've repeatedly ignored and evidently could care less about, per your opinion that "American independence was merely just one issue". No matter – you are clearly ignoring everything that has been explained for you, so we simply go by consensus, which you don't have. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Clodfelter to source article titles No where does Clodfelter refer to the hostilities between Britain France and Spain during 1778 to 1783 as the "Anglo-French War", he explicitly includes these campaigns within the scope of his chapter on the American Revolutionary War. Your purported citation is merely a list of usuages of the term "Anglo-French" randomly interspersed in irrelevant chapters of his book dealing with prior and subsequent conflicts. France in the American Revolutionary War covers the exact same topic as this article and is the more commonly used name, per wiki:CommonName this article should merge into that one. You have not provided one iota of evidence that this is the more commonly used term.XavierGreen (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Conjecture: This is what Clodfelter said, "Action then switched to the West Indies throughout the Anglo-French conflicts from 1689 to 1815.", Clodfelter, p. 128 He explicitly refers to some of the battles listed under the ARW as "Anglo-French conflicts". The France in the American Revolutionary War article covers actions by French belligerents for the fight over American independence. Your attempt to drag in every remote battle fought by the British and French into that article will double its size and create Due-Weight and NPOV issues. Along with Clodfelter, you were presented with a good number of other sources, while you have yet to substantiate your claim that the sources "overwhelingly support" anything. Once again, the Anglo-French wars occurred time and again many years before the ARW, and continued through and long after that war. ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ) Once again, the Anglo-French wars, and the reasons for those wars, did not cease to exist because the ARW was being fought on the American continent. If you would like to contribute to the coverage over conflicts between Britain and France elsewhere on the globe, this is the article to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Is the American Revolutionary War part of the Anglo-French Wars or Anglo-French Conflicts? Yes. So is the War of the Spanish Succession and the War of the Austrian Succession. But Clodfelter specifically includes the entirety of the hostilities between Britain and France from 1778 to 1783 within the scope of the American Revolutionary War. No where in the text does he use the term "Anglo-French War" to specifically refer to the subject content of this article.XavierGreen (talk) No, the second sentence of Clodfelter's article on the topic. He stipulates, he agrees that the common, "popular" usage of "American Revolutionary War" means what the general reader of Wikipedia, and you should too. Wikipedia articles should conform to the standard scholarly references as cited, linked and directly quoted; not to your unsourced "virtually all RS" claim: - American Revolutionary War, 1775-1783. "The colonial rebellion [against Britain] that freed Britain’s 13 American colonies from King George III and his Parliament”. - Clodfelter, 2017 p.121 Page 128: yes, there in Clodfelter is the scholarly distinction between "American Revolutionary War", and the Clodfelter topic entitled, "War of the American Revolution". -War of the American Revolution, 1778-1783. "In 1778 the American Revolutionary War [against Britain] became the global War of the American Revolution [against Britain], expanding into a multinational conflict, spanning oceans to singe four continents. Most of the fighting outside of America was naval combat, [Britain and France, Britain and Spain, Britain and the Dutch]." - Clodfelter, 2007, p.124, 128 The two topics are not the same, as Clodfelter takes some pains to point out. Wikipedia should make the same scholarly distinction in selecting the scope for its articles. Regardless of "the vast majority" hit-count for anyone's browser search today, the scope of the "American Revolutionary War" article should conform to the Library of Congress, Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Routledge Dictionary of Wars as cited, linked, and directly quoted. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Clodfelter literally states that the terms "War of the American Revolution" and "American Revolutionary War" are identical in the first sentence of the chapter. Your own synthases is irrelevant.XavierGreen (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC) No, the two are not identical, and Michael Clodfelter (MC) has a preference for one over the other. So he makes a distinction that your POV will not allow, between the two very different topics of history: Topic #1. A British colonial conflict among British subjects in America [ARW-America], and MC-topic #2 Foreign empires overseas from America making global war on Britain worldwide [WoAR]. Clodfelter’s first sentence, 2017, 4th edition: “War of the American Revolution”, p.124: “The War of the American Revolution” [WoAR] is a more appropriate title for the colonial rebellion... than the [Topic #1] “American Revolutionary War” [ARW-America]—a tag more popular… Clodfelter later describes that earlier [history topic #1, ARW-America] became another thing for Britain: "In 1778, the American Revolutionary War became the global War of the American Revolution [WoAR, MC-topic #2].” In 1778 Topic #1 for Britain became Topic #2. Clodfelter does not mention, condone nor endorse the wp:original research advancing a [ARW-Global] that claims the two are the same identical history topic. The [ARW-Global] is neither the “colonial rebellion” [ARW-America] of Britannica, Routledge Dictionary of Wars, and the LOC, nor that overseas “global war” (WoAR) of Clodfelter and other European RS (Simms 2007, Harvey 2004). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC) You literally just cited the sentence in which he literally says the two terms refer to the exact same thing.XavierGreen (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC) TVH — Thanks once again for your point on observations and the benefit of your experience in historiography, regardless of any(?) shortcoming in grammar some individual may try to obfuscate the discussion with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC) XG' — If anyone can't distinguish the difference between the actual conflicts over American independence, involving American belligerents, and the battles in the West Indies over trade and shipping disputes between the British and French, the likes of which were occurring before, during and after the 18th century, they are simply refusing to get the point. Do you think Clodefelter was intelligent enough to (plainly) see the difference and made no attempt to differentiate these events? — "Action then switched to the West Indies throughout the Anglo-French conflicts from 1689 to 1815.",  Clodfelter, p. 128. That would include the period from 1778-1783. Notice the title of this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Thanks. Clodfelter is in fact a rich source of information on the ARW-America scope in his Introduction essay. I spent the afternoon digesting material for a couple paragraphs at the start of ARW "Analysis of combatants". Also, I snagged the free download PDF from Rand Corp on "Providing for the Casualties of War" by Bernard Rostker, the section on 'American colonies' is pp. 57-66. It is true that XG has offered up three dozen or so non-starter amateur-historian-fiction-publisher-not-peer-reviewed-best-sellers (lots of hits for the "overwhelming" browser hit snippet-count). But they are 36+ titles, now wp:editor-inspected using Amazon.com and GoogleBooks.com, that do not meet wp:reliable source criteria, as sourced, linked, and directly quoted. On the other hand, XavierGreen has led us to both authoritative RS at Clodfelter and Rand Corp. But he still doesn't get it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC) The title of the article is "War of the American Revolution" which Clodfelter states is his own personal preferred term for the American Revolutionary War, every single major battle between France and England is included in Clodfelter's lists of battles of the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC) No, Clodfelter says they are different. Yes, he lumps the two together for the convenience of reporting statistics, both are a part of his "Age of the Balance of Powers" 1643-1802, one of five eras of warfare 1492-2015. He is not going to create a separate category among five 'eras of warfare' spanning 500 years for the nascent republic with an "Articles of Confederation" not three years' old. The global WoAR does not start until "In 1778", p. 124, remember? During the WoAR in 1782 amidst the Euro ‘Balance of Power’ wars, British have “decisive victories” on land and sea: Britain crushed the French combined fleet at the Battle of the Saintes, and they humiliated the Spanish at their joint Final Assault on Gibraltar. Britain comes out on top, dictating terms in separate Treaties of Versailles with France and Spain in 1783, and a Treaty of Paris (1784) with the Dutch Republic. But that British great-power triumph in battle and diplomacy does not cause the loss of the First British Empire. On the other hand, the British defeat in 1781 at Yorktown brings an end to the ARW-America: Parliament’s bill to end the "American war" April 1782, the fall of war-Prime Minister Lord North March 1782, and Preliminary Peace with the US 20 November 1782 recognizing independence. Apart-from and other-than the three British-great power treaties ending the WoAR, the ARW-America peace is a GB-US only Treaty of Paris (1783) for US independence, ceding British-American territory to the US that it held since 1763, without consulting other Euro great powers engaged in a global war of a very different history topic, though related. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge denied

The debate is over. - the decision to NOT MERGE has been made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The comment's of the individual who "closed" the discussion above do not reflect the discussion, the sources presented here and the history of how this article was created and who created it, the debate is not over.XavierGreen (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

(1) Yes, but you cannot use that bad-actor sock-puppet procedure here to do something that wp:Proposed article mergers says you must start at the TARGET article for a legitimate merger, with banner notifications there, and here. - - - Nevertheless, thanks for the RS leads for Clodfelter and Rand Corporation for the ARW-America topic.

(2) I do see that this campaign of yours is approaching its 5th-year anniversary, to extend the legacy of a 1953 Cold War historiography for the "bourgeois-nationalist" American Revolutionary War. To recall the genesis, in a five-part series of The Military Engineer published bi-monthly 1953-1954, "Doctor Robert Shaw" -- where upon editorial reflection, the title is dropped at the second installment (Was it 'a bridge too far'?) -- expounded on his "Fifth" world war (AWR-Global). It was a "Peace and Conflict Studies" filler for the WW-I-era magazine without wp:peer review by scholarly historians. That department is now discontinued at the magazine. The focus of the Society publisher is now entirely military engineering, and the magazine is now a reliable source in the field of military engineering, science and technology of the 21st century.

(3) Nevertheless, the extended article spanned a year-and-a-half in print, even after the dissolution of the Comintern (1919-1943). But, like the magazine, it may be time to move on to more substantive, mainstream things. Btw, I love genealogical studies, and I encourage them to be incorporated into wp:biographies. Are you related to "The Doctor" Robert Shaw (engineer), the World War One military engineer and American political polemicist? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently there are three who say merge & three who say don't merge. So therefore it cannot be denied on that basis. You also have no authority to use 'proposal denied'. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE. Virginia presented sources to support her claims, none of the proponents of a merger did to a significant extent. If there are reliable sources which rebut the claims of a distinct Anglo-French War, it's your responsibility to post them during the discussion and show that the other view is in the minority; otherwise it wouldn't make sense to merge. (t · c) buidhe 19:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, a "no consensus" result would also lead to the article staying separate as that is the status quo. (t · c) buidhe 19:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Buidhe, except as I stated and showed above the sources TVH cite do not actually state what he is claiming. For example, Clodfelter literally states the exact opposite of what TVH and Gwillhickers are arguing. Clodfelter specifically includes every single action related to the so called "Anglo-French War" in his section on the American Revolutionary War from pages 124 to 135. He never once in the entire text refers to the conflict as the "Anglo French War". Seminal works on the subject such as Maham's The Major Operations of the Navies in the War of American Independence [Indies], Spencer Tucker's American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [of the Saintes], And various academic publishing house works like Britannica's The American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 [[3]], ABC-CLIO's Almanac of American Military History [[4]] and The Oxford Press's Handbook of the American Revolution [[5]] all use the term American Revolutionary War to refer to the subject matter of this article. Virtually published work uses the term "Anglo-French War", and TVH and Gwillhickers have presented only 3 or 4 actual sources that use the term specifically to refer to this conflict. Wiki:CommonName clearly holds that this article should merge as a content fork of France in the American Revolutionary War just as Anglo-Spanish War (1779 to 1783) was merged into Spain in the American Revolutionary War. I could literally spend hours upon hours listing examples of works showing the usage of American Revolutionary War over "Anglo-French War". How many sources must I show? By TVH's own count as stated above, I have already shown 36 on the American Revolutionary War talk page alone.XavierGreen (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Many of the major battles outside of America such as the Siege of Menorca, Siege of Pensacola, Gibraltar, Battle of the Saintes, the three Ushant battles 1, 2 and 3 are never mentioned as Anglo-French war. Even the Battle of Cuddalore (the infobox image for this article) and Siege of Cuddalore in India are classed as being part of the American Revolutionary war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

36 sources are where? Links, quotes? I can't seem to find them on the talk page. Virginia says that they don't support what you think they do. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that being mentioned in a section about the American Revolutionary War indicates that the source considers the events part of the American Revolutionary War; they could also be related events introduced for context.

Maybe you're right, but in order to refute Virginia's points it would be most helpful to have

1. Sources stating that the "Anglo–French War" is part of the American Revolutionary War
2. Sources stating that a separate "Anglo–French War" is a minority viewpoint
3. Sources assigning the battles which make up the "Anglo–French War" to ARW with explicit statements to that effect

The Tucker source counts towards #3, at least.[6] (t · c) buidhe 20:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There are so many books on the AWR that Anglo-French war is barely a used term (only Library of Congress). For example when looking at sources listing battles and wars that term does not even come up once eg (these are a small selection) 'Dictionary of Wars' By George Childs Kohn only mentions American Revolution and mentions Anglo French wars but not 1778-83. American Revolution: A World War' by David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro mentions no such war. Neither does 'Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A-Z in three volumes' by Tony Jaques nor 'An Encyclopedia of Battles: Accounts of Over 1,560 Battles from 1479 B.C. to the Present Dover Military History, Weapons, Armor' By David Eggenberger and nor does 'The American Revolutionary War and The War of 1812: People, Politics, and Power' by Jeff Wallenfeldt and 'Navies and the American Revolution 1775-1783' by Robert Gardiner Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on this information, I am going to overturn the close and leave a pointer to this discussion. In future, if you want a discussion to go your way, provide sources and quotes, preferably in a concise, well-organized manner. The closer will only evaluate what is stated in the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, will do. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The prior discussions on the American Revolutionary War talk page were archived by TVH, you can read through them here [[7]] and here [[8]]. You are not going to find sources reference "Anglo-French War (1778 -1783)" as a "viewpoint" because it usage as a term for this conflict barely exists. I have linked to Clodfelter several times above, he specifically includes every single action listed in this article in three lists of battles of the "War of the American Revolution" on Page 135 within his chapter on American Revolutionary War. In his first sentence of the chapter, he specifically states that "War of the American Revolution is his preferred term for the American Revolutionary War. He has no other chapter dedicated to the subject content of this article or one entitled "Anglo-French War (1778-1783). He does however use the term Anglo-French War to refer to various other conflicts that occured centuries earlier during the middle ages. Other works that reference major actions subject to this article as being part of the American Revolutionary War are "Empire's Crossroads, A history of the Caribbean from Columbus to the Present" [[9]], Richard Middleton's "The War of American Independence" devotes whole chapters to the campaigns in Europe and the West Indies [Indies], "Battle at Sea: 3,000 Years of Naval Warfare" explicitly lists all major naval battles of the European (Such as the Battle of Cape St. Vincent), West Indies (Such as the Battle of the Saintes) and East Indies campaigns (such as the Battle of Providien as occurring during the American Revolutionary War, with no meantion at all of the term "Anglo-French War" see here [[10]]. The vast majority of sources which TVH and Gwillhickers cite in actuality use the term "Anglo-French Wars" to refer to the overall warfare between England and Frence from the 11th century to the 19th century. They do not use the term Anglo-French War to refer to the subject content of this article specifically.XavierGreen (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd add also that 'The Major Operations of the Navies in the War of American Independence' by Alfred Thayer Mahan mentions the one Anglo French war but this is only a Bibliography note stating the Library of Congress source that the TVH has mentioned over and over. In addition the nomenclature wording on book titles is proof in itself. 'The American Revolution: A Global War' by R. Ernest Dupuy Simms, Brendan (2007). 'Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714–1783' by B Simms, 'The War for America: 1775–1783' Piers Mackesey, in the latter there is only one war that is mentioned - the AWR. Let me add this if there's a book were called the 'Anglo-French War 1778-83' it wouldn't sell at all in the US. The publisher would want to call it 'France in the American Revolutionary War.' Money talks basically. That is the reason why there are very few mentions of the Anglo-French war in texts. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to knock them down one at a time again, variously based on your misunderstanding, misapplication, and misdirection. I'll give you a day for each one, and check back to see if you can find a reasonable rationale to continue in your wp:error. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

TVH, your statement here seems to indicate that you believe that virtually the entire existing corpus of text on the subject matter of this article is wrong. Your position is the very definition of a fringe theory.XavierGreen (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Almanac of American Military History

Scanning headers in an article does not convey the intent of the professional historian, nor the distinctions made in his scholarship. They are usually not written by the author. Listing events under the TIME PERIOD of the American Revolutionary is not evidence connecting the dots to make them part of the conflict British subject conflict for and against US independence. They are merely “those non-North American events that specifically impact the future of the United States.” – S.C. Tucker, xi. - - - - - Apropos to our earlier discussions in multiple venues, there is no mention of Spain or the Dutch Republic, nor of Gibraltar-Spain, or Mysore-India. GOOD, WE HAVE MUTUALLY STIPULATED TWO (2) FORMER POINTS OF DISUPUTE: ‘dodged that bullet’, ‘put paid’ to those ARW-Global claims related to Great Siege of Gibraltar and Second Mysore War . . . we in wp:good faith mutually consent to the scholarly authority of RS Almanac of American Military History, Vol. 1, done and done.

There is no unaccountable “war spreading across the globe”. Britain faces additional belligerents during the American Revolutionary war time period because the French and Spanish extend their Third Pacte de Famille at the Treaty of Aranjuez. That was separate from the ARW for itemized imperial acquisitions, after France broke its Treaty of Alliance with the US by making the secret treaty with Spain without US consent (Morris). “Yorktown was the last major action of the war in America... there was fighting to be done in the West Indies with the French… Yorktown marked the effective conclusion of hostilities with the American rebels.” – G. Fremont-Barnes, 206. - - - - - “British defeat at Yorktown… ushers in a British policy of cutting its losses immediately, even… concessions to America, including independence, to separate it from its French ally. The British had lost control of the American seaboard for one brief period and, as a result, lose the war.” – Chronology, 370.

There is no Euro great power defeat at the hands of Britain on land or sea that ends the American War of Independence with treaties signed at a Versailles “Peace of Paris”.. - - - - - “September 3, 1783. Formal conclusion of the Treaty of Paris (1783)… definitively ends the American Revolutionary War. Britain also signs separate treaties with France and Spain. Spain receives East and West Florida in return for the restoration of the Bahamas to Britain.” – Chronology, 380-81.

Again from the wp:error editors, we have reference to a reliable source in the Almanac of American Military History, Vol. 1 where the scholar-authors do NOT support the idea of a global conflict - American Revolutionary War as ARW-Global, four Euro great powers vying for empire worldwide, Britain against France, junior partner Spain, America junior to Spain, and the Dutch Republic, too. No, here we have ABC-CLIO Tucker and Fremont-Barnes simply noting that there were military events in the West Indies, during the period of time of the ARW that would later “impact the future of the United States.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

INSERT from below:

Tucker literally states on page 373 that the Battle of the Saintes is part of the American Revolutionary War, on page 324 he plainly states that the Battle of Grenada is part of the American Revolutionary War[[11]], he does the same for the Siege of Gibraltar on page 323 [[12]]. Literally every single combat action and campaign in the scope of this article Tucker prefaces by stating "American Revolutionary War (continued)...", plainly prefacing his section on each battle as being part of the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The 'Almanac' is essentially a timeline. Within the main section “American Revolutionary War”, there is no mention Euro great powers and their worldwide conflicts. (And, in any case, publisher-book editors name chapters, subheadings, and even choose the book title. Alas, it is not their scholar-writers.)

- A series of "(ARW, continued)" add-ons include Gibraltar, Granada, and Saintes. The engagements of "(time period, continued)", are not historically connected to US independence, because the motive was imperial acquisition by the two Bourbon Kings per the Pacte de Famille and their secret Treaty of Aranjuez (1779).

- Historians take meaning from event chronology and their evidenced connections. Unlike your dictum: “intent does not matter” for connecting and explaining historical events. Even modern American Marxists understand events as determined by motives of individual identity ‘awakening’, and motives of social group cohesion, ‘solidarity’.

- But the alternative, a history of categorical imperatives in the material dialectic of Comintern ideology, brings about the wp:error: “American Revolutionary War as a ‘Fifth’ world war”. The reality is that Soviets abandoned the Comintern and its 'worldwide' perspective in 1943, turning to studies of 'national' liberation.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, your own synthases is irrelevant, by your own admission Tucker plainly states that the campaigns in Europe, the Caribbean and the East Indies are part of the American Revolutionary War. I fail to see how marxism or the comintern have anything to do with whether or not Wiki:CommonName applies here. The sources overwealmingly favor usage of the term American Revolutionary War, and therefore this article must be merged into France in the American Revolutionary War as a POV content fork.XavierGreen (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

To recap: Tucker differentiates (a) the American Revolutionary War that ends “immediately” at Yorktown, as different, and apart from, (b) Tucker's list of (ARW time period, continued), engagements between Euro great powers elsewhere.

- Those Euro-only engagements have no topical connection to the ARW, though (a) Tucker includes some in his timeline almanac, (b) outside of the main ARW section, noting they were AFTER America was “separate from its French ally”. The British did have “fighting to be done in the West Indies with the French”, engagements are included in the 'Almanac" “that specifically impact the future United States”, but not within the topic, American Revolutionary War.

- There is no wp:synthesis in the direct quotes. I admit Tucker differentiates between British-subject conflict as a different history topic than Euro fighting for overseas empire. The main section ARW has no (time period, continued) engagements from different historical topics such as the Anglo-French War (1778). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You are blatantly wrong, Tucker does not state that the war ended at Yorktown, he does not treat the actions in the Caribbean or Europe any differently than those in North America. He simply lists everything in chronological order. For example, the start of the Great Siege of Gibraltar is listed on page 323 before the section on Yorktown in his book. For every action that was part of the American Revolutionary War he states "American Revolutionary War (continued)". He does this for actions in every theater of the war, North America and Europe alike.XavierGreen (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Tucker does say the military conflict in America between British subjects over (rebellion)(independence) ends at the British defeat at Yorktown. At the loss of a second 'largest overseas army' in British history, public support evaporates for the 'American War'. The 'Country Gentlemen' of the Tory coalition bolt to the (American War) Peace Whigs, Lord North is ousted. Meanwhile, Britons of every class flocked to the colours, but not for the wp:error editor wp:POV: "American Revolutionary War spread worldwide". (Shaw 1953, the "bourgeois-nationalist war spread")(Lockwood 2019, the "imperial American Revolution" spread).

- Whereas before the Crown had to resort to press gangs to fill enlistments along with conscript-units from mercenary German princes, with the pending Bourbon invasion menacing, regular army unit quotas were filled with British subjects (Catholics were problematic @ Gordon Riots). The Country Gentlemen of Parliament joined their neighbors filling county militia defense regiments. Six British regiments previously scheduled for America sailed for the Caribbean. Rodney sailed there to double British men-of-war available by April 1782, then defeated de Grasse and making the Caribbean a British lake for the next century. British Naval assets were concentrated on the seas nearby Gibraltar by September 1782.

As a matter of military history, Gibraltar did not make Yorktown possible: When Rodney returned to London thinking de Grasse would convoy merchants to Brest, de Grasse took his fleet to take Yorktown, and then quickly returned to convoy the Caribbean merchant fleet to Brest. Yorktown as an end of the "American War" of (rebellion)(revolution) made possible British victories both at sea against the French in the Battle of the Saintes and on land against the Spanish in the Great Siege of Gibraltar. They were in separate wars ended by separate treaties, other than the separate "American War" with its separate treaty with Britain.

- And the British cession to the Americans broke them from military alliance with France. Next up, the Anglo-American Jay Treaty 1784 (Washington), then the Franco-American Quasi War 1798-1800 (Anglo-phobe Adams with co-belligerent Britain).

Scanning headers in an article does not convey the intent of the professional historian, nor the distinctions made in his scholarship. They are usually not written by the author. Listing events under the TIME PERIOD of the American Revolutionary is not evidence connecting the dots to make them part of the conflict British subject conflict for and against US independence. They are merely “those non-North American events that specifically impact the future of the United States.” (Tucker 2012, xi) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is being rehashed

@Buidhe: — XavierGreen and Eastfarthingan overall are just rehashing past arguments that have been well addressed, regardless of any new and redundant sources with the same sort of passing references they may drag in. This doesn't change the fact that the sources plainly vary in their terminology as we have demonstrated. ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 )  They can't refute the idea that the term Anglo-French War has been used to describe battles between Britain and France throughout the 18th century, so they attempt to counter that by saying the sources didn't mention the 'Anglo French War (1778-1783)' specifically, which is not true. Anglo-French War (1778-1783) is the name of a Wikipedia article covering a given time period, not an isolated series of battles in the overall Anglo-French Wars of the 18th century, which is supported by this source:

"From 1778 until 1783, with or without their continental European allies, the French continually contested British naval dominance in the English Channel, the Mediterranean, the India Ocean, and most importantly, the West Indies." The first fleet action in European waters came early in the Anglo-French war, on 27 July, 1778. <Hagan & McMaster, 2009, p. 51>

e.g.They continue to hold up Clodfelter who lists Battles like Mona Passage under the ARW, but continue to ignore the fact that Clodfelter qualified this by noting that wars during this time were part of the overall Anglo-French wars, as fully explained to them here.

Also, there is a Category at the Library of Congress for the Anglo-French wars, and there is also an Anglo-French category in Wiki Commons (c:Naval battles of the Anglo-French War (1778–83)) for the many related images. The image of the Battle of the Saintes is even categorized under this category. Wikipedia overall should be consistent with its titles and categories.

No one has refuted the fact that the sources vary greatly, so hopefully you'll not be pulled into another prolonged and rehashed debate, review the big picture, and reconsider your original decision, which was point on, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources do not vary greatly, they are virtually universal in using "American Revolutionary War" or "American War of Independence". Virtually none use "Anglo-French War". And again, the LOC search parameter you used refers to all Anglo-French Wars, not specifically to the conflict referred to here. For example see Anglo-French War (1213–1214). And as for the history of the title of this article and commons category, that is plainly explained in Eastfarthingian's statement at the beginning of the merger discussion. They were created by a since banned sockpuppet of User:Vinukin.XavierGreen (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources vary, as was demonstrated with the numerous examples above. A ban of a given user doesn't negate the idea that the info this editor provided, years ago, is automatically nonsequitur any more than your block record does, so let's stop with the weasel contentions. As the sources do indeed vary in their terminology we must look at the greater picture, that the Anglo-French Wars were ongoing before, during and after the 18th century, the reasons of which did not come to a stop when the ARW came along, and were fought for their own specific reasons, aside from the actual war over American independence, while the examples provided do indeed confirm that the Anglo-French wars have been referred to as such all along, as was already discussed. That you categorically dismiss the examples provided by the Library of Congress also, previously discussed, only tells us you are habitually denying everything, without one single exception. You've only demonstrated that you're simply rehashing the discussion over points that have been fully explained for you several times in an apparent attempt to once again cloud the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Library of congress is the only source used for mentioning Anglo-French war and even when used as a source in books it is not used as that term Mahan for example uses that LOC source on Bibliography notes on page iv but never uses the term. On wiki commons this is a picture source and not used as a source base and probably set up by a sockuser linked with Vinukin. Even more oddly term 'Anglo-French' is used more as a source based on this book - 'The Anglo-French Naval Crisis, 1778: a Study of Conflict in the North Cabinet' by Gerald Saxon Brown. Let's look at at some French sources; note there is no term for the use of Anglo French war translated as 'Guerres Franco-Anglais 1778': 'Diplomatie franco-anglaise de la Guerre d'Independance americaine' by Jean-Claude Castex, 'La Société des Cincinnati de France et la guerre d'Amérique (1778-1783)' by Ludovic Contenson, 'Histoire maritime de France' by Léon Guérin. Further sources confirm this - 'Naval Documents of the American Revolution' by the US Naval History Division. 'The Men Who Lost America: British Command during the Revolutionary War' by Andrew O'Shaughnessy, 'Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present' by David Marley 'Navies and the American Revolution 1775-1783' by Robert Gardiner, 'The Historical Atlas of the American Revolution' By Ian Barnes, 'The French Navy and American Independence: A Study of Arms and Diplomacy, 1774–1787' by John Dull 'Sea Power and the American Revolution: 1775-1783' By Alfred Thayer Mahan..... as we can see all of these sources all use the term American Revolution or American war of independence. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Well, your first sentence here only tells us you've been ignoring all the examples that have been presented to you. At least you've demonstrated that all these books come under the heading of Anglo-French War at the Library of Congress. Also, several of the books you list here do indeed use the term Anglo-French.   First, Brown's work, 1956, is entitled The Anglo-French Naval Crisis, 1778. Marley, 1998, uses the term Anglo-French conflict on p.376; Anglo-French hostilities on p.201, etc;  Dull, 2015, uses the term Anglo-French negotiations and Anglo-French relations on p.388; Many of these books are not available for viewing on line, but given these examples I think we can safely say that the term Anglo-French occurs again more than once. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-French Naval crisis, Anglo-French hostilities, Anglo-French conflict etc. Stop using any old term with Anglo-French as a basis for your argument. The article is called Anglo-French War (1778-83) and that is the title in question. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan, XavierGreen, Gwillhickers, and Buidhe: The Library of Congress category “Anglo-French War [1778]” is a legitimate topic of scholarly inquiry and military history, a term in an RS article online this month at Encyclopedia Britannica by British scholar Tony Bunting at “Siege of Pondicherry: Anglo-French War (1778)”. Are you saying that there is no current master’s thesis, doctoral dissertation, or strategic study in the armed forces of the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand with the term “Anglo-French War 1778-1783" in their title, heading, notes or bibliography? Just look at the native English speaker RS for now, such as Tony Bunting in the lead sentence of this paragraph.

- Over the last 14 hours, you cannot make an answer my post exposing the irrelevance of your wp:error, interpretation of scholar Tucker at RS Almanac of American Military History, Vol. 1: a timeline embracing the Anglo-French naval engagements in the “West Indies” after “the end of the Revolution” at Yorktown, is meant to note “those non-North American events that specifically impact the future of the United States” that will be included in the “Spanish-American War” account – on the timeline.

- Your wp:error: "During", as ‘coincident time period’, is NOT "during", as ‘connected historical event’. For the most part, I will get to each and every citation of your misunderstanding, misapplication and misdirection on this Talk page, one every two days. Cheers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Tucker literally states on page 373 that the Battle of the Saintes is part of the American Revolutionary War, on page 324 he plainly states that the Battle of Grenada is part of the American Revolutionary War[[13]], he does the same for the Siege of Gibraltar on page 323 [[14]]. Literally every single combat action and campaign in the scope of this article Tucker prefaces by stating "American Revolutionary War (continued)...", plainly prefacing his section on each battle as being part of the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

See reply at 1. Almanac of American Military History. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, your own synthases is irrelevant, by your own admission Tucker plainly states that the campaigns in Europe, the Caribbean and the East Indies are part of the American Revolutionary War. I fail to see how marxism or the comintern have anything to do with whether or not Wiki:CommonName applies here. The sources overwealmingly favor usage of the term American Revolutionary War, and therefore this article must be merged into France in the American Revolutionary War as a POV content fork.XavierGreen (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

See reply at 1. Almanac of American Military History. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

XG — As we keep trying to explain, and have well demonstrated over and again, the sources vary in their references to battles between the british and French over shipping and trading rights in the West indies and elsewhere. In case where the ARW is referred to, they do not explain any connection to the actual fight over American independence, as Tucker does not. It remains a passing reference and should be covered in a separate article that covers other such conflicts between Britain and France, over trade disputes, not over American independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks once again TVH. I believe we've demonstrated all along that we need one article for the conflicts involving the actual fight over American independence, and another article covering the conflicts between Britain and France over shipping, trade and naval dominance scatted about elsewhere on the globe. To drag all these battles into the France in the American Revolutionary War article, again, will almost double the size of that article and only muddle up the narrative involving the French in the actual fight for American independence. It will also cause a Due-Weight issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Here is yet another definitive example: The Society of Prisoners: Anglo-French Wars and Incarceration in the Eighteenth Century, Morieux, 2019 This work mentions French admiral de Grasse who was taken prisoner at the Battle of Saintes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the chapter on page 148 states 'A. Local detention or Transportation to Europe, The American War of Independence' Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Insert : Page 148 is not viewable, but in any case, it doesn't negate the idea that the term Anglo-French War occurs in the title of this book, thus setting the prevailing theme, that these wars were fought for their own specific reasons, having little to nothing to do with the actual fight for American independence. You keep trying to side-step that glaring reality with your opinionated claims and continued obfuscations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It still pales in comparison to the sources I have produced.. there are only three sources that state Anglo French War 1778 (Anglo French Naval crisis 1778 clearly doesn't say what you think it means). As for Pondicherry many sources use the term American Revolutionary war like here - 'Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: P-Z' by Tony Jaques. 'The Encyclopedia of the American Revolutionary War: A Political, Social, and Military History, Volume 2' by Gregory Fremont-Barnes, Richard Alan Ryerson. Then 'The American Revolution, a Global War' by Richard Ernest Dupuy, Gay M. Hammerman, Grace P. Hayes. 'Blue Water Patriots: The American Revolution Afloat' By James M. Volo take note page 82 quote The major fleet engagements of the American Revolution were classic sea fights between European opponents not between the British and Americans. And even here - 1778: Why was One of the Battles of the American Revolutionary War Fought in Pondicherry, India? Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Only three sources?? "Pales in comparison"? This is getting a bit much. Again, you're categorically ignoring all that's been pointed out for you, including sources you brought to the table. This is troubling. Also, no one ever said that all the battles of the American Revolution were fought on American soil, only that the vast majority, nearly all of them, were. Again, we have demonstrated that there are scores of sources that employ the term Anglo-French War, not only in the titles, but in the narrative, some of which you have provided. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Again you produce sources that use the term Anglo-French War:

— Jaques, 2007
— Barnes, Ryerson, 2006 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, again, the term "Anglo-French Wars" as used in Morieux (and most of the other works you cite) is used to refer to all of the wars between Britian and France during the 18th century, not' specifically to the American Revolutionary War. Again, if your stance is to be adopted, Morieux's work includes in its the War of the Spanish Succession and War of the Austrian Succession. Yet I don't see you advocating to rename those pages (or sections of those pages) "Anglo-French War (1740 to 1748)" or "Anglo-French War (1701–1714)", yet by your own sythases they would have to be renamed as such. Wiki:CommonName mandates that this page be merged, neither you nor TVH have been able to show that "Anglo-French War" is used by anymore than a mere handful of sources.XavierGreen (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We've already been through this sort of thing. The Anglo-French wars were indeed fought before, during and after the 18th century, the reasons of which did not cease during the ARW. Overall the battles in question remain unrelated to the actual war over American independence and should not be dumped into the France in the American Revolutionary War article which involves the French in the actual fighting for American independence. e.g.The French were not fighting for American independence when they were trying to invade Jamaica in 1782. Such conflicts have always characterized the French–Anglo Wars. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, we are all aware of the Anglo-French wars since 1100 but using that term as a basis for your argument regarding all of those wars isn't going to solve this. Also Im not ignoring everything you pointed out. Jaques does not mention 'Anglo French war 1778-83' at all, so please clarify what you mean ? Also neither does this (Barnes, Ryerson, 2006) 'conflict' in that sense does not justify that claim. Here's another few - 'An Encyclopedia of Battles: Accounts of Over 1,560 Battles' by David Eggenberger if you look on page 17 there's a list of battles of the American Revolutionary war with battles including Saintes, Cuddalore, Menorca, St Vincent, Ushant, Grenada, Gibraltar. The there's 'The War for America: 1775-1783' by Piers Mackesy which mentions nothing on the subject of an Anglo-French war. 'The War of American Independence: 1775-178'=3' By Richard Middleton please take note of the chapter 'European Operations' again no term Anglo French war is used. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There's really nothing to "solve". I was not going back to 1100 in regards to the Anglo-French Wars, but overall have repeatedly referred to the Anglo-French Wars of the 18th century, where Britain and France were trying to protect or expand their colonial possessions, very often at the expense of the other. This is particularly true of those battles between 1778-1783. i.e. Gibraltar, Saintes, Mona Passage, et al. I believe we have all demonstrated that the sources vary, and that those who refer to battles like the Saintes as being "part of" the ARW only do so in a passing capacity -- nothing to really write about in terms of the ARW as compared to covering battles like Saratoga and Yorktown as being part of the ARW. Therefore, esp in terms of Due-Weight, the focus should be on what has defined the battles in question foremost, i.e.trading disputes and naval dominance between Britain and France, which clearly ties them to the ongoing Anglo-French conflicts between the two countries, as they always have throughout the 18th century. This is why we should not dump all these battles into an article about French belligerents, in America, fighting for American independence. We have two specialized articles that cover the different sets of battles – one for the actual fighting in America over American independence, one for naval dominance and trading disputes between Britain and France elsewhere about the globe. Imo we should keep it that way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It is all very well explaning the Anglo-French wars but we are talking about France in the American War of Interdependence for this article to be merged with. Did you not see the list of sources I produced as above. This your opinion. In what sources links Saintes, Gibraltar & Mona Passage to 'Anglo French War of 1778'? Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

We should not dump all those remote battles over trade between Britain and France elsewhere on the globe into an article about France in the actual fight for American independence. Two sets of battles, fought for two specific reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

2. The War for America 1775-1783

At this Talk page above, wp:error ARW-Global editors misrepresent RS Piers Mackesy (1964), citing The War for America 1775-1783 by Piers Mackesy and John W. Shy (1964, 1993). The wp:error ARW-Global editors cite this book as supporting their view that the American Revolutionary war was a contest among Euro great powers for empire overseas away from America, and regardless of the British rebel-independence Congress seeking independence from Britain on British-ceded territory.

However, read these examples to contradict that: Publisher’s blurb: …for the British, the American colonies were only one front in a world war. England was also pitted against France and Spain. Their tactical response to the American Revolution [was] a part of a grand imperial strategy. "The American War was Britain’s only clear defeat in the long contest with France which began with the Revolution of 1688 [William and Mary] and ended at Waterloo [1815]." (xxiv)

"This, then, is not a history of the War of Independence, but a study of British strategy and leadership in a world war, the last in which the enemy were the Bourbons. …the Whitehall perspective." (xxvi)

wp:error: Misinterpreting a passage for editor POV purpose is misleading To assert that, (a) “This is NOT a history of the WoI”, is the same as (b) “this IS a history of the WoI”, when it is repeated in multiple venues after corrected at the first Talk. That is, for an editor to misrepresent a direct quote, sourced and linked: “NOT-A” - - - to mean wp:error: “IS-A” - - - on a Talk page is not among the wp:pillars for editor contributions here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This, then, is not a history of the War of Independence, but a study of British strategy and leadership in a world war this is precisely why it should be merged. The American Revoltuionary war is a world war and what's more he doesn't come up with the term the Anglo French war 1778-83. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If the term Anglo French war 1778-83 were used then the war then it would be a collection of wars and would be called the American Revoltionarary wars like Napoleonic Wars. Here are some examples of the war being one global war and no mention of this article's nomenclature.

• 'To Begin the World Over Again: How the American Revolution Devastated the Globe' by Matthew Lockwood
• 'Gale Researcher Guide for: The American Revolution: A World War' by Anthony Miller
• 'The American Revolution: A World War' by David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro
• 'The American Revolution Was Just One Battlefront in a Huge World War'
• 'The American Revolution: A World War'

There are many more examples as seen by what I have quoted before in previous sections. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

So, I see that after informing you of the misleading POV, "wp:error ARW-Global" by citation, link and direct quote on the ARW:Talk page on 12 June 2020 (1 month, 29 days ago), there is no defense for that claim here. Makesey does NOT say that the Bourbon imperial war on Britain 1778-1783 is the "American War", he clearly says it is not, as you have seen in a direct quote, without any editor synthesis. Gwillhickers has provided you ample citations of the LOC history topic that should be used here to title a military history article for "general readers" at Wikipedia, the "Anglo-French War (1778-1783)".

Euro France & Spain, under their Pacte de Famille, agreed by a further secret Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), make war on Britain in a Bourbon-King alliance, without American knowledge or consent as provided for in the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance (Morris 1983, "The Great Peace of 1783"). Mackesey's 'War for America', "is not a history of the War of Independence, but a study of British strategy and leadership in a world war, the last in which the enemy were the Bourbons."

Mackesey's ARW "American War" is between British government and the rebel-/-independence Congress in North America and the North Atlantic, war waged between them, and peace made between them alone. As you have known this for two months, the question remains for administrators, Why disrupt here with another posted wp:error of misleading wp:pov? Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

What Mackesey says about the 'is not a history of the War of Independence' does not make it mean in a cryptic fashion that it's the Anglo French war 1778-83. otherwise he would've mentioned it but he doesn't why? Because it is clearly only used in a rare manner hence LOC. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

An editorial determination to Not Merge the article into 'France in the American Revolution' because it is in the TIME of, but not an EVENT in the ARW, is NOT "a cryptic fashion" for proposing How to title the article about the 1778-1783 Bourbon Alliance offensive war against Britain for imperial gain agreed to at the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779).

Whatever the wp:article title, the Euro-declared wars on Britain are just not a war for American independence and defensive war for free trade, as specified in the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance, which was then abrogated by France at Aranjuez the very next year (Morris 1983). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Long lists and timelines

Eastfarthingan — We've been through this. In what sources do they actually explain how the trading and shipping conflicts between Britain and France were part of the fight for American independence? All you've done is present a list and passing references to the ARW. None of the major sources on the ARW define the battles, if at all, in the same measure as they do battles like Bunker Hill, Saratoga, etc, for the simple reasons that they are not related. You keep trying to confine the sources to those who only refer to a specific date range because we have produced many sources that refers to all such conflicts between Britain and France over trading disputes in the 18th century. Once again, the reasons for these conflicts did not disappear during the ARW, regardless if some of the sources say "part of" the ARW, which as we also discussed, is a stretch considering these battles had nothing to do with the fight for independence. The actual battles the French belligerents participated in, again, specifically fought for American independence, belong in its own article. Trading wars between Britain and France, scattered all over the globe, fought for their own specific reasons during 1778-1783, belong in this article, and only in summary form as there are dedicated articles for many of these battles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

To a specific date range because we have produced many sources that refers to all such conflicts between Britain and France over trading disputes in the 18th century. We are talking about the American War of Independence globally from 1778-83 NOT about Past or future Anglo-French wars. I ask you again where does it say for example the Battle of the Saintes was part of an Anglo-French War 1778? Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

In what source does it explain how this battle was fought for American independence, or that it was fought by France over American independence? The battle of the Saintes was significant to British/French history. It is but a side note to the ARW as nearly all major sources on the ARW only mention it in passing reference, if at all, and should be treated as such, per due weight. Once again, we have two sets of battles - those fought for the specific purpose of American independence. Those fought over trading disputes and naval dominance between Britain and France scattered elsewhere about the globe.  During 1783 and thereafter there were specific treaties between Britain and France over their trading wars.

• The Anglo-French Commercial Treaty of 1786, — Journal: The Economic History Review, Henderson, W.O., 1957
• Article 18 of the preliminary Anglo-French peace treaty of 20 January 1783 provided for the appointment of 'Commissioners to discuss new commercial arrangements of reciprocity' — Journal: The Economic History Review, Henderson, p. 106 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
• "The Anglo-French commercial treaty of 1786 was one of the most important trade agreements of the eighteenth century. — It marked also a serious attempt to end the traditional rivalry between France and Britain. English historians have neglected this significant aspect of Anglo-French relations, but fortunately French scholars have given it the attention which it deserves."  Henderson, p. 104 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you want me to list the sources linking Battle of the Saintes with the American Revoltionary war again? Again you're only using the term Anglo-French relations is a pointless argument. The Anglo- French commerical treaty took place threw years after the war. This does not show any evidence of an 'Anglo-French war 1778-83' but a global war that is the American Revolutionary War. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are links concerning Battle of the Saintes 1782 to the American Revolutionary war

Books

• 'A Dictionary of World History' by Thomas Edmund Farnsworth Wright, Anne Kerr, Edmund Wright. p. 563 (Admiral Rodney) Battle of Les Saintes, 1782, in the West Indies, where he restored British supremacy at sea in the closing stages of the American War of *Independence.
• 'Almanac of American Military History, Volume 1' By Spencer Tucker p. 373 April 12 1783 American Revolutionary War (continued) Battle of the Saints
• 'Battles that Changed History: An Encyclopedia of World Conflict' Spencer Tucker - p. 255 Battle of the Saintes was the greatest British naval victory of the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783).
• 'A Sea of Words: A Lexicon and Companion to the Complete Seafaring Tales of Patrick O'Brian' by Dean King, John B. Hattendorf - The Battle of the Saintes - the last major battle of the American Revolutionary war
• 'Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: F-O' by Tony Jaques Les Saintes | 1782 | War of the American Revolution
• 'The American Revolution: A World War' by David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro p.220 Battle of the Saintes - this reversal had a significant effect on peace negotiations to end the American revolution which were already underway and would lead to an agreement by the end of year

Websites

• Battle of the Saintes, (April 9–12, 1782), in the American Revolution
• The Battle of the Saintes - No American ships were involved, yet on its outcome hung Great Britain’s recognition of our independence
• 'The Times - Sudden wind blew in British navy’s favour' Tomorrow marks a stunning British victory during the American War of Independence. The war had not been going well for the British and in 1782 the Comte de Grasse, a French admiral, planned a joint attack with the Spanish to capture Jamaica.

postscript

• The American Revolution 'The War Beyond America'

Hope this helps Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No one disputes that various sources lump in battles like Saintes as part of the ARW in cases where they are remotely related. The greater point that you keep avoiding is that the Anglo-French wars occurred through the 18th century, for the same basic reasons, and none of the sources on the Anglo-French wars claims that these reasons disappeared during 1778-1783. Also, a treaty is an agreement after war has occurred. The Anglo-French treaties, like the Treaty of Paris, occurred some time after, and followed the Anglo-French wars when they ended, temporarily, in 1783. That you're trying to brush this off also, only exemplifies that you've been categorically denying every single point and source that has been presented to you, which says much. Which one of these new sources (You've listed Tucker at least three times) explains how battles like the Saintes were actually part of the ARW? That's where these sources always come up short. The France in the American Revolutionary War article is a dedicate work on that topic and is not the place to be dumping dozens of other battles between Britain and France scattered all over the globe over trading disputes, not over the fight for American independence. Once again, this would raise serious Due-Weight issues. The battles in question, have much more to do with trading conflicts between Britain and France than they do, if at all, the ARW. That a battle may be remotely related to the ARW does not mean it was not part of the greater Anglo-French wars, so we need to get beyond this two-dimensional approach to our assessments. Once again, this is why we have two dedicated articles for the two different sets of battles — one for French belligerents fighting with Americans over independence -- one for the trading conflicts between Britain and France elsewhere about the globe. This has already been explained several times now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Every single battle between Britain and France / Spain from 1778 to 1783 was a part of the American Revolutionary War. The plethora of sources we have provided above prove that the majority view among the source support that contention. Britain declared war against France once during the relevant time period to this article, that conflict is commonly referred to as the American Revolutionary War. Britain did not declare a separate war against France in North America and a separate one throughout the rest of the world. Your own person opinion as to whether or not something should be part of the war "because it was remotely related to the issue of American independence" has literally nothing to do with whether or not this page should be merged. Your own personal opinions and synthases are of no moment.XavierGreen (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

All that's been produced are passing references, mostly from sources that are not dedicated to the ARW, i.e.dictionaries, lists, et al. Not one, still, explains how these battles were actually "part of" the fight for American independence, 'the' central cause of the American Revolutionary War. The trading disputes between Britain and France, again, having little to no connection with the ARW, have always characterized the Anglo-French Wars throughout the 18th century and should not be lumped in with the France in the ARW article, as this would completely blur the narrative over French belligerents fighting for American independence. That you think the fight for American independence has "literally nothing to do" with matters is par with your past acute POV comment that "American independence was merely just one issue..." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It was just one issue, it was the primary issue, but there were other issues. For example, the Native Americans that fought didn't give a rats ass about American Independence, they were fighting to preserve their own lands from the encroachments of the colonists.Each belligerent had its own reasons for fighting. But at the end of the day thats all irrelevant, because you still haven't shown any evidence that American Revolutionary War is not the common name for the subject matter of this article. Wiki:CommonName demands this article merge into American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A primary issue can hardly be referred to as "merely one issue", but I appreciate your effort to smooth things over, if indeed that's what you're doing. See response below: -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Basleless assertion & document evidence

Gwillhickers and TVA show that to be in the ‘American Revolutionary War’ as an historical event, there must be an intention of participation in the conflict, demonstrated by evidence that the common war aim was American Independence. There is no collateral requirement to show that the ARW is a part of the Anglo-French War 1778. Rather, is it incumbent upon the ARW-Global editors to show the connection, demonstrated in a scholarly fashion with document evidence, something more than mere coincidental contemporary timeline.

BASELESS ASSERTION

We see the frequent editor assertion that a connection is made between the independence Congress in the American War for Independence and western Euro great powers (France, Spain, Dutch Republic) without evidence. (1) The first we can find is a 1953 assertion in a WWI era military engineer’s bi-monthly about conflict and peace. It was not a professional historian’s journal, and without academic peer review. The five-part, two-year series by “Dr. Robert Shaw” (title dropped) explained that the “bourgeois-nationalist” American Revolution “spread worldwide” into the ‘Fifth’ world war.

(2) We see the assertion made in sources, again without evidence, narrating a war spreading by historic necessity, without attributed human agency or document evidence, at the ARW-Global RS, noted assistant professor Lockwood at the University of Alabama, as he deprecates the “imperial American Revolution”. Scholarly journal review noted the ‘great story telling’, including the tragic fate of an Australian aborigine, but the historian’s analytical flaw was ‘connecting dots without connections’; the American Revolutionary War was unlikely to have directly caused personal bankruptcy of native peoples in Australia before it was a British penal colony by the objective necessity and historical inevitability of the “imperial ARW spread worldwide”.

DOCUMENT EVIDENCE

The French entered a Treaty of Alliance with the US to guarantee its independence and sovereignty, inviting others to join the alliance, and promising the US to consult with it in any negotiations of other war with Britain. Then, France broke that treaty via the Bourbon Pacte de Famille and their secret Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), (a) Spain refused to join the Treaty of Alliance to guarantee US independence, (b) France and Spain embarked on an imperial war of acquisition against Great Britain, regardless of US independence.

Britain lost the “American War” only; it then granted US independence and ceded territory of a portion of the Stuart King colonial charters, from the Atlantic seaboard to the western boundary of territory gained from French cessions twenty years before. Britain made the Treaty of Paris (1783) alone with the US. After the Yorktown defeat in 1781, Britain secured an “honorable peace” with an American settlement in 1782 without being dictated to by foreign powers – France wanted a US boundary at the Appalachians, Spain wanted Georgia ceded directly from Britain without Congress, and Catholic-Austrian efforts as a mediator to end the Catholic-Bourbon conflict with Britain was sponsored among the Great Powers by France after Russia initially tipped too pro-British.)

Meanwhile, France and Spain delayed negotiating a peace, hoping to (a) capture Gibraltar, (b) becoming dominant in the Caribbean, and (c) mounting a second attempt to invade England. However, by delaying into 1782, Britain overwhelming defeated a French fleet at Battle of the Saintes, and Britain dictated a separate peace ending the “Bourbon War” (Simms) with them in the Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles (1783). Then Britain crushed the Spainish ‘Final Assault’ at the Great Siege of Gibraltar, and Britain dictated a separate peace ending the “Bourbon War with the Spanish at the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles (1783). The US participated in neither of the Bourbon negotiations of mid January 1783, as Congress on 15 April 1783 had unanimously ratified the Preliminary Peace with Britain signed in Paris in September 1782.

I hope this helps. There should be no contest listing browser-search references to an undocumented assertion connecting the American Revolution by time period, when there is no evidence of their connection by human agency to the historical event. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like by your argument you want to rename this article as 'Bourbon war 1778-83' - you have more evidence for that in your above points than Anglo-French war? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

XG — Yes, American independence was 'the' primary issue -- Great Britain was about to lose 13 colonies, not to mention a strategic continent, with two ocean shores, the Mississippi, the Great Lakes, for openers, all with their vast and varied resources. During the ARW sugar in the West Indies was the primary concern for Britain, as the war in the colonies was costing her big money, and she was certainly not making any from the colonies at that time. After the surrender at Yorktown, however, realizing the war on the American continent was a futile prospect, esp with France and Spain still eager to go after Britain, she was now free to commit additional large numbers of ships, hitherto committed on the American continent, to Gibraltar, the West Indies, etc, for her own specific interests -- hardly "part of" the ARW at that point, regardless of the passing generic claims from some sources. Again, the sources vary in their references to these conflicts. In any case, the France in the ARW article overall pertains to belligerents before the surrender at Yorktown fighting for American independence, and dumping coverage of all those other remote battles occurring all over the globe, that occurred after Yorktown, into an article about French belligerents fighting for American independence, aside from almost doubling the size of that article and obscuring the narrative on that subject, would create a serious due-weight issue. This is why it's best to have two dedicated articles for the two sets of conflicts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So by your point where does that leave the Spanish? There is already an article 'Spain in the AWR' does that mean we should have Anglo Spanish War 1778-83 as well? There are NO sources for that. Looking at the recent comments both TVH and Gwillhickers are seem to be pushing for a 'Bourbon War 1778_83' article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me our point has been that the Euros war is not ARW; we've not advocated for 'Bourbon War'. Only three of your RS use "Bourbon War", the scholarly ones, not the best-sellers without wp:peer review. There is no evidence of a connection between the American War for Independence and the 'imperial' & 'Euro balance of power' aims of the French-Spanish Third Pacte de Famille and its secret Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), signed by the French and so abrogating their US Treaty of Alliance.

- The French consulted Spain in a war against Britain without the US, for purposes not 'defensive' related to 'trade': their purpose was territorial acquisition for empire, not American independence. The Spanish refused to join the Treaty of Alliance when invited in the text to guarantee US independence and sovereignty.

The standard LOC categories for military history topics in use by the general reader in English are "Anglo-French War (1778)", "Anglo-Spanish War (1779)", "Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780)", and "Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780)". We object to consolidating the four wars Euro wars against Britain into the American Revolutionary War without document evidence to connect them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Plethora of sources

The plethora of sources Eastfarthingian and I have cited plainly state that the common name for the subject matter of this article is the American Revolutionary War, you and Gwillhickers have not produced any evidence to show that Anglo-French War is the commonly used name for this conflict. Wiki:CommonName dictates that this article should merge into France in the American Revolutionary War. The corresponding Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783) as already been merged into Spain in the American Revolutionary War on the same basis by other editors previously.XavierGreen (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Many sources have been provided that commonly refer to the ongoing Anglo-French trading wars in the 18th century between Britain and France in the West Indies, etc, regardless if a particular battle is not mentioned by name. Labels aside, we need to look at the bigger and more significant picture. i.e. The battles in question have everything to do with disputes over trading and naval dominance between Britain and France in the 18th century over any involvement with the ARW, and as such, are not even covered by most dedicated sources on the ARW. If they do, it's only a passing and generic reference, which is all that has ever been produced around here, still.  Loading up the France in the American Revolutionary War article with all these remote battles, involving only trading disputes between Britain and France scattered elsewhere about the globe, with no American belligerents involved, would only blur the narrative of that article and almost double its size, creating serious Due-Weight and NPOV issues. We've been through this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: (1) No, procedurally you cannot legitimately use the banned sock-puppet as your example for wp:editing; No, you cannot adopt his deprecated procedure to right your perceived wrong. 'Two wrongs do not make a right'.

(2) No, there is no 'plethora', as demonstrated in the first two instances reviewed on this Talk (more to follow), (a) You run browser-searches on search-terms to produce 'sources' that explicitly refer to the time period 1775-1784, not the event American Revolutionary War. (b) Amongst the 'plethora', there is still no document evidence to connect the Bourbon aims for imperial acquisition worldwide to the ARW, the War for American Independence wp:common name within the ARW scope found in RS British scholarly references Britannica and RS Routledge Dictionary of Wars.

(c) The 'plethora' includes: (i) non-historians, (ii) with 'best-sellers' - not 'Pulitzer-prize winning' histories, (iii) published in the popular press - not by an academic press, (iv) without scholarly wp:peer review, (v) reviewed only in newspapers and tv - not professional history journals. - - - (d) In at least one case (Mackesey), you persist in wp:error after two-months refutation by reference, link, and direct quote. The author introduction says his book is NOT about the ARW, but it is about British government policy and naval strategy in conflict, the last in which "the Bourbons are the enemy" of Britain worldwide. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I have quoted plenty of sources qualified historians so I have no idea where you're getting that information. Let's look at the central theme of this argument Gibraltar and the Saintes:

;Gibraltar:

• Allison, David K; Ferreiro, Larrie D, eds. (2018). The American Revolution: A World War. Smithsonian Institution. ISBN 9781588346599. Quote critical event in the war outside America was a contemporaneous European siege that was bigger, lasted longer, and ultimately was as critical to establishing peace as the Yorktown victory - Page 220
• Bemis, Samuel Flagg (2012). The Diplomacy of the American Revolution. Read Books Ltd. ISBN 9781447485155. Quote - That tremendous citadel thus became a vital factor in the diplomacy of the American Revolution Page 77.
• Clowes, William Laird (1898). The Royal Navy, a History from the Earliest Times to Present, Volume 3. S. Low, Marston, Company. Quote - the relief of Gibraltar marked the close in European and American waters. - Page 542
• Fredriksen, John C (2006). Revolutionary War Almanac Almanacs of American wars Facts on File library of American history. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 9780816074686. Quote reality convinced Vergennes of the impracticability of waging war upon Spain's insistence that Gibraltar be recaptured and also weakened French motives to support their aspirations for land already claimed by the Americans. - page 556
• Frentzos, Christos G; Thompson, Antonio S, eds. (2014). The Routledge Handbook of American Military and Diplomatic History: The Colonial Period to 1877. Routledge. ISBN 9781317813354. Quote Among the problems were that American border negotiations were delaying some of France's own interests such as the British relinquishment of Gibraltar. - page 117
• Morris, Richard Brandon, ed. (1975). John Jay: The winning of the peace: unpublished papers, 1780-1784 Volume 2. Harper & Row. ISBN 9780060130480. The quote from John Jay - We are very much occupied with Gibraltar. We stand at the threshold of great events. Pray God that they will be auspicious. I believe that they could bring very much closer the epoch of peace which we all wish for, a peace both good and solid.
• Clare, Israel Smith (1897). American revolution to the present Volume 7 of Library of Universal History. University of Wisconsin - Madison: R. S. Peale, J. A. Hill. p. 2535. Quote- The siege of Gibraltar was the last important event of the War of the American Revolution in Europe

Saintes

• Tucker, Spencer C (2018). American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. p. 1322. ISBN 9781851097449. Quote - Greatest British naval victory of the American Revolutionary war
• Willis, Sam (2015). The Struggle for Sea Power: A Naval History of American Independence. Atlantic Books Ltd. ISBN 9781782397403. Quote Part 3 World War 1778-80 - In the aftermath of Yorktown it was essential for the future of America and Britain that America become independent of France as well as Britain and the visible collapse of French sea power at the Saintes made this possible
• 'Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: F-O' by Tony Jaques Quote - Les Saintes | 1782 |ref=0 | War of the American Revolution
• 'The American Revolution: A World War' by David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro p.220 Battle of the Saintes - Quote this reversal had a significant effect on peace negotiations to end the American revolution which were already underway and would lead to an agreement by the end of year
• 'Sir Samuel Hood and the Battle of the Chesapeake' by Colin Pengelly page 6 - QUOTE: As a commander Rodney took more ships than any other admiral during the American War . His victory at the Saintes , though not as complete as it might have been , enabled Britain to end the war on reasonable terms.
• Battle of the Saintes, (April 9–12, 1782), in the American Revolution
• The Battle of the Saintes - Quote No American ships were involved, yet on its outcome hung Great Britain’s recognition of our independence
• 'The Times - Sudden wind blew in British navy’s favour' Tomorrow marks a stunning British victory during the American War of Independence. The war had not been going well for the British and in 1782 the Comte de Grasse, a French admiral, planned a joint attack with the Spanish to capture Jamaica.

In general

• Tucker, Spencer C (2018). American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. p. 1322. ISBN 9781851097449. page 512 Quote from historian Professor Jeremy Black This encyclopedia is particularity distinctive and important in that is presents the conflict as a world war .. This was a war fought in North America but also in the West Indies, India, the Indian Ocean, West Africa, the Mediterranean and European Waters.
• Botta, Charles (1850). History of the United States of America: War of independence, Volume 2. National Library of the Netherlands: Fullarton & Company. Quote - On the other hand the victories of Rodney and Elliot had not only dissipated all fears for the West Indies and Gibraltar but also put in safety the honour of Great Britain. With the exception of the independence of the United States which she could no longer refuse to acknowledge she found herself in a situation to treat upon a footing of equality with her enemies relative to all other articles. Victorious at Gibraltar, holding the scale of fortune even in the seas of Europe, she had caused it to incline in her favour in the West Indies - Page 552.
• Page, Anthony (2014). Britain and the Seventy Years War, 1744-1815: Enlightenment, Revolution and Empire. Macmillan International Higher Education. ISBN 9781137474438. Quote aside from some lamentation, Britons were not traumatised by the loss of America. In addition to the fact that cultural and economic ties soon revived this owes something to the fact that Britain effectively won the last year of the global war. With the Americans split from their allies peace was signed with France and Spain in January 1783 - page 39.
• Savas, Theodore P; Dameron, J. David (2006). A Guide to the Battles of the American Revolution. Savas Beatie. pp. 165–66. ISBN 9781611210118. Quote=the colonial war was now a global conflict (p. 165) & Caribbean, Battles of the (Naval Campaign:Caribbean) Note= Saintes on p. 169 No mention of Anglo-French War.
• Hoock, Holger (2017). Scars of Independence: America's Violent Birth. Crown. pp. 301–302. ISBN 9780804137294. Quote What started as a war in North America had expanded into a worldwide conflict. From London's perspective the war against the thirteen rebellious American colonies was no longer the most important theatre in Britain's newly global struggle
• The American Revolution 'The War Beyond America' Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Six (6) categories of editorial mistakes

These citations and quotes do show that two years of shooting war among Euros 1778-83 are in the SAME TIMEFRAME as the war among British subjects in America 1775-1783. We stipulate that use of “during” to mean TIME period. Likewise for Jacques and Tucker, and Britannica's "Battle of the Saintes".

NO DOCUMENT CONNECTS events of the ARW for independence to the Euro quest for imperial acquisition. RS cited include scholarly qualifications and distinctions, Hoock: “theatre in Britain’s newly global struggle” apart from their “American War”; Savas: Britain’s “colonial war was now a global war” to them, the British in their naval wars with Euros elsewhere than America against the independence Congress;

Examples are wp:cherry picking. Marley: It is not the American Revolutionary War, but [p.321]: On 12 April 1779, France and Spain signed the Treaty of Aranjuez, and Spain formally declared war on Britain 21 June. Britain’s “American War now became part of a wider, global conflict.” THAT IS NOT the wp:error editor wp:POV, that all global conflict became the “American War”. Do not merge.

- Misrepresenting Britannica’s TIME period phrase “during the American Revolution” wp:cherry picked from the “Battle of the Saines”. THE TOPIC AT HAND IS, “American Revolutionary War”, which is defined at Britannica the as the “insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence.” It concludes, “The outcome, therefore, resulted from a combination of British blunders, American efforts, and French Assistance.” Nowhere in the Britannica article on the topic are the Euro war battles without the US involvement referenced in the American Revolutionary War.

Some are misconstrued here: THEY SUPPORT THE DISTINCTION between the British “American War” and that of the “British-Bourbon Allies” conflict (Anglo-French War 1778-83, Anglo-Spanish War 1779-83): Botta: “With the exception of the independence of the United States, Britain was “on an equal footing with her enemies”. Page: After British defeat at Yorktown October 1781, they gave US independence in the “American War” November 1782; “Britain effectively won the last year of the global war”, then “[Preliminary] peace was signed with France and Spain in January 1783.

- Also misconstrued is Morris quoting Jay: After American independence had been assured with the ascension of Prime Minister Lord Rockingham. At his death George III chose Lord Shelburne in April, he did not recall Lord North. Five months later in September, Jay wrote, “Gibraltar and events “could bring us much closer … to a peace both good and solid” denying France territory in America west of the Appalachians, and Britain ceding to the US the interior to the “middle of the Mississippi”.

Some are not RS, but newspaper snippets or the novelist taking a sideshow flutter: The Times of London, or C.S. Forester, the novelist about the Napoleonic era. (As a boy I read every one, eagerly awaiting the next paperback edition to appear on the rotating book racks at the pharmacy.) Writing in the American Heritage, the novelist Forester wp:error speculated into 18th century diplomacy, awkwardly surmising that an American-allied FRENCH VICTORY in the Caribbean would have DOOMED American hopes for independence. Nom, independence was agreed to in Parliament the month after the British victory, the war Prime Minister was ousted, and the Preliminary Peace with the Americans without the Euros, was agreed to even AFTER A SECOND British spectacularly decisive Euro-war victory at Gibraltar –-- and those two British victories on sea and land did NOT forestall Thirteen Colony independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Due-Weight and observing the greater picture

Most of the sources you provided above are not dedicated works on the ARW, i.e.newspaper and website articles, handbooks and almanacs, etc, so your seemingly big list of sources is a bit questionable. Except for Gibraltar, you didn't bother to provide info and page numbers as to what battle(s) a given source was pertaining to overall. Reminder — The only connection Gibraltar had to the ARW was that it was used to negotiate peace between Spain and Britain. American peace with Britain was over recognition of American independence and territory east of the Mississippi, which P.M. Shelburn and John Jay agreed to aside from any settlements involving Britain, France and Spain. This has been explained already. Some of the sources you're providing, once again, use the term Anglo-French.

• Page, 2014, pp. 12, 30, 112 uses terms like "Anglo-French peace", Anglo-French rivalry" and Anglo-French tension", respectively -- all of which indicate that there was an Anglo-French war.
• Page, 2014, p. 93 - most significant comment: — While the start of the renewed Anglo-French fighting disrupted trade, each period of conflict ended with British overseas trade larger and stronger.
• Hocker, 2017, p. 208, uses the term "Anglo-French rivalry" in reference to the Jamaican sugar trade.
• Clodfelter, 2017, p. 128 : "Action then switched to the West Indies throughout the Anglo-French conflicts from 1689 to 1815.",

• Tucker, 2018 :
  p. 436: " Russia was taking advantage of the Anglo-French War to threaten war against the ottoman Empire.
  p. 667: "In a series of Anglo-French wars in the 18th century, Britain concentrated the bulk of its military spending on naval supremacy on the high seas."
  p. 438: "Nevertheless in an attempt to take advantage of the Anglo-French War, Russia in 1782 threatened to declare war on the Ottoman Empire which was friendly with France."
  p. 434 "This activity violated an Anglo-French treaty"

Once again, with all these sources at your disposal, we are still waiting for a source to tie in any of the battles in question with more than a passing reference to the ARW. Aside from the dedicated work on Saintes, is there any source on the ARW that covers a battle in the same proportion that battles like Long Island, Saratoga or Yorktown are covered? How do they explain any battle was "part of" the ARW -- because it occurred in the same time period as the ARW? Once again, this is not a two dimensional issues. It's possible for a battle to be part of more than one thing. We have more than demonstrated that the references to these remote battles vary.

Since many sources refer to the Anglo-French Wars of the 18th century, ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ) where battles like Saintes fit right in, we must look at the greater picture and not neglect the idea that these remote battles were part of the Anglo-French Wars, and they had everything to do with trade and shipping disputes between Britain and France, while most had little to nothing to do with the ARW. As such, we must observe Due-Weight and not dump coverage of all these remote battles into a dedicated work about French belligerents fighting with Americans for American independence. Once again, this would blur the narrative about French belligerents fighting for American independence and create serious NPOV and Due-Weight issues -- an aspect of this discussion which you keep avoiding. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The one key Caribbean battle that can be substantially linked to the American Revolutionary War. BUT IT IS NOT AT WIKIPEDIA: "The Capture of Sint Eustatius took place in February 1781 during the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, when British army and naval forces under General John Vaughan and Admiral George Rodney seized the Dutch-owned Caribbean island of Sint Eustatius."

Congress accepted its foreign aid from overseas primarily through the Dutch entrepôt at Sint Eustatius. Early contraband trade began in 1774 and extended until February 1781 from the Dutch (New York City was a former colony), France, Spain, British smuggling from Bermuda and Bahamas, and Catherine the Great’s 8 + nation League of Armed Neutrality. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

---

At its capture, Lord Rodney, senior British naval commander in the Caribbean, ordered the station commander at Jamaica to carry off the besieged British garrison at Pensacola, while he catalogued the captured loot and plunder for three months. The British Admiral at Jamaica reported directly to Lord Sandwich, so he did not move. Pensacola was subsequently captured by Spanish Luisiana Governor Gálvez, while Rodney had taken himself off to London to become the British Vice-Admiral.

French Admiral De Grasse gained a complete surprise on the British. Leaving a merchant convoy behind in port rather than escort it to Brest as the British would have done, de Grasse slipped away to arrive at Cape Charles for the Siege of Yorktown before either Clinton in New York, or Cornwallis at Yorktown could know. Yorktown fell in October 1781, and Sint Eustatius was recaptured by the French in September, recapturing Rodney's personal takings from his victory there.

British naval operations in the North Atlantic were suspended 1781-1782, as prudence demanded every winter storm season there. Further British offensive campaigning in America was ended in December at the 'Country Gentlemen' deserting war Prime Minister North's coalition (the final bill was passed Commons and Lords in April, Lord North resigned in May 1782). Six regiments scheduled for America, and fourteen ships-of-the-line were committed under Lord Rodney to initiate an offensive campaign in the Caribbean. In April 1782 he gained his naval career triumph at the Battle of the Saintes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The British could concentrate their full might on the Bourbon alliance in the Caribbean because, the shooting war in the 'American Revolutionary War' was over at Yorktown October 1781. The British were able to defeat France at sea in April 1782, then defeat the Spanish at their 'Final Assault' of Gibraltar in September 1782. After securing an honorable peace with the Americans, the British denied the French and Spanish the war aims declared in their Treaty of Aranjuez (1779).

The British dictated peace with the United States at the Treaty of Paris (1783) without consulting the Bourbon Kings, breaking the US away from France by a generous territory cession. France was denied their 'American settlement' to hem in the US at the Appalachian Mountains; Spain was denied their 'American settlement' for the Mississippi River Basin south of the Ohio River and the British colony of Georgia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop making excuses for the articles - your defence is to say that they are questionable when I've highlighted and quoted the content and given page numbers. As for naming battles you'll see clearly that they are highlighted in sections; Gibraltar, Saintes etc. You're now coming up with your own opinion rather than quoting sources. Any excuse it seems that there is an 'Anglo-French' term like 'Anglo-French treaty' or 'Anglo-French Crisis' - you jump to the conclusion that it must be 'Anglo-French War 1778' when it clearly doesn't state that. Also stop using the Anglo-French wars of eighteenth century when again it clearly means all the wars with no mention of the AWR. When you type Anglo-French War 1778 the only thing that the search comes up is the Library of Congress 'Subject Headings'. This is just one source and cannot be relied upon in this matter.

It's possible for a battle to be part of more than one thing. Yes they tend to be part of the 'Caribbean campaign' or 'Naval Campaign of 1782', 'West Indies Campaign'. They are not classed as part of the Anglo-French War 1778. Please name a source that links the battle of the Saintes 1782 as part of the Anglo-French War 1778 - nothing comes up. I've clearly posted the evidence but please stop criticising the content. You'r questioning history professor like Jeremy Black. Also why are you making paragraphs on the conduct of the war in the Caribbean? I'm fully aware of the events post Yorktown. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You're rehasing the same sort of failed arguments in an attempt to skirt the bigger issues. No historian is above scrutiny, and Black, [add : a historian devoted to pro-British history, unlike Ferling, Chernow, etc, historians often critical of American history], is only one historian, while many others prefer to use the more incliusive term, French Anglo War. The battles in question are remotely linked to the ARW, if at all. We're discussing why we should or should not merge this article with the France in the ARW article, and what the Anglo-French Wars have very often been referred to in the 18th century, while you've been provided plenty of sources and historgraphical explanations that substantiate that simple fact. Saintes was just one battle. To link Saintes to this theater all that any intelligent reader need know is that it involved shipping and trading disputes, between Britain and France, in the West Indies, in 1782, having nothing to do with the ARW other than it helped Britain during peace negotiations to keep her possession in the West Indies, after the surrender of Yorktown. After that there is nothing to say about Saintes in regards to the ARW. Any attempt to dump the dozens of the contemporaneous battles in question into the target article would, once again, obscure the narrative of that article and create Due-Weight issues that would be impossible to ignore, and once again, you've avoided that discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan, XavierGreen, and Gwillhickers: more concisely, our discussion proceeds this way:

- SIDE #1: [Battle 'A'] is not among the events documented [for or against] US independence, DO NOT MERGE 'any article' of British-French battles without the US into an article for "nation-in-the-AMERICAN-revolution".

- SIDE #2: [Battle 'A'] is not in the 'Anglo-French War (1778)', AND 1778-1783 is "during" 1775-1783 (so all RS say), DO MERGE 'all articles of British-French battles without the US into "nation-in-the-AMERICAN-revolution".

- REPEAT.

I am not persuaded to SIDE #2. Even were [Battle 'A'] NOT in a given [pick-any-name] war that was (a) declared by France on Britain without the US, and (b) ended with a peace between Britain and France without the US, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that wikipedia editorial policy should be, "ALL Anglo-French battles without the US should be merged into the AMERICAN revolutionary war 1778-1783 and its sister articles". Against merger. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The majority... correction, the vast majority of historians don't use the term Anglo-French war as I have said the only major source which is only really a subject heading is the Library of Congress. You're questioning those historians themselves as for asking why they have included the AWR with the Battle of the Saintes or siege of Gibraltar and not the Anglo-French war which is quite frankly mind blowing. It seems to me you need to write a book proving that the American Revolutionary war was a separate war to the so called Anglo-French war 1778. Saintes for example was such a big battle that it helped pave way for peace because the war was still going on, as was the siege of Gibraltar. These battles, as the sources prove in the article, were the last major engagements of the American revolutionary war. For example one cannot question Samuel Flagg Bemis 'The Diplomacy of the American Revolution', p. 77: That tremendous citadel thus became a vital factor in the diplomacy of the American Revolution or 'A People and a Nation: A History of the United States' by Jane Kamensky, Carol Sheriff, David W. Blight, Howard Chudacoff, Fredrik Logevall, quote -'If the patriots' revolution ended in British defeat in Virginia in October 1781, Britain's American war ended in victory over the French at the Battle of the Saintes in April 1782. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Eastfarthingan

Sentence #1. LOC categories are legitimate topics for American history articles. Wp:mos allows for national-specific usage to dictate the language of article titles. Events with three elements together, are NOT to be in articles with ‘American Revolution [ary war]’ in them: (1) battles between Britain-France without US, and (2) following declaration of war France-Britain without US, and (3) before peace treaty Britain-France without US, ending the French-British conflict, within the time frame of the ARW, but not connected by events in the ARW.

Sentence #2. WE STIPULATE that 1778-1783 is ‘during the time period’ 1775-1783, as “a plethora” and the “vast majority” of browser-search hits say, RS and popular lit best-sellers alike. (a) We do not deny Bemis: WE STIPULATE, Gibraltar was a vital factor in Euro diplomacy. When the ARW was won at Yorktown Oct 1781, the Bourbon alliance persists in offensive operations against Britain through the GB-US Preliminary Peace 20 November 1782 and the 5 December 1782 George III Speech from the Throne in public before joint Commons-Lords session announces for US independence.

- YES IT IS TRUE: France and Spain continue offensive operations after British Yorktown defeat, and British victory at Saintes, delaying negotiations (per RS provided by others), to achieve the war aim stated in the secret Franco-Spanish Treaty of Aranjuez (1779): conquer Gibraltar from the British. At the treaty, “[Spain] avoided becoming an ally of the United States. She did not even recognize them. The treaty was at odds with the previous [Franco-American Treaty of Alliance.” Spain was an American “co-belligerent”, rather than an ally.

- WE STIPULATE: The “Les Saintes” Islands, or “ Îles des Saintes”, are geographically within North America in the Caribbean Sea (America). WE STIPULATE: the “patriot’s war” means the “American Revolutionary War” (ARW). (b) We do not deny Kamensky, et al: WE STIPULATE, “the patriot’s revolution [ARW] ended in British defeat in Virginia in October 1781". WE STIPULATE, “Britain’s American war [in the Caribbean] ended in victory over the French at the Battle of the Saintes in April 1782.” Against merger. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply to XavierGreen

Sentence #3a: WE STIPULATE, Eastfarthingan and XavierGreen have provided browser-search results for “American Revolutionary War”, with “literally dozens of sources” without comprehending their meaning. There is no evident sanctioned practice occurring by careless editors, but the method has lead to at least one wp:error claim.

- The "Browser-search, snippet-hit method" (BSSH) found a search term that was not read in context. In a direct quote from Mackesey‘s Introduction, he flatly declares that his book is “NOT about the ARW”, but rather, it is about British government policy and naval strategy in worldwide conflict, "the last in which the Bourbons are the enemy". That RS source as defined in the Intro quote is MISREPRESENTED to wp:editors on multiple Talk pages related to the American Revolution and its sister articles. By the EFT-XG BSSH method, the wp:error conclusion is drawn from the results as supporting “the American Revolution spread worldwide” claim. They do not.

- This repeated assertion without document evidence to connect two separate wars at the same time, has been previously cited to the 1953 article by “Dr,” Robert Shaw article on the “bourgeois-nationalist” American Revolution “spread worldwide”, which connected the ARW to the FR-SP-vs-GB conflict in the Caribbean, Gibraltar and India. It is also as found in another wp:editor “RS”. Lockwood (2019) describes his “imperial American Revolution”: the American Revolutionary war “spread worldwide” to the Caribbean, Europe (Gibaltar, Minorca), India, South America's "Mountains of the Andes", Africa and the imperial-ARW inflicted tragic results on Australian aborigine families. That is the work of “a great storyteller”, as one academic review reported, but the scholar “connected dots where there are no connections”.

Sentence #3b: WE STIPULATE, at least half dozen wp:reliable sources have been provided by Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian, AND PERHAPS ANOTHER HALF DOZEN wp:reliable sources have been provided by Eastfarthingan (when they are read), showing Battle of the Saintes and Great Siege of Gibraltar are within BOTH the ‘Anglo-French War (1778-1783)’ and the ‘Anglo-French Wars’, BUT NOT the ‘American Revolutionary War’. This list of a dozen or so wp:reliable source DO NOT include padding from browser searches with titles NEITHER (a) authored by non-scholars, NOR (b) published by the popular press, NOR (c) without wp:peer review, NOR (d) without reviews in academic journals, NOR (e) awarded ‘best-seller’ newspaper awards instead of ‘Best in History’ Pulitzer Prizes.

We have internationally in European war and diplomacy: (a) GB-FR battles 1778-1783 without the US, and (b) GB-SP battles 1779-1783 without the US. All are (1) without a document to connect them to American Independence, (2) in no way referencing American Independence, and (3) all documented as about Bourbon imperial gain after the military end of the ARW (Yorktown 1781). The arguments for an ‘ARW spread worldwide’ are claims “of literally no weight”. Against merger. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

RS for Saintes and Gibraltar

So we have provided sources, are being scrutinised for it and now being called 'careless'. On the contrary the sources I have provided clearly show with quotes that Battle of the Saintes and Great Siege of Gibraltar are within BOTH the American Revolutionary War. You have not provided any sources saying that both were part of the ...so called 'Anglo-French War 1778-83'. The list I provided are wp:reliable source DO include padding from browser searches with titles that are (a) authored by scholars, (b) published by the popular press, (c) with wp:peer review, and (d) with reviews in academic journals and (e) and have been awarded or are finalists in ‘Best in History’ Pulitzer Prizes - Bemis (winner), David K. Allison and Larrie D. Ferreiro (finalists). In any case the only evidence you have provided is surprising given that that sources also mention the Bourbon War so perhaps we should rename it that? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Why yes. What's the surprise, that sources may be scrutinized on wp:Talk pages? What could be your objection to that procedure here at Talk:Anglo-French War (1778-1783)? We stipulate all of your direct quotes from every mutually agreed-to wp:reliable source, but we cannot accept careless wp:POV extrapolation by term browser-search of TIMELINE without document evidence connecting EVENTS. Our mutual stipulations for RS include the three (3) you recap:

(1) Bemis: "The French reversal at Battle of the Saintes April 1782 caused them to abandon their plan to seize Jamaica, and instead protect their own [Caribbean territories].” p.77 Our common RS note that Jamaica that its revenues to the British Treasury were three times those of all Thirteen Colonies combined. No dispatches among the French and British fleet commanders referenced Lord Clinton’s evacuation of New York City, the last British activity after October 1781. The British Admiralty of Lord Sandwich was looking for their next employment at the collapse of the North Prime Ministership.

- As a war aim of imperial Bourbon acquisition, explicitly codified in the Franco-Spanish Treaty, Gibraltar was indeed “a vital factor in diplomacy” because the French and Spanish continued fighting after Yorktown September 1781, after the British war Prime Minister’s ouster March 1782. 77 France and Spain refused to sign a Preliminary Peace in November 1782, as the Americans won their independence from Britain, prolonging their separate war conducted apart from that independence hoping to secure Gibraltar. The Bourbon Alliance began negotiations with Britain SEPARATELY in January 1783, ONLY AFTER their defeat in a ‘Final Assault’ at Gibraltar, September 1782, AND AFTER George III announcing for American independence 5 December 1782 in a Speech from the Throne.

(2) Allison: “Spanish Gibraltar ‘Final Assault’ September 1782 did have effect on “peace negotiations already underway”, between GB and US. But separate peace negotiations for France and Spain would not begin until January 1783, until after the 5 December 1782 George III announcement for American Independence in his Speech from the Throne, when the fate of US independence had been decided without consulting the Bourbon Alliance. France and Spain instead began preparations for a second invasion attempt on England, and during the delay, hoped to gain Gibraltar before concluding a separate peace for their separate war.

- French defeat at Saintes did influence their diplomacy for the Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles 1783; Spanish defeat at Gibraltar did influence their diplomacy for the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles 1783. But the British victories did not alter their new long-term policy to (1) grant US independence with a generous cession to break them from their French military alliance, and (2) ensure their alternate to the Germanies as a breadbasket, were France attempt a ‘Continental System’ of embargo against GB during a European war in the future.

(3) Ferreiro: “By the time of the siege of Yorktown, in 1781 [ending the American Revolutionary War-Britannica at "American Revolutionary War"], “Britain was becoming overwhelmed by the effort of fighting five separate nation-states around the globe—France, Spain, the United States, the Dutch Republic, and the Kingdom of Mysore, in India. Ultimately, it was the events in that wider global war that led to American Independence.” 1 That is not the misunderstood repurposing for wp:editors POV: to say, at the time of the American Revolution where belligerent shooting ended in 1781, the wider global war begun at the same TIME elsewhere became EVENTS in the American Revolutionary War itself, (?), even after the conflict ended among British subjects over (rebellion)(independence): (a) by cease fire in 1781, (b) by armistice in 1782, and (c) by conclusive treaty 1783. This wp:editor POV wp:error stretches the American war without the Americans participation or consent into 1782 Saintes and Gibraltar, 1783 lifting Gibraltar siege, and 1784 India. All this after Congress defunded its Navy and furloughed its entire Army home in April 1782 (!)(?)

- “At the time, Jamaica by itself was more lucrative for the British than its thirteen American colonies combined.”[ https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_American_Revolution/IlpnDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 220] But, “Britain hoped the terms would foster an amicable relationship and future [US] trade—at the expense of America’s wartime allies”.[ https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_American_Revolution/IlpnDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 223] And thus began Ferreiro’s American Independence establishment, apart from the post-1781 British war among the nation-states remaining, “France, Spain, …the Dutch Republic, and the Kingdom of Mysore, in India.” His extended “American Revolutionary War” is defined by coincident concurrent TIME to connect events on museum display, he offers no document to connect the EVENTS of the American Revolutionary War to the EVENTS called out in the Treaty of Aranjuez itemized as territorial acquisition for Bourbon imperial expansion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I have shown that careless misstatement of Mackesey’s thesis, which is NOT about the American Revolutionary War (ie: “This book is not about the American Revolutionary War”), cannot be used to support your “spread worldwide” assertion.

You still have found no RS to offer a document to connect the ARW to the 1778 French-declared offensive war against Britain (a) unrelated to American trade and (b) without Congressional consent. Nor have you found an RS to offer a document for the 1779 Spanish-declared war on Britain OTHER THAN the Pacte de Famille and the Franco-Spanish Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), meant to acquire Gibraltar and Bourbon imperial expansion at the expense of Britain, and regardless of American independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Subject of Due-Weight is being avoided

Once again, many sources refer to the Anglo-French Wars of the 18th century where the time period 1778-1783 fits right in. That date range does not have to be spelled out to support this idea. Not one of the sources explains how these trade and shipping battles during 1778-1783 were actually part of the French effort in the fight for American independence, the subject of the target article. The Anglo-French wars/battles were over shipping and trade disputes between Britain and France, having little to nothing to do with the ARW, with the exception of two battles, the events of which were discussed at the peace talks. After that there is nothing that ties them in with the ARW. Regardless of how many sources refer to one title or the other they are all referring to the same trade disputes between Britain and France which wholly involved remote battles elsewhere on the globe that didn't involve the fight for American independence. We should observe Due-Weight and not fill up the target article with all these remote battles, as that would obscure the narrative about French belligerents fighting with the Americans for American independence and raise Due-Weight issues — an issue that has continuously been avoided. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The principal of due weight is not being avoided, to have this page be titled "Anglo-French War" violates "due weight" as only a tiny minority of sources use the name. Per wiki:CommonName, this article must be merged into France in the American Revolutionary War. Eastfarthingian and I have provided literally dozens of sources substantiating that Revolutionary War is the preferred name used by authors of all types, while you and TVH have provided less than a half dozen sources which use the term to specifically refer to the conflict that this article covers. Also, there is already an article which covers the centuries long conflict between england and france, Anglo-French Wars, so your arguments in relation to that aspect are of literally no weight.XavierGreen (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

XG', your assessment of Due-Weight is based on the superficial idea that 'my list of sources is bigger than yours'. The weight of any subject is based on the overwhelming facts. The facts are, that the Anglo-French Wars occurred over shipping and naval dominance through the 18th century between Britain and France, and this continued during the ARW, and thereafter. We've already acknowledged that the wars/battles that occurred during 1778-1783 were, in a couple of cases, linked to the ARW, but only inasmuch as they came up during the peace talks, along with many other issues – that's about it. This alone doesn't really establish the idea of being "part of" the ARW, and the sources that claim this to be so only mention this generic idea in passing -- not one has been produced that explains why, still. The idea of being "part of" the ARW is actually secondary to the greater Anglo-French wars which was what Britain and France were always engaged in during the 18th century. The weight of any subject is based on the facts. There are very few facts that tie the battles in question to the ARW. The facts that tie these battles to the prevailing Anglo-French wars are overwhelming and are what distinguish these battles from the others. This is why we have two dedicated articles for the two types of battles — one that involves the fight for American independence - one for the ongoing trade wars between Britain and France that did not involve American belligerents or the actual fight for American independence. This should not be ignored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We’re not talking about the wars in general of the eighteenth century, the AWR is the war we are talking about. As I have stated historians view the war as one war, a global conflict with different campaigns in India, Caribbean, European waters and central America. To give ‘due weight’ you need a consensus and right now the sources speak for themselves whereas the former is only between you & TVH. Let’s look at an example from the Smithsonian mag - ‘The American Revolution Was Just One Battlefront in a Huge World War A new Smithsonian exhibition examines the global context that bolstered the colonists’ fight for independence by historian Alice George . As you can see the The American Revolution: A Global War is also a testament to that too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

As Eastfarthingian said, there was one war, the American Revolutionary War and as such there should be one article focused overall on that war as well as one article focused on France's participation in that war, France in the American Revolutionary War. Should there be articles focusing on the various campaigns and theaters of that war? Yes, the West Indies Campaign, East Indies Theater, and European Theater articles should be established. But each of them are campaigns and theaters of the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We are discussing the Anglo-French wars, per the title of this article, and in particular the period from 1778-1783, which involved much more than one war – it involved Britain and France protecting their possessions and fighting over trade, shipping and naval dominance around the world, the likes of which having no involvement with the ARW other than that a couple of battles were 'discussed', (talk) in the peace talks between Britain and France. Again, the weight of any topic involves the facts involved with that topic, and in this case, nearly all the facts associated with the battles in question involve the actual battles -- not a thing about actual French involvement in the war over American independence, which is what the target article is focused on. e.g.Not even John Drinkwater explains how Gibraltar was involved in the ARW for the simple reason there is virtually nothing to say. His entire account involves the British, Spanish and French belligerents and the events associated with the siege.

In any case, if it is your wish to bring coverage of Gibraltar into the target article, you will need to connect it up with the theme of that article and explain how the French belligerents fighting for American independence have anything to do with Gibraltar. As we know, there's virtually nothing to write about, regardless of how many sources refer to Gibraltar as "part of" the ARW.  Drinkwater didn't. We need more than a source that says 'Simon sez'. Again, there are overwhelming facts that connect the battles in question to the Anglo-French Wars -- next to no facts that connect them to the ARW. Again, this is why there are two dedicated articles for the two sets of wars. Lumping all these battles into one article would present the reader with a mixed bag of nuts. Do you really want to pass off the Great Siege of Gibraltar as but a minor chapter in the ARW? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, there is already a separate article titled Anglo-French Wars for the long term multi-century cyclical conflict between England/Britain and France. This article should no more be named "Anglo-French War 1778 to 1783 than the War of the Spanish Succession or War of the Austrian Succession should.XavierGreen (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There are also other articles for specific periods involving the Anglo-French Wars, including this one. There are no facts to speak of that connect the Anglo-French Wars of 1778-1783 to the ARW. There are plenty of facts that connect them to the trade and naval dominance disputes between Britain and France around the world that have always typified the Anglo-French Wars. The ARW is but a side note to the Anglo-French Wars of 1778-1783, only because they occurred during the same time period, and in (only) a couple of cases when they were discussed during the peace talks. That's hardly a basis to be referring to all the dozens of battles in question as "part of" the ARW. Again, we have two distinct sets of battles, fought for their own specific objectives, which is why we have two dedicated articles for each. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)