Wikipedia

Talk:Battle of the Mona Passage/Archive 1

< Talk:Battle of the Mona Passage
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Eastfarthingan in topic Issue remains unresolved
Archive 1

Connection between Battle of the Mona Passage and the American Revolutionary War

Latest comment: 4 years ago51 comments3 people in discussion

The narrative in this article doesn't mention the American Revolutionary War once. If the info-box is to indicate that this battle was part of the ARW it should explain how it was part of that war, a war that was declared for American independence. The info-box also doesn't indicate any American belligerents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It does now. Thanks for pointing it out. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, the article now mentions that the battle "... took place during the American Revolutionary War". That's it. Still no Americans listed as belligerents in the info-box. If the Americans were not involved, then there is no real connection between any given event and the ARW. At least Gibraltar factored into negotiations, such that it did, during the Treaty of Paris. This was a battle fought between Britain and France. The article doesn't even cover what the battle was fought over, much less how it ties in with and impacted the actual ARW. Seem this was just another episode in the ongoing Anglo-French war, or if you prefer, the ongoing series of conflicts between Britain and France. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Whether Americans are involved or not, it is still part of the wider American Revolution as the sources have indicated. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Let's not confuse opinion, no matter where it comes from, with the facts. If there is no viable explanation, supported by facts, then all we have is opinion, which, when weighed against all the sources on the ARW that don't even mention this one battle, the source in question can be easily challenged on that note. How does any source(s?) explain the connection? If a source can provide a viable connection with the ARW, how this battle impacted the struggle for/against independence, then I would be among the first to welcome such coverage. If they can't carry the ball any further than to say that this battle was fought "during" the ARW, then I'm afraid all we have is an opinion, not supported by the facts. The banner of an info-box should not have a one-sided opinion plastered across its top. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The battle was a consequence of the Battle of the Saintes which was important in itself in changing Britain's tone (so does Gibraltar as we have discussed) in ending the war. The books in the article used as sources speak for themselves:

mark0

  • La Société des Cincinnati de France et la guerre d'Amérique (1778-1783)
  • America's First Ally: France in the Revolutionary War
  • A Few Bloody Noses: The American Revolutionary War.

There are few more which mention it as part of the AWR, but these can suffice for the article's size. They all mention the battle which is enough - so opinion does not come into it. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide an explanation other than some source 'says so', i.e.an opinion? The Battle of Mona Passage may be a consequence of the Battle of the Saintes, a fight for control of Jamica and its sugar production, but that doesn't explain how the Battle of Mona Passage is connected to the ARW. These trade-war battles are clearly a part of the Anglo-French wars, more than anything else, by far. Yes, France was America's first ally, but that doesn't answer the question of how a battle fought between Britain and France is connected to the ARW. I tried searching A Few Bloody Noses. It has limited viewing on-line, but the term Mona Passage didn't come up. If it does, how does it explain the connection between this battle and the ARW? I would dare say 99% of the sources on the ARW don't even mention the Battle of Mona Passage. Again, if there is a solid connection between this naval battle and the ARW I'd welcome the coverage. Before the French and British encounter, this French fleet was not shipping supplies to the American war effort, or involved in any such capacity – it was bound for Haiti. Again, where is the connection to the ARW? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
The whole point of the French expedition (to link with Spanish forces) was to get Jamsica, and gain maxmimum bargaining power at the ongoing Paris peace talks (Americans were unvolved) that would end what is perceptionaly known as the AWR. Perhaps you could write a book and change people's perceptions of this being NOT part of the AWR. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
It's sort of difficult to accept the premise that the reason the two fleets engaged, was not for control of the of the sugar trade, but to have this 'angle' during the negotiations at the Treaty of Paris, which occurred a year and a half after this singular battle occurred. Remember, the only thing the Americans settled for during the peace negotiations was for recognition of American independence and the territory east of the Mississippi. The Americans could care less about the fate of Gibraltar, much less the conflict between Britain and France over sugar. Again, we need a solid connection between this battle and the ARW, one which historically overrides the ongoing conflicts between Britain and France, per the centuries old Anglo-French Wars, or conflicts, or trade wars, if you prefer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
It was about the sugar trade as Jamaica was far more valuable than America and for that very reason Jamaica was a target for France and Spain to gain bargaining power to end the war as I have said. It really isn't difficult to understand. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The official end of the war, per the Treaty of Paris, was a year and a half away. Cornwallis had already surrendered and the British had orders not to engage the Americans. The trade wars (Anglo-French wars/conflicts) in that region were ongoing before and after the ARW. That clearly puts this battle under the heading of the Anglo-French wars. If the sugar trade was "far more" valuable to Britain than the colonies then it would seem Britain would not have committed so many men and ships, for eight years, on the American continent. At the time sugar may have factored into the British economy more than the colonies, esp since the war in America was costing Britain plenty, but it would seem that she was wise enough to know that once the war was over the continent had far more monetary potential, with its vast resources, and far more strategic value, than did Jamaica and other such tiny islands. What source(s) claim that the sugar trade, Jamaica, et al, factored into the peace negotiations, and will the article make that connection, sources permitting? Even the Treaty of Paris article doesn't mention Jamaica, sugar or any such thing. Simply because something is put on the bargaining table, if indeed it was, at a peace conference, doesn't automatically make it "part of" the ARW. If a given battle isn't being fought for/against American independence, but for trade and bargaining concerns, and especially if there are no American concerns and belligerents involved, it is not part of the ARW, regardless of any passing opinion that may be advanced by a couple of sources. All sources have to be considered, and almost all of them don't even mention Mono Passage. Control of the sugar and other trades were long since at the center of the Anglo-French wars, before, during and after the ARW. Hence the banner should indicate Anglo-French Wars. To say otherwise would raise due weight issues and be a dubious claim based on sketchy ideas that can easily be contested. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

quote - If the sugar trade was "far more" valuable to Britain than the colonies then it would seem Britain would not have committed so many men and ships, for eight years, on the American continent.

To confirm this here is a quote from The Guns of Independence: The Siege of Yorktown, 1781, by Jerome Greene

the Caribbean islands first and foremost Jamaica, were incomparably more valuable to the British crown than the American mainland.

  • Insert : You left out a very important item of context in Greene's quote. Here is the entire statement:
    "Within the global balance of power of 1781, the Caribbean islands, first and foremost Jamiaca, were incomparably more valuable to the British Crown than the American mainland." As I said, 'at that time', this was understandably so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Where is there evidence that is part of the Anglo French war? Historians have got their first and said this is part of the AWR. Books on the AWR have mentioned this battle as the conclusion of the war was happening and peace talks going on. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Actually, the evidence is right in front of you. i.e. The battle was fought between Britain and France. i.e.The Anglo-French war. Not Britain and the American colonies. What sources covers Mono Passage in terms of the ARW and/or the Treaty of Paris? How is the connection explained? A remote connection at best? Again, -Britain needed funding for the war desperately, and sugar, especially at that time, was the key. Britain certainly wasn't making money off the colonies during the war -- they were costing her (big) money. If the colonies, and the strategic American continent, with its endless and varied resources, were not more important in the long run, Britain would not have sailed clear across the Atlantic, repeatedly, and committed so many ships and men over an eight year period. In any event, mono-passage is directly related to the ongoing Anglo-French wars, and at best, remotely related to the ARW, if it was at all. We need to look into the peace negotiations further to see if battles like Mono Passage were even mentioned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question who says this battle is part of the Anglo-French war? Is there a historian that says so? It is part of the Arw Here's one from Napoleon's Admirals: Flag Officers of the Arc de Triomphe, 1789-1815 By Richard Humble:

de Grasse's defeat of Graves fleet in Chesapeake Bay which sealed the fate of of Lord Cornwallis's army at Yorktown and clinched American victory. Caton escaped from Rodney's subsequent defeat and capture of de Grasse in the Battle of the Saintes but six days later was overtaken and captured in the Mona Passage by the pursuing battle squadron of Hood

Here is another: 'War and Empire: The Expansion of Britain, 1790-1830' By Bruce Collins. p. 82:

Extrapolated for the entire war this level of naval casualties match the Americans' total losses of 25,000 during the war of independence from Britain. But the naval effort indicated that if the French and Spanish from 1779 reinforced by the Dutch from 1780 have been unable to defeat a vastly over stretched Royal Navy then they would be unlikely ever to do so. Moreover British dominance in fighting at sea began in the early 1780s not in the 'age of Nelson'; the Spanish lost 7 ships of the line as a result of combat on 16 January 1780 while in 1782 the French lost the same aggregate number at the Saintes and Mona passage one week later. One of the Legacy of the Wars of the American Revolution was the expectation of victories at sea.

Hope that helps? Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

edit break

  • Since you are the one claiming that Mono Passage is "part of" the ARW, it's incumbent on you to provide the source that substantiates the idea, and with more than one source, and in no uncertain terms, since this idea is being contested. This has not been done, in the least, let alone substantially.
  • Re this source:  Collins, War and Empire: The Expansion of Britain, 1790-1830', p. 82 — What does British expansion after 1790 have to do with the issue here? There was nothing there that says Mono Passage was "part of" the ARW. However, even Collins, at the beginning of chapter 6 makes the same characterization of Anglo-French wars in the Caribbean, and even uses that term:  "With the Caribbean virtually off-limits to French naval and military initiatives, there seemed to be a strategic stalemate in the Anglo French war."<Collins, Chapter 6>
  • Most, if not all, the Anglo-French wars of the 18th century are characterized by trade and shipping conflicts between Britain and France. We really don't need a source that singles out a specific year range in terms off a specific WP article i.e.Anglo-French War (1778-1783), because this idea is substantiated in numerous sources.
  • The sourced lede statement in the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) article says — "From 1778 to 1783, with or without their allies, France and Britain fought over dominance in the English Channel, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the West Indies."  Mono Passage was fought in 1782, in the West Indies. That puts it right in the middle of the Anglo-French Wars, which didn't begin, or end, during the ARW.  This battle has much more to do with the Anglo-French wars than it does with the ARW, which as of yet hasn't been explained by anyone. Again, we have serious due weight and NPOV issues looming with the info-box, not to mention the article itself, completely ignoring this idea. Please source the idea that this battle was "part of" the ARW, and then explain the connection to the ARW, again, with more than one source since nearly all sources on the ARW don't even mention Mono Passage, except in passing reference to remote events, at best and rarely, per due weight. Otherwise this article will be begging for multiple tags. Don't want to sound gruff, but that's what is on the table now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Your argument is totally misleading. What do you make of this quote thst I nentioned above then? the French lost the same aggregate number at the Saintes and Mona passage one week later. One of the Legacy of the Wars of the American Revolution was the expectation of victories at sea. You're also missing the point as I have already said this battle is clearly linked to the Battle of the Saintes; so why are you targeting this page since it was the conclusion of said battle and why are not making any mention of it on that talk page? Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The lede in the Battle of Saintes says,  "The Battle of the Saintes ... was an important naval battle in the Caribbean between the British and the French ... during the American Revolutionary War."  Like the battle of Saintes, the battle of Mono Passage is part of the ongoing Anglo-French wars that were frequent during the 18th century. You were given information that places this battle in the middle of the Anglo-French wars. Regardless of what lead up to this battle, it has all the characteristics of the other battles in the ongoing Anglo-French Wars, regardless of what the Americans "expected at sea". Otoh, there is only a remote association, at best, between this battle and the ARW. If you are going to have the info-box, and eventually the article, indicate that this battle was part of the ARW, while totally ignoring the Anglo-French conflicts which characterize this battle, please give us the source which explains this in no uncertain terms. This still has not been done. It is incumbent on you to back up your statements with sources that explain matters, especially when they are challenged by other facts. In terms of the ARW, saying the Battle of Saintes led up to this battle says nothing in that regard. There still is no viable connection between this battle and the ARW inasmuch as to justify having the info-box indicate this, rather than the ongoing Anglo-French trade wars, which this battle was clearly a part of. -- If this sort of obfuscation continues I'm afraid the article will have to be tagged for NPOV, Due-weight and lack of citations. I thought it best if we could work together and avoid that. - Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Again name your sources that says Battle of the Saintes or the Mona Passage was part of the Anglo-French wars? Here's a few to prove my point -
  • 'Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: P-Z' By Tony Jaques p. 885 - Saintes | 1782 | War of the American Revolution
  • 'America's First Ally: France in the Revolutionary War' by Norman Desmarais p. 164-65 - a whole section on the Mona Passage.
  • 'George Washington's Opponents: British Generals and Admirals in the American Revolution' by George Athan Billias p.348- Hood caught up with French in the Mona Passage
  • 'Ships and Seamen of the American Revolution' Jack Coggins p. 195 mentions Naval Campaigns in the West Indies 1780-82 AND H. takes two 64's one frigate and one sloop in Mona passage west of Puerto Rico

So from these few examples you can see that Anglo-French war is nowhere to be seen. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

mark1

Once again, it is incumbent on you to provide a source that explains how Mono Passage is part of the ARW.  Desmarais' America's First Ally, and the account on Mona Passage is actually found beginning on p. 164 and doesn't mention, let alone connect it, to the ARW. The other sources you provided above don't do this either. To go so far as to hold these items up and say ,"from these few examples you can see that Anglo-French war is nowhere to be seen", only tells us you are cherry picking the sources and are simply ignoring all incidences where the term Anglo-French is indeed used to depict all the Anglo-French wars, battles, conflicts of the 18th century between Britain and France. It seems neither of us can find a source that specifically says Mono Passage was a "part of" anything, so all we can do is substantiate our contentions at a greater level. It's easy to show that Mono Passage was part of the Anglo-French wars simply because it involved the British and French, in the West Indies, in the latter 18th century over trade wars. This is what defines all such conflicts at that time and place. Sorry. Otoh, you have yet to cite a source that actually explains how Momo Passage was part of the ARW, and haven't even come close to explaining it, still. Meanwhile the article still lacks a citation supporting your opinion, and we still have NPOV and Due-Weight issues, as you insist on believing that Mono Passage had more to do with the ARW than it did the Anglo-French Wars over trading in the West Indies. Oh well, I tried to avoid this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Have you actually read the book titles?Perhaps you should read those first before commenting - they actaully mention the ARW. As for cherry picking, at least I am providing sources and not coming up with a wild opinion on a war that doesn't exist except in your head. I'm still awaiting your response to actual links to this article being a part of the 'Anglo-French war'. Where are your sources? As for America's First Ally well done for acknowledging the correct page that I actually stated unless you thought it was a typo? Also why are you still concentrating your effort on this page and not the battle of the Saintes itself. The due weight for this discussion is based there since it is the conclusion of that battle. Please stop the deflection. It seems your cherry picking this article just because it is easier to due so being a smaller battle of the ARW. You have 24 hours to provide at least one source that links this battle to the so called Anglo-French war. Failure to do so means I will remove all the templates. Good luck.Eastfarthingan (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The tags remain until all criteria for removal are met, or until a source that explains how this battle is more connected with the ARW than it is the Anglo-French trade wars -- and it's not your place to be putting a time limit on anything before the issues have been resolved between both parties. Thank you. The Anglo-French Wars existed between Britain and France throughout the 18th century. I have placed Mona Passage right in the middle of it, and have pointed out how it's characterized the same as all the other Anglo-French wars and conflicts that occurred in the West Indies, and elsewhere, involving Britain and France over trade. As for reading books, I've noted many, including the ones you've brought to the table, while you still have yet to come up with a source, not even your own explanation, about how the battle of Mona Passage was connected to the ARW, more so than it was with the Anglo-French war/conflicts. That this was a continuation of the Battle of the Saintes says nothing in that regard, only that Saintes came up in negotiations, along with many other greater issues, at the end of the ARW. This, however, doesn't negate the idea that it was also a part of the ongoing Anglo-French trade wars. The battles have much more to do with the British/French Trade wars than the ARW by far.
  • We can say that both the Battle of the Saintes factored into peace negotiations, like dozens of other events and ideas did, but what mainly characterizes these battles (Saintes, Mona Passage) was that they were part of the ongoing trade wars between Britain and France, widely referred to as the Anglo French wars, as has been pointed out elsewhere several times now. Once again, to have the info-box indicate that Mona Passage was part of the ARW while completely ignoring the Anglo-French trade wars in the West Indies is a gross misrepresentation that has created serious NPOV and Due-Weight issues.
  • Just to put a perspective on affairs, if the Americans didn't receive recognition of American independence and the vast territory east of the Mississippi, there would have been no peace settlement at all, regardless of any agreements between Britain and France over trade, so in terms of what ended the ARW let's attribute the bulk of the weight were it belongs please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References to the Anglo-French wars during 1778-1783

  • Here is a 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. <Hagan & McMaster, 2009, p. 51>
No one is denying that these events occurred during the ARW, but the Anglo-French war was still its own war, fought for its own specific objectives, i.e.naval dominance and trade, having nothing to do with the fight for American independence. That is what makes anything "part of" ARW. i.e.War -- not becoming an issue in peace negotiations after the war. During the negotiations which came more than a year later there were dozens of other issues being negotiated, many of which rendered battles like Saintes and Mona Passage relatively insignificant, esp when compared to recognition of American Independence, territory, etc. — "Part of" the war? Only in the remotest sense. The article needs to observe due weight on that note, and the info-box as it reads flies in the face of that idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for this battle to be linked with the Anglo French war. You've come up with sources that mention neither the Saintes or the Mona passage in that respect. Please explain this too - During the negotiations which came more than a year later. The Paris peace negotiations were actually going on around the same time. And then there's this the Anglo-French war was still its own war, fought for its own specific objectives, i.e.naval dominance and trade, having nothing to do with the fight for American independence. So you're saying that the Comte De Grasse & his navy who was defeated at the Saintes was a completely different person with his fleet to the one that fought at the Battle of the Chesapeake? When you say this article needs to observe due weight but still there is nothing on the battle of the Saintes. Again good luck. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The link is spelled out for you. While the names of specific battles are not spelled out, they are well placed within the time and place, involving British and French belligerents, over trade and naval dominance – and while the Battle of the Chesapeak involved De Grasse and his fleet, this was a different theater that came well after his Anglo-French involvements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This the wrong talk page. May I remind you this is about the Battle of the Mona Passage and you're going off on a tangent. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Rubbish. You were the one who brought Saintes into the fold, and it is being debated how both the battles of Saintes and Mona Passage are part of the Anglo-French wars. You were the one who said this war only existed in my head. I've introduced direct references to the Anglo-French wars of that period regarding the West Indies where these battles occurred. That you're trying to brush this all aside with some flip comment only tells me your entire premise seems to be foundering. Meanwhile, and once again, it is incumbent on you to provide a source that explains how Mona Passage is more a part of the ARW, so much so that it's in the info-box, than it was the Anglo-French wars that occurred in 1782. Once this has been done, you need to incorporate this into the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

These books all mention the Mona Passage affair with relevant page nos. Check the book titles - I rest my case.
  • La Société des Cincinnati de France et la guerre d'Amérique (1778-1783). Auguste Picard. p. 180.
  • A Few Bloody Noses: The American Revolutionary War. Harvey p. 530
  • 'Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: P-Z' By Tony Jaques p. 885 - Saintes | 1782 | War of the American Revolution
  • 'America's First Ally: France in the Revolutionary War' by Norman Desmarais p. 164-65
  • 'George Washington's Opponents: British Generals and Admirals in the American Revolution' by George Athan Billias p.348- Hood caught up with French in the Mona Passage
  • 'Ships and Seamen of the American Revolution' Jack Coggins p. 195 mentions Naval Campaigns in the West Indies 1780-82 AND H. takes two 64's one frigate and one sloop in Mona passage west of Puerto Rico Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense. Many things outside the ARW are mentioned in books whose titles indicate the ARW. Can you cite a passage from anyone of them that connects Mona Passage to the ARW more than the Anglo-French wars, and if so, why haven't you done so? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile you're ignoring direct references to the Anglo-French war that refer to the West Indies, "most importantly", and in the same time period as the battle of Mona Passage occurred. That you think this battle, over trade and naval dominance, which has always characterized Anglo-French battles, happened in a vacuum, totally apart from the Anglo-French war, which you claimed only existed in my head, is beginning to indicate that you are simply being impossible all the way around. Disappointed. --- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Im ignoring direct references to the Anglo-French war. You havent come up with one single source linking the Mona Passage to the Anglo-French war I already have cited the passages from the relevant books. I say to you again - look at the names of the book titles. Note they state American Revolutionary war or American revolution. As I have stated (again) Mona Passge is linked to the Battle of the Saintes so to quote Jaques on p. 885 - Saintes | 1782 | War of the American Revolution. Also going back to your quote "With the Caribbean virtually off-limits to French naval and military initiatives, there seemed to be a strategic stalemate in the Anglo French war."<Collins, Chapter 6> Note chapter 6 is dated 1798-1801 which is during the French Revolutionary war! Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Again please name sources that state that the battle of the Mona Passage (or Saintes for that matter) is part of the Anglo French war. Stop deflecting this issue also stop making excuses for sources I have put. Also I have the correct page for Desmarais not the incorrect one so I don't know what you're on about. Good luck (again) Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I've added more sources so here is what I have combining 'American war' with 'Mona Passage'. Note the titles of the books - THAT is the link.

  • La Société des Cincinnati de France et la guerre d'Amérique (1778-1783). Auguste Picard. p. 180.
  • A Few Bloody Noses: The American Revolutionary War. Harvey p. 530
  • 'Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: P-Z' By Tony Jaques p. 885 - Saintes | 1782 | War of the American Revolution
  • 'America's First Ally: France in the Revolutionary War' by Norman Desmarais p. 164-65
  • 'George Washington's Opponents: British Generals and Admirals in the American Revolution' by George Athan Billias p.348- Hood caught up with French in the Mona Passage
  • 'Ships and Seamen of the American Revolution' Jack Coggins p. 195 mentions Naval Campaigns in the West Indies 1780-82 AND H. takes two 64's one frigate and one sloop in Mona passage west of Puerto Rico
  • Sea Power and the American Revolution: 1775-1783 - Alfred Thayer Mahan p. 174 The successive losses of the Caton, Jason, and Zele with the previous detachment of the two 50 gun ships with the convoy had reduced French number
  • The History of the Origin, Progress, and Termination of the American war. Volume 2 - Charles Stedman p.435 In the Mona passage between Hispaniola and Porto Rico Samuel Hood got sight of five French ships two of them of the line and three frigates all of which were taken except one frigate that escaped by a sudden shift of the wind
  • Napoleon's Admirals: Flag Officers of the Arc de Triomphe, 1789-1815 - Richard Humble: p. 108 talking of Charles Rene Magon - Magon served in the greatest French victory in the war: de Grasse's defeat of Graves' fleet in Chesapeake Bay which sealed the fate of of Lord Cornwallis's army at Yorktown and clinched American victory. Caton escaped from Rodney's subsequent defeat and capture of de Grasse in the Battle of the Saintes but six days later was overtaken and captured in the Mona Passage by the pursuing battle squadron of Hood then it says crucially After peace ended the AMERICAN WAR in September 1783.
  • 'War and Empire: The Expansion of Britain, 1790-1830' By Bruce Collins. p. 82: Extrapolated for the entire war this level of naval casualties matched the Americans' total losses of 25,000 during the war of independence from Britain. But the naval effort indicated that if the French and Spanish from 1779 reinforced by the Dutch from 1780 have been unable to defeat a vastly over stretched Royal Navy then they would be unlikely ever to do so. Moreover British dominance in fighting at sea began in the early 1780s not in the 'age of Nelson'; the Spanish lost 7 ships of the line as a result of combat on 16 January 1780 while in 1782 the French lost the same.
  • Navies and the American Revolution 1775-1783 - R Gardiner P.128 section on Mona Passage.

Regards Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Once again, since Mona Passage was fought in 1782, between Britain and France, in the West Indies, over trading and naval disputes, it is easily placed in the middle of the Anglo-French war from 1778-1783 which also involved trade and naval issues. Neither you are I can seem to find a statement that specifically says Mona Passage was "part of" anything, so once again, all we can do is substantiate the idea at a greater level, which is easily done. We've been through this.
  • Once again, since the info-box indicates Part of the ARW, and that you are insisting it remain this way, it is incumbent on you to provide a source that says so, and explains so, especially in terms of Due-Weight. Thus far all you've done is obfuscate and dump a lot of book titles into the Talk page with the assumption that they amount to something.  With all these sources at your disposal, why haven't you sourced the statement in question in the info-box?  Since you have asked me for a specific statement about Mona Passage I'm wondering if you can measure up to your own professed standards and provide such a specific statement. What source says Mona Passage was part of the ARW in as much as it merits a statement in the info box over the Amglo-French war of that period, per due weight? That you have yet to come close in providing such a specific statement, with all these books on the table, your silence on that note is, as they say, deafening. Would you just source the statement in the info-box please? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The sources are clear in the matter the book titles have enough warrant to make the battle to be part of the AWR. The infobox stays as it is as a result. Once again, since Mona Passage was fought in 1782, between Britain and France, in the West Indies, over trading and naval disputes where is there proof of this? all you've done is obfuscate and dump a lot of book titles into the Talk page with the assumption that they amount to something. yes because I have provided sources (& there's more incoming too).
  • Once again where is there proof that Mona passage was part of the Anglo French war?
  • Once again where are the sources that I asked for?
  • Once again the battle is linked to the battle of the Saintes fought just over a week before. Why do you not mention these facts on that talk page? Because the facts are there to link it with the American Revolutionary war.

If you have a source then why haven't you added the corresponding citation to the article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It already is. As mentioned above. 'A Few Bloody Noses: The American Revolutionary War' Harvey p. 530 Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This source has been addressed already. Harvey's Bloody Noses, has very limited viewing on line. Mona Passage doesn't come up, yet, if you claim that it's in there I can believe you, regardless of our differences of opinion. However, this source is used only to cite the claim in the lede that this battle "took place during" the ARW. The idea of 'during' is sketchy in terms of any involvement, i.e."part of", and is hardly a basis for the info-box to be presenting this as the main theme of the battle as compared to the Anglo-French wars, so we still have a serious due-weight issue to deal with.
  • If Mono Passage was actually brought up during peace negotiations, there is no source that says this plainly either, and we would need more than a claim that this battle was an extension if Saintes. In light of the other issues negotiated, i.e.Gibraltar, American independence, territory east of the Mississippi, the outcome of the war would have been the same without Mona Passage, so here is yet another aspect of the lack of due-weight over this battle.
  • As said, it is possible for a battle to be part of more than one thing. We have a reliable source, that says, "From 1778 until 1783 ... 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>" This statement would pertain to all the battles fought over trade and shipping between Britain and France at that time. Though this source doesn't mention all the battles specifically, including Mona Passage, this battle was nevertheless part of it simply because we have other sources that puts this battle in the middle of the West Indies, fought between Britain and France, over trading and shipping, in 1782. Later, its outcome may have been negotiated after the war, but we still have no source that says this plainly. Also, Mona Passage 'may' have been part of the peace negotiations, but it was clearly not part of the actual war for independence, so we should not try to blur those lines either.
  • Could you quote the passage from Harvey, p. 530, that explains how Mona Passage was "part of" the ARW and present any other statement(s) that explains how this battle had more to do with the ARW than it did over trading wars between Britain and France? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
You still have not provided sources on this battle being linked to the American Revolution. You're asking me and I am providing day after day in this repetitive conversation. As for Harvey the battle of the Saintes and the Mona passage is mentioned on that page the quote would be too long. Here is some more:

Regards. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The link with this battle and the Battle of the Saintes has now been made more clear. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Compromise

  • We still don't have a source that specifically says Mono Passage was part of the ARW. However, while Tucker doesn't mention Mona Passage, this source is being used with an additional cite that connects it with Saintes, which can be accepted as part of a  compound citation  to support the ARW statement in the info-box. As was said, it is possible for an event, a battle, to be part of two things. We can say that the battle occurred during the ARW, but at the same time we can't ignore the major consideration between Britain and France, that being, control of sugar (and other) trades in the West Indies, which is what chiefly characterizes the Anglo-French Wars of that (and most) period(s). In all fairness the info box needs to indicate this too, per due-weight considerations. We have a source, Hagan & McMaster, 2009, p. 51, that refers to all contested naval dominance in the West Indies at that time as those of the Anglo-French War. They don't mention any battle specifically, so all we need is another source that places the battle of Mona Passage in that theater at that time, which already exists in the article. Another compound citation. If the banner in the info-box read, Part of the Anglo-French wars and the American Revolutionary War, this would solve NPOV and Due-Weight issues at the same time. Even Tucker provides a map of the Anglo-French wars on p. 112. Then we can remove all tags and get on with the finer aspects of the battle, e.g.the fight over the badly needed Jamaica Sugar trade and all that it supported for both Britain and France, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Btw, citation [4], Winfield, 2007, indicates p. "1720", however, this work only has 400 pages.
Sounds like a good compromise. Before doing that I'd consider going through all the battles like Saintes & Saint Kitts etc - as these will need to be adjusted accordingly. As for Winfield I stand corrected it is p.111 not 1720. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
American Revolutionary War is the common name for this conflict, Eastfarthingan has already provided you with a litany of sources which cite this as part of the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The common name for this conflict is Battle of the Mona Passage and it was right in the middle of the Anglo-French war, which is supported by the two sources Eastfarthington and myself agreed upon. There is also no source that specifically says Mona Passage was "part of" the ARW, but again, we agreed upon supporting this idea with a compound citation (two sources), agreed upon a compromise, and removed the multiple tags. Can you actually explain how this battle was part of the ARW so much so that we should ignore the major weight given to this battle i.e. control of the Jamican sugar trade? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Well I do not agree. An agreement on a talk page is not some sort of enforceable legal settlement, rather disputes are settled by consensus and your unsourced "Anglo-French War fringe theory you are attempting to impute throughout several wikipedia pages has no consensus for adoption here. You know very well what i'm referring to, that the common name for the overarching conflict that this naval action is a part of is the American Revolutionary War. There are a multitude of sources which include this battle as one in the American Revolutionary War. See for examples the Encyclopedia of the American Revolutionary War by Fremont Barnes [[1]], The Major Operations of the Navies in the American War for Independence by Alfred Mahon [[2]] and Navies of the American Revolution 1775 to 1783 by Robert Gardiner [[3]].XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You have yet to present a "multitude of sources", only ones that cover the Mona Passage in books whose titles refer to the ARW, while I have presented sources that indicate otherwise. Books that cover the ARW often refer to events outside that topic realm. Have you come up with a source that specifically says Mona Passage was "part of" the ARW, let alone one which actually explains how? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No Compromise

Latest comment: 4 years ago48 comments3 people in discussion
I'm inclined as to why you have an obsession with this page Gwillhickers? The battle of the Saintes where this battle has its main link should be the object of discussion NOT this article. I'm still waiting for that other source you were looking at to place this battle in the Anglo-French war, which was where we reached a compromise on but that hasn't happened. Any news? Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Let's keep the personal comments to ourselves, can we? I am no more "obsessed" with the article than anyone else around here, thank you. As I said, to which you agreed, the other source placing this battle already exists in the article, that the Battle of the Mona Passage occurred between Britain and France, in the West Indies, over sugar during the time period in question, the likes of which characterize the Anglo-French wars throughout most of the 18th century. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The West Indies theater of the American Revolutionary War involved combat between the British and French over the sugar islands in the Caribbean. The purported source you cite does not blatantly state that "the Battle of the Mona Passage was part of the Anglo-French War". If you expect other editors to adhere to standard that a source must literally state that "the Battle of the Mona Passage was part of the American Revolutionary War" (which I don't believe is necessary but you apparently do), you yourself should adhere to your own standard.XavierGreen (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
You need to review the discussion that was previously agreed upon. Neither Eastfarthingan or myself could come up with a source that specifically said Mona Passage was "part of" anything, so both of us agreed to use more than one source that established matters on a greater level. This source defines the given Anglo-French war in general, that it occurred in the West Indies over naval dominance involving shipping and trading disputes between Britain and France. While an existing source places the actual battle in that theater during the time period involved. Eastfarthingan uses two sources to establish the connection to the ARW because he can't find one that says so specifically either. We were both adhering to the same idea. To ignore the idea that this battle had more to do with control of Jamaican and its sugar, disputes which were typical of the Anglo-French wars in general, once again raises serious POV and due-weight issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I was on the agreement there was another source linking this battle with the Anglo French war was going to be found. This one source already mentioned cannot just be relied on which doesn't even mention this battle. The fact here is that there is no other source linking Mona Passage battle with that war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

mark2

  • This is the statement that you agreed to: " We have a source, Hagan & McMaster, 2009, p. 51, that refers to all contested naval dominance in the West Indies at that time as those of the Anglo-French War. They don't mention any battle specifically, so all we need is another source that places the battle of Mona Passage in that theater at that time, which already exists in the article. Another compound citation." — I thought we were in agreement that all that was needed to supplement this source was another source that placed Mona Passage in the West indies in 1782. Are you saying that there is no source in the article that places this battle between Britain and France in the West Indies in 1782? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The same source you purport to support your "Anglo-French War" argument states on Page 73, "It was naval strategy that made the American War of Independence a global conflict." See here [4] So the source plainly states that the global naval warfare occuring at the time was part of the American War of Independence (a/k/a the American Revolutionary War). I don't think that supports your position at all Gwillhickers.XavierGreen (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Page 73 does not negate what page 51 specifically indicates. The first sentence on p. 73 says, "It was a naval strategy that made the American war of independence a global conflict". What is the "it" being referred to? We know some of the ARW conflicts were global, but certainly not all or most of them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

mark2b

Also, Clodfelter specifically mentions the action in the Mona Passage in his list of naval battles of the American Revolutionary War on Page 135. See here [5]. Specifically this quotation, ""The Saints (Dominica, April 12, 1782...(one week after the battle 2 more French battleships damaged in the battle were captured by the British);" If that isn't a specific citation (inclusion of the battle in a literal list of American Revolutionary war naval battles), I don't know what is.XavierGreen (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • In your search for 'American Revolutionary War' no reference to Mona Passage occurs on p. 135, or anywhere. In fact, p. 135 doesn't come up in your search results. Please slow down. Once again, the sources vary. Some refer to the Anglo-French wars, some list them in books that cover the ARW. — Btw, among your own search results is this item — "Action then switched to the West Indies throughout the Anglo-French conflicts from 1689 to 1815.",  Clodfelter, p. 128 Clodfelter singles out these events in specific terms, i.e."Anglo-French conflicts". Again, the Anglo-French wars, or conflicts, which you previously claimed did not exist, occurred from 1689 to 1815 -- they simply did not cease to exist because the war for American independence was occurring on the American continent. We were willing to acknowledge that some of the battles i n question were "part of" both the ARW and the Anglo-French war. Otoh, you seem intent on censuring any idea of the latter, which is a little troubling because now we have serious due weight and NPOV issues all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Page 135 of Clodfelter is clearly within his chapter on the "War of the American Revolution" (A/K/A, the American Revolutionary War), he explicitly lists all of the major naval actions of that war. The section on the American Revolutionary War starts on page 124 with the bold unmistakable heading "War of the American Revolution", in the very first sentence he states that this is a synonym for the American Revolutionary War and that American Revolutionary War is the more "popular" term. [Revolutionary War] The chapter concludes at 135. There is no possible connotation to even the most lay of readers other than that the list of naval battles (including his reference to this one) is part of his section on the American Revolutionary War, as his book is literally an encyclopedia of wars each with their own individual section or chapter. Your assertions are plainly made in bad faith and at this point are becoming disruptive.XavierGreen (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You said Mona Passage was mentioned on p. 135. Quote: "Also, Clodfelter specifically mentions the action in the Mona Passage in his list of naval battles of the American Revolutionary War on Page 135." Please pay more attention to what you write. — While Clodfelter lists a lot of battles under the heading of the ARW, which I've acknowledged, he goes on to qualify matters by referring to the conflicts in question (not all the ones listed) as those of the Anglo-French conflicts between 1689-1815. Please pay more attention or don't ignore what is said in the discussions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
And to repeat again, Clodfelter's statement "one week after the battle [of the Saintes] 2 more French battleships damaged in the battle were captured by the British" is a reference to the "Battle of the Mona Passage". There was no other action a week after the Saintes in which two French ships of the line were captured by the British. Here is another source on France's participation in the "American Revolutionary War" which on page 164 contains a section on the Mona Passage.[mona passage].XavierGreen (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Now you're just piling up empty boxes. All you've presented are details of the battle, with nothing that indicates that Mona Passage was part of the ARW – all with the assumption that it does simply because it's mentioned in a book covering that war. I've already agreed with Eastfarthingan that we can use the reference to Saintes to connect Mona Passage to the ARW in a compound citation. Please read the discussions more carefully. In any case, none of this negates the fact that Clodfelter, one of your own sources, refers to the battles in question as the Anglo-French conflicts, nor does it negate Hagan & McMaster, 2009, p. 51. Meanwhile you continue to lament about titles while you continue to ignore NPOV and Due-Weight issues, that Mona Passage had little to nothing to do with the ARW, while it had everything to do with the conflict between Britain and France and their fight for control of Jamaica's sugar trade, which, once again, is characteristic of the Anglo-French conflicts in the West Indies in the 18th century. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    (Just a side note, after all you can do as you please, but [[double brackets]] are used for internal links (inside Wikipedia), while [single brackets] are used for external links. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC) )
Why is this discussion being done on this page. the Battle of the Saintes is what this battle is linked to. This article is being picked because it is a minor naval engagement in comparison. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
No where does Clodfelter state the action in the Mona Passage was part of the "Anglo-French War", i have provided a direct quotation from page 135 stated the exact opposite. You have made naked assertions with no page citation, quote or otherwise Gwillhickers. Your plainly acting in bad faith here. You demand to be shown sources, and then when such sources are shown you merely dismiss them.XavierGreen (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I've addressed issues in plenty of articles involving major wars and battles before, [including Gibraltar, as you remember] so please cease with the rank accusations about picking on minor battles. We are trying to resolve something you and I had both agreed on, in this article. I spelled out my quote involved, in my last post to you, not even an hour ago. You made no further comment after the change was made to the info-box. Now that XG' has come along it seems you're trying to back away. If we are not going to permit a compound citation to support the connection to the Anglo-French war, then we must employ the same standard and not allow one to support any connection to the ARW. If the info-box remains with its half inclusive coverage we will have NPOV and Due-Weight issues to deal with all over again, and the article will beg for the tags that you and I were once successful in removing via an honest and compromising discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I am open to any compromise that allows this article to cover the different aspects of Mona Passage battle in regards to both the ARW and the French-Anglo war pertaining to the conflict between Britain and France over control of the Jamaican sugar trade. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I did agree but you have left this article in the dry after I said that the Saintes article and others associated should also be changed. In addition I was waiting for a source that linkied this battle with the Anglo-french war none of which have materialised. XG does have a point in his discussion following your failure to follow up. So for the 3rd time:
  • Why has nothing been done with the battle of the Saintes, which is the forerunner to this article's battle?
  • Why isn't there another source to back up that one already included (despite it only mentioning the West Indies)?

Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion - leave this article as is, with Anglo-French war in the 'See also' segment. That way if a source comes up showing that this battle mentions being a part of the Anglo-French war we can assert to it in infobox & the lede, until that time. Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm still not quite understanding. This is the statement that you agreed to:
" We have a source, Hagan & McMaster, 2009, p. 51, that refers to all contested naval dominance in the West Indies at that time as those of the Anglo-French War. They don't mention any battle specifically, so all we need is another source that places the battle of Mona Passage in that theater at that time, which already exists in the article. Another compound citation."
Stoker, Hagan & McMaster, 2009, refer to the trading and shipping conflicts in the West Indies as those belonging to the ongoing Anglo-French wars. Again, they don't mention any battle specifically, so we provide a citation from an existing source that places Mona Passage in the West Indies at that time, fighting over naval dominance and control of Jamaica. Doesn't the existing sources, Winfield 2007, and Harvey 2004, do this?  Likewise, you support the idea of Mona Passage being "part of" the ARW by linking it to Saintes. Now you're asking for other sources. Also, your suggestion to list Anglo-French War (1778-1783 under See also doesn't quite come off sincere since you were the one who initiated a proposal to merge that article to the France in the American Revolutionary War article, in an apparent ongoing attempt to remove any mention of Anglo-French war (1778-1783) from Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I noticed that there is only one citation now to support the "part of" clause in the info-box, i.e.Tucker, 2013, pp. 373-75. However, these pages are not viewable on line. What is the actual quote that says Mona Passage was "part of" the ARW? Wouldn't it be more neutral to say linked to the ARW? Could you quote the supporting statement? Reminder – merely saying that something occurred "during" the ARW doesn't establish that it was "part of" that war. Also, linking this battle, with Saintes, which also occurred "during" the ARW remains a sketchy basis to be claiming Mona Passage was "part of" the ARW, but I was willing to compromise on that on the basis that Saintes came up at the Treaty of Paris. However, we haven't seen a source that says this in no uncertain terms, yet. Now I'm wondering if I should likewise back away from that idea, all things considered since this past discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
We are just going around in circles. Stoker et al is just one source. Am I ever going to get an answer from you? As for 'see also' that is a compromise for now if the Anglo French war article gets merged. So let me remind you again:
We began going around in circles when you backed away from your agreement, where you never mentioned any of the things you have below. What happened, did all of these things suddenly just occur to you?
  • Why has nothing been done with the battle of the Saintes, which is the forerunner to this article's battle?
Saintes was something you were going to use to link Mona Passage to the ARW. Now you're asking me about that? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Another failure to answer.Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Please be more specific. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's to remind you again of how many sources link this battle with AWR.:
Another failure to answer a simple question. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Why has nothing been done with the battle of the Saintes, which is the forerunner to this article's battle?
You already asked me that, verbatim, directly above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Another failure to answer a simple question. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's to remind you again of those sources including Tucker.
Yes, Botta says that Mona Passage was the last campaign in the West Indies, which we all know was the theater involving the Anglo-French wars. He did not say the last campaign of the ARW. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Another failure to answer a simple question. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hood captures four additional ships, etc. Great. These are just details of the battle. Where does Tucker say anything about these battles being "part of" the ARW? Some sources indicate the various Anglo-French battles happened during the ARW, and are sometimes listed in works on the ARW. No one at this late has produced a source that actually connects them is so far as they were "part of" the ARW, more so than the conflicts in the West Indies, referred to by many sources as the Anglo-French wars of the 18th century. And we still don't have a source that specifically says Mona Passage was "part of" the ARW. As for your remark about See also being a "compromise for now", and in light of your dealings with our original compromise, I don't see how you can expect anyone to accept such words. Once again, Tucker does not satisfy the "part of" the ARW statement. Since the source's vary on the terms used to describe the battles in question, and since they are being challenged, we need a source that explains how Mona Passage, and Saintes, while we're at it, are actually connected to the ARW inasmuch as this is the only thing mentioned in the info-box. No more conjecture. Just find us such a source please. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
The sources are there you keep criticising them and taking them apart. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
There was one war, the American Revolutionary War. All combat between Britain and France from the moment war was declared until it ended when word of the peace broke in 1783 was part of the American Revolutionary War. You have been provided with multiple sources which plainly state that the naval action this article about is part of the American Revolutionary War. Your demands at this point are becoming ludicrous, obstructive and unreasonable. You have lost your argument, there is no consensus to support the change you are seeking on this page. Move on.XavierGreen (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
To quote Tucker p. 373 - April 12, 1782 American Revolutionary war (continued) The Battle of the Saintes takes its name from the Iles des Saintesa archipelago between Dominica and Guadeloupe in the West Indies. It is fought between a French fleet commanded the Comte De Grasse and a British fleet commanded by Admiral George Rodney cue battle pages 373-375 when after casualties The British spend the next four days repairing damage. On April 17 Hood captures four additional ships the two 64 gun ships badly damaged in the April 9 engagement a frigate(32 guns) and a sloop (18 guns). That is continuous from April 12. That links this article it to the AWR very clearly. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
It was already agreed between you and I that we say the battle was part of the ARW, while we also were acknowledging what characterizes the battle foremost. Since you did a complete turnaround on that neutral idea it was then asked that you cite where Tucker explains how these battles were "part of" the ARW inasmuch as it's presented as the major theme behind this battle, which is obviously not true. All you're doing now is what's been done before -- noting the times, that these battles happened "during" the ARW, after the fighting between the Americans and British had ended long before. The battle of Mona Passage occurred in April 1782. Since the surrender at Yorktown occurred in 1781, and the British military were given orders to cease all hostilities against American belligerents, there is very little basis to be saying that this battle were part of the ARW, all by itself, ignoring the basic theme of this battle, involving trade and shipping disputes between Britain and France, which has characterized the Anglo-French Wars throughout the 18th century. It seems you've been trying to censure that distinction all along. At best we should observe due weight and NPOV and simply say that these battles occurred during the ARW, making it clear that the fighting between the Americans and British had already ended a half year before and that this battle had its own specific objective at the time it was fought. That would put the idea of "part of" in a more comprehensive perspective and bring neutrality to the article. The info-box as it is more than suggests that the war of independence was the central theme behind that battle, which is not at all true. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Your statement that actions after Yorktown were not part of the American Revolutionary War "because the British military were given orders to cease all hostilities against American belligerents" is your own synthases of no matter to the issue at hand. The sources clearly state otherwise. There was in fact combat between American and British forces in the Caribbean right up until the peace in 1783. For example a British squadron attacked the frigate USS Alliance in the Caribbean on March 10, 1783. XavierGreen (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I did not say "actions after Yorktown were not part of the American Revolutionary War", only that there is "very little basis" to be centering the theme of this battle around the idea of "part of" all by itself, considering its major theme: i.e. the ongoing conflicts between Britain and France over shipping and trading in the Weest Indies. Please slow down and try to read more carefully. Your behavior here only exemplifies that you have zero intentions of trying to remedy neutrality and Due-Weight matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As for American belligerents involved in the West Indies, did the British engage them after receiving orders after Yorktown not to? Where there American belligerents at the battles of Saintes and Mona Passage? If so, why are they not mentioned in their info-boxes under belligerents? The British attack on the USS Alliance has no bearing on events at Mona Passage. All you've accomplished here is to show how the British went against orders issued to them after the surrender at Yorktown to not engage American belligerents. Please try to maintain focus on this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
'which is obviously not true'. you say this when I have quoted Tucker - try telling him that. You want to question him on that basis? Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
You've quoted nothing from Tucker that substantiates the idea that the Battle of the Mona Passage was not primarily over trading and shipping disputes around Jamaica. This has what I've been asking for all along, only to receive one smart remark after another, along with the obfuscations and turnarounds. One only has to look at the facts involved in the battle to make the elementary conclusion that it was fought over control of Jamaica's sugar trade. The other attempt to censure the term Anglo-French War (1778-1782) from Wikipedia has failed, btw. For Wikipedia to be consistent, battles of the Anglo-French Wars need to be specified as such. If they are also linked, to one degree or another, to the ARW, we can mention that also. There are enough sources to substantiate this idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The sources clearly state that the action in the Mona Passage was primarily about hunting down French units withdrawing from the Battle of the Saintes.XavierGreen (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, French units involved at Saintes, where France tried to gain control of Jamaica, but thanks for qualifying that further. Since, as you say, this action was "primarily about" hunting down French units that escaped from Saintes, shouldn't the info-box say Part of the Battle of the Saintes, especially since the only link Saintes has to the ARW is that it factored into negotiations over the disposition of holdings in the West Indies? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Info-Box misleading

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

The banner on the info-box says "Part of American Revolutionary War", yet the narrative of this article has absolutely nothing to say about that, except for a generic lede statement that this battle occurred "during" the ARW. The existing banner in the info-box more than suggests that this battle was primarily involved in the ARW, when in fact, its involvement was between Britain and France over control of Jamaica's sugar trade. If we are going to have a singular claim in the info-box saying that this battle was part of the ARW, this article needs to explain this idea in a comprehensive capacity, which will be difficult, because no one has established that this battle was even mentioned during the Paris Peace Treaty, let alone had any bearing on the actual war over American independence, the fighting of which ended a half year earlier at the surrender at Yorktown. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles regarding battles or specific naval actions do not generally regurgitate the entire history of the war in which they are in. This was in essence a mopping up operation after the Battle of the Saintes, as such if it were being submitted to a G/A review it would be expected to have an introduction section regarding that mentions the Saintes, and then the background as to the disposition of the engaged squadrons between the Saintes and this action. The main section of the article would then cover the details of the action and an aftermath section would cover the details occuring after this action. As Easterfarthingian has already shown in the works he cited, in regards to this action's strategic impact on the war, this battle is generally lumped together with the Saintes in its impact.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The info box isnt misleading when I have cited sources that linked this battle with the Saintes which is clearly marked as being part of the ARW. I don't see how that is an issue. Also why are you still silent on the Battle of the Saintes? You keep deflecting my questions. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The info-box is misleading if it doesn't mention the main theme of the battle, that it was tied to Saintes, which was tied to control of the Jamaican sugar trade, which as we all know is definitively characteristic of the Anglo-French Wars during that time in the West Indies. Realizing that the term Anglo-French may be something of a sore spot right about now, we should at least have the info-box say 'something' to the effect that it was part of the conflict between Britain and France over naval dominance in the West Indies. This would be a big step in the right direction in resolving Due-Weight and neutrality issues, while adding comprehensiveness to the article. Having the info-box simply state that this battle was part of the ARW with no definitive explanation, anywhere, in the article is grossly misleading and poses a serious due-weight issue. While Saintes, like Gibraltar, was used as a bargaining point in peace negotiations, "the battle did not affect the overall outcome of the American Revolution"<Barnes 2014, p. 135> -- according to the statement and source in the Saintes article. The idea of "part of" is minimal, at best, to the central theme of these battles, as once again, they were fought for their own specific objectives. — During the American Civil War, had the Confederates ventured off and fought the Mexicans, in Mexico, over separate issues, having nothing to do with the fight over succession, those battles would not have been "part of" the Civil War. It would be tempting for a given author to simply lump these battles together in some list under one heading, i.e.The Civil War, but unless the idea was substantiated, it would at best remain a passing and sketchy reference, esp if other sources referred to it as something other than the 'Civil War'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is is meant to be for limited info that is where the lede next comes in which explains why it was part of the AWR. That statement about the peace negotiations shows how much of an affect it had on those talks. giving Britain an easier hand to bargain with. Yes it did not effect the overall outcome of the American Revolution as in it was part of THAT war not the Anglo-French war. That is a perfect and logical statement on the battle too. You're going back to being critical to historians once more. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with that. Editors scrtinze historians all the time, esp when sources vary. Are you saying you've never scrutinized a source?? There is no offical list of reliable sources that we must blindly adhere to. Editors decide, and they do so on Talk pages. This is at least the third time you've run that number, hopefully the last. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
There have been many multi-belligerent wars throughout history in which allies had different war aims. Do you think the Hungarians and Japanese had identical war aims in World War II? Or whether Russia cared about Britain conquering the French Caribbean in the War of the Third Coalition? Your hypothetical has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. France and America were allies in a common war against Britain, the sources universally state this action was part of the American Revolutionary War. No further explanation is required.XavierGreen (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wrong. An explanation is required for the readers who come to the article, see the info-box stating "part of" the ARW with no mention of the major theme of the battle, while the article continues to not explain how this battle was actually part of the ARW. The connection to Saintes is sketchy as it had no bearing on the outcome of the war -- it only served Britain who retained their possessions in the West Indies, which the Americans overall could care less about. The Americans, who initiated the war, got what they wanted foremost – recognition and territory. Also, WWII is a generic heading that includes numerous different wars fought for different reasons, as you pointed out. The American Revolutionary War was a specific war, specifically fought over American independence. I've no problems with saying some of the battles in question are remotely linked to the ARW, but to claim they were actually part of it is completely misleading, no matter how many lists and passing references you may dig up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Show me examples of infoboxes that include a parameter for the "theme of the battle". The wiki:MilitaryHistory folks have been quite adamant recently about minimizing the information presented in infoboxes. For example, lengthy text in the "results" parameter tend to get excised vigorously in peer and g/a reviews.XavierGreen (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
See that is where you are incorrect see the info-box stating "part of" the ARW with no mention of the major theme of the battle, as the lede clearly states this action takes place in the conclusion of the Battle of the Saintes which in itself is clearly cited to the AWR. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
This is really reaching. The theme of the battle is largely defined by stating what the battle is "part of" in the info-box. By saying Mona Passage was "part of" the ARW, with no mention of its major cause, involvement and objectives, is entirely misleading. If the info-box only mentions the battle as being part of the ARW, then it shouldn't be difficult to write an article which explains this in the same proportion as the info-box is focused on the ARW, but as you know, that would be difficult because all you can write about in terms of the ARW would be that this battle was connected to the Battle of the Saintes, which was a bargaining point for the British at the peace talks. After that, there's nothing to say -- yet we have an info-box indicating that this battle was part of the ARW, with nothing else to qualify its other major involvement in the ongoing trade and shipping wars between Britain and France, commonly referred to as the Anglo-French wars of the 18th century. Thus we have a serious Due-Weight issue which you both seem not at all concerned about. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Not at all.. You're just making it more complicated for the reader. This battle was part of the Battle of the Saintes which in itself was part of the AWR. Simple. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Now it seems you're just being contrary. The battle of Saintes, which is the only thing that connects Mona Passage to the ARW, such that it does, was over control of Jamaica and its sugar trade. The info-box doesn't even hint at that idea, and there is next to no coverage about this in the narrative. Saintes' connection to the ARW involved the Paris Peace Treaty, and was only used in the negotiations over settlements between Britain and France. It would be more accurate to say Saintes, and hence Mona Passage, was part of the Treaty of Paris, as you've yet to produce one source that explains how these battles factored into the fighting over American independence for the simple reason that they didn't. Easy to see. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
On that point why are you not taking the case to the Battle of the Saintes talk page? The aftermath section clearly dicates the link with American Revolution and the peace process here I have already posted details and sources regarding the Saintes' connection to the AWR and the peace negotiations it impacted on. eg Allison & Ferreiro on page 220 'The American Revolution: A World War' - the Battle of the Saintes 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. As we know Mona Passage was a bonus engagement as a result of the Saintes. Do you have sources connecting this battle with the so called and rarely used term Anglo-French War 1778-83. ±Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
We've been though this. There are plenty of sources that describe the trade wars between Britain in France in the 18th century as the Anglo-French War. Because Saintes and Mono Passage came up in peace negotiations doesn't negate the fact that these two battles were only a part of the greater Anglo-French wars that were ongoing throughout the 18th century over trade and naval dominance. Let's not forget also that the main thing that established peace between America and Britain was recognition of American independence and territory, without which the rest of the delegates would have been sitting on their hands for the duration and no doubt would have resumed war, which, btw, Britain and France ended up doing anyway. No matter, no one has come up with a source dedicated to the ARW that covers Saintes, most don't even mention it, in the same proportion as they do the battles of Bunker Hill, Long Island, White Plains, Valley Forge, Saratoga, Yorktown, once again, for the simple reason there's no connection other than it helped Britain and France settle their trading disputes, most of which occurred after Cornwallis' surrender. That sums up this idea of "part of" idea, in a thimble. Meanwhile the info boxes ignore the main involvements of these battles, while you still ignore the ongoing due weight issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Again you haven't answered my questions
  • Do you have sources connecting this battle with the so called and rarely used term Anglo-French War 1778-83?
  • Why are you not taking the case to the Battle of the Saintes talk page?
  • Why are you concentrating on this page when there are others?

Finally you say this? 'no one has come up with a source dedicated to the ARW that covers Saintes, most don't even mention it'. Are you serious? Do you want me to list them because there's quite a few? If you say yes then I happily will. If no then I will remove the templates you placed in article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The info-box remains misleading as it offers no indication that this battle, albeit connected to Saintes, involved naval dominance conflicts in the greater effort between Britain and France to control/preserve trade in the West Indies. Aside from our original agreement, you have made no effort in remedying that situation, have offered no other suggestions, and seem perfectly comfortable with the info-box indicating that this battle only involved the ARW. Until that issue is resolved the article is going nowhere, while you continue to fall back on the routine obfuscations and pointless questions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
So you have skipped the questions I've asked? They are simple to answer. The infobox isn't misleading given the source provided linking it to the Battle of the Saintes. Since this isn't going anywhere and you haven't provided any sources let alone answer the above questions, I am now removing the template as this discussion is over. Continue the talk on the talk page as it is more relevant there. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You were asked how Mona Passage and Saintes were involved in the ARW inasmuch as its presented as the main theme in the info-box. The source links the battle to Saintes, but we still have no explanation as to how these battles were "part of" the ARW, and as such, the info-box remains misleading and continues to create Due-Weight and NPOV issues. Please do not remove the tags until there is a clear understanding as to how these battles were or were not actually a part of the ARW. And please don't simply assert they came up during the peace talks, that is but a side note to these battles. There is nothing that justifies presenting these battle as an actual part of the ARW to the extent that it's plastered across the banner in the info-box, which is very misleading. We've been through this, also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Case closed

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

This is case closed - we're not going through this again. The discussion about this is being held here for relevancy. Only use this talk page with regards to the battle itself. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not give orders, you do not own this article. Saintes is directly connected to this battle as you have insisted many times, and rightly so. You are only trying to snuff out further discussion because you have been unable to provide any viable connection of these battles with the ARW. Allison & Ferreiro, 2018, p. 220 (used as a source in the Saintes article) says the peace talks were already underway during these battles, and since there was already a cease-fire in place after Yorktown, any connection these battles have to the actual ARW is remote, academic. If the info-box promotes the idea that the ARW is the main theme, then the narrative has to follow suit and offer a comprehensive explanation, which it does not, still. Please do not edit war, resolve the issues and we can remove the tag. Please read the criteria on tag removal. You cannot say the issue is resolved and remove the tag at your own singular discretion when there is still major disagreement and an unresolved issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Stop putting pointless templates at the top. It's getting ingored and only yourself is making a case which is constantly ignored. As Ive have said this is the wrong talk page. Please use the talk page on the battle of the Saintes and stop poking this article. The main discussion is also [Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–1783)|here]].Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The template is called for the obvious reasons clearly stated. The discussion on the Anglo-French Talk page is for a different article. If the main theme of the info-box here (and anywhere) indicates the ARW it shouldn't be difficult to substantiate the idea in the narrative with the sources that can explain 'how'. Since this is not likely, given the surrounding facts involved with the battles, you are claiming everything is being ignored. Time will tell, but you should only speak for yourself in that regard. The contention is a reasonable one. The battles in question, fought for their own specific objectives, have nothing to do with the ARW, regardless if some sources say it was a part of a global war. It's understood that the ARW was part of a global war, but this doesn't mean the other wars in question were actually "part of" the 'ARW'. This is the distinction you've been ignoring. Other such WP articles need clarification on that note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Im not arguing over this anymore. It is just repetition after repetition despite the fact I have used sources linking this to both the AWR and the Battle of the Saintes. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The link to the ARW is academic, and the sources you claim to use offer no explanation as to how this battle (or Saintes) is connected to the ARW – yet we have an info-box that indicates that this was the main theme of the battle. The discussion repeats itself because you refuse to get it and have never produced a source that explains how this battle is connected to the ARW. This issue is not resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Sources have been provided as can be seen in the article and on this talk page. Let me remind you again
  • Do you have sources connecting this battle with the so called and rarely used term Anglo-French War 1778 (or any other conflict)?
  • Why are you not taking the case to the Battle of the Saintes talk page?
  • Why are you concentrating on this page when there are others?
YOU on the other hand have not provided any sources linking this battle with anything else despite multiple attempts at asking. Until then the templates will be removed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Here is another example -
  • Tucker, Spencer C (2018). American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [5 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 1322. ISBN 9781851097449. QUOTE - Greatest British naval victory of the American Revolutionary war. Known as the Battle of the Saintes of which the Mona Passage action was a conclusion of. Until you come up with a source that links Mona Passage battle with another conflict or war - then the templates can return. No consensus has been made and, nor will there be one, since none have been willing to try - given the outweighing source material linking this battle with the Saintes. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Issue remains unresolved

Latest comment: 4 years ago17 comments2 people in discussion

No one has contested that Mona Passage was the conclusion of Saintes. You are claiming that this battle, (and Saintes), are part of the ARW inasmuch as it is the only thing on the banner in the info-box. Regardless of any passing reference to the ARW, you have not provided a source that explains and justifies the weight given to the idea. Since the info-box indicates that this is the only thing Mona Passage was "part of" we have a serious Due-Weight issue. Also, please don't refer me to a different Talk page involving a discussion about merging with the assumption that it will resolve the issue here. Though some of the topics can overlap, this specific discussion involves a misleading info-box and a Due-Weight issue, not a merge. Please don't try to invent your own rules and abide by the same policies and guidelines as the rest of us. Tag Removal:"When the issue has been adequately addressed" You are avoiding the issue and won't even admit that you've been unable to find a source that explains how this battle was part of the ARW. If the info-Box indicates "part of" the ARW, then this must be supported in the narrative. Other than a lede statement that says this battle occurred "during" the ARW, there is no mention, let alone a comprehensive explanation for the readers, who when they encounter the info-box, are only left wondering the 'how' and 'why' of it all. Please do not edit war and revert my edit for a fourth time as a substitute for discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As I have said a hundred times I have provided sources. You are just using your OWN OPINION. Due weight is another term for consesus of which there is none. In return you have not provided any sources as to what the issue is. If it is not part of the AWR then what war is it part of? That isn't made clear let alone what sources you can provide. Also a wuestion you have failed to answer because you can't... so here we go again. Do you have sources connecting this battle with the so called and rarely used term Anglo-French War 1778 (or any other conflict)? FAILURE TO ANSWER AND TEMPLATE WILL BE REMOVED within 24 hours. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Since the tag was removed I restored it because the issue remains unresolved. As already acknowledged, you've provided a source that says this battle was "part of" the ARW, but as yet have not been forthcoming with one that explains how, and one which justifies the banner in the info-box, per the Due-Weight issue you've continuously been ignoring. Once again, the info-box remains misleading as it indicates that this battle was only part of the ARW, in spite of the fact that this battle (and Saintes) had nothing to do with the struggle over American independence, and that no American belligerents were involved. My "own opinion" is supported by the facts. As a compromise we should just get rid of the banner in the info-box altogether. It will neither say "part of" the Anglo-French War, or the ARW. This way you won't be tasked with explaining 'how' - something you all along have had no explanation or source for. If we can do this I'll be happy to remove the tag and move on, while you can say, somewhere in the narrative, that this battle was also a peripheral conflict in the ARW. This would be a neutral and far more accurate statement. You could also say this battle finalized the battle of Saintes which played a role in the peace settlements between Britain and France. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
That isn't going to happen until you provide a source (which still remains unanswered). The sources clearly indicate that the Battle of the Saintes was part of or fought during the AWR. What's the point in leaving it out yet you remain silent on the Battle of the Saintes article. Since this article is linked to the Battle of the Saintes and that battle is clearly referenced to the AWR then it shall remain so. Until then you need to find a source that links these battles to a so called 'non AWR'. Surely that is understandable? Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's already been acknowledged that you've provided a source that says this battle was part of the ARW. What you keep avoiding is the due weight issue, apparently with the assumption that the only thing this battle was involved with was the ARW. Since I no longer have any intention of mentioning the Anglo-French war, no source is needed there. Otoh, you have still yet to produce any source that explains the connection to the ARW that justifies the lop-sided weight given to this battle (and Saintes) in the info-box. Again, the only connection Saintes, and hence Mona Passage, has to the ARW is that it came up in peace talks along with many more important issues. The facts surrounding both these battles have everything to do with trade, shipping and naval dominance disputes between Britain and France and nothing to do with American independence. If France had refused to cooperate regarding the fate of Jamaica and other West Indies possessions American independence would still have been a done deal, esp since P.M. Shelburn and Jay were not about to back away from the deal they made without the participation of France and Spain, and esp since the pro war Tories had long since lost most of their support after the surrender at Yorktown. This is why most scholarly sources on the ARW don't mention these battles at all, and those that do, once again, only make passing (hardly "clearly") reference to them. Too much weight is given to both battles all the way around, and the facts surrounding them support that. Until someone can provide a source that says more than "part of" the ARW, and it's explained in the narrative, the info-box remains grossly misleading and the tags must remain. Having a source that simply says "part of" in passing doesn't justify the gross Due-Weight imbalance. This is an issue you've attempted to avoid repeatedly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

What due-weight? - you have nothing but your own opinion on the matter. The fact is the source base showing this battle was part of the AWR is so overwhelming you can't provide a source that links this battle with any other conflict? You still haven't provided a source. When is it coming? Stop ignoring the question. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
RESULT
Evasive nonsense. I've already offered that we get rid of the banner that would say "part of" both the Anglo-French war and the ARW, and here you are still demanding a source for the former. My own opinion is based on the facts surrounding the battle, that it was fought for its own singular objective, aside from the ARW. It is incumbent on you to provide a source that would justify the banner in the info-box that gives Undue-Weight to the idea that this battle is central to the ARW. You have yet to offer a source that explains how this (and Saintes) was actually part of the ARW other than it came up in peace talks well after the fact. Please stop carrying on in the same repetitive circle as if editors can't remember past yesterday. It only indicates that you can't, or more likely, that you refuse to. The attempt to drag in every Anglo-French battle into the picture as a way of diminishing American involvement in the American war of independence, as expressed by other editors on the ARW Talk page, btw, has long since been a bit obvious - from a mile away. The year is 2020 - time to move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Evasive nonsense is you as you have not provided any source yet for the twentieth time that I have asked in this talk page. You're only argument is your opinion which by wiki standard can only be justified by due weight consensus which we don't have therefore article remains part of the American war. At what point is this diminishing American involvement? American authors are testament to the fact that the these battles were part of the AWR. That is due weight as I keep saying rather y=than your own opinion. Here's another source for you to tear apart - many historians view 'still remains the standard work on the subject.
Once again you are asking me for a source for something I twice said I no longer wish to include in the info-box, per Anglo-French wars. You continue to evade the issue of Due-Weight and the fact that the battles in question have everything to do with shipping and naval conflicts between Britain and Francce, and nothing to do with the ARW other than they were mentioned at peace talks, regardless if we refer to them as the Anglo-French wars or not. Got it this time? If the due weight problem remains, so must the tags. Again, the info-box is misleading as it indicates this battle was part of the ARW only. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The fact that you don't want to include anything in that infobox is an excuse for you not finding a source linking it to a certain conflict. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Wrong. Anyone who reviews the discussion will see that from the beginning I've wanted to include both the ideas of Anglo-French wars and ARW so as to avert a due-weight issue which you continue to avoid - starting with the original compromise we agreed on and which you backed away from. The idea of removing the banner entirely was a hopeful compromise, because, once again, we don't have a source that mentions Anglo-French wars and Mona Passage specifically, while we only have sources that say "part of" or "during" the ARW, a few with only a passing reference to the peace talks. Once again, this is hardly a basis to be presenting the ARW as the central theme of this battle, and the info-box as it is does exactly that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
So I'm wrong - your POV. Why don't we wait until a source comes along that says this battle isn't part of the Saintes which in itself was part of the AWR? We could be waiting a long time, as I have said - you should write a book on it 'Anglo-French trade wars during the 18th Century'. It is crying out for you. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Now it seems you're just being smug with this sort of digression. There are plenty of sources that define the facts and circumstances surrounding Mona Passage and Saintes and which constitute the bulk of the weight involved with these battles. There is no reason why we can't include a summary comment in this regard for the info-boxes in both articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Could you please provide them, I've been waiting some time now. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
You 'were' waiting for a source that specifically mentioned Saintes as part of the Anglo-French War and, once again, it was twice conceded directly above that "I no longer wish to include" Anglo-French War" in the info-box. If you're experiencing memory difficulties you should review the discussion rather then resorting to these sour attempts at humor to obfuscate the discussion. Since Mona Passage is directly related to Saintes we should consolidate the discussion on the Saintes Take page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes when I put to the people that Anglo-French War 1778 be merged with 'France in the American Revolutionary War'. Excellent I'm for that - where it should have been all along. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Mona_Passage/Archive_1&oldid=1228068746"