Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–1783)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

The creator of this article opened a move request here. It failed. Then s/he created this article. POV fork? Duplicate? Srnec (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Content fork

This article is a direct content fork of the article American Revolutionary War, any information found here not there should be merged into that article and this article redirected to that one.XavierGreen (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. SuffrenXXI (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is not before time, and is crucial to a proper understanding that there were many more facets to the so-called American Revolutionary War than merely those that took place on the American continent. The events of this war are only cursorily covered in the main artical on the American Revolutuion so any attempt to integrate them should be rigorously opposed.--Godwhale (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There's also the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, First Anglo-Maratha War, Second Anglo-Mysore War and maybe more. Pretend that every concomitant war with the ARW is the same thing make no sense at all. And the ARW article is pretty crowded as it is now. SuffrenXXI (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is a recently created content fork of France in the American Revolutionary War, an article around since 2005. A merge discussion was started at Talk:American Revolutionary War#Merger proposal; I encourage editors to discuss the proposal there. I'm taking the liberty of notifying wikiprojects associated with all three pagespaces. BusterD (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Netherlands and Mysore were never officially aligned with the Spanish, French, and Americans and did not directly participate in the main conflict. They were merely co-belligerents in common cause against the british and primarily fought their own seperate conflicts. This is not the case in regards to France, the French signed treaties of alliance with the United States and Spain and fought the war together. There was no seperate Anglo-French War as this page asserts, France's participation in the war was joined at the begining as a direct part of the same conflict America was fighting.XavierGreen (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This is just wrong. Spain never assigned a alliance treaty with the US, and nether it participated in the "main conflict", all its alliance was with France and all its dwellings were with France too. About this being a separate conflict, when I came back with some time I'll show a dozen article~s where wars by countries are treated in separate. SuffrenXXI (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

About other wars being treated as separated articles from broad subjects:

Finnish War

Third Anglo-Dutch War

Fourth Anglo-Dutch War

Anglo-French War (1627–29)

Anglo-Spanish War (1796–1808)

Anglo-Spanish War (1762–63)

Anglo-Spanish War (1654–60)

Anglo-Spanish War (1625–30)

Neapolitan War

Anglo-Turkish War (1807–09)

Anglo-Russian War (1807–12)

Swedish–Norwegian War (1814)

Anglo-Swedish War (1810–12)

There's plenty more, just got those in a 30 secs search. As anyone can see, they are all pretty valid and common practice everywhere. Americans should not be so touch about this one specifically. SuffrenXXI (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Combatants

The Spanish should be listed on the article.

Treaties of Versailles, not Treaty of Versailles

This is only a minor issue, but the Treaty of Versailles was the treaty that ended WW1, while the Treaties of Versailles ended the 1778-1783 war between Britain in France. Maybe to avoid confusion, call it the Treaty of Paris. This is in the results piece in the short information box.

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I welcome this comment - since we are at an impasse and very few editors have weighed in to form a consensus. I'd be happy (if there's no consesus) to look at restructuring this article and may, yes.. even expand it! Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't merge. There is already sufficient coverage of the battles directly relevant to the American Revolutionary War on that page. Merging would divert the focus of the ARW article. 021120x (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

NOTES ON PROCEDURE

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion is being rehashed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

Tucker literally states on page 373 that the Battle of the Saintes is part of the American Revolutionary War, on page 324 he plainly states that the Battle of Grenada is part of the American Revolutionary War[[1]], he does the same for the Siege of Gibraltar on page 323 [[2]]. Literally every single combat action and campaign in the scope of this article Tucker prefaces by stating "American Revolutionary War (continued)...", plainly prefacing his section on each battle as being part of the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The War for America 1775-1783

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.