Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–1783)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

(Merge Proposal Continued)

Proposed removal of popular literature ‘best-sellers’

At your post above here, thank you for abandoning the sources for various American Revolution sister articles by ‘best-sellers’ published in the popular literature without wp:peer review.

The first item that should be to removed is the redundant footnote in this article Infobox reverted here, to establish that the Spanish fought as allies of the French against the British 1779-1783. The duplication only serves to commercially promote my favorite best-seller author and his prolific best-seller ouvre, the eminent retired Canadian National Park museum curator, and multiple newspaper best-seller author, René Cartrand.

Likewise. in the previous listings supporting an ARW “spread worldwide” without document evidence connecting Euro imperial wars at the TIME, with the EVENTS of the American Revolution. Roy Adkins and Lesley Adkins inactive archeologist in a husband-wife team published variously by Viking or Penguin; Russell (1965) Heinemann Press; McGuffie (1965) Dufour Press; Chartrand (2006) Osprey Press; Falkner (2009) Pen & Sword Military Press ('Oxford', England, not 'Oxford University'). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You're very welcome - there's only one problem... as I haven't used any of said authors in any of the cases above. Chuckle. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

So you can support our common interest in wp:rs, by removing the Chartrand note in the Infox, a removal reverted here? It would avoid duplicate footnote note clutter in the Infobox, and avoid the profferred XavierGreen edit war. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for it to be sourced anyway given Spain was in alliance due to Bourbon Compact with the Treaty of Aranjuez. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

With thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Due-Weight continued

We seem to be getting side tracked with tangential matters that don't factor into the debate over whether to merge or not to merge, the likes of which very likely would dismay newcomers to the discussion. The issue of Due-Weight and the facts that establish that weight should be our focus at this late date. Thus far no significant facts have been presented that justify referring to the Anglo-French Wars of 1778-1783 as part of the ARW, campaigns/battles fought for completely different and pressing objectives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

'The issue of Due-Weight and the facts that establish that weight should be our focus at this late date.' (Has a nice rhyme to it) In other words we need a consensus. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we have a marginal consensus not to merge. I've always had reservations about a 2 to 1, or a 4 to 3 consensus, which is why we should consider the facts involved foremost. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You statement that "no facts have been presented" to justify merging is blatantly false. We have produced dozens upon dozens of sources showing that American Revolutionary War is the common name for the subject content of this article. You on the contrary have provided literally no evidence that "Anglo-French War" is the common name used. Due-weight has literally nothing to due with what the article title should be. See, Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. The sources overwhelmingly favor American Revolutionary War, and thus this article must merge into France in the American Revolutionary War as a content fork.XavierGreen (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Due-Weight must be determined on the facts, and the overwhelming facts indicate that the Anglo-French Wars of 1778-1783 were fought over shipping, trading and naval dominance between Britain and France, and as such, have more to do with that than any exceptional and secondary connections to the ARW, regardless of any sources that say 'Simon Sez' – all passing, brief and generic references, with no explanations. e.g. Jeremy Black, assumed to be a leading historian on British history, though he referred to a couple of battles as part of the ARW, offers no explanation to that idea - his focus is on the actual conflicts between Britain and France in regards to shipping and naval dominance conflicts between Britain and France.  John Drinkwater, a British officer present at Gibraltar, wrote a first hand account of that siege, considered one of the best works of that siege, makes no connection to the ARW. Accordingly, we would only give the same proportion of weight to the idea that the battles in question were part of the ARW. Again, we have two distinct sets of battles — those fought between Britain and France over trade, etc, fought elsewhere all over the world, and those fought for American independence, involving French and American belligerents. This is why we have two dedicate articles respectively. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, due-weight has absolutely nothing to do with article titles. See Wikipedia:Article titles, due weight is not mentioned once. Once again, you have failed to show that Anglo-French War is the common name for the content of this article, while Eastfarthingian and I have posted dozens of sources showing that American Revolutionary War is the common name used. Per Wiki:CommonName, this article must merge as a POV-content fork.XavierGreen (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers - You say John Drinkwater.. makes no connection to the ARW. Wrong. In 1777 Colonel Drinkwater entered the army in the 72nd Regiment or Royal Manchester Volunteers a corps of 1,000 men raised in the three months at the sole expense of the Town of that name in support of the Government during the American war. page Xi. What's more is that here's no mention of 'Anglo-French war'. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• XG, we are supposed to observe due weight throughout the entire article - not just part of it. Your contention that Due-Weight (which redirects to NPOV) has "absolutely nothing to do with article titles" is a little ridiculous. Does it say article titles are exempt from Due-Weight and NPOV considerations? If your idea had any merit then I suppose it would carry that we would be free to entitle an article in any manner we pleased. Again, ridiculous. If the idea of Due-Weight was something that supported your contentions then it would seem you would have plenty of facts to back them up. The facts clearly indicate that the conflicts in question were fought for their own specific objectives, and only in a couple of cases were they remotely linked to the peace talks. Again, this is hardly a basis to be referring to all the conflicts between Britain and France during 1778-1783 as part of the ARW. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Eastfarthingan, all you've presented here is an event that occurred during the ARW. Did Drinkwater fight in the ARW?  Even if he did, what would Gibraltar have to do with it?  It seems you've only exemplified the fact that Gibraltar had nothing to do with the fight for American independence, except that it was considered during the peace settlements between Britain, Spain and France, that's it. The siege had everything to do with control of that strategic location. At this point it's become a bit clear that no one has been able to refute the idea that the Anglo-French wars occurred for the same basic reasons they always have, i.e.Trade, shipping and naval contests. The contention that the reasons for these conflicts just disappeared when the ARW came along can not be substantiated by any facts. Otoh, any battle in question fought between 1778-1783 can easily be supported by a litany of facts for that battle, with nothing to do with the fight for American independence, which was the very reason war was declared by the colonists.
• Once again we have two distinct sets of battles: ones fought by the American and allied belligerents for American independence — ones fought between Britain and France for their own specific objectives elsewhere about the globe involving no American belligerents. This is why we have dedicated articles for each. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You present literally no sources which state that the French partipation in continental North America was a separate war apart from French actions in the rest of the world. The sources we have provided clearly state that all the aforementioned actions were part of the American Revolutionary War. We have presented an overwhelming amount of sources support the use of American Revolutionary War, as such wiki:CommonName mandates merger. There is no NPOV issue, we have presented American, British and French sources overwhelmingly supporting usage of the American Revolutionary War. You merely keep presenting the same unsourced statements of your own synthesis over and over again without presenting any evidence whatsoever that Anglo-French war is the more commonly used name. Keep throwing your spaghetti on the wall, no ones eating it.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

XG, you again give us little more than empty, rhetorical and inflated claims about sources, while blindly ignoring others. There are plenty of sources which explain the nature for the battles in question, and not one of them can show, let alone explain, any connection between them and the ARW. There's a very simple reason. Each of the conflicts were fought for their own specific objective, having nothing to do with the ARW. If it is your wish to cover battles like Gibraltar in the 'France in the ARW' article, then it is incumbent on you to present a source that offers more than a passing and generic reference – and one which comprehensively explains how. We have been at this for more weeks than I care to count - and all along this is where the rhetoric about sources has fallen short. No sources with explanations, still. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Your presentations have been refuted cite by cite. At “Plethora of sources” above, I’ve shown that your cited sources fall into one of five (5) categories of editor error. (1) They are timeline statements that 1779-1783 lies within the timeframe of 1775-1783, something that we stipulate along with the “vast majority of RS”. (2) They fail to show documents connecting the Euro-only conflicts to the ARW, as the Bourbon Alliance initiated offensive war for imperial expansion in the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), not a defensive trade war directly related to US independence as called for in the Treaty of Alliance (1778), which the French abrogate with the Pacte de Famille treaty "the following year", without the knowledge, consultation, or consent of Congress as provided in the Franco-American treaty (Morris 1983).

(3) The quotes are wp:cherry picking, such as replacing the account of Britannica at “American Revolutionary War” with NO reference to Battle of the Saintes, and "presenting" a phrase from Britannica’s “Battle of the Saintes” that places the event in the ARW timeline (we stipulate timeframes, but not unrelated events) ... BUT EVEN THAT IS IFFY BECAUSE the Brit-Am ceasefire after Yorktown October 1781 is followed by George III armistice BEFORE Saintes (subsequently ratified by Congress). (4) They are misconstrued. Page refers to Spanish ‘Final Assault’ Gibraltar during ongoing peace negotiations in September 1782 which are British-American Preliminary Peace ... the British “ongoing peace negotiations” for the Bourbon Alliance (separately) do not begin until January 1783.

And your evergreen editor error, (5) The citations are not to a wp:reliable source, whether it’s a newspaper “anniversary of” puff-piece that is run on the same day every year, or a novelist famous for an swashbuckler adventure-hero set in the Napoleonic Era which is other than the ARW. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

TVH, Excellent point about Siege of Gibraltar -- if the final assault occurred after the American-British cease-fire, and during the peace talks, how could the siege ever be considered part of the ARW? It's quite easy if one ignores the facts and hasn't got a source which explains any connection. If the fighting at Gibraltar continued for as long as it did it was naturally considered an entirely different war, fought for its own specific objectives, and the facts surrounding that siege, supported by RS's on Gibraltar, support this idea. Not even J.Drinkwater tries to lump these two conflicts together as being part of one another. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

“BOURBON WAR (1779-1783)"

@Eastfarthingan: You have twice proposed a Wikipedia article named “Bourbon War (1778-1783)”. Several RS you have cited here, including Mackesey, refer to the "Bourbon war" against Britain in the last two years of the Britain-Congress shooting war. It overlapped the ARW September 1779-October 1781, as France abrogated its Treaty of Alliance with the US at the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) (Morris 1983).

The article would encompass the scope of two wp:article titles for French and Spanish wars on Britain without the consent of Congress in the ARW. Both are used as history topics for general readers in the English language at the Library of Congress. - - - - - I agree to collaborate with you to launch a new article “Bourbon War (1779-1783)”, and (a) withdraw the proposal to merge this article with “France in the American Revolution”, (b) move Bourbon War material from “Spain in the American Revolution” to our “Bourbon War”.

We can mention them in the first sentence, viz:

The Bourbon War (1779-1783), also known variously as the “French War 1778-1783” and Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783)”, was a conflict of declared war against Britain by the Bourbon Kings of France and Spain for imperial gain. Their war aims were specified in their secret Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), based on the Third Pacte de Famille of offensive and defensive alliance. Although they acted independently of Congress in prosecuting this war, they did act as US Co-belligerents against Britain for the two years September 1779-October 1781, until at the Battle of Yorktown the British and Americans entered into a cease-fire worldwide.

LOOKING FOR ONLINE SOURCES, A spectacular mapping and narrative source can be found at The Great Siege of Gibraltar. Although, Spain never joined the Treaty of Alliance with “(WP:ERROR on the website: ...formal entry of Spain into the American Revolution), then correctly, "[Spain] signed a treaty with France in which both agreed to help one another recover territory they had lost to the English, the ultimate goal being an invasion of Great Britain.” ... The best overall “Siege of Gibraltar” article I’ve found – richly illustrated with engagement scenes, panoramic views of troop deployments and formations, uniforms, armaments, fortifications, entrenchments, ship & barge construction - is published at BritishBattles.com - unfortunately, the publisher is not identified. It games any wp:editor browser searches to the bias of the search phrase "during the American Revolutionary War". Interestingly, every illustration is titled "in", or "during", “…the American Revolutionary War”. It’s “Siege of Gibraltar, "The Siege of Gibraltar, between 8th July 1779 and 2nd February 1783, whose defense under General Elliott so inspired Great Britain at a time of defeat", then wp:error: in the American Revolutionary War.” - - because (a) the purpose of the battle was the war aim in the Bourbon Alliance offensive war of the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), and because (b) it occurred after the British-American cease fire and armistice worldwide.

- The site includes Siege of Gibraltar and Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1780), Rodney resupply to Gibraltar, but NOT CARIBBEAN Capture of Saint Eustatius 1780, that should be part of the American Revolutionary War because over 50% of military and food supply to Congress came through that Dutch Republic entrepôt, licit and illicit ... The publisher is unknowable at the site, therefore it is NOT, and CANNOT BE a wp:reliable source. Nevertheless, IT USES TRUE RS REFERENCES that include: Sir John Fortescue, History of the British Army, with the applicable chapter by Tony Hayter; Brendan Morrissey, [1] The American Revolution: The Global Struggle for National Independence], John Drinkwater History of the Late Siege of Gibraltar, online at Haithi Trust; T.H. McGuffie, Siege of Gibraltar, online at Internet Archive; William L. Clowes (with Alfred Mahan and Theodore Roosevelt, late Secretary of the US Navy), The Royal Navy a History, Volume III, online at Haithi Trust.

- The article will be able to expand upon the ongoing Pacte de Famille military collaboration throughout the last half of the 1700s Eighteenth century, including the War of the Bavarian Succession, featuring the Bourbons with Prussia warring against Austria with the Elector of Hanover, King George III of Britain. Of course, we will NOT propose to merge the War of the Bavarian Succession 1778-1779, into the American Revolutionary War 1775-1783, Shall we not? Yes, there are DOTS there of overlapping TIMELINE, additional Hessian consript-regiments could not be sent to American service in the same way Hanoverian troops tied down ten times their number in Spanish-French troops that might have helped the Americans ... -- but wait that's backwards -- In any case, there are NO document CONNECTIONS between Prussia and Bavaria to the American Revolutionary War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oooh I'm going to have to sleep on this. It sounds promising given the the amount of sources that I have seen but the due weight here (source wise) would mean it would still be part of the American revolution. I wonder what XaverGreen has to say about this? Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting how history can branch off into other directions, but is this section part of the debate about whether to Merge the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) article with the France in the American Revolutionary War article?  Either way could we make this clear so the reviewer and any newcomers know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources overwhelmingly use American Revolutionary War, per wiki:CommonName this article must merge.XavierGreen (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the same superficial comment that you've fallen back on several times now. i.e. 'Simon sez'. Other sources say differently, that the battles in question were fought for their own specific objectives, having little to no connection to the actual fight for American independence. But let's say for the sake of argument that the sources which "overwhelmingly" claim that the conflicts in question were "part of the ARW", and that Due-Weight must be determined on that basis alone. Okay. Since none of the "overwhelming" sources lend no more than a sentence, if anything, to the idea that the Anglo-French wars were "part of" the ARW, per Due-Weight, we must accordingly lend just as much weight to this idea as the sources you hold up do -- which is next to nothing. If there was anything to speak of, the sources which you embrace would have expounded on this idea with more than a passing sentence. As such, we can only comment on this idea in the same proportion as your select group of sources do. i.e. Nothing that justifies a merge that lumps all the battles in question into the target article. Again, we have two sets of conflicts – ones fought for American independence - ones fought over trade and naval superiority between France and Britain. Again, this is why we have two dedicated articles for the two distinct sets of battles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Its not a superficial comment, its literally in the wikipedia rules for article titles. The common name for an event is the one that is to be used for its article title. See here [[2]] XavierGreen (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan: Several of our mutually agreed-to RS use the term "Bourbon war" or even "Bourbon War", including Mackesey. (Here we may agree to disagree for the moment for the sake of Wikipedia editorial contributions. - - -

- I'll make further comments at another section - "Article wp:titles" - related to any historiography extending the American Revolution [-ary War] beyond the 1775-1783 intra-British "American War" (Brit.) conflict among its subjects over their Thirteen Colonies' independence by Congress, which was concluded by the Anglo-American Peace of Paris (1783) ... without consulting Euro great powers which are otherwise engaging Britain in their imperial war elsewhere worldwide.

- That is Prime Minister Lord Shelburne's definition of "an honorable peace" in the American War settlement: (a) peace and trade with the US with no Euro great power interference, (b) break the US from future French military alliance, (c) make the American hinterland a British breadbasket during any European wars that might arise in the future ... seconded by Pitt-the Younger at Commons, see Ward, Cambridge Modern History, vol.III). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well the War of Bavarian Succession should only be mentioned fleetingly but should not be linked in any way to AWR. We need a consensus to agree on 'Bourbon War' and we would have to link that in every single article involved. The current article should still merge with France in the American Revolutionary War in the meantime since there is no consensus to do so while the so called due-weight is till very much with the sources placed here. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

XG, the idea of Anglo-French wars have been around long before the ARW, and continued thereafter, and the common name has always been Anglo-French wars. WP articles cover these wars in given time ranges, but they are all considered the Anglo-French wars, the reasons of which, once again, did not disappear when the ARW came along. Since the sources only mention a couple of these conflicts as part of the ARW, it doesn't mean they were 'actually' the ARW, fought for American independence. Also, the sources only make passing and superficial references to the ARW when battles like Saintes and Gibraltar are mentioned. None of them lend anything more than a sentence or so, if they do at all, so we would lend just as much weight to the idea as the sources do, which is next to nothing, while you all along have not even offered your own explanation as to what connects a given battle to the ARW, let alone have presented a source that gives us a comprehensive explanation. On top of that we cannot ignore the facts involved, and once again, there are plenty of facts that cover and characterize the Anglo-French wars as being fought between Britain and France, over trading and naval disputes. Aside from a couple of battles being discussed at the peace talks, there are no other facts that ties these battles to the ARW. This is what characterizes the two sets of battles, and is why we have a dedicated article for each. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

mark1

We need to stop repeating the same claims over and over again. Historians give due weight on linking battles like Saintes and Gibraltar to AWR that ia not in question. It's the need for consensus which so far has been very little forthcoming. Getting consusus for 'Bourbon War' is the next best step. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Why didn't you address this to XG as well? The claims are only repeated when valid points concerning Due-Weight and the idea of covering the battles in question in the same proportion as the sources do are ignored, as you seem to be doing. Sources that cover the ARW do not cover Gibraltar nearly in the same capacity as they do for the battles of Bunker Hill, Long Island, Saratoga, Yorktown, etc. if they mention it at all. Most do not. To repeat, no sources on the ARW explains this connection to the actual ARW -- all they do is mention, briefly at best, that it came up in peace talks, settling matters between Britain and Spain.

• We have a consensus to not merge this article to the target article. The first proposal to merge was denied. Here we are again, and we've been at it for some weeks now. Now, before a decision is rendered you and TVH want to rename this article BOURBON WAR (1779-1783), start all over and hope to get another consensus. Yes, I would much rather rename it thusly than to merge this article with the 'France in the ARW' article for the obvious reasons stated, but now we're all over the map with debate, and now, other ideas. I would recommend not merging two groups of battles fought for completely different reasons, and then when that has passed, make another proposal to rename — later. You must realize by now that our lengthy and unyielding debate has all but driven away any further participation, and now you want to change the game plan and pursue yet another consensus. Though I am receptive to the Bourbon War idea as outlined by TVH, I don't see this as a timely alternative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Well at least we're getting closer to getting a compromise or an agreement. Besides you're the one wanting to get more users involved and with that add 'due weight' on the subject. That is rather than using the sources (as I have said) above which give plenty of due weight even though they have thoroughly analysed, ripped apart or criticised. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• The sources on the ARW do not give plenty of Due-Weight to battles like Gibraltar – all they make are passing references if they mention it at all. If any of them lent Due-Weight, coverage of Gibraltar would be par with events like Valley Forges or battles like Saratoga. But since Gibraltar was its own campaign, fought for its own objective, it's only mentioned in a few ARW sources because it came up during peace talks. You were concerned about repeating claims, yet you call for them by continuously ignoring these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Closure

• As much as I am receptive to the idea, this compromise seems as if it will only complicate matters. Are we going to create a Bourbon Wars article or rename this one, which would increase its scope dramatically? TVH's original proposal calls for the creation of such an article, while not merging this one to the target article. I don't think you're exactly on board with that. As I said, we seem only to be complicating matters all around. Seven editors have lent their consensus, i.e. 4 to 3 not to merge -- after going through two lengthy proposals to merge, do you expect to call them all back and try to explain the new plan, which is still sketchy? -- I also fear that our reviewer has just given up at this point. IMO, we should finalize the merging debate, if that's possible, and then consider the Bourbon wars article and its scope – one step at a time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Article wp:titles

XavierGreen has called our attention to wp:common name, which prompts a wider discussion of the criteria for naming an article at Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Browser-search for ‘common use’

At wp:Search engine test, we see a caution for editors: Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results.

- (1) Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything (see ‘vast majority of RS’, 'plethora of sources' in Talk discussion). (2) Results may not reflect the uses you mean, rather than other uses (see TIMELINE coincident versus EVENT connected to the ARW). (3) Little-mentioned or unmentioned items) are not automatically unimportant (see ‘Anglo-French War 1778-1783’).

(4) Results may not be reliable or "true" – because - search engines index whatever text is online, true or false. - Example 1. Not true: Siege of Gibraltar by anonymous publisher with nearly 100 images includes the caption text at every image: ‘American Revolutionary War’, thus skewing the index numbers, and therefore producing not-true search results.

Example 2. Not reliable results: a search "worldwide American Revolution" will result in Piers Mackesy, p.xxvi, as cited by ARW-Global editors on this Talk page and elsewhere to support their contention that "the American Revolution spread worldwide" without US consent or participation, and without connection to US independence.

But the scholar's introduction says, "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." That is not a reliable proof that "the imperial American Revolution spread worldwide" (Lockwood 2019), nor does it support the assertion that the "bourgeois-nationalist American Revolution spread worldwide" (Shaw 1953).

It's not a 'reliable result' because it does NOT produce the intended result supporting the wp:error editor POV asserting a 'worldwide' American Revolutionary War. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Common usage, dictionaries

No. 1. British dictionary: At the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries (Oxford University Press): “the American Revolution”, “the Revolutionary War” (North American English), “the War of American Independence” (British English), “a war between America and Britain (1775-1783) in which America became an independent nation. On 4 July 1776 members of Congress signed the Declaration of Independence. During the following years of fighting, the Americans received support from France and Spain. Finally, after seven years of war, Britain recognized the United States of America in 1783."

No. 2. American dictionary: At the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Encyclopedia Britannica): "American Revolution": "the war of 1775–83 in which 13 British colonies in North America broke free from British rule and became the United States of America."

No. 3. Online dictionary: Dictionary.com, “the world’s leading digital dictionary”; 70 million monthly users, 100M+ app downloads; 5.5 billion word searches annually (Random House Unabridged Dictionary): “American Revolution”, "the war between Great Britain and its American colonies, 1775–83, by which the colonies won their independence."

By common usage in British English, North American English, AND online at the World Wide Web, for “the American Revolution”, (a) there is nothing about battles without US participation or consent: not the Battle of the Saintes, nor the Great Siege of Gibraltar, nor the Battle of Pollilur (1780). (b) There is nothing relating to the French worldwide, or the Spanish worldwide, or the Mysores worldwide - - excepting in one of the three, there is a clause referencing "support" from France and Spain given US Congress in North America for its independence. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps TVH and GWILLICKERS need reminding of the sources; not only are these sources WP:RS they also discount any factor regarding any so called 'Anglo-French War 1778' but more importantly they ALL describe the AWR as one single global conflict.-

• Lancaster, Bruce; Plumb, John Harold (2001). The American Revolution. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 9780618127399. QUOTE - Page=239 What many Americans failed to grasp as they failed to grasp certain similar British problems was that France like England, was now fighting a WORLD WAR in which the thirteen states were merely one theater and not necessarily the most important one
• Dupuy, Richard Ernest; Hammerman, Gay M; Grace, P. Hayes (1977). The American Revolution, a Global War. D. Mckay Company. ISBN 9780679506485. quote - p. 285 The American Revolution in its aspect was to a very large extent a naval war - note use of term 'English-French naval warfare'
• Morrissey, Brendan (2001). The American Revolution: The Global Struggle for National Independence. Salamander. ISBN 9781840652314. page=7 - quote - was to show that this was a global struggle a world war in the truest sense
• Stoker, Donald; Hagan, Kenneth J; McMaster, Michael T, eds. (2009). Strategy in the American War of Independence: A Global Approach. Routledge. ISBN 9781134210398. Quote (preface) - This book examines the strategies pursued by the Colonies and the other combatants in the American War for Independence, placing the conflict in its proper global context. also Page= 1 As the following chapters make clear the of 1755-83 was truly a global conflict.
• Tucker, Spencer C (2018). American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. p. 1322. ISBN 9781851097449. page 512 Quote from historian Professor Jeremy Black This encyclopedia is particularity distinctive and important in that is presents the conflict as a world war .. This was a war fought in North America but also in the West Indies, India, the Indian Ocean, West Africa, the Mediterranean and European Waters.
• O'Shaughnessy, Andrew Jackson (2013). The Men Who Lost America: British Leadership, the American Revolution and the Fate of the Empire. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300195248. QUOTE' From 1778 the obstacles to British success in America escalated with the transformation of the American Revolutionary war into a global war against France.
• Gould, Eliga H; Onuf, Peter S (2015). Empire and Nation: The American Revolution in the Atlantic World Empire and Nation Anglo-America in the Transatlantic World. JHU Press. ISBN 9781421419138. page=5 Quote - the revolution's global context has been too often neglected
• Miller, Anthony (2018). Gale Researcher Guide for: The American Revolution: A World War. Gale, Cengage Learning. ISBN 9781535861755. QUOTE (preface) - This article discusses the American Revolution as a WORLD WAR. Traditionally thought of as a two sided conflict the American War of Independence was multinational struggle that spread from North America into a contest between worlds powers in the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, and Asia.
• Desmarais, Norman (2019). America's First Ally: France in the Revolutionary War. Casemate. ISBN 9781612007014. quote -Desmarais explores the international nature of a war which some people have called the first world war.
• Savas, Theodore P; Dameron, J. David (2006). A Guide to the Battles of the American Revolution. Savas Beatie. pp. 165–66. ISBN 9781611210118. Quote- the colonial war was now a global conflict (p. 165) & Caribbean, Battles of the (Naval Campaign:Caribbean) Note= Saintes on p. 169 No mention of Anglo-French War.
• Willis, Sam (2016). The Struggle for Sea Power: A Naval History of the American Revolution. W. W. Norton. ISBN 9780393248838. quote - Simultaneous naval campaigns were fought in the English Channel, the North and Mid-Atlantic, the Mediterranean, off South Africa, in the Indian Ocean, the Caribbean, the Pacific, the North Sea and, of course, off the eastern seaboard of America. Not until the Second World War would any nation actively fight in so many different theaters.
• Hoock, Holger (2017). Scars of Independence: America's Violent Birth. Crown. pp. 301–302. ISBN 9780804137294. Quote What started as a war in North America had expanded into a worldwide conflict. From London's perspective the war against the thirteen rebellious American colonies was no longer the most important theatre in Britain's newly global struggle
• The American Revolution 'The War Beyond America' Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• National Museum of American History 'The American Revolution: A World War '

A compleat History of the American War... is nearly the History of Mankind for the whole Epocha of it. The History of France Spain Holland, England and the Neutral Powers, as well as America are at least comprized in it. - John Adams, 1783

Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This is largely, if not wholly, a list of sources, dictionaries, websites, etc that you've run by us several times now. No one has denied that in a few cases the ARW occurred off the shores of the continent -- but that wouldn't include Gibraltar and Saintes, as has been explained repeatedly. Once again, how many of these sources lend just as much weight to Gibraltar and other such battles as they do Valley Forge, the Battles of Bunker Hill, White Plains, Saratoga, etc. This is the point you keep trying to avert. Here's a sampling of the sources you presented:

• Miller, 2018, Gale Researcher Guide for: The American Revolution: A World War -- This is a 7 page researcher guide that only comments briefly on battles like Gibraltar, and offers no explanation as to how Gibraltar was a viable part of the ARW, while the actual ARW is completely ignored.
• Gould, & Onuf, Peter, 2015. Empire and Nation..., p. 312. -- Gibraltar is only mentioned once, that Britain sent convicts there.
• This Website source doesn't mention Gibraltar, let alone lend weight to any such battles
• Willis, 2016. Struggle for Seapower -- This is a book I own, and while Willis explains how important Gibraltar was to Britain's naval superiority on that side of the globe, he offers no connection to the actual ARW for independence. With one sentence he did comment on the peace talks.
• O'Shaughnessy, 2013. The Men Who Lost America -- This book comments well on Gibraltar with its entire focus on how important it was to Britain in and around the European continent. It also offers no connection to the struggle for American independence.
• This source is the most telling : Lancaster, 1987. The American Revolution — This is an acutely biased source, as demonstrated by the quote you provided. "What many Americans failed to grasp"? -- "the thirteen states were merely one theater and not necessarily the most important one"? No doubt this opinion was and is commonly held by the British, but this is definitely a British centric POV and as such it impeaches its own objectivity.

We need a source on the ARW that lends just as much weight to battles like Gibraltar as it does the actual ARW. Calling the ARW a "global war" by itself doesn't do this, esp since the "global" aspect primarily involved Britain Spain and France in the West Indies and on the other side of the globe, involving no American belligerents or the actual struggle over American independence. Thus far nothing has really been presented that would justify dumping all the battles between France and Britain over trading and naval superiority into the target article. You can call the American Revolutionary War a "global war" if you prefer, but the fact remains we still have two distinct sets of battles, fought for their own specific objectives, and is why we have two separate articles for each group. We've been through this repeatedly, while it was you who asked that we stop making the same claims. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't just about Gibraltar this is about the whole level of the American Revolutionary war in a global manner - in its terms used by said authors/historians. Why does Gibraltar have to be used as an example? I have already quoted sources - that along with the Battle of the Saintes too. I've made such a long list already if you can count the ones I've made on here. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this debate isn't just about Gibraltar, it's about whether to merge the two articles in question where on several occasions you have used Gibraltar as a reason to merge -- to answer your question. And yes, you have listed and quoted some sources, but no where have you given us anything that would justify lumping two distinct sets of battles into one article. Calling the ARW a "global war" by itself doesn't distinguish between the two sets of campaigns and battles, fought for their own specific objectives. WP is comprised of many dedicated articles. If you would like to see a generalized article which dumps everything into that one article you might want to create an article called Gobal War of 1778-1783, but then, it wouldn't be long before we saw proposals to merge such an article to the many dedicated articles that already cover its distinctly different aspects. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan: You have no counter to the wp:common use of the term "American Revolution" in a British 'Oxford' dictionary, an American 'Merriam-Webster' dictionary, and an online 'Random House' dictionary.com, with 100M+ downloaded apps. Despite repeated spamming on this Talk Page from your biased browser search we have shown they do not apply to your argument: timeline not event, no document evidence connecting, misconstrued quotes, or they don't meet the wp:reliable source criteria for author, publisher, or peer review.

- Perhaps it's time to stop repeating the two-screen wall of repeated references that have been refuted in detail, item by item, without any reply. They are not adequate evidence to support your primary assertion about an "ARW in a global manner". It does not impress, it does not persuade (3-3 division is not a wp:consensus), and sadly, it can be interpreted as disruption - - and I do not want to lose your good contributions, not for a New-York-minute. See, wp:Drop the stick.

- The "American Revolutionary War", wp:COMMON NAME in British English, North American English, and on the worldwide web (WWW) for the general reader globally: (1) "a conflict 1775-1783" (not Bourbon Alliance by the Treaty of Aranjuez 1779-1783, not Dutch Republic 1780-1784); (2) between Britain and her North American colonists (not Euro great powers worldwide and the declining Dutch and rising Mysores, too); (3) for and against US independence (not for imperial gains for Euro great powers in territory and trade concessions worldwide). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki:CommonName does indeed apply, the vast majority of sources refer to the subject content of the article as the American Revolutionary War. You continue to evade provide proof to the contrary. It is you who should "drop the stick" as you have provided no evidence at all to suggest that "Anglo-French War" is the common name for the subject matter of this article. Your dictionary citations are irrelevant, they do not state anything at all as to whether or not the events in question are considered to be the "Anglo-French War".XavierGreen (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

As was explained, Anglo-French wars has been the common term used for the trade and naval dominance disputes that occurred throughout the 18th century between Britain and France, and the ones that occurred between 1778 and 1783 are no different -- fought for their own specific objectives, i.e. trading and naval contests, having little to nothing to do with the ARW and the struggle over American independence. We must observe Due-Weight as determined by the facts that surround the conflicts in question. Once again, the objectives involved in the Anglo-French conflicts of this period did not simply disappear during this time period. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

TVH - you're using your own opinion again; it is clear that opinion is your only case for an argument. I have provided sources whereas you have provided a lack thereof. When I'm providing sources you slate and criticise them going so far as to pick apart the historian/authors of said books - perhaps then your should send some damaging emails to your very own Smithsonian National Museum of American History Military History Now or even Matthew Lockwood an assistant professor of history at the University of Alabama, who said this 'Britain may have lost 13 of its American colonies but, when considered globally, Britain won the American War of Independence. It's yet another clear example that the AWR was a global war and that the Anglo-French War 1778 term does not have enough sources as a basis for this article to exist, especially when it was originally created by sockpuppet users. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see a Briton, an American, and a Spaniard for a proper perspective of Euro wars during the ARW period: Bunting in Britannica, ‘Siege of Pondicherry 1778’, an “engagement in the Anglo-French War; the outbreak of war between Britain and France over French support for the rebel [US] had repercussions in India.” - - - Allison in the Smithsonian forward, 1: “As the war progressed beyond the rebellion in its colonies, Britain faced attacks on its territories and naval power around the globe—including its homeland.” - - - Major Yaniz in ‘The Role of Spain in the ARW’, i: “Spain declared war on Great Britain in June 1779 as an ally of France but not of America, the Bourbon Family Compact obligated Spain with commitments to France; and the Spanish Crown answered the call. Madrid thus took an unavoidable political strategic mistake.”

British (Oxford), American (Merriam-Webster), and the largest dictionary online in English (Random House) are not “my opinion”, however flattering that may be. These are wp:approved authority for naming an article found at wp:Article titles and linked sister articles, they are not “my opinion” alone. The ARW was primarily by British subjects in North America over Thirteen Colonies' independence, and not by others, elsewhere, for other purposes.

- As for the Smithsonian, besides the quote from Allison above, the timeline-assembly of period exhibits show no documents that make the “Model Treaty” of Congress into the Franco-Spanish “Treaty of Aranjuez” 1779; ie, nothing to suggest the “defensive war for trade” found in the Treaty of Alliance with France justifies making the US part of the “offensive war invading England, etc” at Aranjuez without the knowledge or consent of Congress.

- Not even YOU agree with Lockwood: that somehow wp:error: the imperial American Revolutionary War caused an Australian aborigine family to suffer. Not once have you attempted to make Aborigine Australia "co-belligerents" of the US in the ARW, as did Lockwood in his "imperial American Revolution", journal reviewed as a good story-teller, but as an historian, "connecting dots where there are no connections."

(1) Your biased browser search is deprecated at wp:Search engine test; (2) your “RS” without scholar authors, academic publishers, or peer review, do not meet the criteria at wp:reliable source. (3) You will not follow guidelines at wp:Article titles. These are Wikipedia policy, not “my opinion”. (4) You instead declare that you will follow the example of a banned sock-puppet violating wp:merge. To what purpose? It is now becoming weeks of aimless disruption without issue. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Internet accessible to all is unbiased

Is that it? After all the sources I have quoted are wp:reliable source so what I have provided is ten fold to what you have. As for biased browser search this is accessible to everyone, so biased doesn't even count. All sources I have quoted are RS WITH scholar authors, academic publishers, and peer review, which DO meet the criteria as wp:reliable sources. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Not true. Many of the sources you've produced are website articles, dictionaries research guides and so forth with no scholarly name attached. You have still not offered one that gives us a comprehensive explanation that ties in the battles in question as being a part of the actual war for independence. What we have are a lot of book titles that have the term "global war" or "world war", in the title, which does not negate the idea that the Anglo-French wars were always fought between Britain and France over trading and naval dominance fore their own separate objectives. As such, we should have two distinct sets of battles and two dedicated articles for each. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan: This is what goes wrong with your biased browser searches, contrary to the guidelines at wp:Search engine test. Your hit-results produces cites that are not all the same, they are not consistent, they are not accurate. As shown here, some merely reference the same timeframe: Jacques, Tucker, etc. As shown, here, no documents connect the Euro-battle dots with the Congress in North America: Hoock, Savas, etc. As shown here, misconstruing Britain’s warring with Euros worldwide as though Congress warred worldwide: Marley, etc. As shown here, contrary to your expectation, some actually separate the ARW from House of Bourbon war on Britain: Botta, Page.

As shown here, Cherry picking Britannica, where main article “American Revolution” defines it as an “insurrection [among British subjects] by which 13 …colonies won their independence.” While its “Battle of the Saintes” places the battle in the ARW timeframe, at “Siege of Ponticherry” it clearly says, it is an “engagement in the Anglo-French War ...the outbreak of war between Britain and France over French support for the rebel [US] had repercussions in India.” That is NOT demonstration of events-of-one-were-the-events-of-the-other, just because they are on the same timeline.

As shown here, some are indeed not RS by wp:reliable resource criteria: the Times of London is not scholarly, C.S. Forester was a novelist, not a professional historian. As shown here, some make the explicit distinction between (a) the ARW with a defensive alliance with France to protect free trade, and (b) the offensive “Anglo-French War” of great power imperial expansion begun at the Franco-Spanish Treaty of Aranjuez 1779: Cannon, Crowcroft, Clodfelter, Hocker, Hoock, Tucker, Stoker, and from here: Hagan, Henderson, Hiller, Kohn, Spitzer. As shown here, Ashbel, Fitch, Rosininski, and Shippen. And also Brown, and Henderson. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Again you're criticising the articles I have provided despite the vast majority of them being are wp:reliable source. You're only saying they're NOT to deflect the issue. As for biased browser search 1. how does that make it biased? 2. If that is the case then what you have provided for example the 'Library of Congress' is then also classed as 'biased search'. Forget the websites, All book sources I have quoted are RS WITH scholar authors, academic publishers and peer review which DO meet the criteria as wp:reliable sources. Two of them are Pulitzer prize finalists (David K. Allison and Larrie D. Ferreiro) - you're just using your own opinion to say they are not without any evidence whatsoever. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan: Nonsense. I do not criticize RS, I refute how you’ve misinterpreted and misapplied to misdirect others into wp:error.

Non sequitur. Your careless editing does not make the Library of Congress biased, it is a standard for scholarly topics everywhere in the English-speaking world, even though neither your “Imperial American Revolution” (Lockwood 2019), nor the “Bourgeouis-nationalist American Revolution” (Shaw 1953) can be found deemed THERE as generally accepted categories of historiography.

Deception. There are two citations shown to be NOT - RS in your last post. The issue is not the book RS, but misapplying results from your biased term search with non-RS and snippets that, when read in full and posted here for you in direct quotes, do NOT support your position. You then carelessly fail to read them as in the case of Mackesey, as shown above.

Mackesey: "NOT about the ARW" cannot be forced into YOUR "IS about the ARW", regardless of repeated posts disrupting a Talk page, because of a biased "vast majority" hit list on the internet. The Wikipedia policy CAUTION: browser searches find text on the WWW whether it is true or not, see wp:Search engine test.

Misapplication.In both the [Allison case and the [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_American_Revolution/IlpnDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Ferreiro case, we have shown with direct quotes HOW you have misinterpreted and misapplied them to create an imaginary past contrary to the historical event topic, “American Revolutionary War”.

Usually you conflate the coincidental period TIMELINE with immediately connected EVENTS related to the topic: An insurrection of British subjects in America over colonial independence, “with repercussions in Euro imperial contests elsewhere” (Encyclopedia Britannica, "American Revolution").

Non sequitur. Whenever shown "Statement not-A", your answer is "Statement not-B, therefore "Statement A".

Whenever you are shown that a battle is not in the American Revolutionary War, you answer, We did not show it was in the Anglo-French War, so it must be in the American Revolution.

Or, to put it another way, (Statement 1) Battle "A" with document evidence in 'Treaty of Aranjuez' that it is for Bourbon war aims: (a) French and Spanish imperial gains and (b) Gibraltar, IS NOT (Statement 2) Battle "B" with document evidence in 'Treaty of Alliance' that it is for US Congress war aims: (a) American free trade (Preamble) or (b) US independence (Article Two). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

At what point did I quote Mackesy here?? You're using him as an excuse to pick apart the historians and authors (all RS) I have quoted above. On the subject of Mackesey he does not use the term 'Anglo-French war 1778' at all. His book also goes on by saying the war was global. In this he says - this a study of British leadership in a WORLD WAR & Far less familiar is the fact that, for the British, the American colonies were only one front in a world war. Therefore your conclusion of Non sequitur. Multiplication and deception is your own personal opinion. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for the British, the Bourbon War against Britain begun 1779 at the 'Treaty of Aranjuez' specifies Gibraltar as a war aim in their treaty for them. Congress is not signatory, it is kept secret from Congress, violating Article 10 in the Franco-American 'Treaty of Alliance'. Mackesey says that "Bourbon war" is worldwide, only you then say the "American War" is, contradicting what Mackesey said after your wp:error is pointed out.

What you have for "authority" is that assistant professor Lockwood at the University of Alabama said so, as you so correctly noted. But his "good story" book is panned in academic journal reviews as not-good historical scholarship, "connecting dots where there are no connections" of document evidence.

The British war with Congress, their "American War", is over at 'Yorktown', American independence is secured by March 1782, when Parliament votes a bill that anyone who materially supports continued war in America is "an enemy of the country" (Ward, Cambridge Modern History 1925). The Treaty of Alliance Article 8 says the French will war with Britain until US independence is "formally or tacitly" assured. The French and Spanish Bourbon kings delay peace talks hoping for a good result at Gibraltar later on. The Congress does not consent to the 'Final Assault' on Gibraltar. Their armies are all furloughed home by September 1782, Washington's over-caution to keep a standing US army in the United States was outvoted in Congress. There is no "American War" if no American Army exists in the field, and the war with Britain is over. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Time for Closure

Inquiry was made, and seemingly ignored, as to the present state of affairs. We have been through two separate proposal debates and around the block with the same issues a good number of times now, and at this late date it seems there isn't going to be any further editors chiming in. We have a 4 to 3 consensus to not merge. It would seem we can all agree that this has gone on long enough. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is still 3:3 actually and yes it's time for closure indeed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Better take another look :

• Merge -- Eastfarthingan
• Merge -- XavierGreen
• Don't Merge -- Gwillhickers
• Dont Merge -- TheVirginiaHistorian
• Don't Merge -- Vyselink
• Merge --- Calidum
• Don't Merge -- Snowded

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

In reality however it really is two for two since there are only four of us arguing on here. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This is getting a bit desperate and rather tacky. Show us the policy where it says a vote becomes null and void if the editor in question doesn't stay for the duration of the discussion. Or was that the plan from the start – keep repeating the same arguments while ignoring the other points until everyone disappears or gives up? For someone who just expressed a concern for closure you go off inventing debates like this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I already posted as to why votes are meaningless, but rather conformance with policy that matters for article titles. I will repeat it below, it was hidden by one of you, which I ask you not to do again.

WP:NOTAVOTE, it doesn't matter how many people oppose or support, rather the arguments and evidence presented by each side are what matter. Its clear here that Eastfarthingian and I have provided a myriad of sources which prove that this is a content fork of France in the American Revolutionary War, that the sources overwhelmingly favor use of the term "American Revolutionary War" over the current article title, and that this article should therefore merge into France in the American Revolutionary War per Wiki:CommonName just as Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1783) was merged into Spain in the American Revolutionary War. You and TVH have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that "Anglo-French War (11778-1783)" is the commonly used name for this articles content. As such this article must merge.XavierGreen (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It was Eastfarthingan who initiated the polling. Are you now trying to tell us he was wrong in that effort? For weeks you didn't make an issue over polling until it was pointed out that consensus was not in your favor.

• "On Wikipedia, we generally do not line up simply to cast ballots, without some sort of discussion alongside of voting.
• The goal of any article discussion is consensus..

Polling has been used correctly for many years here at WP. Again, if this is the way you feel about polling, why did you vote? If you feel this strongly about voting we invite you to remove your name from the poll as a way to show us that you are sincere in your words.

To repeat, the sources do not "overwhelmingly favor" ARW – it is used to describe "part of" the ARW in a couple of cases involving Anglo-French battles. Again, referring to the ARW as a "global war" does not negate the idea that the Anglo-French wars were in full bloom at this time. Many of your sources are simply books that mention "world war" or "global war" with little mention of battles like Gibraltar and Saintes, while many of your other "overwhelming" sources are simply almanacs, dictionaries, guides, websites, etc with no scholarly name attached. Every source TVH and myself has referred to are scholarly works, journals, along with the Library of Congress and Open Library which categorize many of the books you referred to under the greater category of French-Anglo War, 1778-1783. These highly recognized sources of information can not be ignored. You are free to ignore them but you can't expect others to. This, among other things, is what you've been trying to avoid. It seems you are only inventing new issues over polling and repeating the same opinions in an effort to prolong the debate and avoid closure.

We have been through two proposal debates. This Closure section was started because we have all aired the same opinions over and again, and in the hopes that we could finally get the reviewer back here to close out this extremely long and repetitive debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with how I feel, the admin that was handling this previously stated himself that the votes do not matter, but whether or not policy is being followed does. You have produced only a handful of sources which use the term "Anglo-French War" to refer specifically to the subject content of this article. The sources we have provided explicitly include every battle and campaign mentioned in this article as part of the American Revolutionary War. Clodfelter and Tucker are perfect examples of this as can be seen here [[3]]. Your statements to the contrary are blatant wrong and your statements are plainly made in bad faith.XavierGreen (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. Votes along with the discussion are what matters and no policy has been violated. Please do not preach to us about who is right or wrong, and bad-faith. It shows bad faith, esp since you keep repeating yourself while we are trying to reach closure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: the admin who was handling this previously did not endorse your Talk page procedure here that violates wp:merge, an editorial strategy that you have TWICE acknowledged is your plan, following the previous example of the banned wp:sock puppet. I for one am not persuaded to follow your example, nor that of the sock puppet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor source interpretations

Here's a couple more sources -

• Jordine, Melissa R; Matray, James I; Mitchell, Senator George J (2009). The Dispute Over Gibraltar Arbitrary Borders Series. Infobase Publishing. p. 12. ISBN 9781438121390. QUOTE - During the American War of Independence fought from 1775-83, France and Spain declared war on Great Britain and enacted a siege of Gibraltar that was initiated in 1779.
• Tucker, Spencer C (2018). American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [5 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 1322. ISBN 9781851097449. QUOTE - The Battle of the Saintes - Greatest British naval victory of the American Revolutionary war.

Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We've addressed this time and again. Can you provide a quote from Tucker that explains the connection and Saintes' role to the actual ARW? Saintes was fought between Britain and France for control of possessions in the West Indies, sugar, etc. As we all know by now, the only connection to the ARW is that this battle came up in peace talks, along with many more important issues, esp as concerned America – i.e. recognition of American independence, securing territory east of the Mississippi, fishing rights off Nova Scotia, etc. All you've been doing is rehashing points that have been well explained by editors for some time now. Once again, the wars between Britain and France over trading, etc come under the general heading of Anglo-French wars, regardless if a source happens to mention also that they were also part of the ARW. We don't need a source that spells out the names of all the individual battles to establish that -- all we need to know is that they occurred between Britain and France during the time in question in the West Indies, for the same reasons, as was Saintes. What separates Saintes from the other Anglo-French wars/battles? Because it came up in peace talks? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Jordine, another case of editor misinterpetation to mislead: This direct quote does NOT support 'Gibraltar' as an event in the ARW, quite the OPPOSITE. During the American War of Independence fought from 1775-83, France and Spain declared war on Great Britain and enacted a siege of Gibraltar that was initiated in 1779.

First, introductory subordinate phrase states TIMELINE COINCIDENCE: "During the American War of Independence fought from 1775-83,"

Main clause of documented HISTORY EVENT: "France and Spain declared war on Great Britain and enacted a siege of Gibraltar that was initiated in 1779."

It cannot get much clearer to the wp:good faith reader than that: During the time period of the "American War", there was a French-Spanish war against the British that included a siege at Gibraltar. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's a lovely carefully crafted sentence by our mutual friend Tucker

• Tucker, Spencer C (2018). American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. p. 1323. ISBN 9781851097449. The Battle of the Saintes, April 1782. Superior British seamanship and gunnery ruled the day in what what as the greatest naval victory at sea for the British over the French during the American Revolutionary War. Their victory enabled the British to retain all their West Indian islands in the Treaty of Paris ending the war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We still haven't seen where Tucker, or any other sources, explains the actual connection to the ARW. Typically, all he relates to is the idea of "during" the ARW, with almost full weight being lent to the battle and why it was fought. An event taken into consideration at the peace talks doesn't by itself make it a part of the ARW, or anything else. It was its own battle fought for its own primary objective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that it is part of the AWR is unquestionable. You fail to see it the direct quote is there. Perhaps you should ask the auhtors of said books as to why? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

2. Tucker, another case of editor misinterpetation to mislead: This direct quote does NOT support 'Saintes' as an event in the ARW, quite the OPPOSITE. The Battle of the Saintes, April 1782. Superior British seamanship and gunnery ruled the day in what what as the greatest naval victory at sea for the British over the French during the American Revolutionary War.

Main clause of documented HISTORY EVENT: "The Battle of the Saintes, April 1782. Superior British seamanship and gunnery ruled the day in what what as the greatest naval victory at sea for the British over the French ..."

Last, ending subordinate phrase states TIMELINE COINCIDENCE: "... during the American Revolutionary War." It cannot get much clearer: The British naval victory over France at 'Saintes', was during the time period of the "American War" 1775-83.

Though as discussed here with RS citations and direct quotes, after the final American victory for independence ending the shooting war in the ARW, 'Yorktown' October 1781. Viz. "Oh, God! It's all over." - the quote from war Prime Minister Lord North, November 1781, on hearing of the loss of a second British army in America at 'Yorktown', and the independent 'Country Gentlemen' caucus deserting his Tory coalition in the House of Commons. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have just added and quoted a source, a reliable source with a contribution by a professor of history - yet you have typically analysed it mashed it up and then ripped it apart up coming up with your own conclusion. You might as well be saying that it's a conspiracy theory. This is now getting beyond stupidity and shows that your desperate to take apart anything to gain for your own satisfaction. It is pathetic and you're not winning friends. I don't see how I should compromise with users in this manner. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You have just misinterpreted an RS quote laid before us all, and I have shown you the sentence structure in its quoted sequence, neither "mashed up" nor "ripped apart": For Tucker here by main clause and subordinate phrase, and for Jordine subordinate phrase and main clause here.

This graphically shows the precise meaning intended in the English language, "during" means "time period" in each modifier phrase, not the "history event" in each subject clause. This is a linguistic methodology learned by ten-year olds in England, Canada, US, Jamaica, Australia New Zealand, Nigeria and South Africa.

Ten-year old native English speakers are not universally joined in their millions to your "conspiracy" (sic) while they diagram English sentences. Neither are they "stupid and desperate and pathetic" to do so. I'm not sure I'm following your logic here . . . nevertheless, have a nice day. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Im glad you see my point. Not hard to understand. Good day to you too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Using identified wp:ERROR as RS

All historians publishing in RS are not uniformly acquainted with all areas of study that they address in their narrative, especially in efforts by editors to craft a survey history. This sometimes leads to a mistaken detail, usually addressed in subsequent editions on a single page in the front material, titled "Errata". These do not substantially undermine the authority of the work itself, NOR the accomplishment of the author's scholarship overall. However, when errata are pointed out in wp:Talk discussion, editors should NOT continue to insist on incorporating them into discussions for use in the article main-space.

One such errata case occurs at RS Tucker, where he conflates "Treaty of Paris" with the term "Peace of Paris". The European use of the historiographic Peace of Paris, comprises (a) the Anglo-American 1783 Treaty of Paris, (b) the Anglo-French 1783 Treaty of Versailles, (c) the Anglo-Spanish 1783 Treaty of Versailles, and (d) the Anglo-Dutch 1784 Treaty of Paris. Thusly: Tucker, Spencer C (2018). American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. p. 1323. ISBN 9781851097449., "[The 'Saintes'] victory enabled the British to retain all their West Indian islands in the Treaty of Paris (sic) ending the war." The sentence should read for accuracy in diplomatic history: "... British to retain all their West Indian islands in the Peace of Paris ending their wars at the Treaties of Versailles with France and Spain."

WP:editors know from other RS used here at Talk, and by direct inspection of the document itself, that (a) the 1783 Treaty of Paris, ending the American War of Independence (or ARW) signed on 2 September between the British and Americans and effective on 3 September at the Versailles signings, did NOT include any provisions for British West Indian islands. (b) The territory addressed included ONLY the British-held territory cession to the Americans on the North American continent, fishing rights off Newfoundland, and Mississippi River "navigation to the open sea", as had been provided previously to the British in the French cession of the 1763 Treaty of Paris. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should write a book on it then? since you you seem to be using your own personal opinion rather than using consensus for due weight. You can't seem to deal with the fact that I have used RS with scholarly reviews, some as Pulitzer finalists. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

(1) You use wp:deprecated methodology to arrive at a purported “due weight”, a browser search with a biased term, returning hits “both true and false” as you have been warned at the Wikipedia article and on this Talk page. (2) You misapply the label, “my opinion”, as you mischaracterize the Wikipedia consensus arrived at for the Euro RS use of “Peace of Paris”. The historiographic term is fully explained at Peace of Paris, with the enumeration all four treaties found in my post: that is NOT "my opinion".

(3) I have dealt with the fact that you have misinterpreted and misapplied both scholarly RS Jordine here, and Tucker here. (4) It looks more and more like wp:disruption of the Talk page here. You make no reply to the critiques of your wp:error posts, and then you resort to wp:personal attack when the plain sentence structure is revealed in the RS used in your misinterpreted POV posts. At wp:disruption it explains: Editors may not understand how to correctly edit… "The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

You are clearly guilty too of wp:deprecated methodology bias search for 'Anglo-French war'. Here you also arrive at purported 'due weight' which, dare I say is 'scraping the bottomn of the barrel' due a to lack of searches. I have never critiqued them however because I know the due weight is done with the huge amount of sources clearly linking battles eg. the Saintes and Gibraltar battles as part of the AWR and in ending said war eg Peace of Paris. You on the other hand have a tendency in disagreeing with the author then saying he isn't scholarly or RS when I have clearly pointed out to you that they are. That is clearly wp:disruption and as you rightly pointed out 'Editors may not understand how to correctly edit' which is a clear example of your actions multiple times above. As far as Im concerned I have committed no wp:error posts - clearly quoting sources and articles which is just and for you to critique them is clearly a [wp:error]] on your behalf and a clear POV. Getting a consesus is what we need here as clearly both due weight and source quotes are not getting anywhere. Ps if the article doesn't merge I have big plans for it.Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Eastfarthingan There is no procedural equivalence between us here. I am NOT openly adopting a barred sock-puppet strategy for a merge proposal here. I have presented NO “plethora” ‘hits’ and “vast majority” lists from a browser search.

(1) “Anglo-French War [1788]” is a Library of Congress history topic, which substantiates the article title per wp:Article titles. No reply impeaches LOC as a scholarly authority in the English-speaking world. (2) Two RS encyclopedias other than Wikipedia substantiate the limited scope of the ARW, so as to exclude British imperial wars with other Euros elsewhere, per wp:Article titles. They use a scope for the ARW without ‘Saintes’, ‘Gibraltar’, or ‘Treaties’ with France or Spain to end it.

- The two top British scholarly references are, Encyclopedia Britannica’s “American Revolution”, and Routledge’s Dictionary of Wars, “American Revolutionary War. Using them avoids any American-Patriot-‘exceptionalism’ BIAS in a choice of definition: The ARW is an insurrection/civil war, a British-subject conflict over colonial independence in North America. Yet you persist in wp:error, to assert search engine hits trump other RS encyclopedias as called for in wp:Article titles.

(3) The wp:common name for the ARW is substantiated by three definition results: they all exclude Euro imperial battles outside America a British dictionary at Oxford Learners Dictionary, an American Dictionary at Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and Random House Unabridged Dictionary, online Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com has over 100 million apps downloaded, more than a ‘pletora’ of deprecated search engine hits. Yet you persist in wp:error, to assert search results trump RS dictionary authority per wp:Article titles.

(4) Your misunderstanding results in misapplied RS here. Mackesey says his work is “not about the American Revolutionary War”; yet you persist in wp:error misrepresenting him as pushing the thesis that the ARW ‘spread worldwide’. He does not. (5) By diagramming two RS sentences you quoted, I have graphically shown how your confusion over the two uses of an English term misleads the Talk page user: (a) “during” can mean same time period, as it did in the cases of Tucker and Jordine, versus (b) “during” to mean an event occurring amidst related history events. They do not have the same identical usage, yet you persist in the wp:error.

(6) Procedurally, you now threaten(?), that if you do not have your way despite a poll 4-3 against you, that you have “big plans” for this article(?) Very well. XavierGreen has already threatened to prevent Wikipedia articles from gaining GA status in a sort of 'scorched earth' vendetta against Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia can be saved only if editors adopt the “ARW worldwide” thesis on demand, as referenced in ‘RS’ Lockwood and his “imperial American Revolution”(?)(Half the Eastfarthingan cite for Lockwood here and half here). That is not persuasive, I am not persuaded to abandon wp:Article titles, and take on any unnamed “big plans” as my authority. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit funny how sources like Lockwood are ready to refer to the ARW as a "global war", yet he singles out the ARW as being solely responsible for "devastating the globe". Reminder, we have three scholars who refer to the Anglo-French wars of 1778-1783 as singular wars between Britain and France., along with The Anglo-French Naval Crisis, 1778, The Anglo-French Commercial Treaty of 1786, not to mention the Greater category of Anglo-French Wars, 1778-1783 at the  Library of Congress, and at Open Library: Anglo-French Wars (1778-1783), and the Wiki Commons category: Anglo-French Wars (1778-1783). We have long since established the idea that the greater term Anglo-French wars of 1778-1783 has been referred to as such repeatedly, and that the idea of "global war" only refers to conflicts between Britain, France and Spain for their own specific objectives, supported by the overwhelming facts surrounding those conflicts, none of which impacted the actual struggle of American independence. The idea of a "global war" seems to be dragged into articles like France in the American Revolutionary War as a way of presenting the actual war for independence and the birth of a new nation, as "merely one issue". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

All the sources that I have used above as I have said are per wp:Article titles. They all use a scope for the ARW with ‘Saintes’, ‘Gibraltar’, or ‘Treaties’ with France or Spain to end it. Only your POV seems to want to end that. Also concerning Mackesy as a source you fail to mention that he does not represent your argument regarding an Anglo-French war 1778. I'm not criticising him. Yes he says this - “not about the American Revolutionary War” as you quoted but he does say, for the British, the American colonies were only one front in a world war, England was also pitted against France and Spain. Yes ONE FRONT NOT an Anglo-French war. It is not I that persists; it is you persisting in wp:error misrepresenting Mackesy as pushing the thesis that there was a an Anglo-French war when he clearly states not once that there was AT ALL. As for this article gaining GA status I have news. It seems our mutual sock friend changed this one time from C status to GA. I will thus change forthwith. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: @Eastfarthingan: I DO HAVE A REPLY, but first, before returning to the 'wikifencing', Thanks for catching the mis-assigned article status. I could see how in a strictly military history sense, this article might be 'Wikiproject Military History' "B" class for narrative on to the 'siege' and 'Final Assault', on account of the recent contributions by Eastfarthingan and Gwillhickers. But because of possible concerns about page instability around 'diplomatic history' issues, the 'Wikiproject France' and the Wikiproject United Kingdom' would probably assign a "C" article status, imo. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm very much looking forward to it and you're welcome. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• If you're going to speak of POV on someone else's behalf, would you please do it correctly? Again, we have provided more than enough widely recognized sources that refer to the overall trade wars as the Anglo-French wars. This is not to say other sources don't make reference to the ARW. The distinction you keep trying to obscure is that the battles, like Saintes, were fought between Britain and France, for their own specific objectives elsewhere about the globe, having nothing to do with the fight for American independence, involving no American belligerents, and which occurred long after the surrender of Yorktown, after which there was a cease fire between America and Britain. This is what the idea of "part of" amounts to – an academic reference made in passing with no further explanation. As such, we have two distinct sets of battles, each covered with their own dedicated article, regardless of how many passing references there are that say "part of", or "during" the ARW. To dump coverage of all these battles into an article about the French fight for American independence would obscure the coverage of that distinct effort, almost double the size of the France in the American Revolutionary War article and create a serious Due-Weight issue, which is an issue you've continuously avoided here and in other related articles. ( 1, 2 )  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Please remember also, that if we were to cover battles like Saintes we would do so in the same proportion as the scholarly works on the ARW do, which would be next to no coverage. At best it would be a comment in an 'Aftermath' section, especially since there are already dedicated articles for these sorts of battles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As I have said historians perceptions of this war means battles like Saintes Gibraltar, Cape St Vincent etc have been noted as being part of the AWR. As I have also said with that fact we need a consensus since the sources I have provided outweigh the use of the term ‘Anglo-French war’. There are about three sources that use the term Anglo-French war which compared to the sources I have provided is not nearly enough. The over use of of the Library of Congress, and Donald Stoker, Kenneth J. Hagan, Michael T. McMaster’s Strategy in the American War of Independence: A Global Approach is the only real use of that term. In the latter that term is mentioned fleetingly - when he also says in a little over over a year time, the American of independence had mutated into a global war etc etc. page 43. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

When you say due-weight there is no doubt that this applies to the fact that the AWR was a global conflict or world war. On that note I might point out that Dictionary of Wars by Geroge Kohn does not even mention this so called conflict at all. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Due-Weight

Nearly all the scholarly sources that cover the ARW give most if not all the weight to the actual battles over American independence. Stoker, Hagan and McMaster, though they make brief comment about the ARW "mutated into a global war", they make a specific and comprehensive reference to the Anglo-French War (1778-1783). Once again the "global" aspect primarily involves conflicts between France and Britain, over trade, etc, as they always have throughout the 18th century. You can stick whatever label you like on that but the distinction between these two sets of battles remains, and the facts surrounding these battles clearly indicate that they were fought for their own objectives, per the sources you're attempting to skirt, not over American independence. You can dig up another source that says "global war" and continue this wholly academic approach of yours, but the facts surrounding the battles in question remain unchanged and are what plainly distinguish them from the actual battles fought over American independence. Therefore we have two dedicated articles that treat these distinctly different groups of battles independently. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't called the American 'WARS of Independence like the Napoleonic Wars which has subsidiary conflicts - eg Peninsula War or 5th Coalition war. Although offensive action had been halted in America the war was by no means over as many historians have stated. Not only that the battles like Saintes and Gibraltar were fought to gain bargaining hand in the peace talks as you said - which ultimately ended the American war - cue as as stated here by Thomas Edmund Farnsworth Wright, Anne Kerr and Edmund Wright. Dean King and John B. Hattendorf. Charles Botta and our Pulitzer finalist friends David K. Allison and Larrie D. Ferreiro. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Britain would have defended Jamaica and Gibraltar regardless of the prospect of peace talks. Britain began defending Gibraltar before the surrender at Yorktown, and long before the peace talks even began, so the idea of defending Gibraltar for the sake peace talks doesn't wash when all the realities are considered. Are you trying to tell us that Britain would have otherwise just sat on her hands and let these objectives fall into the hands of French and Spanish? Nonsense. At the time these campaigns were waged securing these objectives was paramount, while the "peace talks" were the last thing on the minds of the belligerents involved, regardless if these campaigns were later discussed long after they were fought. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Once again, the war wasn't over officially, but the fighting over independence was. Once again, this is why we have two distinct groups of battles: Ones fought over American independence, and ones fought between France and Britain, over shipping, trade, etc, after the British surrender, involving no American belligerents. That there are sources that refer to all the battles in question as being part of the ARW doesn't change that fact and is why there are two dedicated articles for the two distinct groups of battles. This has been explained many times now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• 'Britain would have defended Jamaica and Gibraltar regardless of the prospect of peace talks'. - yes that is exactly what I said ie the Battle of the Saintes wouldn't have happened. Gibraltar was a siege and was reliant on naval reliefs all three of which succeeded before, during and after the peace talks so I don't understand what your point is? The strategy was the same - in time of war you capture a colony or gain a significant victory to gain a hand at the piece talks - that is exactly what happened in the Seven Years and & Succession War etc. The Battle of the Saintes gave Britain bargaining power as did the failure of the Franco-Spanish assault on Gibraltar in September. Shelburne's resolve was strengthened with these victories. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Britain stopped all offensive actions in US but that dosent mean war hadn’t finished, there was never a ceasefire to end the fighting. Also independence was NOT won until Britain agreed to it. As such it was agreed in principle in mid 1782. Until that time battles such as in Nova Scotia, Battle of the Delaware Capes, Battle of the Blue Licks still went on against the Americans and battles such as Action of 12 December 1782, Action of 15 September 1782 and Action of 22 January 1783 against French and US forces. There clearly wasn’t a ceasefire on the American mainland or on coastal waters. Britain intended to defend New York and Washington urged Rochembeau to attack. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan: those points are in wp:error: The Battle of the Saintes [in April 1782] gave Britain bargaining power as did the failure of the Franco-Spanish assault on Gibraltar in September [1782]. No, Britain gained NO “bargaining power” to deny American independence, or territorial cessions greater than allowed by France or Spain, by its victories on land and at sea against the Bourbon “War of 1778” (Mahan). (1) Lord Rockingham exacted George III promise for American independence March 1782, before the Saintes (Ward, Cambridge Modern History).

(2) Preliminary Peace was signed, Britain ceding independence, territory west to the Mississippi, north to the Great Lakes and Newfoundland fishing rights, all war aims enacted by Congress were ACHIEVED November 1782, AFTER British Gibraltar victory – the victory that Eastfarthingan wp:error says was a mighty bargaining chip AGAINST the Americans to end the ARW. No, British victories after Yorktown were a bargaining chip against the BOURBONS in their separate “War of 1778” (Mahan), apart from the ARW. All agreed upon RS say there is no significant British-Congress conflict in America after Yorktown, including Clodfelter, despite wp:editor wp:error cites of 100-man Indian raids on state-militia frontier, and citing state-privateer evasion to escape a blockade, or British-Bourbon clashes in international waters prosecuting their "War of 1778" (Mahan). Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Intro note added with citations

I've added an explanatory note concerning the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance and US military activity 1778-1781, with three citations, which I would like to discuss with any editor before the contribution is re-edited. I've broken it into four (4) parts to aid in any discussion.

Part 1. In 1778, France signed the Treaty of Alliance with the United States. The Preamble sets out that the defensive, conditional military alliance, was established to defend the Franco-American trade agreement."

Part 2. "It declared, “having this Day concluded a Treaty of Amity and Commerce…, [we] have thought it necessary… [for] strengthening those engagements…, particularly in case Great Britain in resentment of that connection.”

Part 3. "At Article 2, the Franco-American military treaty was dedicated to the specific purpose, “The essential and direct end of the present defensive alliance is to maintain effectually the liberty, sovereignty, and independence absolute and unlimited of the said United States, as well in matters of government as of commerce.”

Part 4. "It was not intended to bind the United States to overseas war with European great powers after its independence was either "formally or tacitly” achieved (Art. 8). It would have been against the US own self-interest to engage in any further foreign entanglements after the “American War” was decisively won at the Battle of Yorktown October, 1781, and it was not obligated to do so.

• France, Kingdom of; United States of America (1788). "Treaty of Alliance". The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. Retrieved 24 August 2020.
• Glascock, Melvin Bruce (1969). "New Spain and the War for America, 1779-1783". LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses, 1590. Louisiana State University. Retrieved 20 August 2020.
• Morris, Richard B. (1983). "The Great Peace of 1783". Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. 95. Massachusetts Historical Society: 29–51. JSTOR 25080922. In 1778 France had two treaties with America, a treaty of alliance and a treaty of amity and commerce. Almost within a year France broke the spirit if not the letter of these two treaties by a secret alliance with Spain at Aranjuez…The Americans had not bound themselves to continue the war until Spain should have recovered Gibraltar …In turn, Spain had refused to bind herself to continue in the war until American independence was achieved, although her ally was so committed.

Respectfully, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nicely put - should we also add in the intro also known as Bourbon War given that has been used as many times as Anglo-French war? Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I also would like to see reference to see the intro say, "also called the Bourbon War", in the scholarly context of diplomatic history and Spanish military affairs 1779-1781. As Spanish scholar, Major Jose I. Yaniz showed, the "Bourbon Family Pact" demanded Spanish war on Britain, NOT Spanish reluctant, fearful support of US independence as an openly co-belligerent 1779-1783 (followed thereafter by the Floridablanca policy promoting western American secession with payments to 1780s Wilkinson and 1790s Burr). In 1779, "The Bourbon Family Compact obligated Spain with commitments to France; and the Spanish Crown answered the call." But the Franco-Spanish war on Britain 1779-1783 was not for America, "Spain declared war on Great Britain in June 1779 as an ally of France but not of America".

No RS claims the Courts of France and Spain were run by the Americans in a "worldwide American War"; the Congress could neither directly tax its states, nor could it reliably collect its “requisitions”. “The success of the Spanish and French alliance began in Europe ... In this larger scenario [of the Spanish and French alliance begun in Europe], the thirteen colonies were a small but important player on a world stage.”

That implies that this article should NOT feature paragraphs & images about 'Saratoga' - Spanish funded, 'Yorktown' - French siege cannon, or 'Guilford Courthouse' - Galvez cut off Indian British-ally supply so they did not threaten American maneuvers from the west. The American military campaigns ENDING October 1781, "were a small but important" part in the Bourbon War worldwide 1779-1783.

• Chavez, Thomas E. (2004). Spain and the Independence of the United States: An Intrinsic Gift. University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 978-0826327949. Possibility of coordination among the Bourbons made the threat of an invasion of England and French activity in India possible [ie not the Americans spreading worldwide as their armies were furloughed home March 1782].
• Yaniz, Jose I. (2009). "The Role of Spain in the American Revolution: An Unavoidable Mistake" (PDF). Marine Corps University. Spain declared war on Great Britain in June 1779 as an ally of France but not of America … The Bourbon Family Compact obligated Spain with commitments to France; and the Spanish Crown answered the call. Madrid thus took an unavoidable political strategic mistake.

AGREED, Shall I do the honors? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes go right ahead. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, since this is in line with the title and focus of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

French involvement in the ARW

It's interesting to note that within 10 months after Parliament declared a ceasefire all the French forces departed via Boston and returned to France. After Yorktown, there was virtually no French fighting for American independence anymore. i.e.After March 1782, the date of the declared ceasefire, the French were wholly committed fighting the British in battles such as Saintes. Regardless if any source refers to the ARW as a "global war", after March 1782, before the battle of the Saintes, there was no French in the ARW, per the scope of the France in the American Revolutionary War article.< JSTOR: Stanley J. Idzerda, 1981 Indispensable Allies: The French at Yorktown, p. 176 >

Not true, French forces were based there still and from which there was the Hudson Bay expedition which took place in May where French forces were still in Newport. 'In August, two French frigates departed Rochefort to transport funds and officials for Rochambeau's army' this culminated in the Action of 5 September 1782 and then Action of 15 September 1782 all taking place in North America. Rochembeau was still in America well after Yorktown and moved to New England to help in an attack on New York City, Charleston or Canada but French defeat at the Saintes forced the French to cease offensive operations assisting the Americans. They didnt leave America until December 1782 when they planned to make another attack on Jamaica but peace arrived before that could happen. It was clear the French were a presence there until the preliminaries in November 1782. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

March 1782. American ceasefire for British territory to be ceded to US. There was virtually no French fighting for American independence anymore. as noted in RS Wilson Quarterly by S.J. Idzerda.

CONFIRMED by Eastfarthingan here: 1. Hostilities among the Euros on US-claimed land ended in October 1781. French troops bivouacked in Newport and the New York city area. [They paid for supplies in gold and silver, aiding the local economies; Vergennes and Franklin agreed to an additional French loan to Congress in specie from the Caribbean with Spanish assistance. That was important for American post-war economy, because the British counterfeited "Continental" paper money with NYC printers to inflate US currency.]

2. The only French military activity in US territory were their transports sailing for the Caribbean off the North American coast carrying gold or troops, at sea British ships pursued them en route. In the meantime, French commanders laid contingency plans to attack New York City, Charleston, and Jamaica. [Although plans were made for an attack into Canada, Rochambeau refused Washington's urging for a joint operation against Nova Scotia, "The Fourteenth Colony".]

3. US peace negotiations with Britain proceeded without French interference to formally end the ARW. Without the knowledge or consent of Congress, in August 1782, an independent French raid from Cap-Haïtien attacked British fur trading posts in the Hudson Bay expedition, far removed from lands ceded by the British to the US.

No evidence reported here at Talk supports the unsourced wp:original research notion that It was clear the French were a presence there until the preliminaries in November 1782., because a) the bivouacked French troops paying gold for vegetables in a loose encirclement of New York City, and French transports sailing for the Caribbean were NEITHER "a military presence in the US", NOR were inactive French troops encamped in Newport effecting British-American peace negotiations in Paris, one way or the other; b) the Anglo-American Preliminary Peace without France or Spain was signed November 1782; preliminary Anglo-French and Anglo-Spanish peace negotiations began separately in January 1783, when the Bourbon Alliance lifted their siege at Gibaltar. [The French avoided invading Nova Scotia because they hoped to gain fishing rights off Newfoundland for themselves and Spain in a separate peace negotiated with Britain, without consulting the Americans.]

• Idzerda, Stanley J. (Autumn 1981). "Indispensable Allies: The French at Yorktown". The Wilson Quarterly. Wilson Quarterly. p. 166-177. Retrieved 1 September 2020. archived at JSTOR

Respectfully submitted, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• WRONG. There was no ceasefire - Parliament voted to end all offensive actions in US but that doesn't mean the war hadn’t finished, there was never a ceasefire to end the fighting. Britain was on the defensive from after Yorktown. Also independence was NOT won until Britain agreed to it. As such it was agreed in principle in mid 1782 and ti wasn’t until September 1782 that the Britain decided to negotiate with commissioners of the ‘’thirteen United States’’. Until that time battles such as in Nova Scotia, Battle of the Delaware Capes, Battle of the Blue Licks still went on against the Americans and battles such as Action of 12 December 1782, Action of 15 September 1782 and Action of 22 January 1783 against French and US forces. There clearly wasn’t a ceasefire on the American mainland or on coastal waters. Britain intended to defend New York and Washington urged Rochembeau to attack. In addition the time it reached for peace to arrive to US mainland meant that battles still took place months after the battle such as Action of 22 January 1783 off US coast. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of any exceptions: Independence was not contingent on Britain's say so alone. Britain was not in a position to resume the war, esp with France and Spain eager to go after Britain, which she did before, and especially after the surrender at Yorktown occurred and a ceasefire was issued shortly thereafter. There was no longer enough support in Parliament to continue the war, as, once again, the pro-war Tories lost most of their support after Cornwallis' surrender. Shelburn would not have given the order to resume the war if America didn't concede to all Britain's demands, and indeed, America walked away with recognition and most of the territory east of the Mississippi, etc. We've been through this.

I have no reason to doubt Idzerda when he says the bulk of the French forces returned to France some ten months after the ceasefire was issued. You're saying Parliament issued a cease fire, but there was no cease fire, as Britain violated their own ceasefire on multiple counts. Okay. The actions you spoke of above involved Britain and France, again, over furs, trading and the like and involved naval clashes, one involving a fleet that set out from France, involving no American belligerents -- per the info-boxes of those articles. And while Washington urged Rochembeau to attack NY, he didn't do so, which would be in violation of the cease fire.

In any event, the battles you spoke of would indeed be appropriate for inclusion in the France in the ARW  article, as they occurred on the American continent and impacted the war for independence, unlike Gibraltar and Saintes, which involved no American belligerents and were fought between Britain and France over control of their possessions. We still have two distinct sets of battles, fought for completely different objectives and is why there are two dedicated articles to cover them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think you need to be careful what youur saying, and that you need to think before typing. So I'd like to ask you - how are battles like the Battle of the Blue Licks or Battle of the Delaware Capes be included in France in the American War of Independence?
• Anyway this is becoming a digression to the merge. Perhaps this a is future discussion in regards to the American Revolutionary War aftermath section. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You might want to heed your own advice. I was referring to only those battles that involved the French on American soil, not Blue Licks, so let's not start another digression while attempting to skirt the main point: i.e. Two sets of battles having entirely different objectives - two dedicated articles for each group. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

1. The Paris armistice or ceasefire is cited in at least two RS here at Talk; a. there was also an informal ceasefire between Washington and Clinton; b. Washington lost his argument for a standing army - in March 1782 Congress defunded both their Army and Navy, and furloughed all soldiers home without pay. 2. Independence was assured when George III announced for it 5 December 1781 in his Speech from the Throne opening Parliament - without consulting Vergennes or Louis XVI as one might otherwise imagine.

3. Whigs passed a bill designating "an enemy of the country", anyone promoting continued offensive actions in America. Post October 1781, independent actions of Loyalists & Indians were a. not under British command, b. not sanctioned by George III; they were "enemies of the country [Britain]" by Act of Parliament.

4. Britain intended to evacuate New York: a local ceasefire was honored, and transports with six British regiments scheduled for New York were redirected to Jamaica, as was Rodney and his returning fleet to join for the Battle of the Saintes in the Caribbean (not defending NYC). 5. Naval actions on the open sea in international waters, a. engaged exclusively by French and British warships, b. under national commands independent of the Continental Navy, c. without the knowledge or consent of Congress, were NOT ARW "battles still took place months after Yorktown and the Washington-Clinton ceasefire honored on both sides. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Most of what your saying is false. Like here - Independence was assured when George III announced for it 5 December 1781 in his Speech from the Throne opening Parliament - without consulting Vergennes or Louis XVI WRONG this was 1782 NOT 1781. I'd check your sources before typing this. Also 'local ceasefire' is something made between local commanders and NOT a whole ceasefire so there is a big difference. That means fighting goes on elsewhere like at Blue Licks. What's more Post October 1781 your point being no. 3 is not correct at all. British troops were allowed to defend from attack such as Battle off Halifax (1782) and also there was the whole Nathaniel Greene offensive plan in the recapture of Charleston in mid 1782; so clearly there was no ceasefire at all. Just the British 'no offensive action' should be noted and local ceasefires should not interpreted as one whole ceasefire. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

There was also Anthony Wayne's Savannah Campaign, a major offensive by Continental troops to invest Savannah after Yorktown.[4]. The British also undertook some minor offense operations after Yorktown, such as the Battle of Toms River in 1782 [5]. There was also combat up and down the American seaboard and in the Caribbean right up to the end of the war. The frigate USS Alliance fought an action with British frigates in 1783!XavierGreen (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Most of what I wrote is true, though yes, George makes a 5 December 1782 Speech from the Throne, AFTER the Anglo-American Preliminary Peace is signed in November, and BEFORE the Bourbon Siege of Gibraltar is lifted in January 1783, at the onset of separate Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-French peace treaties, negotiated without the knowledge or consent of Congress - - because they were NOT ‘American’ wars that Britain had with the Spanish and the French.

YOUR SOURCE SAYS, Wayne placed a loose cordon around Savannah, burning all forage within half-a-mile of the city. He manned it with Loyalist “reclaimed citizens” who enlisted to regain title to their confiscated property, and Hessian deserters who in garrison were not trusted to sentry duty in the center-city. Proclamations were snuck into Savannah: “A full pardon and protection, plus 200 acres of land, a cow and two breeding swine were offered to anyone who had joined the British or sought protection with them on condition that they surrender to General Wayne and agree to serve under him until the enemy either surrendered or left Georgia.”

The British garrison of a 1000 professional soldiers outnumbered the surrounding command numbering 400. They were a company of Georgia militia, a detachment of Continental dragoons, and later augmented by Loyalists and deserters. Given the British policy of withdrawal for commitment in the Caribbean (not Gibraltar), they withdrew to Charleston unopposed by Wayne. Wayne had conducted “small, sometimes very small, raids and ambushes". According to your source, Wayne lost his Carolina Dragoons 6 February 1782, their terms of enlistment having expired. Continental regiments were furloughed home March 1782.

And besides, re: your “continuing conflict” thesis, How is your wp:original research for Wayne’s “Campaign-siege of Savannah” comparable to the Great Siege of Gibraltar, or is it just more “after British fighting in America, but DURING the time period of Anglo-American negotiations until November 1782" (Preliminary Peace). That omits wp:error, Anglo-Mysore & American War, brought on by the Treaty of Aranjuez without the knowledge or consent of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• I might also point out another MAJOR error - Washington lost his argument for a standing army - in March 1782 Congress defunded both their Army and Navy, and furloughed all soldiers home without pay. WRONG QUOTE - May 26, 1783 – Congressional resolution to furlough non-commissioned - Minutes from the "Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 Volume XXIV." Looks like I'll be correcting a few things on the AWR page now.
• Well I’ve corrected the first error on the main page of AWR. I might even open a new section there discussing it on that talk page in due course since this is becoming a digression here. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for catching any typo that I have made. You will find that I never persist in an error once a collaborative editor has pointed it out to me. The posted sequence remains unaffected by errata correction. The Treaty of Alliance with France said that the Franco-American war with Britain would cease when American independence was either a "formally or tacitly assured".

- 1. Yorktown British defeat 1781, and a second British army was lost in America since Saratoga, despite repeated wp:editor deletions of the observation across multiple articles.

- 2. The colonial war Prime Minister Lord North was ousted in March 1782, no one in Parliament proposed surrendering England to France in that separate war, the "country gentlemen" in Parliament joined their local militias to oppose the Bourbon invasion in preparation.

- 3. Formal Preliminary Peace with independence was signed November 1782 between the two principal belligerents in the American Revolution, Britain and Congress.

- 4. George III announced for American independence December 1782.

- 5. The Bourbon siege of Gibraltar was lifted January 1783 at British separate peace talks with them in Paris, without the knowledge or consent of Congress, which had settled the prior November 1782.

The 'non-commissioned' are the enlisted soldiers in the ranks, ie the 'army'. There is no error at all to say is NO Continental army 'formally' as of May 1782 - you quote it, you read it - and 'operationally' as of Washington's June General Order to the Continental Army. Without assembled enlisted men, no ammunition, no rations, and with their officers unpaid for a year then released from active duty on half-pay, there is no army. The Navy's ships were either sold or given away to cancel debt.

- So, I am to understand, In world affairs, your "worldwide RS" say, an army on paper WITHOUT soldiers is an "imperial American Revolution" presence in Gibraltar's Final Assault, without Congress knowledge or consent, nor a single man in ranks to answer "here" at your imaginary roll-call? Quote THAT somewhere, anywhere.

Yorktown 1781 does not draw British ships and soldiers AWAY from 1782 Caribbean and the Straits of Gibraltar, it FREES THEM TO GO there in 1782 for Battle of the Saintes and Final Assault and Relief of Gibraltar. - - THAT's the major error here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more on that. Well said. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Back to the merge proposal

So are we going to meege this article or not? It seems the talks have resched a stalemate. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a 4:3 consensus not to merge. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

As the prior administrator stated, 4:3 does not mean there is a consensus. The reasoning behind the merger is a key factor, in this instance Wiki:CommonName demands a merge. It is patently clear that the vast majority of sources use American Revolutionary War. You and TVH have not been able to show (nor have you even attempted to show) that "Anglo-French War" is the common name for this conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It now stands at 4:4 so it looks like this may go on for some time. I have provided enough evidence and I will not be repeating said evidence again as it is very clear. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

In the general sense these wars have always been referred to as the Anglo-French wars, as we have outlined repeatedly. The reasons for these wars did not disappear during the ARW. We have two distinct sets of battles – ones fought over independence -- ones fought between Britain over their possessions. You can refer to them any way you'd like, but this is why we have two dedicated articles for the two specific sets of battles. Last, Polling is used in conjunction with discussion and is how consensus is established. Again, feeling about polling as you do -- why did you vote? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Again you are conflating the term Anglo-French Wars, which already has an article and refers to the centuries long series of conflicts between England and France and this specific conflict here. Virtually no sources use the term Anglo-French War to refer specifically to the subject content of this article. As Eastfarthingian and I have shown, the vast overwhelming majority of sources refer to the subject content of this article as the American Revolutionary War. If we were to put your personal views to their full fruition, the War of the Spanish Succession and War of the Austrian Succession articles would be renamed Anglo-French War (insert years) which is plainly an absurd result.XavierGreen (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

What is absurd is your denial that there are no sources that commonly refer to all the French-Anglo Wars, including the Anglo-French Wars (1778-1783), to which you've now admitted are a part of the Anglo-French Wars in general - this after repeated claims from you that there was no Anglo-French Wars (1778-1783). By suggesting that the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) should be in one general article you're also inferring that the below listed articles should also be lumped in to one article.

• Anglo-French War (1213–1214)
• Anglo-French War (1294–1303)
• Anglo-French War (1627-1629)
• Anglo-French War (1702-13)
• Anglo-French War (1756-1763)
• Anglo-French War (1793-1802)

Also, don't confuse names of wars with Wikipedia article titles, which sometimes only serve to indicate date ranges for the ongoing Anglo-French wars in general. Once again, we have dedicated articles for the different groups of battles, including this one, and the France in the ARW article. Once again, the Anglo-French conflicts did not disappear during the ARW. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

We also have another agreed for merge here. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers thank you for providing me with further evidence in support of the merge, Anglo-French War (1702-13) redirects to War of the Spanish Succession and Anglo-French War (1793-1802) redirects to French Revolutionary Wars, just as this page at issue here should redirect to American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. The Euro Seven Years' War is now to be merged into a section in the American French and Indian War, because that is where it "started"? The intellectual conceit in the "worldwide ARW" requires the anachronistic imposition of "America-the-Super-Power" in the 20th century back onto a struggling, self-inventing republic that could not tax its own citizens, at a time its state "requisitions" were largely ignored (from 30% in Massachusetts & Virginia to 100% non-payment in Georgia). The "independence Congress" in rebellion against George III did not run either the Court of France, nor that of Spain; rather it was France and Spain who had members of Congress (vote against British peace) and Continental Generals in their pay (Wilkinson). Without the knowledge or consent of Congress, the Bourbon French and Spanish each chose to make their own war against Britain through their own independent Family Pact military alliance with territory and trade war-aims in their Treaty of Aranjuez, as has been clearly explained with links and direct quotes from treaty text, Mahan, Mackesy, and Morris.

- The Bourbon empires made war on Britain worldwide without any material aid from the US, which was NOT A EURO 'GREAT POWER', but bankrupt with a worthless currency, and incapable of offensive operations anywhere --- not even into adjacent "Fourteenth Colony" Nova Scotia (Rochambeau refused Washington). The American armies were soon furloughed home in June 1782, they were not made the spearhead in the FINAL ASSAULT on Gibraltar in September, as editors here might otherwise imagine. The colonials were not tricked by a secret Bourbon treaty into making war on Britain AFTER independent peace negotiations followed March 1782, when Lord Rockingham extracted George III's promise for American independence BEFORE accepting his Prime Ministership (Ward? in the Cambridge Modern History-I can look it up with a link again, on request). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Recap with recommendation

Your methodology is deprecated as a way to name wp:article titles. The wp:editor browser search to pile up hits with a term which Google pre-slants to the user’s prior-usage, creates biased results: (1) Appearance in an index alone is “not usually proof of anything” with a ‘vast majority of RS’ and 'plethora’ of hits.

- (2) Results may not reflect the uses you intend, re: ARW timeline-coincident at Mahan “War of 1788” versus event-connected at Mackesey and his quote, “not about the ARW”. (3) Little-mentioned or unmentioned items are not automatically unimportant, such as the Library of Congress military history category, “Anglo-French War 1778-1783”. (4) Results may not be “reliable or true”, because search engines index whatever text is online, true or false. – Nothing is posted here yet to discredit RS Mahan, Mackesey, the Library of Congress, or wp:policy as linked, cited, cited directly quoted.

- Three cited RS dictionaries CAN be used to REJECT a wp:ERROR conflating (a) Mahan’s “War of 1778” between British and Bourbons (in the scope of this article), and (b) the “American Revolutionary War” as defined in two premier British RS Britannica and Routledge publications. THE ENCYCLOPEDIAS SAY, the ARW was an “insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies won political independence”. And the end of the shooting war was when “French [helped] bring about the final British surrender at Yorktown”. And the Treaty of Alliance “tacit” close of the ARW for the French and Americans, and for the British the end of “insurrection” by Congress is dated, “Preliminary articles of peace were signed on November 30, 1782”.

- The dictionaries include one British (Oxford), one American (Merriam-Webster), and one online (Random House) with 100M+ app downloads, so if it's online hits we are looking for, the "Dictionary.com" app is the TRUE online wp:common name: Those user-results amount to more than the combined XavierGreen and Eastfarthingan “walls of words” put together on three article Talk pages Talk:Anglo-French War (1778-1783), Talk:American Revolutionary War, and Talk:Great Siege of Gibraltar. THE DICTIONARIES SAY: the American Revolution was "a war between America and Britain (1775-1783) in which America became an independent nation." And for further historical context, "During the following years of fighting, the Americans received support from France and Spain".

- British scholar Tony Bunting at Britannica shows the “preponderance of sources” weighed by an internationally recognized expert in military history. THE MILITARY HISTORIAN SAYS, An engagement that is (a) taking place outside North America, (b) not directly related to attaining or denying American independence, (c) after Yorktown surrender (Mahan), (d) between Britain and another Euro great power without the knowledge or consent of Congress, is placed by an expert in the field as "in the Anglo-French War". And for further historical context, "The outbreak of war between Britain and France over French support for the rebel United States of America had repercussions in [the First British Empire]". That is, mid-18th century Anglo-French conflict in the Caribbean, Gibraltar, or the Indian subcontinent is NOT a part of the article scope of ARW military history sister articles ... if we were to avoid wp:editor POV influence in arriving at any editorial conclusion here or elsewhere.

- WHAT TO NAME Mahan's "War of 1778" remains another wp:editorial challenge. WP:ARTICLE TITLES suggests we follow the example of another RS encyclopedia, rather than look to one another on-the-fly. I propose we use Britannica as cited, linked and directly quoted above, the Anglo-French War (1778), also known as the Bourbon War, or the War of 1778. "The principal parties to the War of 1778 were, on the one hand, Great Britain; on the other, the House of Bourbon, controlling the two great kingdoms of France and Spain." Mahan 1890, p.507 Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought we were going to call this the Bourbon War? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that for now, it is important to maintain naming consistency used in the related Anglo-French Wars that were a part of the First Hundred Years' War category and the Second Hundred Years' War category of historiography, respectively. - More later. gotta go. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Conform to Military history Project naming

Re MILITARY PROJECT article editorial policy, here. For mid-1700s conflicts, place them all in previously established historiographic categories including “Anglo-French Wars”, “Anglo-Spanish Wars”, “Anglo-Dutch Wars”, and “Anglo-Mysore Wars”.: (1) I oppose, efforts to consolidate all five mid-1700s British-related wars into one 'MEGA-worldwide' conflict, a “War-of, all-mid-1700s-British-related-conflicts, the American Revolution”, where the Anglo-American rebellion-civil-war embraces four supposedly coordinate theaters of war under discussion, all under the American Revolutionary War over-arching category, viz:

- (a) the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) as France in the ARW --- currently proposed and discussed at Talk:Anglo-French War 1778, recap, (b) the Anglo-Spanish War (1779-1784) as Spain in the American Revolutionary War,  Done, (c) the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War as Dutch Republic in the ARW, and (d) the Second Anglo-Mysore War as Mysore in the ARW, respectively.

(2) As a general rule, Wikipedia naming conventions should remain consistent. Case #1. Although the French and Indian War as a conflict initiated, or "spread worldwide to", the great powers European-continent Seven Years' War, as a matter of historiography in Wikipedia MILITARY PROJECT articles: WP has not chosen to make all European conflict sub-sections of the French and Indian War article as sister articles, "Spain in the French and Indian War, European theater", for example.

- Case #2. Although the 1937 Sino-Japanese War "spread worldwide" (in an indirect manner AKIN TO the American Revolutionary War), engulfing the rest of Asia, Europe in 1939, the Pacific in 1940, North Africa in 1941, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic: There is NO CREDIBLE editorial effort to reposition the Normandy Invasion introductory sentence as "during the Sino-Japanese War" AS THERE CONINUES TO BE, for representing the Great Siege of Gibraltar as “during the American Revolutionary War” in its introductory sentence --- true as both phrases may be, as a matter of coincidental chronological timeline.

- (3) I understand the American Revolutionary War, also known as the War for American Independence, to be the North American, rebellion-civil-war among British subjects and their respective allies for and against American independence. NEVERTHELESS, in one way or another, this sourced position using British scholarly references published by Britannica and Routledge; British (Oxford), American (Merriam-Webster), and online (Random House 'Dictionary.com') Dictionaries, as well as British and American wp:reliable resource monographs, has been under challenge at MILITARY PROJECT article Talk:pages for six months. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

What was the 'War of 1788'? Is that a typo? Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sir. Thanks again for the good eye for dates. The editor took a typo in the Yale archive coding and perpetuated it in the article citation,  Done. Also resolved the Harv ERROR "doesn't point to" warnings for all footnotes and citations showing,  Done. The Footnotes and References look clean on my browser ... respectfully, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This, and all late-1770s British conflict 'within' ARW?

In casting a vote to merge this article with 'France in the American Revolutionary War', Eastfarthingan assures us that the evidence is clear. The RS do all say that the "War of 1788", against Britain by the Bourbon Kingdoms of France and Spain, occurs at the same TIME as a shooting war during the American Revolutionary War 1778-1781, which ened (a) the local truce between Washington & Cornwallis, then Washington & Clinton, and (b) at the Act of Parliament in February 1782 declaring any British subject speaking for or acting on offensive military action in North America was an "enemy of the country", and so subject to its Bill of Attainder. The promise for American independence was extracted by Lord Rockingham from George III prior to his taking his Prime Ministership April 1782.

- Relative to the Merge discussion for France in the ARW, No evidence from any source connects the EVENTS of the American Revolutionary War, to the War of 1778, with WAR AIMS of the French and Spanish brought about by their Bourbon Family Pact, and their 1779 Treaty of Aranjuez made without the knowledge or consent of Congress. Although both wars are against Britain, the two wars are (1) for different purposes (a) for or against American independence, or (b) great power imperial gain in trade or territory; (2) for different time spans only coincide from June-1779 to September 1781, two-and-a-half years; (3) ended by different peace treaties, --- though timing was aligned "at the pleasure" of George III' as stated in the Paris Armistice of February 1783, and though of distinctively different substance in each separate case, the peace timing was acknowledged by France, Spain, United Provinces and United States.

- It is true that earlier, XavierGreen posited an offensive Franco-American military alliance that compelled Congress to make war on Britain until Spain won Gibraltar according to Franco-Spanish Treaty of Aranjuez, a treaty made without the knowledge or consent of Congress. But (1) the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance was limited and defensive for the sake of American trade (Treaty Preamble & RS), and that unsourced notion was definitively refuted by the RS Richard B. Morris in the link and direct quote citation to the JSTOR article titled like his book "The Peacemakers: The Great Powers and American Independence".

- No reply has been made to refute Morris in over three months: the Americans were NOT bound by international law to act against their national self-interest and revoke the offer of independence that Britain offered Congress separately and apart from France. No RS says that Congress did revoke the independence offered at the November 1782 Preliminary Peace offering independence, Congress unanimously ratified it 15 April 1783; nor did Continental regiments form the vanguard of the Final (Great) Assault on Gibraltar; their armies were furloughed home in June 1783, four months before. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the 'War of 1788' again? Also A careful reminder that the American War of Independence as stated in the infobox of that article shows the dates April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783 (8 years, 4 months and 15 days) clearly as to when the war ended. The American war of Independence didn't end in 1781. This shows it to be a global war. And in addition it showed that there was sporadic fighting on and off the American coast - especially with the the Royal Navy close blockade in 1782 where American and French warships were captured as well as merchant vessels which helped to (nearly) cripple the American economy. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

From our mutually-agreed-upon RS, "The principal parties to the War of 1778 were, on the one hand, Great Britain; on the other, the House of Bourbon, controlling the two great kingdoms of France and Spain." @ Gutenberg Archive, Mahan 1890, p. 507. War of 1788 is the term for the British worldwide conflict after Yorktown, October 1781. Each subsequent chapter title includes the phrase, “after Yorktown”. In each of those chapters, Mahan accounts for the naval engagements in the ‘West Indies, after Yorktown’ - notably about British Admiral Rodney and the French, and in the ‘East Indies, after Yorktown’ - notably about French Admiral Sully and the British ...

These British-Bourbon engagements took place without any Congressional knowledge or consent for operations in either 'theater of war'. There was no Congressional (ie. US national government) participation, considering it had (a) secured its four declared war aims at the Preliminary Treaty, and (b) defunded the Continental Navy, and beginning the 1782 process to sell or give away its US Navy few warships to liquidate some US national debt to merchants and commercial banks. A small detachment of US Marines on active duty in the Navy Department were maintained by Congress 1782-1785+ to guard Navy powder magazine stores, the balance of naval forces were furloughed home to sail elsewhere, John Paul Jones to Russia 1787-1788, for example. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The American Revolutionary war ended in 1783 so Im not sure what 1788 has got anything to do with this?. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan: "The American Revolutionary war ended in 1783" with Britain concluding four separate treaties, a separate one with each "belligerent", it is formally over. But many RS also say as does the US National Park Service, October 1781 Yorktown surrenders, and "the war for American independenceis essentially over"; at that RS webpage, ARW “Aftermath includes Loyalist evacuation and the formal Treaty of Paris.

- It is common practice at Wikipedia to include two or more RS perspectives in the article's editorial voice. Rarely can an editor claim wp:ownership of an article, no-consensus, winner-take-all, and dictate only one scholarly school of thought. The "War of 1778" from our consensus RS Mahan 1890, clearly draws a distinction between (a) the shooting-war conflict, NOT the diplomacy with Britain by British subjects for Congressional war aims, from (b) the Bourbon imperial war aims derived from the offensive-defensive mutual military alliance in the French and Spanish Family Pact. Mahan's contribution to the field of military scholarship should be included in the editorial voice addressing naval conflict among Europeans in the late 18th century, 1760-1790 (Britannica's "Timeline of the American Revolution" begins at mid-century).. Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mahan's intent & meaning

Contrary to what you purport it to, Mahan explicit states that the subject content of this article was one in the same with the American Revolutionary War and not part of some separate conflict. For example, on page 12 "In the war of the American Revolution, France and Spain became allies against England in 1779. The united fleets thrice appeared in the English Channel, once to the number of sixty-six sail of the line, driving the English fleet to seek refuge in its ports because far inferior in numbers. Now, the great aim of Spain was to recover Gibraltar and Jamaica; and to the former end immense efforts both by land and sea were put forth by the allies against that nearly impregnable fortress." TVH, please stop trying to mislead people reading this talk page by suggesting that sources state things they plainly do not.XavierGreen (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

- @XavierGreen: you are wp:cherry picking the source. There is no misleading, just read the plain meaning, at the source, here linked online for you: "The principal parties to the War of 1778 were, on the one hand, Great Britain; on the other, the House of Bourbon, controlling the two great kingdoms of France and Spain." The question does naturally arise, why would you try to erase the author's words in plain sight before you, here in a discussion at a Wikipedia Talk:page?

- WP:terminology in military articles does not conform to Mahan’s 19th century style in all respects. Spain is independently fighting Britain without a US treaty, refusing to join the Franco-American Treaty of Alliance for American independence. It is referred to by Wikipedia consensus as a “co-belligerent” rather than Mahan’s “ally”. After France abandons its limited defensive Treaty of Alliance (Richard B. Morris 1983), to protect American trade (Treaty Preamble, Morris 1983), in current wp:military terms, France is no longer a "Mahan ally”, it is a wp: "co-belligerent".

- France prosecutes a second war against Britain for imperial gain by offensive Family Pact and Treaty with Spain, regardless of the outcome of American independence, and without the knowledge or consent of Congress. That second war is distinguished in chapter titles and text by Mahan in his Influence of Seapower "after Yorktown" as the Bourbon-British “War of 1778” (Mahan). Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that your misinterpreting historians sources. If you look at the sources I have provided there is clarity among authors prompting the view that the American Revolutionary war truly was global war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

• The only misrepresentation here is this sweeping accusation against TVH, with no actual explanation. The global aspect of the ARW, where it actually impacted the prospect of independence, was very minor, unless you want to lump in campaigns like Gibraltar, Saintes, et al, campaigns that had nothing to do with the conflict over American independence, involving no American belligerents. The common title for this war is the American Revolutionary War, or the American War of Independence -- not the Global Revolutionary War. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with TVH's scholarly analysis of Mahan, and who clearly points out Congress' lack of consent in the campaigns involved and the distinctions between the shooting war and the diplomacy that came after during the peace talks, which is the only thing that connects such campaigns with the ARW. It seems that this effort to lump all the battles fought between France and Britain over their possessions into the target article is done in the hopes that it will obscure the topic of the American-French alliance and present the fight over independence as "merely one issue". There are numerous editors who have made the same sort of contentions as was evidenced on the ARW Talk page, here, and here and elsewhere, when editors were clearing up the acute British slant in that article with two separate sections for India, two for Europe and two for the Americas, filled with links to dozens of obscure battles involving only Britain and other non-American belligerents in remote locations around the globe. Once again, nearly all the sources on the ARW don't mention battles like Saintes, and those that do make only passing reference. Accordingly, if we are to mention such campaigns at all in the target article we do so in the same proportion as the scholarly sources on the ARW do, without cherry picking and focusing on one source. We've been through this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

What is to be done about tautology and non sequitur? XavierGreen says, Mahan explicitly says "A = A, A is not B", thusly: "the American Revolutionary War [subject of this article], is the same as the American Revolutionary War", and "not a part of some separate conflict". --- The extraneous observation that Mahon observed Spain's "great aim" was recovery of Jamaica and Gibraltar relates to Mahan's chapters "after Yorktown" describing battles he explicitly places in his "War of 1778". That is against Britain, yes, but that war is perpetrated by the "House of Bourbon", France and Spain, for purposes separate and apart from American aims of independence, territory to the Mississippi with its navigation, withdrawal of British troops from the United States, and fishing rights off Newfoundland.

- Then, seeing the link to the direct Mahan quote in the original source, "The War of 1778 (parties) were, Great Britain; (and) the House of Bourbon, ... France and Spain," Eastfarthingan posts another non sequitur: "Your're misinterpreting historians [as] sources. The sources I have provided [including Mahan?, not], ... prompt the view that the American Revolution was ... a global war [by France and Spain on Britain, without Congress knowledge or consent]." --- Though as discussed above, virtually all RS cited on this and other Talk pages, ONLY SAY the two wars overlap in time, June 1778 to October 1781, and Piers Mackesy spectacularly says his book "is not about the American Revolution" [including Mackesy?, not]. But Mahan's quote is to the contrary. The Bourbon kings had a separate "War of 1778", a term called out in each Mahan chapter with the modifying phrase, "after Yorktown", in every chapter title that follows narrating the end of the British-subject shooting-war in America at Yorktown.

- And still there is no document connection, not from a wp:reliable source or otherwise, to show how the Americans ran the Bourbon Kings at court, spreading their revolutionary war AFTER American independence was promised by George III, March 1782 to Lord Rockingham as the American-peace Prime Minister (Ward, Cambridge Modern History), the end of American requisitions for replacement soldiers and sailors, discharging regiments at the end of their enlistment, and defunding of the Congressional army and navy. And, to make a finer point, No Continental regiment assaulted Gibraltar October 1782 as compelled by a secret Franco-Spanish treaty without the knowledge or consent of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

What war is 'Battle of the Chesapeake'

PAGE MAINTENANCE. This section is devoted to a side-discussion about the XavierGreen challenge to Gwillhickers to clarify his meaning.

- Editors are to post in chronological order on a 'wp:Talk page', in related threads of discussion. New threads tangential to one discussion can be broken into separate subsections, or opened in new topics altogether. A disrupting editor need not be barred from the Talk page, if administratively, his comments can be gathered into focus under a subsection for the Talk community to respond without disrupting another discussion thread.

- In this case, XavierGreen's "you" referred to Gwillhickers. The PAGE MAINTENANCE POST kept the XG post integrity, and MOVED IT FROM BURIED in a section devoted to applying RS-Mahan to the article 'editorial voice' and PLACED IT LEDE for the new topic where Gwillhickers places the 'Chesapeake Battle'. Mahan places the 'Chesapeake Battle' within the ARW. But XavierGreen did NOT address THAT discussion topic -- so his post belongs in a separate subsection.

---

I guess the Battle of the Chesapeake was not part of the American Revolutionary War according to you because it involved no American belligerents and was fought by the same French force that later engaged the British at the Saintes. By the same logic, the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir would not be part of World War Two because it didn't involve the Axis. What an absurd proposition it is if worked to its full fruition. The sources overwhelmingly state that your wrong and you have still after months yet to show otherwise.XavierGreen (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

At this late date there can be little doubt about the distinctions, politically and militarily, involving the battles fought between Britain and France over their possessions, and those battles involving the battles over American independence. The effort to stuff two different feet into the same shoe has long since gotten a bit rife. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The 'Battle of the Chesapeake' MEETS several criteria to place in within the 'American Revolutionary War', historiographically. (1) The operation was for the purpose of advancing US independence, capturing a second British army within US territory was intended to advance the declared war aims of Congress, including evacuation of British soldiers from US territory, and aiding the Whig-peace faction in Parliament under Lord Rockingham, advancing the Congressional war aim for independence from Britain (Rockingham County, Virginia is named for him).

- (2) The operation was a planned and executed by a senior Continental officer, in this case, the operation of combined land and sea arms was commanded by US General Washington and French Admiral de Grasse. The British fleet was drawn off from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, win or lose among the ships-of-the-line, and the following French transport ships were landed to reinforce the American siege of Yorktown, offloading French troops and siege guns for Washington's command.

- The same battle FAILS several criteria for the "Bourbon War of 1778", historiographically. (1) The operation was NOT for the purpose of Bourbon imperial gains at the expense of Britain, it did NOT advance the declared war aims in the Bourbon Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) in the Caribbean, India, or Europe. (2) The operation was NOT planned and executed jointly by senior French and Spanish officers, as was the thwarted Armada of 1779 invasion of Ireland/England, launched in June 1779, done WITHOUT the knowledge or consent of Congress, and NOT in pursuit of the defensive, limited Franco-American Treaty of Alliance (Morris); it was NOT to protect trade with America (see Treaty of Alliance Preamble). - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

So I suppose according to you then de Grasse constantly was switching between fighting two separate wars depending on who he happened to receive letters from on any particular day as he sailed to and fro between the Caribbean and the Atlantic. What a ridiculous assertion. To the French, the British, the Spanish and the Americans of the time there was only one war, that between the British and the rest of the belligerents fighting her. Also please stop breaking off my remarks into new sections, I obviously did not intend to creat a new section here, but respond to your ridiculous claims made in the one already existing. If I intended to create such a new section, I would have done it myself. To break out my conversation into a new section makes it look like my comments were not intended to respond to your own comments.XavierGreen (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What's sort of ridiculous is the idea that DeGrasse was fighting two different wars back and forth at the same time. Quite simply, at one point he was involved in one war, and later was involved in another. DeGrasse was "Constantly switching"? The attempt to speak for the Americans, the French, the British and the Spanish, that there was only "one war", is equally ridiculous. e.g. When Spain declared war on Britain, over Gibraltar, the last thing on their minds was the war over American independence on the other side of the Atlantic. Spain declared war on Britain over Gibraltar, a separate war with its own specific objective. That these wars occurred during the same general time period doesn't make it all one specific war. One war is defined by one general objective. The actual American Revolutionary War was over American independence, not Gibraltar, Saintes, et al, regardless if some sources academically lump them together in a passing reference under one obtuse heading. Amazing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

So Gwillhickers are you now arguing for an Anglo-Spanish war on top of this? That argument got shot down long ago. Also I don't know of a historian who has come up with the term that qualifies with what your saying. Also what you're saying here is pretty much counter factual - The actual American Revolutionary War was over American independence, not Gibraltar, Saintes, et al, regardless if some sources academically lump them together in a passing reference under one obtuse heading. Not to mention slandering historians that I have quoted above and in that here's a reminder -

• Pulitzer finalists David Allison MD, Larrie D. Ferreiro's 'The American Revolution: A World War' (2018).
• Richard Ernest Dupuy, Gay M. Hammerman, Grace P. Hayes' American Revolution, a Global War' (1977)
• Ian Barnes, Charles Royster Historical Atlas of the American Revolution' (2000)
• and finally I'll leave with you with the very much quoted - Donald Stoker, Kenneth J. Hagan, Michael T. McMaster's 'Strategy in the American War of Independence: A Global Approach' (2009) QUOTE - It was naval strategy that made the American War of Independence a global conflict.

Perhaps you should send them an email saying how wrong they are? Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: As a discussion parallel, it is interesting that you previously referred to WWII for reference to attack Gwillhickers' stand to organize Wikipedia military history articles related to different war aims, rather than your insistence on "during" the same time, as in "during the American Revolutionary War" without document evidence connecting diplomatic or military operations between the ARW and the "Bourbon War of 1778".

Although there is document evidence to relate the June 1937-September 1945 Second Sino-Japanese War as spreading worldwide into a global war", because it effected the European spheres of influence in China and it directly threatened the Pacific colonies of the British, French, Dutch, and United States, AND,

There are diplomatic cables and treaties of mutual defense among the Japanese, Germans, and Italians on the one hand, and the British & Empire, Poles, French & Empire, Dutch & Empire, and later the US-Hawaii-Philippines on the other. Yet there is no real wp:editor effort to add the qualifying phrase to Operation Overlord, the Battle of Normandy, "during the Second Sino-Japanese War". The different war aims of the Bourbon War of 1778 should NOT be conflated with the American Revolution and its sister articles, Don't merge this 'Anglo-French War' into 'France in the American Revolution'.

To your point against TheVirginiaHistorian, no, neither historians nor wp:editors nor historical characters "switch back and forth between wars". General Eisenhower conducted a joint amphibious operation to assault the European mainland to further the war aims of the US Congress and its allies. But we do NOT move the Normandy Invasion into an article titled, "United States in the Sino-Japanese War", even though there is MORE DOCUMENT CONNECTION to link Normandy and the Nanjing Massacre, than between Siege of Yorktown "during the American Revolutionary War" to link either the Battle of the Saintes or Great Siege of Gibraltar in the "Bourbon War of 1778". Don't merge this 'Anglo-French War' into 'France in the American Revolution'. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Eastfarthingan - You're typically skirting points made and addressed in the discussion. i.e.DeGrasse fought one war at a time. Even if he "switched back and forth", this would not change the fact that he fought in one war at any given time. One war is defined by one general and specific objective.

Once again, on what pages do the above sources explain the connection to the ARW? Like Mahan, as thoroughly outlined by TVH, do they qualify their statements, or are they just making passing references? We have presented sources, including Stoker, Hagan and McMaster, that refer to all the Anglo-French Wars of the 18th century, who specifically mention the Anglo-French Wars beginning in 1778. That Spain declared War on Britain, over Gibraltar, makes that war a separate war. Saintes is also a separate conflict, as it occurred after Yorktown, the end of the "shooting war", per Mahan. There is no connection between these conflicts and the actual war over independence. They came up at peace talks a year and a half after they were fought. The Americans had already settled with Britain and made their peace, separately. That is what your "part of" amounts to. Once again, most if not all the sources you refer to come under the greater heading of Anglo-French Wars at the Library of Congress. Even if it was conceded that the conflicts in question are singularly part of the ARW, and nothing else, we still have two sets of battles. i.e. Ones fought over American independence, involving American belligerents – ones fought between Britain and France over their possessions, involving no American belligerents. That is the clear distinction you've been trying to skirt all along, and that is the reason why we have two dedicated articles to cover these distinctly different battles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

XG – The Battle of the Chesepeake, coordinated by Generals Washington and Rochambeau, was part of the ARW for the simple reason that the French fleet was there to help the Americans at the Battle of Yorktown which soon followed -- the greater objective was winning American independence, unlike Saintes and Gibraltar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The same exact French squadron engaged the British at both the Saintes and Chesapeake, to suggest that the same units Britain and France were fighting multiple wars against each other at the same time is an utterly ridiculous proposition and one not supported by the vast overwhelming majority of sources. The French were fighting one war, the British were fighting one war. both contemporary and modern sources state this. Unless you would like to argue that Britain and France declared war against each other multiple times between 1775 and 1783, you don't have a leg to stand on and by this point are merely being obstructive.XavierGreen (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: I have to disagree with your novel principle of historiography here, There can only one global war at a time among all belligerents everywhere. Is it to be a dictum for wp:editors throughout the online encyclopedia meant for general readers worldwide? Were you to imagine there is only "one war" at a time worldwide, you would be busy adding the phrase, "during the July 1937-September 1945 Second Sino-Japanese War" to all Wikipedia WWII battles between Americans and Japanese, Japanese and British, British and German ... "The Battle of Singapore, during the Second Sino-Japanese War". How can all those other wp:editors say there is more than one war at the same time, there is only ONE war at a time worldwide. The first one spread, the longest, from beginning of all conflicts to the end for all conflicts, worldwide, July 1937-September 1945. How can those editors say "Battle of Leyte Gulf, the largest naval battle of World War II". Impossible. They don't have a leg to stand on. They are "in reality", obstructing the true history for XavierGreen.

But 'in reality', both American and British ships, soldiers and commanders fought Japanese in Asia and their allied Germans in Europe. That is not "an utterly ridiculous proposition." That's according to you, but you cannot find any historical source to assert your "one global war at a time among all belligerents everywhere" principle of historiography. Your methodology does not apply in the 20th century; it does not apply in the 18th century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)