Talk:American Revolutionary War

Notice

This article focuses on the military campaign, while the American Revolution covers the origins of the war, as well as other social and political issues.

Please try to keep this article at a reasonable length. The current approach has been to summarize the war in a way that will be clearly understandable to the general reader, without cluttering it up with too many details. Concentrate on the major figures and actions, and try to leave detailed discussion of war strategies, battle casualties, historical debates, etc. to linked articles about specific battles or actions.

Instead of adding additional detail to this lengthy article, consider adding your information to an article on a specific battle, or to one of these campaign articles currently in development. Additionally, one campaign, Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga (box at right), does not yet have an article specifically about those operations. {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Northern 1777}}

• Boston campaign (1775–76)
• Invasion of Canada (1775) (1775–77)
• New York and New Jersey campaign (1776–77)
• Saratoga campaign (1777)
• Philadelphia campaign (1777–78)
• Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga (1778–81)
• Sullivan Expedition (1779)
• Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War (1775–83)
• Western theater of the American Revolutionary War (1779–82)
• West Indies and Gulf Coast campaigns (1775–82)
• Naval operations in the American Revolutionary War
  • American Waters (1775–82)
  • European Waters (1778–82)
  • West Indies (1778–82)
  • East Indies (1778–83)

Article scope debate Apr 2020

Just out of curiosity, since we spend a great deal of time debating the intent and scope of this article, and cleaning up text that goes beyond the limit of this article, is there a way to pin a summary of these decisions to the top of the Talk page? I guess this is more of a Wikipedia question than a question about this article itself. But having that scope handy might help keep the article focused. Canute (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Canute, It would seem the various section titles give us an adequate summary of the discussions.

• Primary theme of this article
• Coverage of foreign aspects
• Condensing British global involvements
• Inappropriate off topic section
• Unbalanced coverage
• Due weight... etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems we now have a consensus to effect these things, and it appears that Lord Cornwallis has acquiesced somewhat. I'd recommend that we move slowly, however. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of pinning decisions to the talk page, especially with the long discussions we've had around what is and is not within the scope of this article. I don't really know if that's a thing, though, I've never seen it anywhere else. Canute (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot on the plate here. Best to go slowly. The whole theme of this article, per the bulk of sources, hinges on the effort for independence. British global efforts by and large involved their own interests and had little to nothing to do with the American struggle for independence. e.g. There were few if any American patriots involved in the dozens of British-French-Spainish conflicts about the globe. We still have more coverage about those things than the battles of Bunker Hill, Saratoga and Yorktown combined. Gotta wonder how that happened. In the Other British involvements section there are some two dozens battles w/ links covered, while battles like Saratoga and Yorktown are nominally covered in the article overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)#

Hi guys, sorry I haven't responded for a couple of days, been pretty busy.

Defintely the first three years of war is purely an Anglo-American thing (although France was shipping armaments and supplies to America, and the British were very aware of the French potential to intervene while they tried to deal with the growing war in America) However, the war doesn't hinge solely on the independence issue after 1778. Once entangled with the French the British were compelled to withdraw troops and downgrade America in strategic thinking. Due to the terms of the Treaty of Alliance and Bourbon Family Compact the war almost continued into 1783, even though Britain had by that stage already conceded American independence. At the last the sticking point that nearly prolonged the bloodshed wasn't American independence but the "Gibraltar equivalent". Stockley's Britain and France at the Birth of America: The European Powers and the Peace Negotiations of 1782-1783 is good on this.

Like I've said, I think there are a lot of issues in terms of naming and demarcation of this war not just on Wikipedia but in the RS. I guess there might be scope for having two sister articles. One that covers the war in the American/Canadian theater and one that covers the entire war, of which that theater is just one part. This is similar to the earlier wars where we have an article about the international war respectively (Nine Years' War, War of the Spanish Succession, War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War) and the American part of it (King William's War, Queen Anne's War, King George's War and the French and Indian War). This would allow a greater narrative focus on each. Not ideal, but it might be some kind of solution to these recurring issues. Again, best wishes. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

AGREE with @Lord Cornwallis: I would say that the ARW itself is NOT the worldwide conflict among Europe's Great Powers of the 1700s - - - BUT the Great Powers do use the ARW of British colonial insurrection amidst their worldwide Second Hundred Years' War to advance an ongoing conflict in overlapping chronologies: (1) Anglo-French War 1778-1783, (2) Antilles War 1781-1783, and (3) Fourth Anglo-Dutch War 1780-1784.

Misapplications of RS otherwise are the Tail wagging the dog, the ARW military history part wagging the Second Hundred Years' War whole. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sister article

A sister article is actually the way to go. Currently Previously in the Other British involvements (1781–1783) section there are were 33 battles/conflicts mentioned, with links in the redundant sections, not to mention all the names/links for various commanders and leaders. Before the International war breaks out (1778–1780) section was condensed there were many such links contained in it. — Presently there are more links to battles and conflicts in the Other British involvements section than there are in the entire article. — Many of these battles come under the headings of Anglo-French War (1778–1783), Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, Anglo-French War, Second Anglo-Mysore War, etc. Most if not all these battles involved no American belligerents and had no concerns or impact on the prospect of American independence. e.g. The conflict with Mysore ended in 1784, the year after the American Revolution was over. If we are to consider the conflict with Mysore as part of the Revolutionary War, which Britain surrendered in, then it goes that the Revolution didn't really end until 1784. All this is very misleading, to say the least.
In terms of coverage and scope, one only has to look at the table of contents in a given publication about the American Revolution to see where the greater bulk, if not all, of the coverage lies - i.e. the conflict in America between the British and the patriots. If there is an exception to speak of, one that gives nearly as much coverage to Britain's other battles, I'd be interested in looking at it and who authored it. Meanwhile we need to summarize this material, as I've begun to do with India, below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

mark1

In terms of WP:BOLD I could start drafting a separate article that covers in detail the global conflict, although as I say the RS treat them as a single war so the articles would need to reflect that. It would have the advantage of providing more narrative flow to what is a complex war. I don't know if their are any objectors? The other issue would be that of naming the separate articles, I guess. RS aren't that helpful on this. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Many of the sources simply say that the American Revolution 'sparked' or gave impetus to these conflicts and was not their actual cause, having causes of their own. When you consider that many of the hostilities towards Britain were already in place before 1781 that seems to make the most sense. It's quite likely that some of Britain's enemies figured that since she was greatly committed in America, now would be the time to act, as was the case in the Great Siege of Gibraltar, so you might want to be clear on these sorts of things. It seems a little peculiar that all these conflicts hit the fan in the last years of the Revolution. I'd also give the name of any sister or related article some further consideration. British naval engagements from 1781–1784 might be most appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Bingo. They may not be specifically a part of the American War for Independence, but the ARW provided the opportunity for many of these conflicts, and the additional conflicts contributed to the United States' victory because they diluted British warpower and drained British finances. I like the idea of summarizing these key points in this article. Perhaps naming the specific battles is too much. I support the idea of a sister article to go into that level of detail, but I don't have time to contribute to that right now so maybe I should abstain from voting. Canute (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think a separate article would need to cover the whole period from French entry in 1778. That was the year the war went global, and Britain started shifting attention away from America to rush resources to other areas. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It almost seems obvious that Britain spread herself out way too thin, given all the engagements that occurred in a relatively short period of time. I'm wondering if there is a RS that says this in no uncertain terms. It would of course be OR if we were to otherwise make that conclusion in this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Generally if you search on google books with the words "Britain" and "overstretched" - and any year between 1778 and 1782 there are quite a few sources to choose from. Like you say it stands to reason because France was about three times bigger than Britain, and the British had never fought France without the assistance of allies before.

Specifically on the 1778 decision in British strategy Middleton The War of American Independence p.110 refers to a note from Amherst to Sandwich "the contest in America being a secondary consideration, our principal object must be distressing France and defending and securing our own possessions against their hostiles attempts" leading to the decision to order Clinton to abandon Philadelphia and New York if need be.

A little later, Middleton notes the entry of France into the war had important consequences for the Royal Navy "since the defense of the mother country was now its first priority, as Sandwich constantly insisted".Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Middleton doesn't actually say that Britain was overstretched, or uses clear words to that effect, only that the conflict in America was less of a priority at that time. Seeing how France was Britain's next door neighbor, i.e.close by, that seems understandable, esp with Spain and others as France's allies. However, in the British Army during the American Revolutionary War, Daily life section it clearly says that Britain was "stretched to the breaking point" but there's no citation for that statement. Speaking of which, wouldn't this existing article be the place to cover all of Britain's other naval involvements, rather than creating a new article? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a statement in the article that conveys the idea that Britain was overstretched, though not in those or similar words: — "Mahan argues that Britain's attempt to fight in multiple theaters simultaneously without major allies was fundamentally flawed". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The Middleton references were to the British policy decisions in 1778 regarding the shift of importance away from the American Theater following French entry.

The google books reference was to the overstretched. Here a are a couple from the top of the pile

• Edward G. Gray & Jane Kamensky. The Oxford Handbook of the American Revolution. "Britain's already overstretched resources reached breaking point"
• Frank O'Gorman. The Long Eighteenth Century: British Political and Social History 1688-1832. "Quite simply Britain's resources were overstretched"
• Andrew O'Shaughnessy. The Men Who Lost America. "After 1778 the British Army actually shrank in America, overstretched by its commitments in the Mediterranean, Africa, the Caribbean, Central America, India, and Canada"

Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Dedicated sections not needed

There are dedicated sections for Washington, Howe, Clinton and Cornwallis which contain much redundant or misplaced information. e.g.Howe's failure to purse Washington at Brandywine and subsequent accusations of treason towards him from Tories is covered twice. In the Washington section there is information about the formation of the Board of War in 1776, early on in the war, that would better be placed chronologically in the article, not near the end in the Washington section. There are already dedicated articles for these generals, and much of the information in these sections isn't very biographical but more to do with the actual war. Unless there are strong objections outlining why this information should not be better placed chronologically in the article I'll be moving/rewriting the information in question shortly, and ultimately removing these section titles once the information contained has been moved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I like this idea, so as to help keep the narrative flow of this warfare summary going, including the "Analysis" subdivision. I'm reading through another RS that is an 'overview' of military operations in the ARW, and so I hope to return to this later in the week armed with another narrative 'arrow' approach in my quiver. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox trim

The Infobox is so extensive that in my browser, it extends half way down into the five introductory paragraphs, forcing down the first image in the article main space.

In an ongoing process between article narrative copy edits, I’ve begun following up on Canute’s recommendation above at "Infobox citations", that the Infobox be trimmed of excessive detail. Some trimming can be done by deleting parenthetical information. Some can be reduced to notes to remove the direct Infobox clutter.

point-by-point discussion 1. Convert POV in bold shouting that proclaims "US independence began in May 1784" and NOT July 4, 1776, NOR September 13, 1783 (without RS),

Nevertheless, I have COLLEGIALLY EMBRACED IT in an abbreviated five-date timeline with RS here.

Peace process: March 1782-Parliament recommends George III make peace. December 1782-George III Speech from the Throne for US independence. April 1783-Congress accepts British proposal that meets its four demands. September 1783-conclusive treaty of peace by Britain and US. May 1784-Diplomats in Paris exchange the subsequent ratifications by Parliament and Congress.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: conclusive treaty of peace by Britain and US, you should probably mention in one way or another that the conclusive peace that ended the War was in fact four treaties (of Britain with respectively the US, France, Spain and the Netherlands) that were negotiated together, signed together and closely intertwined with each other. There could not have been one without the others. Place Clichy (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: wp:ERROR: The British negotiate their treaty with each belligerent separately, and they are each signed separately: Treaty of Paris by US & GB alone in Paris; Anglo-French Treaty of Versailles by FR & GB alone in Versailles; Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles by SP & GB alone in Versailles; Anglo-Dutch Treaty of Paris by DR & GB alone in Paris. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned this before above and provided citations supporting it. The treaties between Spain and France and France and the United States all in effect bound each other to jointly ending the war together. The united states was bound by treaty not to end the war until the French also made peace with Britain, and France in turn was obligated to continue the war so long as Spain continued to be at war with Britain. Thus, so long as hope remained that Gibraltar could be taken, Spain in effect had a veto on the end of the war which continued until the relief of Gibraltar at the Battle of Cape Spartel. After the failure of the Grand Assault at the Great Siege of Gibraltar and the relief of the garrison there, the French were able to pressure the Spanish into finally agreeing to end the war. Thus, with Spain finally assenting to peace, both France and in turn the United States could make peace as well. With France making peace, the Netherlands also in turn made peace. The peace treaty between the French and British also included a provision that both parties were required to cease supporting their allies in India in hostilities as well, and thus Mysore was forced to end its war with Britain as well due to the withdrawal of French support.XavierGreen (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: wp:ERROR: The FR-US treaty binds FR to guarantee US independence; US must aid FR in Caribbean v GB if-and-only-if GB attacks FR (it is a defensive treaty). The FR-SP treaty binds FR to fight GB until SP takes Gibraltar. NO RS claims - you have supplied NONE in wp:Original Research, that the US must fight GB until Spain takes Gibraltar, nor must US fight GB until FR conquers Mysore, India.

BY the Battle of the Saintes April 1782, US had ACCEPTED by enacted Congressional resolution, the GB offer for peace with independence, territory to Mississippi River & navigation; fishing at Newfoundland AND US defunded its Army & Navy, sells off its ships and furloughs all enlisted soldiers home.

BEFORE news of Gibraltar, the US agreed to peace because George III announced for US independence December 5, 1782 in a Speech from the Throne. For the rest in the tread above, its just playing 'silly buggers' with Historians' fallacy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: wp:HOAX: The US as a sovereign nation, recognized as independent by Britain, was competent to make war and conclude peace with Britain at the Treaty of Paris September 1783, WITHOUT deferring to Spain until it conquered Gibraltar. France was likewise sovereignly competent to separately conclude peace with Britain before Spain, where France ceded Gibraltar to Britain WITHOUT conquering Gibraltar for Spain as required by the French treaty with Spain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Derivative "connect the dots" without connecting evidence is NOT good historical narrative.

1. YES, from a British diplomat's point of view, and the historical narratives describing their activities in Paris 1782-1784, THERE WERE "closely intertwined" exchanges among British, American, French, Spanish, Austrian and Prussian ministers.

point-by-point discussion ::::--- Why do you keep leaving out the Austrian and Prussian negotiations? The Brits invited them to be Great Power mediators, and they both accepted. IT IS OF COURSE, anachronistic "presentism" to suggest that the US was a European "Great Power" WITHOUT AN ARMY OR NAVY of any consequence in North America or anywhere else by the close of 1782. You leave them out because PARIS-CENTERED NEGOTIATIONS ALONE HAVE NO wp:RELEVANCE in defining the SCOPE of the AWR itself, and the subject of this article, "American Revolutionary War". q.e.d.

2. NO, the US did not wait for the back-stabbing French and their secret treaty with Spain.

point-by-point discussion ::::(a) The French wanted the US territory to stop at the Appalachians to keep the US weak and dependent on France for an alliance against Britain.

(b) The British wanted the US to be separated from France and a strong "bread-basket" trading partner in the event of another French blockade of Europe (food) in the context of their ongoing Second Hundred Years' War with France, 1689-1815.

- The British "stole a march" on the French and the tag-along Spanish, negotiating without US consultation with the French, and signing in the morning at Paris before the carriage ride to Versailles for the awaiting and out-maneuvered French and Spanish and their respective treaties, signed separately without the US and without reference to US territory ceded to it by Britain. France formally ceded Gibraltar to Britain. So the backstabbed French backstabbed the Spanish. And not only did France NOT help Spain conquer Minorca and the Floridas, THEN Britain just ceded them to Spain. George Washington said "avoid foreign entanglements" based on personal experience, you see.

--- See my contribution at Preliminary negotiations, "Maps proposed for US territory from France (1782), Spain (1782), Great Britain (1783). And the handsome Gainsborough portrait I chose for George III in his parliamentary robes here, versus the usual imperially pompous Ramsay portrait at coronation here.

3. YES, I have read the RS that our Lord Cornwallis gave us here at Talk, and I have profited from them, viz STOCKLEY intro to Britain and France at the Birth of America. "Historians have, to date, tended to survey the 1782-3 peace negotiations through the prism of later nineteenth and twentieth century developments: to overstate the importance of American and imperial concerns while, at the same time, underestimating the significance attached, both by Britain and France, to the European balance of power." Well, J'Accuse…!.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Vermont Republic

I noticed the Republic of Vermont (1777-1791) is completely missing from the list of belligerents even though its listed as a belligerent in multiple articles covering different campaigns and battles that took place during the war. I would like to ask for a consensus on adding the Vermont Republic to the list of belligerents. I vote yes. GreenMountainGaurd88 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I would agree to that, as a result of the revisions to the article there is actually now no reference to Vermont at all within the text strangely enough.XavierGreen (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Insert : — The removal of Vermont as a belligerent occurred on March 2, 2020 before the clean up and the multitude of NPOV issues were being corrected. Vermont was never covered in the text, even while you were active in the article in 2017 -- just for the record. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

AGREE with XavierGreen. At Vermont Republic, Wikipedia acknowledges that many of the 10,000 Vermonter residents took part in the American Revolution. However, it was not admitted as a state due to New York's New Hampshire Grants claim, which had been confirmed by royal order July 26, 1764. Congress would not allow the division of a state without its permission.

1. Vote FOR including Vermont as a belligerent in the list of State militias included in the thirteen now listed, including its flag , because unlike the other militias, it had an official flag for its republic.

2. Vote FOR including special mention of Vermonters at the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga by the Green Mountain Boys on May 10, 1775, and appropriately expanding the reference in an explanatory note. The British cannon seized there were transported by Henry Knox to fortify Dorchester Heights at Boston on March 4, 1776. They enabled Washington to compel the Evacuation of Boston on March 17, 1776, which effectively ended further British Atlantic-based incursions into New England for the duration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• For — If the militias from the Vermont Republic participated then they should be listed as a belligerent. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Changing my vote to Oppose: — On retrospect Vermont will be the only colony mentioned by name, with a flag, in the info-box, so perhaps it's not a good idea to give the Vermont Republic singular mention there. A footnote next to the Thirteen Colonies link in the info-box, mentioning the V.R. would be more in order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Vermont was not part of the 13 Colonies or the United States even until 1791, specifically because both New York and New Hampshire claimed the entirety of its territory. The Vermont government operated independently of that of the 13 colonies.XavierGreen (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but the question remains: Should Vermont, not officially one of the 13 colonies, be the only one mentioned by name in the info-box? Not even New York, Massachusetts and Virginia are listed by name there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Vermont was not a "colony", there was no British colonial government for "Vermont". The government of Vermont operated independently of that of the United States (and that of the United Colonies prior to September 1776). It was not part of the continental congress. The thirteen colonies bound each other together through the operations of the continental congress. There is no need to list each of the "thirteen colonies" because they bound themselves together via the Continental Congress.XavierGreen (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. Vermont Republic was its own independent country, independent belligerent. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The Green Mountain Boys were part of the New Hampshire militia which operated in what eventually became the Vermont Republic, but this didn't occur until 1777, almost two years after the war had begun. The Vermont Republic soon became neutral and served as a haven for both British and Colonial deserters. During the time the G.M.B. fought in the Revolution they were part of the New Hampshire militia, and by 1777 the Vermont Republic became neutral. The Vermont Republic initially sent troops to fight at the battles of Hubbardton and Bennington in 1777, two small battles with relatively few casualties, and thereafter the V.R. became neutral. During the Haldimand Affair, a portion of the G.M.B. attempted secret negotiations with British officials with the aim of restoring British rule over the territory. After 1777 the Vermont Republic was hardly a belligerent.  Listing this republic in the info-box, along with a flag, because the V.R. briefly fought in two battles before becoming neutral seems to raise serious due-weight issues. The info-box is a place were only major commanders, figureheads and belligerents should be listed. However, I've no objections with covering the V.R. in brief in an appropriate section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion in the infobox: I too was surprised to see Vermont removed as a belligerent. Its only militia of note (the Green Mountain Boys) did support independence and fought in multiple battles, and Vermont received but rejected British overtures. There is obviously room to note the modest extent of Vermont's contributions to the war in the infobox, but it should not be excluded. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I support inclusion also, NOT as a separate line-item 'Belligerent' - - some residents north/south still paid taxes to either NH or NY - - but I agree to place the Vermont Republic WITHIN the List of "states", because VR was organized comparably to a US state, and there were various factions maneuvering over a number of years for admission to the US (like Texas history, sort of ...); the entry will be s stand-out, even if it is the last on the list, BECAUSE it will be the only entry with its own flag. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed RfC series

@XavierGreen and Gwillhickers: I propose a fresh series of RfCs after I've completed an article trim walk-through. Goal: several item-specific "consensus" here, and later featured in the Talk header in FAQs. As it is, several improvements have been blocked by "authority bombs" from - ONE (1) - unspecified, open-ended, wide-ranging and amorphous "consensus" that seems to have universal application at every point of dispute.

When we cite an RS, the answer is one of three options from a pre-set menu to oppose the focus of the ARTICLE TOPIC here: The American Revolutionary War for or against US independence and sovereign territory in North America: Option A. The referenced citation is not among an opposing editor's "all RS" as a term-of-art opposition, even though we've just linked to one.

Option B. There are "many citations" as a term-of-art opposition, used as a sort of 'preponderance of evidence' stand-in meant to overwhelm the direct quote from our linked RS, but individual opposition items are never themselves referenced. (Though due credit to our Lord Cornwallis for a profitable reading list a couple months ago.) Option C. RS referenced in opposition are misconstrued:

C. example :- OPP EDITOR POST misconstrues, the book is about "Every conflict Britain, it allies, surrogates and puppets WORLDWIDE are the ARW 1775-1784," i.e. GB-centered by TIME PERIOD with editor links to events without evidence: historian's fallacy.

- BUT AUTHOR INTRO SAYS, the book "Is not about the American Revolution, its about British worldwide strategy against four belligerents, 1775-1783" i.e. GB-centered by NAVAL STRATEGY, linked by official correspondence related to the British Navy.

The proposed series of RfCs seem to be required because, No link in Talk archives can be found to share for the flexible all-purpose "consensus" used overthrow the article scope found in Britannica's "American Revolutionary War" - - - not at any time throughout our eight weeks' discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments and discussion:

• An RfC at this point would be premature, imo, as there's still a lot of basic work, e.g. due-weight balancing issues, to tend to. e.g.Under the Analysis of combatants main section the subsections for Britain cover some nine pages of text, depending on your browser setting, while the subsections for the United States are covered with five. Best to get the major items out of the way before we go back and forth at the directive of some reviewer, esp if a given reviewer lacks basic subject knowledge, which, regrettably, is often the case. I seriously doubt we're going to find a reviewer that is going to look into specialized sources like Historian's Fallacies, and the like, while combing through the edit history of three+ years ago for an RfC that never occurred, while trying to discern any number of scattered discussions, past and present. i.e.There are no requirements for a reviewer. Even FA nom reviewers can just pop-up out of no where and start giving directives. In the past I've cleaned up so called FA articles that were lacking basic details, had errors of all sorts, etc -- articles that were claimed to of had "consensus". Anyway, perhaps it's best to look out after our own, before we dump this article in the lap of whomever decides to take on this long and complex article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

INSERT from the edit conflict:

Very true, the lengthiness critique applies to almost all Analysis-of-belligerents subsections. Some material may need to be transferred to each respective "Main article", but for the most part they can be trimmed here in a straight-forward copy-edit procedure without controvers ... after a careful review of material at the "Main article" link for each section.

So, it's not time to pull the trigger just yet for a 3-5 series of systematically prepared package of RfCs defining the scope of the article by several referenced RfC "consensus" in Talk FAQs.

But I did not want you to think that I had given up on the British scholarly reference Encyclopedia Britannica as an RS to be given wp:DUE WEIGHT in the ARW scope. I plan to chime in at Talk every 2-3 days with historians' fallacy helps as I can. The time in-between I plan to edit article narrative flow and continue to post my edit links here to document the progress as signposts for collegial oversight. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Since the issues involve NPOV, due-weight and the like, when the time comes, we should request RfC reviewers with subject knowledge. Perhaps the request would be best placed in a military history project. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I was JUST looking at the WikiProject Military history # American Revolutionary War task force] for a review of their guides and criteria. (Also, how do you render that link for an easier copy-paste between double brackets  ?

I did find the last ARW review for GA from the Talk Infox link, where one fresh reviewer noted that items listed in the GA review previous had not been addressed. How do I get to the GA review before the GA last review ? Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The exact date escapes me at the moment, but this article was a GA many years ago - 2012 I believe. How that managed to occur, I dunno. As a general reminder, some trimming of some topics may be in order, just so long as we cover the topics involved comprehensively, inasmuch as the reader is not forced to jump to another article just to get the basic picture. As for something in the order of an RfC, we may want to submit a request at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests page, along with a note that we are specifically seeking outside opinions over NPOV and due-weight issues. Given the recent and past history of this article it shouldn't be difficult to explain point at the situation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay & concur. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Sub-section: 'International war breaks out'

Post & copyedit

At the subsection, International war breaks out (1778–1783), I have expanded the section to relate a narrative of European Great Powers at war 1778-1784, as they relate to the North American continent, however tangentially to the military aspects of the American Revolutionary War. I was delighted to find images of the major players to illustrate the previously all-text section. As before, to avoid disruption in the article by provoking our editor-colleagues of any persuasion here, all previous citations are maintained, along with the entire substance of the previous version. I am aware that at a later date, the top two-thirds of the section may be administratively cut after a further community review.

But for now, this is a "half-a-loaf" compromise measure meant to accommodate editors with an interest in European Great Power conflict that was after all, tangential to the American War for Independence. It has produced an addition to article length nearly that of my copy-edited trimming over the last two weeks (though overall, we still may be cutting down narrative, as Gwillhickers is doing additional trimming). I imagine that at either the upcoming RfC review among Wikipedia military editors, or at article re-submission for Good Article review, the question will again come up as to the SCOPE of this article, "American Revolutionary War".

But in the mean time, if we ARE to address the Euro Great Powers and their imperial conflicts coincident to the time period of the American Revolution 1775-1783 in this article, it should reflect the best scholarship available including the EIGHTEENTH (18th) CENTURY (1700s) BRITISH point of view that centers on its exclusive mercantile trade between the mother country and its North American colonies

... without anachronistically attaching any 21st century interpretation about industrial age and big-corporate IMPERIALISM of the "late 19th - early 20th century" to be ... 'caused by', the American Revolution... NOR more passively wp:weasel: the American Revolution 'led to', or, 'was a factor in' 19th century imperialism and 20th century international corporations. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments and discussion:

Online source blocked

As you have seen I am avidly reading all the Euro RS as I can find time to investigatet (that's how I got a reference to the Morris book referenced, then on searching the title and author found the Journal article used at my copyedit post. @A D Monroe III and Gwillhickers: I am not suggesting a conspiracy of disruption and misdirection on this page: there is apparently none, and I have apologized for suggesting that there may have been any grounds for further administrator investigation here. Nevertheless,

FYI: At several articles related to the American Revolution and diplomacy on Wikipedia, older citations reference online links to articles found at Americanforeignrelations.com, that is, the website is used in those articles as a "reliable source". As yet unaware of any reliability problem, I then consulted search returns that I found on that previously used website in Wikipedia articles, and I used one in my draft copyedit post.

HOWEVER, when I first tried to publish that copyedit post, I found it BLOCKED by the Wikipedia editors for foreign affairs as "SUSPICIOUS".

I subsequently found comparable information elsewhere. Instead of "Americanforeignrelations.com", I used information from an acceptable academic journal published by a university press; it had more specific detail for my purposes, and my copyedit post with the scholarly journal citation was NOT blocked as "suspcious". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments and discussion:

Disputed tag

I have tagged as DISPUTED, the sub-subsection 'International war breaks out' # Great Powers at war 1778-1784.

The elaborated narrative (and the accompanying well-crafted gallery of major Euro players) more properly belongs in a section about the Revolutionary War TIME PERIOD for DIPLOMATIC context in some OTHER American Revolution article, as discussed in several threads here at Talk over the last two months. The transferred material can then be referenced here as in a top-hat 'See main article' citation. That will shorten this already somewhat overly-long article.

Tangential diplomatic history among European Great Powers and their respective related military operations does NOT belong in an article with a focus of the "American Revolutionary War", between Great Britain and its thirteen rebelling colonies in Congress, 1775-1783 ... as cited at the mainstream scholarly reference, Encyclopedia Britannica. The "American War for Independence" is successfully concluded by a "definitive" treaty at the Peace of Paris (1783), with BRITAIN and the US the lone as signatories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

COROLLARY: ARW Infobox. As European Great Powers during the time period 1775-1795, the flags and Crowned figures of France, Spain and the Netherlands should NOT be featured in the Infobox for the "American Revolutionary War". Their diplomatic connection is tangential except for the French defensive war for American independence (reciprocal US support in the French Caribbean until US independence), and their worldwide conflict (especially AFTER April 1783) is away from North America, without US treaty or military participation, and AFTER the US Army and US Navy are defunded with their officers and men furloughed home. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments and discussion:

• TVH, thanks for your well informed efforts, but I'm afraid I don't quite follow. You've added a fair amount of, albeit interesting, information, under a new subsection, have tagged it, and are claiming it belongs in a different article, to which I generally agree. Also, the article is now at an all time high in terms of article size -- 108k of readable prose. I would recommend that some trimming is in order -- per the actual war/battles that the article should focus on. The article now seems to be a bit involved in the various treaty details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: @Gwillhickers: We are agreed.

- 1. I've just now cut the narrative text at "British defeat in America" more than half, another 500-600 words. Again, to avoid footnote disruption in the article, all citations are meant to be preserved. But it seems two editors had a fencing match over sources with the same redundant material; the two left the field of combat with BOTH sets of contributions in place - !!! - and the situation seems to have been overlooked for some time here.

- 2. I am reluctant to address the larger blue-pencil question of "article scope" again until I've walked through ONE complete copy-edit for narrative flow. But I tagged my take on the DIPLOMATIC Euro Great Power situation as it TOUCHED ON the ARW, Congress & US independence from Britain. Yes, it belongs elsewhere, TBD to be determined, later, it seems to me, IMHO. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• In terms of treaties, it would seem we should confine our efforts to the basics of the Treaty of Paris, with links to the other treaties. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

AGREED. In copyediting the previous section International war breaks out amounting to 832 words without illustration, I meant to serve up a TWO element take-away for FUTURE overall-article editing. (1) A section to STAY of 408 words. It is directly related to ARW military operations and events immediately connected to the ARW and its outcome of American independence and territory at the Peace of Paris (1783):

North America, east of the Mississippi River [and west of the crest of the Appalachian Mountains re: (a) Royal Proclamation Line of 1763 and (b) Quebec Act of 1774]. - - It is illustrated with two portraits of the "Conquerors of the British Mississippi River Basin", Spanish Governor Galvez, and Virginia Major Clark.

(2) A section to MOVE to another article related to diplomacy among Euro Great Powers, a section of 733 words, with five appropriate images to illustrate the passage. This MOVE element may require an RfC to establish a documented "consensus" in the proposed package of RfCs to define the article scope. The package can then be used for reference in discussion here in a future FAQ section at the top section for ARW Talk. Sincerely, - I did not mean to alarm you with a set-in-stone copyedit ADDING 309 words, I mean to ultimately TRIM 424 words. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Combatants continued

@TheVirginiaHistorian and TomRidley: — As per the recent continuation of the above discussion, please note that the Analysis of combatants section, with its numerous sub-sections, comprises some 17 pages of text -- that's about 1/3 of the article text. I've recently moved and rewritten some of this text in the dedicated sections for Washington, Howe, Clinton and Cornwallis with the idea that anything said in those sections should be incorporated into the overall narrative text. I've been moving slowly in that effort as at this point it would seem most of us are a bit unweary of massive changes. Before any mass migration of information occurs we should bear in mind that this is a high traffic article, while the other two mentioned see relatively low traffic, esp the British Army article, bearing in mind that many readers read the article from start to finish.

Average number of views per day:

• American Revolutionary War - 7,000 - 8,000
• Continental Army -- 1,000
• British Army during the American Revolutionary War - 130

Any information taken from this article will likely be missed by a very large percentage of the visitors to this page. We can move some of the highly technical material, but we should bear in mind that moving significant amounts of the narrative from this article will require the reader to hop to two other articles to get this information. Otoh, we can reduce the page size simply by removing redundant information in the above mentioned dedicated sections, and elsewhere, and by simply condensing some of the grammar throughout the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point regarding the traffic of the articles. However do you think if we summarised the key points but directed people to those articles it would increase the traffic? (TomRidley (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC))

Yes, this was what I was essentially proposing. I would begin by adding information to the sister articles mentioned, before we begin any significant moving and condensing here, going along one step at a time, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Without removing essential points or any of the citations in the section, I've begun copyediting another one as before here, it already has my subsequent trimming copyedit posted. I thought to address the next section, "Analysis - United States", posting in more frequent sub-sections because it is so long and covers so many different kinds of topics . . . I hope you can bear with me until I can complete the run-through of the whole section. Hopefully by sometime tomorrow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, btw. Friendly reminder to all editors, that we should not require any reader to jump to another article to get the basic picture. i.e.Dedicated articles are for in depth coverage, where 'lots' of secondary details are usually welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Captions

TVH, your thoughts about making the captions more informational with the idea that many readers, esp students, view the images and read the captions first, is a good idea. Like the lede, and the opening statement to a given section, if we can spark interest from the onset, they will be that much more inclined to read the section or article. To this end I've joined in the effort and have added some points of context in a few of the captions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to put together a 'general guidelines' overall ...

I'm open to discussion on this point, so as to take in other editorial considerations, but

A specialty note from the world of special education: Visually impaired kids need the images in an article to all align right. Some conditions of the legally blind can now fully integrate into the classroom with large laptop screens and specialized adaptive software. Right-justified images in a Wikipedia article helps in their immediate class-room access to Wikipedia articles, and that has been shown to contribute to their classroom participation.

There is a blurb among the Wikipedia essays on the matter, but regrets, I do not have the link at hand.

I do mean to add in the 'alt' caption in a complete article run-through among the images I've recently contributed - so as to assist those with eyesight that allows reading but not acquiring small-scale images on a screen. You may have noticed that previous editors here have faithfully attended to that very helpful editorial chore throughout. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

When images are placed to the left it's usually in cases when they are stacked one over the other three and more high -- sometimes two high, and in cases where an image is crowding the text.  MOS guidelines asks that images be placed to the right, or staggered right and left, but there are always exceptions to guidelines (guidelines are not WP policy). Discretion is the key. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Prevent image crowding in a section with the {{clear}} template. It protects the upcoming section coded =sub-section= by automatically generating spaces between the bottom of the image and the upcoming text. My preference is to place images to the right, directly alongside the correlated text (or rarely, one paragraph up or down).

If each section is limited to one image per 300-350 words, spacing for most browsers can be maintained with a short paragraph after each image. One or two-line paragraphs following an image should be followed with a {{clear}} template to insure against crowding. Large images that crowd following text can be reduced in size. Image size is governed by the code |thumb|upright=1.0|, varying image size by varying the "upright" 1.0 proportion a decimal point at a time, up or down, in preview.

If more images than the 1:300-350 ratio help provide a better understanding or appreciation of the topic, GALLERIES of them can be used in one or more rows. Again, when using a GALLERY, end the section text with a {{clear}} template to prevent image crowding into the next section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Two empty subsections were removed and their corresponding subsections were moved up one level. The sections in question have subjects that merit that level. TOC less congested. Also, we don't need date ranges in so many of the section titles, as it's understood that the war sections follow one after the other chronologically, while the sections make it plain what time period is involved. See Edit history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Almost all the images are now on the right. I'm not so sure this is a good idea in sections that have three or more images, or ones stacked directly over the other. In those cases we should stagger one of them to the left. I'm not quite understanding why a visually impaired child can see an image easier if it's on the right. Right or left, the image is directly in front of them on their monitor. Imo, we should treat multiple images the way they are in almost all the articles, with a few staggered to the left. Consider also that a given image is more noticeable if it's not lumped in with other images. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

'Alt=' captions for article image [[File:coding]]

I’ve coded ‘alt=’ captions within the image coding brackets [[File:coding]], throughout the article here.

The edit does NOT add any ‘readable prose’ to the article count. It will give readers with some kinds of blindness access to the subject matter pictured at each illustration. The effort contributes to the overall quality of the article for any Wikipedia rating review. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

ARW intro revised

I revised the introduction following the Talk discussion, here. It generally follows a three-weeks old Talk section, to date supported with no objection (June 8, twenty-two days). There has been no link to any RfC here for a “consensus” on the introduction prior to that established in the Talk string here at the beginning of this month. The copy edit takes the article from 104k of 16640 words, to 104k of 16633 words - - “readable prose size” with seven fewer words. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Intro mention count

point-by-point discussion :* 1st & 2nd Congress 5, acts 2, boycott 1; Parliament 4, acts 2, Salutary Neglect 1; King George (‘Proclamation of Rebellion’ to start it, ‘Speech from the Throne’ announcing US independence to end it) 2;

• Britain (nation) 8, American 4, US 2, Thirteen Colonies (several or all) 5; French 2;

- Boston 4, New York 1, Philadelphia 1, Charleston 1, Virginia 1;

• Siege of Boston, Battle of Quebec, New York & New Jersey campaign, Battle of Trenton, Battle of Princeton,

- Saratoga Campaign, Philadelphia campaign, Battles of Saratoga, Valley Forge,

- Illinois campaign, Battle of Fort Charlotte (Mobile), Siege of Pensacola,

- British campaign in the South, Capture of Savannah, Battle of Kings Mountain, Battle of Cowpens, Siege of Yorktown, Battle of the Chesapeake;

• Washington 3, Howe 2, Clinton 1, Gálvez 1;
• Franco-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce (United States–France), Franco-American Treaty of Alliance (1778), Anglo-American Treaty of Paris (1783).

- posted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Intro guidelines used

1. Guidelines (rationale) for Intro style: establish significance “a republic over expansive territory” in the context of British Empire and its history for the general reader.

2. Intro with war-conflict focus: Summarize the war-time conflict between Congress, Continental Army militias and ally France, versus Britain, Auxiliaries and Indian allies.

- Name only King George III and the four commanders-in-chief on the North American continent, Washington, Howe, Clinton, and Gálvez.

- Note only campaigns and major battles (turning points).

- Add the two western campaigns conquering territory from Britain, (a) western Quebec, and (b) West Florida.

3. Relate a brief overview of Congress (a) coming to resolve independence and then (b) settling an American peace.

- Add Vermont Republic in a Note: VR participated in capturing guns used at Washington forcing British evacuation of Boston; the 14th state sought to join US during the Revolution.

4. Remove article details addressed later in the narrative: skirmishing leading up to Boston evacuation, etc.

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

ARW size assessment in context

Article assessment in the context of WP Article size guidelines:

At wp:Splitting, “Large articles may have readability and technical issues. A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes."

"At 50 kB of readable prose and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to new articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style".

- June 9, ARW article size = 110k – wp: “almost certainly divide”

- June 30, ARW article size = 104k – wp: “almost certainly divide”, though now "readable prose size"

wp guideline: upper limit for article size = 100k

- July 2, ARW article size = 96k - wp: "consider topic scope", though "readable prose size";

Background and contingency:

Start size “probably should divide” (consider topic scope) = 60k

Start size, “may need to divide” = 50k

- ( ? ), ARW article size without “Belligerent Analysis” = 46K +

- ( ? ), or TRIM new “belligerent analysis” article to less than = 40k +

- Posted for your consideration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: updated after removing 'Great Powers' and 'Preliminaries'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

ARW scope and scholarly references

At the first sentence of the Introduction, I’ve added a Note on the ARW scope iaw TWO mainstream BRITISH scholarly authorities here.

It reads, “The scope of the American Revolutionary War between the US Congress and Great Britain is dated 1775-1783. It began in 1775 at Lexington's "The shot heard round the world", or formally at the 1776 Declaration. That war ends formally at the Treaty of Paris (1783), signed exclusively between Britain and the US. It cedes British North American territory to the sovereign control of the US as an independent nation. For further clarification, reference two mainstream scholarly references that are used throughout the English-speaking world. The first is published by Britannica; the second is published by Routledge."

Although there has been some opposition referencing a multi-purpose RfC “consensus” on this page to overturn the scholarly authority of both Britannica and Routledge in their ARW-related historiography, in over two months of discussion here, NO LINK to any such “consensus” procedure can be found for this article in its Talk archive.

I propose that WHEN WE DO DECIDE to initiate a series of RfCs at the Military History Project, one of the elements in the package should be to establish the scope of the article and the editorial authority of these two mainstream BRITISH scholarly references.

The results of the RfC series should be published at a permanent leading section at Talk:American Revolutionary War, under a prominent header: “FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions about this article and its topic.” Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

p.s. "[The French] proved an indispensable asset in the revolutionaries’ victory at the Siege of Yorktown (1781), which ended the war. - Encylopedia Britannica, “Franco-American Alliance”, or for ARW purpose: "ended the war, militarily". - TVH TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

The overall scope of the article is easily established by the article's name, i.e. the American Revolutionary War, or the American War of Independence.  The key words are American and Revolution and Independence. The colonies/soon to be America went through a revolution. Most of Britain's other global escapades had little to no bearing on that, as both you, others and myself have well articulated, repeatedly. Many editors have been pinged by Xavier and myself with little response. Trying to keep optimistic, at this late date it seems that most involved editors are thoroughly tired of rehashing the same issues to one or two editors who refuse to get it, or at an RfC, but we'll see. Seems there's still more work to be done before we go through an RfC. In any case, the criteria for removing the NPOV tag has long since been met. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

thoughful-1. Does it follow at the NPOV tag removal, that the current Infobox posting OUTSIDE of the ARW military scope, presuming to expand the article by extending it into Euro Great Power diplomatic history, can NOW be removed ?

thoughtful-2. Does it follow at the NPOV tag removal, that the current 'Great Powers' section can be moved and re-edited to fit into Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War#Treaty of Paris ?

Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The NPOV tag was inappropriately added for the entire article, with no initial discussion, twice, involving a fair number of issues, most, if not all, of which have been thoroughly addressed, several times. A consensus over the idea that the article did not merit the NPOV tag has also been well established, and if need be, I can easily refer back to the individual examples of disapproval, which I've already done once before. The NPOV issue shouldn't hinge on whether we include a debatable item in the info-box outside the ARW scope. The Great Powers at war 1778–1784 section, however, could be better summarized, but here also, it doesn't seem to be anything by itself that would merit an NPOV tag for the entire article. Since discussion on most matters hasn't occurred with the opposing editor in weeks, and on some issues, like Gibraltar, Mysore, etc, much longer, along with a clear consensus of prior British-centricity, there is ample grounds for tag removal, which already occurred once by an uninvolved editor. However, it would be best if another uninvolved editor review matters and remove the tag on his/her own initiative. If the tag at this late date were to be added yet again, it would become a matter for an appropriate noticeboard, where upon reviewing the edit history and the previous version of this article, it'll be easy to demonstrate that the article, up until lately, has been acutely British-centric. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

ARW Yorktown v Gibraltar

Although claims on this Talk page that “all RS” go one way, and “no RS” go another, virtually all scholars trained in the US do NOT replace 1781 Yorktown as the last battle of the ARW, confirmed in Britannica at “Franco-American Alliance”, “The Siege of Yorktown ended the war.”

If for a moment we were to step outside the Tuscaloosa atmospherics that editor-cited scholar Matthew Lockwood finds himself at Alabama awash in the Crimson Tide, we can reference a scholarly reference used everywhere in the English-speaking world, sourced from internationally recognized BRITISH scholars writing the entries: i.e. Britannica “Franco-American Alliance”: “… Yorktown ended the war.” (well for us at ARW article, ‘ended the ARW militarily, the scope of this article). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Mackesy

Mackesy is cited by some editors as an RS who has seized upon this interpretation of the ARW, viz that a category of historiography acted as a concrete agent, cancer-like metastasizing into “conflict worldwide”. But that is not Mackesy, it is Lockwood. Academic journals reviewing Lockwoods thesis condemn his connecting dots where there are no connections; he was found not “discovering” connections, but making them up. The historians damned the literary effort with faint praise, crediting the author as “a good story-teller”.

Mackesy does not, NO: "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 [British] enemy were the Bourbons [the kings of France and Spain].

- Mackesy’s focus is GB and GB’s wars; the Anglo-American, Anglo-French, Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-Dutch wars, which are contemporaneous shooting wars among all four ONLY from 1780-1781. - - - NOT the scope of this article, ARW 1775-1783.

- * Or rather, three of the European Great Powers' and their world at war sorting Euro balance of power, yet again, in the ongoing Anglo-French Second Hundred Years' War 1689-1815. That is something else again than military history for ARW 1775-83. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Stockley

Stockley is very careful about the “American Revolution” as a term as it may relate to British diplomacy in Paris 1782-1784: “The task of making peace and ending what has become known as the ‘War of American Independence’ was to require the attention of no fewer than five British ministries.” [Stockley, 1] Again Stockley’s focus is British diplomatic history 1782-84, NOT military history, ARW 1775-83. The ARW is a GB v US-FR conflict over independence from 1775 to 1783 in North America.

“[For Britain], the War of American Independence involved armed conflict … in all four quarters of the world.” [Stockley, 4] - - But all British conflict everywhere was not ARW shooting war: - - “By 1782, Lord North as first lord of the Treasury had to deal with [1] armed rebellion in North America from 1775, and … outbreak of war [2] with France in 1778, [3] with Spain in 1779, and [4] with the Netherlands towards the end of 1780.” [Stockley, 1] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well said. The ARW involved Britain in some theaters outside the continent, like the West Indies, but certainly not everywhere Britain happened to become involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Your collective edits over the past month have worsened the NPOV issue even more. The vast majority of sources treat the campaigns in Europe as part of the American Revolutionary War. To assert otherwise is fringe. The mere statement that Yorktown was the last battle of the war" is blatantly incorrect, there were other battles in the North American theater alone well after Yorktown such as Wayne's Savannah Campaign and the Battle of Blue Licks, not to mention the Battle of the Saintes.XavierGreen (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No, as all can see, XavierGreen has NOT referenced A SINGLE RS in eight weeks, only amorphous "vast majority" and "all" invisible wanna-be citations of indistinct referral. Further, there is NO LINK in over eight weeks' discussion to an undisclosed RfC barring reference either to Encyclopedia Britannica "American Revolutionary War" or to Routledge Dictionary of War “American Revolution (1775-83)”.

Both those RS say Yorktown was the last major battle in the ARW. It tipped Parliament and Crown for an early American peace settlement with the US (to focus on revenge against the French, who were duly humiliated at the conclusion of the Anglo-French War (1778), again after the last Peace of Paris (1763) ... a bad run of French fortunes in the Euro Second Hundred Years' War).

point-by-point discussion :Both say the ARW was a GB v US-FR conflict over Thirteen Colony independence conducted in North America, 1775-1783. Both say that Yorktown was the final, crucial battle of the war that tipped Parliament and King to announce for American peace and independence; neither claims a [[Battle of the Saintes|battle] conducted AFTER the US Congress unanimously adopts British peace, independence, and territory to the Mississippi. Congress promptly defunds its army, navy, and furloughs its army home . . . neither scholarly reference proclaims any other battle of the Anglo-French War with news arriving AFTER Congress resolves for peace it to be chronicled as a part of the ARW --- no other source says so tmk, and in any case, NONE has been provided to date.

= ie, The US, ESPECIALLY as of April 1783, has NO treaty obligation to defeat Britain for French or Spanish imperial gain. Neither as diplomatic maneuver nor by military necessity is it required to continue war AFTER it accepts peace with Britain granting independence and territory to the Mississippi River. NONE is implied in the eyes of the world when Congress sends its army and navy home immediately thereafter, not Vienna, Austria, not in Mysore, India, YOU SEE.

- Repeated mis-characterization CONTINUES in the face of direct quotes at links provided: Stockley. Mis-stating Stockley as confounding "throughout" his book is wp:error on the face of it: Supposing, in error, that Stockley says that 1) BRITAIN v US-FR over American Independence (American War of Independence) is the self-same conflict as 2a,b) BRITAIN v FR-SP and 3) BRITAIN v DR, is wp:error. STOCKLEY does NOT.

That is, the mis-representation is a misreading of Stockley's sentence structure in a direct quote, as sourced and linked: “By 1782, Lord North ... had to deal with 1) armed rebellion in North America from 1775, AND ... outbreak of war 2a) with France in 1778, 2b) with Spain in 1779, AND ... 3) with the Netherlands towards the end of 1780.” [Stockley, 1,4]

- So, we need an RfC to the Military Project to establish the scope of the ARW: "A North American conflict 1775-1783, between GB and US as the principal combatants over US independence, and concluded between the two at the Treaty of Paris (1783)." Then we can proceed here without further controversy. We can accept the editorial authority of Encyclopedia Britannica and other RS that are cited and linked supported by direct quotes, WITHOUT disruptive assertions on Talk that are supported unnamed, uncited, and wp:fringe authority of a Wiki-editor alone. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As you know I have already posted over a dozen sources above. You and Gwillhickers have both thus far have failed to produce a single source which states that the campaigns in Europe and the Caribbean involving France were part of any conflict other than the American Revolutionary War.XavierGreen (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

All citations purporting to expand the scope of the ARW between GB & US-FR in N.Am. over independence and sovereignty to the Mississippi were made by our Lord Cornwallis, who is NOT temperamentally XavierGreen AT ALL;

AGAIN, who sent for you, to call the work of another editor your own ?! In any case all but one in the Lord Cornwallis-provided bibliography were refuted as misconstrued by direct quotes and links above, and they are unanswered here at Talk for over 9 weeks. Do you post here without reading other editors and ignoring their references?

point-by-point discussion :::Both editors are trying in wp:good faith to reason with sourcing. In this thread alone there are several links with direct quotes to substantiate a SIGNIFICANT body of scholarship defining the ARW as "A North American conflict 1775-1783, between GB and US as the principal combatants over US independence, concluded between the two at the Treaty of Paris (1783)."

All wars that Britain fights at the same time are not the same war. Why persist in imagining Stockley does NOT distinguish between (1) GB-US American Revolutionary War, (2) GB-FR-SP Anglo-French War, (3) GB-DR Fourth Anglo-Dutch War:

READ THE TEXT: “By 1782, Lord North ... had to deal with 1) armed rebellion in North America from 1775, AND ... outbreak of war 2a) with France in 1778, 2b) with Spain in 1779, AND ... 3) with the Netherlands towards the end of 1780.”

See the RS published at the University of Exeter Press that our Lord Cornwallis - NOT YOU - provided. On page 1, confirm it on your own, Britain and France at the Birth of America: The European Powers and the Peace Negotiations of 1782-1783. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Images

TVH — Guidelines also mentions that images can be placed to the left in cases of stacking, crowding, etc. Sometimes adding a 'clear' template results in a large empty white space. Nearly all articles with multiple images in the sections stagger an image to the left where called for. If this is a pressing issue for you, I'll go along, as we have bigger fish to fry. :-)   -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No thanks, but if I may, I'd like to reserve the favor for another time ...

Until I find the reference on the visual advantages for aligning all images to the right, I am happy to defer to the practice of staggering images at three images elsewhere. As you say, all of this will be picked over from several angles at the next article review . . . that's a GOOD collegial thing (and NOT wp:bully) . . .

Just ruminating now, but "stacking" may be an editorial term referring to MORE than three images aligned, so it may not apply to only two or three; and, the 'clear' template results in a large empty white space usually when there are fewer than 350 words in the section - - like that of Peace of Paris in the article Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War. I think the section as of now has no 'clear' template, so it bleeds into the next section (yuk). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

ARW Infobox flags +

I’ve edited the Infobox here to prepare for removal of the article NPOV tag by first removing challenged Infobox items WITHOUT BACKUP at Talk for 30+ days by either a reliable source, or an RfC consensus cited for them.

Per a previous contributing editor note: To complete Infobox, see for reference Savas, Theodore P. and David J. Dameron. A Guide to the Battles of the American Revolution (2006), Savas Beatie LLC. ISBN 978-1-6112-1011-8.. Contains a detailed listing of American, French, British, German, and Loyalist regiments; indicates when they were raised, the main battles, and what happened to them. Also includes the main warships on both sides, And all the important battles. - posted, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

The changes you've proposed for the info-box seem more than fair, but at this late date I'd recommend that you'd just make the changes and if there are any vialble, or other, objections they will present themselves. Consensus to focus on the actual war for independence is behind you. Respectfully, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, I did not mean to become overly defensive; I'll maintain the backup at my desktop 'available on demand'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Move 'Great Powers' to 'Diplomacy'

Re: previous threads about moving the ‘Great Powers’ section to a ‘Diplomacy’ focused article.

For reference here and for editors at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, here are elements from previous posted discussion related to the section ‘Great Powers’, copyedited for continuity. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

INSERT

I have tagged as DISPUTED, the sub-subsection 'International war breaks out' # Great Powers at war 1778-1784. The elaborated narrative that I’ve recently copyedited with a gallery of major Euro players, belongs more properly in a section about the Revolutionary War for DIPLOMATIC context as discussed in several threads here at Talk over the last two months.

PROPOSE: move it to Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War under the section Treaty of Paris. The transferred material can then be referenced here as in a top-hat 'See main article' citation. That will shorten this already somewhat overly-long article.

Tangential diplomatic history among European Great Powers and their respective related military operations does NOT belong in an article with a focus of the "American Revolutionary War", between Great Britain and its thirteen rebelling colonies in Congress, 1775-1783 ... as cited at the mainstream scholarly reference, Encyclopedia Britannica. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• TVH, thanks for your well informed efforts. You've tagged it, and are claiming it belongs in a different article, to which I generally agree. Also, the article is now at an all time high in terms of article size -- 108k of readable prose. I would recommend that some trimming is in order -- per the actual war/battles that the article should focus on. The article now seems to be a bit involved in the various treaty details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: We are agreed.

- 1. I've just now cut the narrative text at "British defeat in America" more than half, another 500-600 words. -2. But I tagged my take on the DIPLOMATIC Euro Great Power situation as it only TOUCHED ON the ARW, Congress & US independence from Britain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• In terms of treaties, it would seem we should confine our efforts to the basics of the Treaty of Paris, with links to the other treaties. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

AGREED. In the previous section International war breaks out amounting to 832 words without illustration, I made a TWO element take-away for FUTURE overall-article editing. (1) A section to STAY of 408 words. It is DIRECTLY related to ARW military operations and events immediately connected to the ARW and its outcome of American independence and territory at the Peace of Paris (1783): North America, east of the Mississippi River.

(2) A section to MOVE to another article related to diplomacy among Euro Great Powers, a section of 733 words, with five appropriate images to illustrate the passage. I mean to ultimately TRIM 424 words. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

END INSERT

ALSO: The entire discussion above directly applies to the article's Aftermath section, "Preliminary agreements". They relate entirely to the DIPLOMATIC back-and-forth in PARIS, preliminary to the Treaty of Paris, NOT to the conflict of the ARW. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

MOVED 'Preliminary agreements' to 'Diplomacy'

I've MOVED the diplomatically focused section 'Preliminary agreements' relative to the Treaty of Paris here, to Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, in the Treaty of Paris section.  Done. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

MOVED 'Great Powers' to 'Diplomacy'

I have merged content FROM American Revolutionary War#Great Powers here TO Peace of Paris, ‘Great Powers at war’, [here]. See Move 'Great Powers' to 'Diplomacy'| discussion.  Done TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Good moves, but I'm wondering if the moved sections have any general statements we may want to precede the 'Treaty of Paris' section with. e.g. I believe the opening statement in the former Preliminary agreements section would fit in well contextually. Your call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a look-see tomorrow. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Infoxbox 'co-belligerent' Spain

At the Infobox here, I've (a) at "US commanders1": ADD Gen. Bernardo Gálvez per Talk 5-wks ago @ 4 mentions;

- and REMOVE Capt. Parker, initially listed there IMO as someone who gained prominence as a "first", rather than someone who emerges as an ARW "major" figure by a review of the six-year conflict. Reference Talk 4-wks ago, @ 1 mention in the article.

and, (b) After two-weeks of study among the RS recommended to us by our Lord Cornwallis, AND a review of Talk threads by contributors Canute and Dimadick, AND DESPITE previous reservations due to extensive unfounded claims of an ARW unnamed and unaccounted for AGENCY, spreading itself "into a war worldwide" as argued at Talk and in the narrative,

I determined to be wp:BOLD, and re-introduce SPAIN into the "US belligerents" column, qualified as a "co-belligerent" and qualified in its role fighting Britain for the two years 1779-1781 in the Mississippi River Basin at a Note. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

co-belligerent works fine, and is more comprehensive in terms of Spain's actual involvement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020

In the casualties section of the infobox, it says that French total dead (in the footnote labelled "m") are included for "1178-1784." It's kinda goofy, but it should be changed to "1778-1784". 2601:85:C101:BA30:453F:7AA4:A984:838E (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Good eye. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And all this time I thought the war had lasted 606 years.  :-)   -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

HAH! "No slack for the weary." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Dutch Involvement in the American Revolutionary War

The Dutch had begun fortifying the Americans with supplies as early as 1774. They harbored American ships in Amsterdam, and provided the Americans with naval stores from their Caribbean colonies. They were sympathetic to the Americans from the very beginning of the revolutionary crusade.

They aroused great ire from England for their persistent aiding of the Americans despite ostensible "neutrality", and were attacked by England on several occasions for this very reason. This culminated into what the Dutch themselves called the "American War" in 1780.

Why were they removed as co-belligerents?

See - archive.org/details/dutchrepublic00edlerich

021120x (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the capacity of Dutch involvement, not to mention their strong moral support, I tend to agree that they also should be listed as co-belligerents, perhaps with a short footnote for clarity. e.g.The Dutch harbored American ships, provided funding and supplies and moral support throughout the war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

AGREED, "Co-belligerent" works as qualified. But NOT 'belligerent', (a) though the Dutch are explicitly invited to join in the Franco-American treaty to guarantee US independence, the Dutch did NOT join or guarantee independence; and (b) the Infobox should NOT list the Dutch Stadtholder as a field commander in America, indicating that he militarily helped to determine the expanse of US territory (as did Galvez assisting British cession of western Quebec) at the Treaty of Paris (1783) between Britain and the US - - to which the Dutch were NOT signatory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

International angle

I read this article for the first time today and thought it was pretty good. I was going to make one comment about the international context, but, having scanned this talk page wasn’t so sure that’s a good idea to do that! Nevertheless I’ll go ahead and make the comment (gulp) but won’t involve myself any further. I did think it would benefit from a short section headed something like “International context”, with a link, as main article, to Anglo-French War (1778–1783) just to clarify more crisply how it did form part of a broader international conflict, without losing it’s North American singularity. There is some of that scattered around e.g. some of the content of the sub-sections headed “France” and “British America and Empire” would work better in such a section. As I say, the article reads pretty well but I think it would benefit from a little (and I mean a little) more of that context for background. DeCausa (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. We already have a Foreign intervention section where we outline the various foreign involvements. Throughout the article people like Lafayette, von Steuben, Rochambeau and other such foreign dignitaries are worked into the narrative. The Treaty of Paris section also outlines the various foreign entities involved in the negotiations for peace.  [Add] — The article also has a rather large section, i.e. theNorth Ministry collapses, devoted to the involvements of Lord North, the Carlisle Peace Commission, Edward Gibbon, William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne and other British involvements and concerns. — However, we are always open to suggestions, keeping focus of course on the actual struggle for/against independence between Britain and the soon to be United States. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear DeCausa: This article is meant to focus on the military history of the ARW conflict between GB & US-FR, 1775-1783, fought over US independence in America. To defer to the importance (dominance) of two scholarly references in the English-speaking world globally, we wish to give wp:DUE WEIGHT editorially to Encyclopedia Britannica “American Revolutionary War, (1775-83)” and the Routledge Dictionary of War “American Revolution (1775-83)”.

They omit ANY reference to the Anglo-French War (1778–1783), whereas we NOW have several mentions in the ARW article, going OVERBOARD to collegially accommodate ALL editorial views within the wp:FRINGES of mainstream historiography, and free of any taint from 19th century historian exceptionalism, triumphalism, or imperial bias. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Your answer feels like you are addressing one of the sides in this esoteric and deeply uninteresting argument on this talk page. For that reason I don’t find an answer to my point in your reply. I’m making a simple “typical reader” type point. You have a smattering of references at different points in the article as to how the Revolutionary War intersects militarily with the preeminent global conflict of the time. It’s commonsense to make that linkage but to make it accessible to readers it would also make sense to gather it in one short section and explain what that intersection is (or isn’t) in a succinct summary. It’s got nothing to do with whether or not “Gibraltar” or “Mysore” was part of the war or not, or whatever it is you lot are arguing about (of which I have no clue nor interest). I don’t have this talk page (or article) on my watchlist so, happily, I don’t expect to be back again. DeCausa (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@DeCausa: You expressed a concern over "International context”. It was pointed out for you that there is already a large Foreign intervention section, that there is coverage of a variety of people from different parts of the world involved in the revolution, militarily, politically and diplomatically, along with the involvements of several countries at the Treaty of Paris, all with plenty of linkage. If this doesn't amount to an "international angle" for you you should have been more specific as to what topics and such you'd like to see covered, rather than skirting points in the discussion and carrying on in a rather insulting manner. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve already explained twice. It’s scattered and incoherent and needs to be brought into a single section giving an overview. Please don’t ping me again: the attitudes and approach of the editors on this talk page are appalling and I don’t want any further involvement. DeCausa (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Since your initial appearance here you've been addressed in a collegial manner, so there's really no call for rancor, insults and sweeping accusations, thank you. The focus of the article, per its title, American Revolutionary War, is on the struggle for and against independence between Britain and the soon to be United States. Any "foreign" involvement is covered in the appropriate sections, along with two entire sections highlighting foreign involvements. The article doesn't need yet another dedicated section for foreign involvements. Thank you for setting the example of how the tone of the discussions should occur. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

REPLY to DeCausa: re: your assessment above: “You have a smattering … as to how the Revolutionary War intersects militarily with the preeminent global conflict of the time” – you indicated that to be the 1778-83 Anglo-French War. But you seem unfamiliar with the connection between that war and “Gibraltar” when you assert, any discussion elsewhere here of that war has ”got nothing to do with whether or not “Gibraltar” … was part of the war.”, a way of belittling the discussions at this Talk. Well FYI, Gibraltar was guaranteed by France to Spain by treaty to secure a Spanish alliance to invade Britain and recover empire lost at the 1763 Treaty of Paris, and that is how Spain became a co-belligerent with the US making war on Britain in North America, which in turn, is of some interest here at ARW because it is in the scope of the article.

CONTEXT # 1. In the “long view” of Euro military history, there is an ongoing 1689-1815 Second Hundred Years' War of more years’ war than peace between Britain and France, which is an overarching context of military history that you seem unconcerned about - - it's hard to figure out "where you're coming from". Giving a direct quote with a link to RS is very useful for establishing credibility on this Talk page, avoiding bald assertions without any sourcing. It's a sort of "grounding" thing for reasonable discussion.

CONTEXT # 2. In the Britannia encyclopedic overview for the general reader of the times and the topic, “United Kingdom, Britain from 1754-1783” by the pre-eminent British scholar Linda J. Colley, there is NO mention of wp:DeCausa's “preeminent global conflict of the time”; it is literally all about “The American Revolution”, in America, American waters, and at home in Britain.

In “Britain 1783-1815”, the next Britannica section on the topic, Colley makes brief mention of the contextual significance of that Anglo-French War for the general reader, viz "In February 1783 Britain made a far from disadvantageous peace with its European enemies ... France was given settlements in Senegal and Tobago, but Britain recovered other West Indian islands lost during the war.” I hope this helps you on your way. Good health in COVID year one. Sincerely - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That post is everything that’s wrong this page. Don’t ping me again. DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "everything that’s wrong this page" (the offended editor was "mentioned", not "pinged").

(1) SUBSTANTIVELY, editors here resort to Britannica and Routledge as mainstream scholarly references in the English language without American bias, but then an objection is registered WITHOUT counter information to discuss it, no direct quote, no RS reference, no link as suggested for rational discussion here; and

(2) PROCEDURALLY, a collegial alternative is offered to embrace one fly-by editor's interest in an Anglo-French war, by encompassing all of them 1689-1815 in a BRITISH historiographical context instead, but then no engagement, only preemptive wiki-talk dismissal of the intended Wikipedia editorial processs. Farewell. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• A reminder, and for the sake of new-comers to the article/talk page: The focus of this article, per its title as spelled out in bold in the lede, is the American Revolutionary War or American War of Independence, involving the struggle for/against American independence between Britain and the American colonies. There is no longer a dedicated section for Washington, Howe, Clinton, et al. These individuals and their involvements are covered, in terms of the war for independence, in the various appropriate sections. Likewise, we don't have a dedicated section for Britain's other global involvements and other "international" affairs – we cover any such involvements in the various appropriate sections where there is a direct connection to the war for/against independence. The "International angle" is already well summarized in a fair number of sections, not to mention the Foreign intervention and Treaty of Paris sections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

For this article to get anywhere near GA status, let alone further, it must include in its coverage the campaigns in Europe, the Caribbean, and the Indian subcontinent. Your attempts to argue otherwise are impermissible synthesis.XavierGreen (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Once again, the Mysore War, in India, was a completely different war which didn't end until the year after the ARW had officially ended. How could it have been part of the ARW? This question has been submitted to you several times now and you have yet to give us your explanation. The Gibraltar campaign was a war declared by Spain against Britain for no other reason than to gain control of Gibraltar, having nothing to do with the struggle for American independence, yet the article mentions this campaign for historical context anyways, along with other international involvements, so I'm not quite understanding your complaint. Is it your intention to have two dedicated sections for Europe, India and the Americas all over again? To claim Britain's other global affairs are automatically part of the ARW is the only synthesis, not to mention POV pushing, occurring around here. Perhaps one of these days you'll try to explain how e.g.the Mysore War is related to the ARW other than to assert that Britain happened to be fighting it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This article improves with editor contributions that are substantive and cited to RS. (1) There is no RfC dismissing Britannica as an RS here. (2) There is no RS asserting that the French-Spanish treaty for Spain to join the Anglo-French War can commit the US to make war on Britain until Spain takes Gibraltar. It is not a part of the ARW because the US does not sign it, and its armies are all furloughed home.

- Britain offers and the US accepts peace, independence, and territory west to the Mississippi, beyond the French proposed Appalachian ridge, and without giving up Georgia to Spain. The end of the AWR is a done deal before the final assault on Gibraltar, AND before the Battle of the Saintes. Recall: History is a study to understand events by using chronological order as an organizational procedure.

- World history forward is to be, by-and-large after the War of 1812, just as RS report KING GEORGE III to have said on December 5, 1782 before a public joint session of Parliament (linked ABOVE) "Religion, language, interest, affections may, and I hope will, yet prove a bond of permanent union between the two [GB & US] countries.". -- See the Timeline to Peace in the section BELOW. The article will just have to advance without XavierGreen. Que lástima! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Resolution needed, continued

Currently there is an important continuation of the discussion from an above section that occurred a couple of weeks ago. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

ARW peace TIMELINE

Let’s not be American-centric. Look at the end of the ARW from the BRITISH point of view.

1782 was the pivotal year there, one week was critically important. (List updated from post five weeks ago):

- - Peace Timeline ending the ARW at the Treaty of Paris (1783) - -

1. Late 1780. Lord North recognized the inevitable loss of the American Thirteen Colonies.

2. November 1781. Lord North concluded, “Oh, God, it’s all over!” at news of the Yorktown defeat.

3. December 1781. Lord North defeated the bill to end the American colonial war by half-a-dozen votes.

4. March 1782. Parliament recommended that George III make US peace;

5. * November 30, 1782. Preliminary peace settlement was signed by British & US ministers at Paris.

6. * December 5, 1782. George III announced for US independence at a public joint session of Parliament.

"Religion, language, interest, affections may, and I hope will, yet prove a bond of permanent union between the two countries."

7. March 1783. Spain recognizes US independence by conclusive treaty.

8. April 1783. US Congress accepted the British peace proposal; it met their four requirements.

9. September 1783. Final "conclusive" peace was signed at Paris; Congress and Parliament ratified.

10. June 1784. The two ratifications were exchanged formally between GB & US ministers at Paris.

---

ADD Spain's recognition of US in their conclusive treaty: March 17,1783. ""This Treaty can be directed to four objects: one to recognize the independence, and this is not needed by them, nor is there any objection from the King to admit a Minister of Congress and send another ... With these the greatest recognition is made that is possible from a sovereign state." (Google Translate)

Just FYI reference for future discussion here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As outlined several times, and now here, there is plenty of coverage on the "international angle" in this article. At this point, after witnessing statements like ,"American independence was merely just one issue...", it seems that a couple of individuals will not be happy until the article presents the ARW as but a minor chapter in British history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't believe that France and Spain had other objectives in the American Revolutionary War than American independence, than please send me whatever your smoking.XavierGreen (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop. This sort of smug talk is only exasperating matters further. Show us where I have ever even hinted that France and Spain didn't have their own interests at heart. e.g. How many times has it been said that Spain declared war on Britain for control of Gibraltar, its own interests? The article also says that "France King Louis XVI feared that Britain's concessions would be accepted and bring reconciliation with the Colonies. Britain would then be free to strike at French Caribbean possessions" — "To assure assistance from France, independence would have to be declared."  This article has brought many an "international angle" into perspective, as has been outlined here in Talk several times. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

INSERT: wp:good faith reply, The Provisions of the Treaty of Aranjuez between France and Spain summarized: “Spain agreed to support France's war [the French-initiated Anglo-French War (1778)] with Britain, in return for French assistance in recovering Gibraltar, Menorca and Florida. One important feature of the Treaty was that Spanish forces would only attack British possessions outside the United States.” - Your former Cavendish tobacco pipe & cigar smoker, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

And, in an article titled the same as his book, Richard B. Morris, at “The Great Peace of 1783” (Proc. of the Mass. Hist. Soc. III, Vol. 95, 1983) clearly explained, “In 1778 France had two treaties with America, a treaty of alliance and a treaty of amity and commerce. Almost within a year [following France starting a war with Britain] France broke the spirit if not the letter of these two treaties by a secret alliance with Spain at Aranjuez … But even more serious: The Americans had not bound themselves to continue the war until Spain should have recovered Gibraltar, as the Franco-Spanish treaty pledged— although both France and America agreed to stay in the war to the end [for US independence];"

Morris (1983): “still less [had the US bound itself to war], until Spain should have carried out a policy hostile to their interests. In turn, Spain had refused to bind herself to continue in the war until American independence was achieved, although her ally was so committed.” (p.33) - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, XavierGreen. No substance, no citation, no quote, no link. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox: repair with caution

A previous editor cited a likely source we should explore to get our ARW casualty figures - those killed and wounded fighting in North America, the North Atlantic, and the Caribbean, 1775-1783 FOR OR AGAINST independence of the US, and related to the November 1782 Preliminary Peace between Britain and the US, signed as the Treaty of Paris (1783), with their respective ratifications exchanged April 1784.

Reference: David J. Dameron and Theodore P. Savas. A Guide to the Battles of the American Revolution (paper, 2010).

IT IS SAID TO "Contain a detailed listing of American, French, British, German, and Loyalist regiments; indicates when they were raised, the main battles, and what happened to them. Also includes the main warships on both sides, And all the important battles."

posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

---

The "total numbers" for casualties MISLEAD. They were posted by a previous contributor who used BRITISH and other war totals among FOUR Euro belligerents in (all THREE wars), 1775-1784: (1) the American Revolutionary War 1775-1783 (GB v US & FR); (2) the Anglo-French War (GB v FR & SP) 1778-1783, and (3) the Anglo-Dutch War 1780-1784 (GB v DR), encompassing the years of BRITISH Treasury expenditures for their army and navy 1775-1784.

That is, the Infobox "totals" are outside the ARW for the Euros. They are IN ADDITION TO those casualties associated with the ARW conflict itself (North America and North Atlantic), for or against US independence 1775-1783 (formally ended at the 1783 Peace of Paris between the British and the US as the only two signatories).

Editors can MISread the RS who write, but [precisely mean] the following: [For the BRITISH], colonial war in America [1775-1783] SPREAD [to wars with Britain] worldwide [when FRANCE initiated war on the British 1778, and SPAIN initiated war on the British 1779, and Britain initiated war on the DUTCH REPUBLIC 1780].

Unfortunately, the simple statement MISLEADS -- "colonial war in America spread worldwide" -- because it implies the ILLOGICAL idea that an abstraction of historiography "colonial war in America" had concrete agency to spread by itself, when in fact, ONLY the armies and navies among the warring NATIONS could have AGENCY in historical events. The term of logic that applies is the "reification" of a concept, one of the "historians' fallacies" that is easily to fall into, and one that editors here at ARW Wikipedia must guard against. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The mere fact that virtually all reliable source regarding casualty figures lump all combat theaters together for the totals is more evidence to the fact that your assertions that the "campaigns in Europe, the Carribean and India were not part of the war" is a blatent NPOV violation and further wiki:FRINGE violation.XavierGreen (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Virtually all"?? Since most reliable sources on the ARW don't mention e.g.Gibraltar, or only make a passing reference to it in terms of historical context, it's really hard to accept this broad-brushed claim. We cover these things in the same proportion as the greater majority of sources do. We don't fill up the article with two dedicated sections for India, Europe. etc. This has all been explained before. Once again, the article covers plenty of "international angles", yet you carry on as if none of these things are even mentioned -- and we're still waiting for an explanation as to how the Mysore War, which ended the year after the ARW, was part of the ARW. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, XavierGreen. No substance, no citation, no quote, no link.

"Virtually all RS", but not a single one to name; and all but one of the 20-odd that our Lord Cornwallis (not XavierGreen that cited above have been decisively shown to be misconstrued by XavierGreen, standing now for over nine weeks without a counter example. All theaters of war that Britain was engaged in for TWO YEARS: 1779-1781 (1779 - SP entry into Anglo-French War to 1781 - end of ARW hostilities in North America) are NOT lumped together after reading them.

The self-proclaimed research-by-browser-search-snippet that has been applied by XavierGreen is not recommended in English-speaking history graduate schools on any continent. WP:editors must read the full sentences from sources they claim to cite in support of their reasonable positions, so that they can acquire an basic understanding of what the author intends to communicate.

The reliable source that is linked and quoted from STOCKLEY above in his book's intro statement is underlined and color-coded above is all but sentence-diagrammed for you, a skill mastered by 11 year olds here once. There is - - for a two year period only - - simultaneous conflict with BRITAIN in three wars ("British"-centered, much?).

(1) ONE WAR with Britain, the ARW among GB v US-FR for and against US independence in N.America; (2) ONE WAR with Britain, the Anglo-French War among FR-SP v GB to re-litigate the imperial outcomes of the 1763 Peace; and (3) ONE WAR with Britain, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War GB v DR to end military aid to the rebelling Thirteen Colonies, for the most part funneled through trans-shipments at a Dutch Caribbean territory by all sources participating, private, commercial and national. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Clodfelter's Warfare and Armed Conflict

See for example pg. 133 and 134 of Clodfelter's Warfare and Armed Conflicts A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015, 4th Ed., [[1]] this is considered a premier source for casualty figures in armed conflicts. Its editions are regularly cited by the US Government's Congressional Research Service [[2]] and the Rand Corporation [[3]] in their reports. Clodfelter aggregates British, French and Spanish casualties for all theaters of the war, just as practically all other sources do on the subject of casualties do.XavierGreen (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Clodfelter's work, (a general account of war casualties over the last 500+ years, not a work on the ARW) indeed involves casualties, and in particular, those that involved Britain during the ARW and the Siege at Gibraltar, but I'm not seeing where he refers to those wars as the same war – not even a passing reference, let alone a viable explanation. Citing all the casualties for a given time period in British history doesn't automatically make the episodes involved part of the same war. There has to be a common major cause involved to make the episodes "part of" the same thing. Gibraltar had noting to do with the fight for/against American independence. It wasn't even a factor when Prime Minister Shelburne settled up with John Jay, in London, leading to American independence, fully recognized by the British Crown. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Clodefelter's references to Gibraltar come under the chapter heading of Eighteenth Century, Spanish Campaigns, beginning on p. 129 - 132, with no references to the Revolutionary War. Clodefelter only uses the term "global conflicts" in reference to Britain's involvements for the time period in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• The American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics you also linked to here doesn't mention Gibraltar once. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Larson's work, CASUALTIES AND CONSENSUS, The Historical Role of Casualties in Domestic Support for U.S. Military Operations, also, doesn't mention Gibraltar once. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Now you are being blatantly disingenuous, Clodfelter clearly begins his section on the American Revolutionary War on page 124 and continues with an entire summary of the war ending on page 134, he gives an analysis of casualties from each belligerent and plainly includes in the summaries all theaters, for example he clearly states in the first paragraph of page 134 that the majority of Spanish casualties in the war occured at the Battle of Cape St. Vincent. The CRS and Rand reports i cited show that Clodfelter is a widely used and reliable source, as the United States Government itself and its contractors use it. No where did I say that the CRS and Rand report reference Gibraltar.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as was clearly said, Clodfelter makes reference to all the casualties involved with the British for the time period in question. On what page does Clodefelter, a "widely used source", as you claim, actually connect the ARW with Gibraltar with an actual explanation, the point of this discussion, as you of course remember? If we must use such personal attacks as "blatantly disingenuous", explain to us how it is that you cite two other sources that don't even mention Gibraltar? Out of your sense of sincerity? While we're at it, please explain how the Mysore war, which ended the year after the ARW officially ended, was part of the ARW. This has been asked of you more times than I care to count, yet all we're getting is fuzzy digressions, while you continue to ignore most of the sources and explanations that have been afforded you, over and again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

We must not allow ourselves to become nationalist-centric in any direction. Everything everywhere is not always BRITISH and therefore the same thing. CLODFELTER is an RS whom we mutually admire. At his article beginning on page 124, "War of the American Revolution: 1775-1783" astutely distinguishes between (a) the BRITISH war for colonies in North America against rebels there, 1775-1781, and (b) 1780-1784, BRITISH conflicts overseas in other wars with other belligerents set to other purposes apart from immediate BRITISH considerations of the US Congress and its “independence army” in North America.

- Editors must read the references they cite. On page 128 of Warfare and Armed Conflicts, Clodfelter makes the scholarly DISTINCTION between “the American Revolutionary War” with GB & US as belligerents, SEPARATE and apart from “the global "War of the American Revolution”, which he then denominates with headers of “overseas” . . . about the BRITISH conflicts with French, Spanish and Dutch ELSEWHERE ... by which he means overseas from the BRITISH North American conflict with Congress, and NOT everywhere overseas from BRITAIN as a MASH-UP of all of Asia, Africa, Europe and North America as the same BRITISH-only interests worldwide. - - We must NOT become nationalists, with everything BRITISH all the time for every place in the world: "the sun never sets", etc.

- Here at ARW, editors have a relatively NARROW focus on the military aspects of the American Revolutionary War, as the title of the article implies to the general reader, and so it should be understood by editors seeking to make wp:good faith contributions here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh does he now? Lets step back to reality, he explicitly includes in his summary of the entire American Revolutionary War the campaigns in the Carribean, Europe, and India. He explicitly lists every major naval action occurring in Europe and the Caribbean as being in the American Revolutionary War, on page 135 he lists every major naval battle of the American Revolutionary War, and includes Ranger v. Drake and the Battle of Chesapeake Capes right along with the Battle of Cape St. Vincent and the Battle of Sadras.XavierGreen (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Look at section headings in Clodfelter, our mutually acknowledge RS. Naval Operations: 1775-79 he says, “In 1778 the American Revolutionary War became the global War of the American Revolution” at France declaring war on Britain in the Anglo-French War. Naval and Overseas Campaigns: 1780-83 he says, “While the campaigns of the southern colonies [in the American Revolution] played out, the wider global conflict [against Britain elsewhere] continued.” And later, “In late 1780, Britain acquired yet another enemy when the Netherlands declared war [elsewhere].”

- Following mainstream historiographical convention, Clodfelter chose to follow the DISTINCTION between the American Revolutionary War and conflict elsewhere for other imperial purpose: LAND WARFARE is distinguished “Major Battles: land (North America), and Major Battles: land (outside of North America). The Clodfelter section titled, “Major Battles: NAVAL” conflates events related to the “American Revolutionary War” with his historiographic innovation without the ususal distinctions made for conflicts on land, by EXPLICITLY coining the global “WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”.

- Maybe Clodfelter's new “War of the American Revolution” will be widely adopted in the future as has the British historiographic period from 1689 to 1815, the "Second Hundred Years' War". But wait, MAINSTREAM Britannica has adopted NEITHER an entry for J.R. Seeley’s “Second Hundred Years' War” NOR one for “Clodfelter’s “War of the American Revolution”. Wikipedia editorial consensus to date has SUPPRESSED the global “War of the American Revolution”, redirecting the title search into “American Revolutionary War”. Here, at the military treatment of the ARW, is NOT the place to overthrow the broader political consensus there, IMO. @Gwillhickers: Another topic for the RfC bundle, and counting. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No where in the text does Clodfelter use the term Anglo-French War, and neither you nor any other editor has shown a single source at all which uses that term. The "section headings" you refer to are subsections of his entire eleven page section on the American Revolutionary War, if one follows your logic than you yourself would have to argue that the Southern Campaign 1780 is an entirely separate war from the American Revolution. Stop acting in bad faith.XavierGreen (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

INSERT & REPLY: @XavierGreen: hiding your post inside mine is bad form, sorry I missed it before. The Library of Congress uses the category "Anglo-French War" for RS and popular literature on the topic. Any scholar fluent in English will avail themselves of its resources relative to North Atlantic history during the 1770-1790 period.

CLODFELTER says that the "Southern Campaign" of the British in North America is within the American Revolution, and so do I. He adds that British VICTORY at the Battle of the Saintes and the Siege of Gibraltar are "overseas" from the ARW in his terms; they are a part of his "WoAR": a global European conflict he calls the "War of the American Revolution". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this article should be consistent with the greater WP consensus. While Clodfelter, along with many other remote episodes, lumps in casualties for Gibraltar under the ARW, he makes no attempt to connect the two wars, which were fought for their own specific reasons. We'll need much more than a casualty listing to refer to these two separate conflicts as "part of" the same cause, or war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-French War (1778–1783)

Aside from an article with this name there are indeed sources that use this more accurate term to categorize the Great Siege of Gibraltar.

• In a work by Michael T. McMaster, Strategy in the American War of Independence: A Global Approach, 2009, he refers to the Anglo-French war
• Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage uses this term.

This source refers to the general period of warfare between France from the period of 1869 to 1815. It does not refer to the hostilities between Britain and France from 1778 to 1783 as the "Anglo-French War".XavierGreen (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Syrett, The Royal Navy in European Waters During the American Revolutionary War] Makes reference to the The Anglo-French War of 1778 The title of the book refers to the ARW, but it doesn't refer to the Siege of Gibraltar as such, it only mentions it in terms of the same time period. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

DISRUPTION relocation: The posting enthusiast correctly says McMaster's use of "Anglo-French War" refers to Gibraltar as warfare in Europe between Britain and France, and not to the overall conflict between Britain and Congress in the American Revolution. But it broke up another editor's post with the following: "He does not use the term in relation to the name of the overall conflict, he refers to the warfare between england and france. This is clearly evident as he does not have the letter w capitalized in the word "war". Hence he is not using it as a proper name. Furthermore, the book itself states that its subject matter is the "American Revolutionary War".XavierGreen (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

As you yourself say, this book purports itself to be about the history of the British Navy during the American Revolutionary war. It uses the term "Anglo-French war of 1778" once in the entire book. It does not attach that phrase to its coverage of the Great Siege of Gibraltar. Congratulations, you've found a mere two published sources that refers to the term "Anglo-French war" in passing, while are literally hundreds if not thousands of scholarly works that reference the campaigns outside North America as being part of the "American Revolutionary War" or "American War for Independence"[[4]]. Clearly the principals behind Wikipedia:CommonName, Anglo-French War is not (by a long shot) used as a common name for the campaigns in question.XavierGreen (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC):::

• I presented three, and I wouldn't be so smug. You claimed that no sources use the term. Here's another from the The International History Review. It is a somewhat common term, and WP has an article by that name, Anglo-French War (1778–1783), where Gibraltar is well covered. The bottom line remains unchanged: Spain declared War on Britain, years after the ARW had started, for its own reason: Gibraltar. That makes it a separate war, regardless of what heading Clodfelter chose to list its casualties under. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• The huge generic references are getting to be a bit much. No one said that there were no references to campaigns outside north America, so the inference that this has been asserted by anyone is way off. Our only contention is that many of them were not part of the ARW, including the Mysore War. Clodfelter also has the Mysore war listed under the ARW, so it goes that we'll need more than a simple chapter title to determine what war is part of any other war. We're still waiting for your explanation as to how the Mysore War, which ended the year after the ARW, can be a part of that war. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hostilities in India and the Indian Ocean ended months after the peace was signed because it took literally months for word of peace to arrive. There were no telegraphs, phones, planes, or cars in 1783, if one wanted to get a message half way across the world it took a significant amount of time to get it there by ship. Once the French received word of peace, they ceased hostilities and without French support Mysore was forced to enter peace with Britain as well. This type of delay occured in practically every colonial era conflict that had combat in the Indian theater. For example, in the War of 1812, American cruisers operating in the Indian Ocean did not receive word that the war had ended until 6 months after the peace was signed, see Capture of East India Company ship Nautilus.XavierGreen (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Insert :  Well, thanks at least for finally making an attempt to address this. However, it didn't take six months to sail to India. The voyage could have been made in about two weeks. Like Gibraltar, the Mysore War was fought for its own reasons, having nothing to do with the cause of independence, the very reason why the Americans declared war against Britain. The Mysore war ended in 1784 with the Treaty of Mangalore. This is not to say that the Treaty of Paris did not factor, heavily, into the negotiations at Mangalore, but this still doesn't make that war part of the ARW. Please read the opening sentence in the lede on the Mysore War page. It was a war that lasted three decades, between the Kingdom of Mysore and the East India Company -- a series of wars that occurred long before the ARW, and lasted beyond the ARW/Treaty of Paris. All things considered, these attempts to lump in some half of 18th century history to the ARW, and as but chapters in British history are largely unfounded, and are not the focus of this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I had addressed this previously and provided a source, but TVH apparently buried it in a flurry of irrelevant quips. Mysore began hostilities with Great Britain as a direct result of the British offensive against Pondicherry and other french establishments in India that occurred as a result of France's entry into the American Revolutionary War. The ruler of Mysore was infuriated that France, its primary ally and source of European trade goods, was completely eliminated from the subcontinent. He demanded that the British return certain towns to French control. The British refused so he launched his offensive against the British. While scholars are mixed on how they treat the Second Anglo-Mysore War, they all acknowledge that it was intertwined with the American Revolutionary War and as such it should be mentioned on this page.XavierGreen (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Britain was concerned about its interests in India, as was the ruler of Mysore, where the French were concerned. You have just outlined how the Mysore War had nothing to do with the ARW and the struggle for American independence, again, the reason that war was declared by the Americans. You keep avoiding that glaring fact. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Also your statement that it took 2 weeks to sail to india in the 1780's is unsourced and ridiculous. There was no Suez canal in the 1780's and no steam propulsion, vessels had to travel around the cape of good hope. It is well sourced that sailing voyages from England to India in the 1700's and early 1800's took between 4 to 6 months depending on the winds. [[ It is also well sourced that the French and British ceased hostilities in India in July of 1783, because news of the preliminary peace in January had not reached them until then. [[5]]

Regardless of how long it took to get to India, the Mysore Wars lasted decades, was its own war fought for its own reasons and, like Gibraltar, didn't factor into the peace agreement struck between Britain and the United States who negotiated their agreements without Spain and France, per John Jay and P.M. Shelburn. It was recognition of American independence and land east of the Mississippi that is what the Americans were concerned about, by far. Gibraltar and Mysore were Britain's concerns, and are not the focus of this article, which is the war fought for/against American independence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

FIRST, the RIGHT of it for XavierGreen, Anglo-French War 1778 is an indexed category at the Library of Congress, that includes Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Major Operations of the Navies in the War of Independence (1912, 2020).

To choose RS already cited in the ARW article, authors Donald Stoker, Kenneth J. Hagan, and Michael T. McMaster edited Strategy in the American War of Independence: A Global Approach. Kenneth J. Hagan, professor at the USNA, uses the term “Anglo-French War” 1778 in “The Birth of American Naval Strategy”, Australian John Reeve, at UNSW, Sydney does so in “British military strategy”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Second, the WRONG of it for XavierGreen, "American Revolutionary War", 'ARW' is not the Clodfelter (2017) 'WAR', "War of American Revolution:1775-1783". - Also, a friendly procedural warning, Stop breaking up my posts with a reply. Post yours after mine, or it may be seen as wp:disruption by others.

- The topic sentence for "Southern Campaigns: 1778-79" is, "In late 1778 the focus of the war in America shifted to the south." I do not suggest that campaigns at Savannah and Kettle Creek GA are "entirely separate war from the American Revolution", as you would have it. Two sections later, "Southern and Western Campaigns: 1780-83" has a topic sentence: "In the American colonies the war intensified in the south during 1780," then a discussion of campaigns in Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia. Clodfelter's conclusion is that, "The rest of the war in North America was anticlimatic and insignificant after Yorktown."

- - So as sourced, the combat among Britain and US armies, navies, and privateers, for and against American independence, is within the American Revolutionary War - - including that found in the American South 1775 to November 1781. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The term Anglo-French is a general term used to define a number of wars and other events covering the 18 century mostly. Below is a good source, a historical journal, that demonstrates this idea.

• Baugh, Daniel A. (March 1998). "Withdrawing from Europe: Anglo-French Maritime Geopolitics, 1750-1800". The International History Review. 20 (1). Taylor & Francis, Ltd.: 1–32. JSTOR 40107934.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)    -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

At what point was France wanting to take Gibraltar as part of their war goal? It was Spain's number 1 priority if the war, the French were about 20% of the force in the entire siege which also saw the majority of Spain's metropolitan army engaged. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

France was just as eager to deal with Britain, their long time adversary, as much as Spain, and as you say, they indeed constituted a significant portion of the forces involved in the siege at Gibraltar. It's understood that Gibraltar is remotely lumped in with the ARW by some sources, but this doesn't exclude addressing that siege by other more definitive names. i.e. The Great Siege of Gibraltar and the Anglo-French War. The Great Siege was but one chapter in and very involved with the very long Anglo-French war. All we have is academic conjecture, and apparently POV, that attempts to link the siege with the ARW in the same capacity.

Spain is the one who declared war against Britain, and for their own singular reason -- to regain Gibraltar which they lost in 1704. Spain made yet another attempt to regain it in 1727. Their involvement and history with Gibraltar began long before the ARW. Now all of the sudden the Great Siege of 1779, yet another attempt by Spain to regain Gibraltar, is part of the ARW?  To refer to the siege as part of the ARW is actually sort of an insult to Spain, as Gibraltar is an integral part of Spain's history, not that of the Americans. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

At what point was France wanting to take Gibraltar as part of their war goal? At the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), when France guarantees to Spain it will war with Britain until Spain acquired Minorca, the Floridas (East and West), and GIBRALTAR. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

So it's not an Anglo-French war then is it. And also Gibraltar wasn't acquired. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Why on earth are you giving me a history of Gibraltar.. stop deflecting from that fact this is an integral part of the ARW. Im getting bored of repeating myself. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the internationally acknowledged usage of the term "Anglo-French War" in world history, not my fault. You should do something about that. "Acquiring Gibraltar" was a common WAR AIM for France and Spain at their 1779 Treaty of Aranjuez making them allies in the same war, with joint operations against England, Jamaica, and Gibraltar that followed. Just because Gibraltar was not acquired by Spain does NOT mean there was no separate imperial war between France and Spain against Britain.

YES, I recall the wp:OR XavierGreen historiography: France allied to US for its independence. When France allied with Spain to conquer England, the Caribbean and Gibraltar, then, wp:error: the US was FORCED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE MILITARY SITUATION ON THE GROUND dictated by the Euro Great Powers to wait for its independence from Britain until Spain conquered Gibraltar with France (like Aranjuez said).

HOWEVER, the US did NOT sign the Franco-Spanish treaty, in fact, at the time George III announced for US independence, the military situation on the ground in North America was that Britain had no control of US territory outside of two ports, it had lost western Quebec, and it had no prospect to change the military situation there. At the GB-US Treaty of Paris (1783), the US made peace with GB to get territory to the Mississippi, and-NOT-like-France-wanted: their new French dominion between the US and Spanish Luisiana, to include the Appalachians to the Mississippi, and Quebec again besides, NOT. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan: History takes meaning from the chronology of events in each place studied. WE HAVE A MUTUALLY AGREED-TO RS, Clodfelter (2017), 131. He concludes that, "The rest of the war in North America was anticlimatic and insignificant after Yorktown."

- He later adds that British VICTORIES at the Battle of the Saintes and the Siege of Gibraltar are in his terms, "overseas", physically removed and other-than the ARW over US independence; those British victories are a part of his "WoAR": a larger global European conflict over EMPIRE that he calls the "War of the American Revolution". He distinguishes his new term from the mainstream “American Revolutionary War” historiography in the second sentence of his article narrative titled, "WoAR 1775-83", here referenced, directly quoted, and linked (and unmatched by opponents here at a loss without wp:rs or author wp:peer review support; boring, much?).

- p.s. FOR GB, US & SPAIN: 1781 September Yorktown; November Lord North: “Oh, God, it’s over!”; 1782 March Parliament passes a bill to end war in America, war PM Lord North turned out; November preliminary GB peace with Congress; December George III announces for US independence; 1783 January GB preliminary negotiations with Spain; February GIBRALTAR victory for GB; March Spain recognizes US by treaty; April Congress accepts British peace terms, the same to follow in ‘conclusive’, ‘ratification’, and the ‘exchange’ in Paris later; September peace with Spain at Versailles and no mention of GIBRALTAR. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Gibraltar not a factor

During the negotiations at the Treaty of Paris the Americans realized that they could gain much more if they negotiated directly with London, including all the territory east of the Mississippi, much more than they would have gained had they settled for the offer made in Paris, which only included the area east of the Appalachian Mountains. John Jay promptly told the British that he was willing to negotiate directly with them without any further negotiations with France and Spain. British Prime Minister Lord Shelburne agreed. The fate of Gibraltar did not factor into the negotiations between the Americans and British (i.e.Shelburne and Jay), and was only a concern primarily between Spain and Britain.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Is that all you can come up with? Actually Gibraltar IS a factor.

Your attempt, whoever you are, to brush this off in such a sophomoric fashion only tells us you're unable to address the facts in question. If you are unable to address the points in the discussion, (i.e.Negotiations between Shelburn and Jay, territory east of the Mississippi, etc) please do not respond. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Peace with the United States

Copy-pasted section from the Peace of Paris (1783) article

In the Caribbean at this time, the British were not using their fleet to recapture islands which would then have to be defended, but concentrating on holding the few that remained. The same principle applied everywhere, and in September 1782, the Royal Navy had sent a large supply convoy to Gibraltar on the assumption that by the time it arrived, either the fortress would have been conquered, or the great assault would have been repelled and the siege weakened. The convoy was protected by 33 of the Navy's biggest ships, and on 10 October, as hoped, unloading of supplies at Gibraltar began. A large combined French and Spanish fleet hovered nearby, so on 20 October the British fleet, without seriously engaging for battle, lured them away. News that Gibraltar was fully resupplied, with no problems for the convoy, reached London on 7 November, and probably reached Paris about the same time. The objections of Spain ceased to be of any relevance, and the French accepted the preliminary peace treaty between Great Britain and the United States, on 30 November, with protests but no action.

That is from the 'Treaty of Paris' article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually this is from the Peace of Paris (1783) article, but please don't copy-paste entire sections from other articles to here, esp with the assumption that it's supportive of whatever point it is you're attempting to make. All we have here is the activity of War ships around Gibraltar. Nothing stated here negates the idea that Britain and the United States struck their own agreement without Spain or France, and would still have done so without Spain conceding Gibraltar, which the British were still in possession of anyways. Or do you seriously think Britain would have resumed the war on the American continent while both France and Spain were still allies? The Whigs certainly did not want to, and the pro War Tories after the surrender at Yorktown had long since lost much of their support. In any event, this is not the focus of this article. The article already mentions Gibraltar three times and in an appropriate capacity, including in the Treaty of Paris section, per due-weight. Talk pages are for specific article improvements -- they are not a forum to discuss a given subject. So what exactly is is you want further? An entire section for Gibraltar? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

All we have here is the activity of War ships around Gibraltar. Yes, to be exact - the third and final relief of Gibralter, that meant that victory for the British there was now inevitable. What more proof do you want? Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Where has anyone contested that the British won the campaign at Gibraltar? What were you hoping this would amount to in terms of the Americans getting what they wanted? If the Americans didn't get what they wanted, there would have been no treaty, Gibraltar or nor Gibraltar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've yet to see the whole point of your argument which is now incoherent and convulated. Was it sonething to do with Anglo-French war? I can't remember. Do you want rename it a completely new war out of thin air? Why are you so desperate for this? It's actaully rather amusing. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you can't remember, which would explain your "incoherent" personal attacks, while you've not stated what is is you want the article to do further in terms of Gibraltar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It's staying as it is, nothing changes. It is part of the American Revolutionary war and that's it. Name a historian who doesn't think that the Siege of Gibraltar ISN'T part of the ARW? All your coming up with is not a NPOV. BTW here is a great article by Gene Procknow which reinforces that view - Why the siege of Gibraltar mattered so much as the siege of Yorktown. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Since the article didn't actually explain how the Siege of Gibraltar was so important, maybe you can. How was a British victory so very important to the American victory? Again, Gibraltar was used to reach an agreement between Spain and Britain, with France. P.M. Shelburn still settled with the Americans getting all the territory east of the Mississippi, recognized independence, etc. Without American satisfaction at the Treaty of Paris, there would have been no treaty. What source says the Americans were making any contentions over the fate of Gibraltar, so much so that they would have rejected the settlement they had gotten? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A closer look at citations before article review

At WP:ARW, editors mean to produce an article within mainstream historiography and supported by wp:RELIABLE SOURCES. We seek out scholarly monographs, standard academic references, and peer-reviewed journal articles. (Including the Encyclopedia Britannica ARW article as a sort of "arbiter" for that English-speaking conflict). We MUST NOT use a citation as a "SOURCE" that is only a "good book to read".

SOME PUBLISHERS do not have the distinction of having wp:peer review. Pulitzer Prize-best sellers have been written by scholars about Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. So many books of the "popular press" now use the phrase “American Revolutionary War” on dust-cover blurbs, without any direct connection to the ARW, and WITH NO scholarly accountability whatever. (We should not have a problem with free speech, or even a "license to lie" in the popular press (Jefferson), but "everybody has an opinion" is not supposed to be RS at Wikipedia for "Good Article" status).

PUBLISHERS of NOT-RS (not peer-reviewed publications) include those from:

• British Pen and Sword Military, part of a British newspaper group. Example: James Falkner Fire over the Rock: The Great Siege of Gibraltar 1779-1783 (2009).
• British Osprey Publishing of the "Bolt Action" series of novellas, located in the town of Oxford but NOT associated with the University there. A division of London-based Bloomsbury Publishing, famous for the Harry Potter series. Example: Chartand & Courcelle Gibraltar 1779-1783: The Great Siege Campaign (2006).

EDITOR ACTION towards attaining Good Article status for ARW:

(1) Replace all citations to sources that are NOT scholarly work throughout the article's footnotes, even if they are merely noting generally-held knowledge.

(2) Citations to sources primarily published as popular literature for the airport newsstand MUST NOT be passed off as “scholarly RS” purporting to be a "consensus editor policy". Another point for our upcoming "bundle of RfCs" to present to each WP:PROJECT rating the article as high importance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been replacing website sources, esp those with no author's name credited, with scholarly works when ever the chance arises. Currently there are still many questionable, 'free-style' and orphaned citations (i.e.cites that don't link up to a source listing in the Bibliography) that need tending to, remembering that the article is using one citation convention (standard style). In most cases sources that are used to cite only one statement should be replaced with existing RS when ever possible. i.e. We have many source listings that are only used to cite one statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, thank you. I would like to help out, but somehow I've not yet acquired the STANDARD STYLE for footnoting. It is far superior to the elementary-starter format I still use, as it automatically generates a bibliography entry at the time of the first entry --- as I remember a previous stab at it about six years ago. Could you speed up my 'conversion' with a link to the Wikipedia 'how to' article? In the mean time, I'm very grateful for your repair of my starter-novice entries to conform with the standard style of footnoting that we MUST CONSISTENTLY APPLY THROUGHOUT the article to get promoted to a "B-class" rating at the Military Project. I don't mean to cause you unnecessary extra work. Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Popular press is not RS

So you're now questioning sources? That is pathetic. You're not even historians; the fact that you're doubting historians when you yourselves aren't even close to that position is quite frankly laughable and insulting at the same time. Rene Chatrand is from Montreal and is not British and has written many historical books with solid reputation. You're only coming up with opinions which are NOT NPOV, and are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

As an experienced editor you should learn someday that sources are very often not consistent with each other. Many sources have been outlined here by TVH and myself. You still have not cited a source that actually explains how the Siege of Gibraltar was part of the fight for/against American independence. At best all you've given us is how Gibraltar played out at the Treaty of Paris, which again, the Americans could care less about when you consaider that P.M. Shelburn settled on the Americans acquiring all the territory east of the Mississippi. If you have memory issues as you claimed above I'd suggest you review the discussions before you vent any further personal attacks and try to concentrate on specific article improvements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

All you can find is two WEAK sources on a term called Anglo-French war. At best it is part of the Anglo Spanish war. But perhaps you should read this Why the siege of Gibraltar mattered so much as the siege of Yorktown. Now show this talk page with an article that shares your view. Eastfarthingan (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, two sources, for openers. "Weak" of course is your 'unbiased' opinion. There are a number of articles that were once mentioned and linked in this article that refer to the Anglo-French wars. Here are some examples:

• Battle of Negapatam (1782)
• Battle of Fort Royal
• Invasion of Tobago
• Battle of Negapatam (1782)
• Invasion of Tobago
• Capture of Demerara and Essequibo
  

You've still not given us your explanation as to how the British victory at Gibraltar is something that had this major effect on the American victory in the ARW as compared to the surrender at Yorktown. At Cornwallis' surrender Washington did not say, 'well gee-wiz, let's see what happens with Gibraltar first'. Once again, please explain to us in terms of article improvement what this article also needs to cover in terms of Gibraltar. For a while there has been this effort to erase the term Anglo-French Wars from the info-boxes, etc, in several articles that I've found. No doubt there are others:

• Capture of Demerara and Essequibo: Difference between revisions
• Battle of Negapatam (1782): Difference between revisions
• Battle of Cuddalore (1783): Difference between revisions
• Battle of Roatán: Difference between revisions
• Siege of Brimstone Hill: Difference between revisions

As expressed by several other editors, there seems to be a concerted effort to rewrite American history in a British-centirc manner. Again, the Talk page is for discussion about specific article improvement(s). You've yet to respond specifically on that note, and seem only concerned about personal attacks and constant debate with the idea that the article will not progress so long as you can keep the article in a state of perpetual controversy. These issues have been well addressed for some months now, with the same one or two editors rehashing and rewriting the topics over and again, here and elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me Wikipedia is a reliable source? It's interesting to note that the originator of the term Anglo-French war on wiki as well as the Template was conceived by various sock users of User:Vinukin - User:AdjectivesAreBad User:Frenditor User:Red Rudy and User:SuffrenXXI who have all now been banned. It fair to say that I will be arguing that the article be renamed as 'France in the American Revolutionary war'. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh look here is another - *'Gibraltar' explains how a British battle you probably never heard of led to American victory in the Revolution. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out above with Chertrand, Francophone sources consider the European. Caribbean, and Indian campaigns to be part of the American Revolutionary War. Gwillhickers and TVH's assertion of the existance of any anglo-centric bias is meritless.XavierGreen (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan and XavierGreen: STRONG. The Library of Congress uses the category "Anglo-French War 1778" for hundreds of history books, both wp:reliable sources and popular literature. Here at Wikipedia, editors are asked to DISTINGUISH between the two. One notable RS listed there for the topic, "Anglo-French War" is Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Major Operations of the Navies in the War of Independence (1912, 2020), which is of some interest here.

THE PUBLISHER BOOK BLURB for Gibraltar 1779-1783: The Great Siege, is very CAREFUL to say the TIME of the Great Siege of Gibraltar was DURING the American Revolution PERIOD 1775-1783. It DOES NOT CLAIM the Siege of Gibraltar from 1775-1783. Elsewhere you have acknowledge that Gibraltar was a war aim of Spain joining France in its war against Britain (they mounted a FAILED joint invasion of the British Isles, a FAILED joint invasion of Jamaica, and a FAILED assault on Gibraltar).

But, in March 1783 SPAIN recognized US independence in Paris by treaty four months after George III announced for American colony independence in a public joint session of Parliament, WITHOUT WAITING for a British peace with France and Spain, but BEFORE an end to the Spanish artillery barrages on Gibraltar. Interestingly, that was one month before the rebel/independence Congress in April 1783, formally accepted British terms that met the US peace aims.

Remember, "POPULAR PRESS IS NOT RS". Chartrand (2006) is NOT wp:peer reviewed. It is published by a popular press famous for the "Bolt Action" military adventure series, a division of the London-based house famous for the Harry Potter series. They are British, NOT Canadian-based. The Canadian "Rene Chartrand" had a career with the Canadian Historical Site Parks, where he was a military curator for museums. As a young lieutenant, he was attached to a military history department, though no advanced degree in history is reported. He is now a professional freelance writer, movie consultant. He studies wines and lives in Quebec.

I am assured that M. Chartrand has mastered his military history as well as any US National Battlefield Parks Ranger, but that DOESN'T QUALIFY his freelancing with a publisher of popular literature for citations as a wp:RELIABLE SOURCE in an article reference. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

p.s. & Adkins (2019) is a husband-wife duo headed up by the part-time archeologist published by another popular press, viz NOT A WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, not peer reviewed, not by a history scholar, not reviewed in an academic journal, but the Dallas Daily News. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Then there is hypocrisy involved here; if that is the case then the Library of Congress is not a NPOV therefore is NOT A WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. Also it doesn't mention anything about Gibraltar so therefore your argument is null and void. Im also wondering if there is a link to User:Vinukin which you have so far remained silent on. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

More importantly, the link to the Library of Congress page you tout is dead. You've provided no actual proof that what your asserting actually exists.XavierGreen (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll be happy to introduce you the Library of Congress, an important institution for researchers in the English language (and others) worldwide. I can come back in a few hours to help you out. 22:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Insert : How about this page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: "a common view", The goal at Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia based on “reliable sources”. These are more narrowly defined than "popular press" editions of airport gift shop best-sellers. At wp:reliable sources, scholarship:

• “Material [article, book] that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
• “Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. Journals that are not peer reviewed … should NOT be considered reliable, EXCEPT to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

There is no “equal editorial weight” or “authority equivalence” between (a) wp:reliable source with academic peer review in scholarly journals, and (b) best-seller books by the Harry Potter folks or newspaper publishers that are authored by (i) career business consultants, (ii) part-time archaeologist, or (iii) park rangers. These are promoted by Eastfarthingan as the “vast majority of RS”, EXCEPT they are not at all. They are the ‘vast majority’ of titles sold in airports for a flight across the Atlantic. That’s NOT the same.

To date, editors can responsibly say in a ARW or Siege of Gibraltar is a Wiki-Note: “Harry Potter and Bold Action adventure fans believe the Siege of GIBRALTAR determined the outcome of the American Revolution. Spanish-French DEFEAT at Gibraltar superseded all diplomatic influence of American VICTORY at Yorktown. The DEFEAT is said to have guaranteed the American independence at the Peace of Paris in September 1783, an independence Spain acknowledged six months before by treaty in Paris March 1783. However, I am not sure we can find an RfC to Note the popular press. @Gwillhickers: another candidate here for the "RfC bundle". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

TVH, you are absolutely correct. The term Anglo-French is not only used in numerous WP article titles and text, it has, as you claim, long since been used to define a number of wars and events throughout the centuries, while there are numerous publications, new and old, that employ the term in their titles and/or narratives. Here is a minor sampling:

• Cultures in Conflict: The Seven Years' War in North America
• The Society of Prisoners: Anglo-French Wars and Incarceration in the Eighteenth Century
• Anglo-French Defence Relations Between the Wars
• Anglo-French Alliance
• Britain and the Seventy Years War, 1744-1815
• Henry VIII and Francis I
• The Emergence of Britain's Global Naval Supremacy
• Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present
• Wartime Accounts from an Anglo-French Community in Paris
• Between France and England: Politics, Power, and Society in Late Medieval Brittany

That some individuals actually doubt the validity and the occurrence of this term in reliable sources is a bit disappointing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Now you're talking about Harry Potter?? Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Why, yes, to defend your global-Gibraltar assertions to counter the Revolution-Yorktown the mainstream found in Britannica, Routledge and other references and RS, that's YOUR choice of a "reliable source" publisher, for Harry Potter and Bolt Action adventures. You have NO academic journals or references published at a university press, to date. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources with Explanations, not just empty claims

• XG and Eastfarthingan — The item linked to is just a book review by David Walton in the Dallas Morning News. The book title in question, "The Greatest Siege in British History", (Adkins) is not exactly a neutral account, and it says nothing to explain how a British Victory at Gibraltar had more impact on the American victory than did the surrender at Yorktown and the Americans being allied with France and Spain. Nor does it explain how P. M. Shelburn's agreement with John Jay settling on the Americans getting all the territory east of the Mississippi didn't impress the Americans as much a Gibraltar, specifically fought over control of Gibraltar. Once again, the Whigs certainly did not want to continue the war, while the pro War Tories had long since lost much of their support after the surrender at Yorktown. Britain's fate was sealed at Yorktown -- their navy was beaten also. Britain was soon sending dozens of warships, including the 100-gun Britania, not to America, but to save Gibraltar. — Quote: "While Darby's convoy sailed to save Gibraltar across the Atlantic, Britain lost America. <Adkins, p. 185> — Your whole premise rests on the faulty idea that the Americans would have rejected the idea of recognition of American independence, and rejected the agreement over getting all the land east of the Mississippi, if there was no settlement over Gibraltar between Spain and Britain. The British still had control of Gibraltar in the first place, which is why Spain had no choice but to acquiesce and settle for Menorca and Florida. 'This' is what compelled the Americans to settle??

• What we need is a reliable source that actually explains how Gibraltar factored into matters more than any other event during the ARW, and how it compelled the Americans into a peace agreement more than winning territory and getting recognized as an independent nation. Until such time, we're just spinning our academic wheels. Once again, there would have been no treaty, Gibraltar or no Gibraltar, if the Americans didn't get what they wanted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Adkins' work says nothing about how Gibraltar played out at the Treaty of Paris. It would seem if the Gibraltar campaign had this great influence over the peace agreement they would have said 'something'. As it is, the T.O.P. is only mentioned twice, in passing, while the index only lists two pages for the T.O.P. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You're just coming up with your own opinions and therefore it is NOT NPOV -

What we need is a reliable source that actually explains how Gibraltar factored into matters more than any other event during the ARW, and how it compelled the Americans into a peace agreement more than winning territory and getting recognized as an independent nation.

There have been plenty of just quotes, links, sources used on this talk page but even when one of these are used as evidence there is a tendency to start picking apart authors ie their backgrounds, why they are wrong, using Harry Potter as an excuse just because the publisher is the same. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not an opinion that the Adkins couple says nothing about Gibraltar's role at the T.O.P. This is a dedicated work on Gibraltar, by British authors, and they have nothing to say about Gibraltar's role in ending the war. There is no explanation as to — "Why the siege of Gibraltar mattered so much as the siege of Yorktown", — because the T.O.P. isn't discussed in terms of Gibraltar, or at all. That claim comes off like something the publisher put on the front cover to promote the book for the choir they're apparently preaching to.
That you also try to dismiss the idea that we need reliable sources that actually explains how Gibraltar weighed in, esp as compared to Yorktown, etc, would seem to indicate that your capacity in these discussions is not very forthcoming - you've yet to tell us what you'd like the article to say about Gibraltar that it doesn't already say – but then there is this idea called due weight, so I can appreciate your position. As for any "just quotes", I've yet to see one that actually explains this major role Gibraltar had in the negotiations, esp when compared to the settlements the Americans got at the T.O.P. If Gibraltar was so very important in establishing peace with the United States, Spain and France, why didn't Britain cede it to Spain? Sorry. Editors are allowed to scrutinize sources, esp when they vary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You still have yet to provided a single source which states that Gibraltar was part of anything other than the American Revolutionary War. Your obfuscation is deafening.XavierGreen (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that say the Gibraltar campaign was a war declared by Spain against Britain for the specific objective of control of Gibraltar, not American independence. We don't need a source that supports the conjecture. If you want to add a statement that says Gibraltar was "part of" the ARW, or played a major role in achieving peace between the United States and Britain, it is incumbent on you to provide a source that explains this in no uncertain terms, not just a listing about British casualties or some passing generic claim with no viable explanation. Once again, peace between the United States and Britain was over the settlement between these two countries, involving territory and recognition of American independence. ie. P. M. Shelburn and John Jay. Your "obfuscation" over these glaring facts, and common sense, has long since been rather obvious. Shall we go around the block with this once again? Peace with the United States and Britain was effected with little to no concern over Gibraltar, an issue between Spain and Britain. This has been outlined for you a good number of times, and recently. Even Adkins, British authors, doesn't go so far as to claim that the Gibraltar campaign was "part of" the ARW in a capacity you, for some reason, want us to believe. It was its own war, for its own specific reasons.<U.S. Department of State>
Once again, as was outlined above by TVH, in March of 1783 Spain recognized American independence in Paris by treaty four months after King George III announced American independence in a public joint session of Parliament, without waiting for a British peace with France and Spain, but before an end to the Spanish artillery barrages on Gibraltar. This was one month before the American Congress in April 1783, formally accepted British terms that met the US.. peace aims. Gibraltar did not factor into this. The contention that Gibraltar was "part of" the ARW is conjecture at best, with no viable facts to support the claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Again you're just repeating yourself over and over again which doesn't not bring the point of an argument but a statement of facts relative to the peace of Paris, ie Shelburne and John Jay - yes we know all that. Yet you say this - Peace with the United States and Britain was effected with little to no concern over Gibraltar, an issue between Spain and Britain. Yet I have proved as have WCM & XavierGreen that the peace of Paris was essential because of news coming out of Gibraltar (as was the news of the Battle of the Saintes a few months earlier). You need to come up with an argument from a historian which says that Gibraltar WASN'T a part of the American Revolution. So far you have failed to do this and just slammed authors into the ground saying their wrong. Good day. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have presented the facts, which you keep attempting to dismiss "over and over again". I've only maintained that claiming the Gibraltar campaign as part of the ARW is a stretch, at best. The simple fact that Britain established an agreement with the U.S., months before the T.O.P., via P.M. Shelburn and John Jay, without Spain or France, puts Gibraltar's role in proper perspective as concerns peace with the U.S. We can say that Gibraltar was "part of" the ARW, but with a clear explanation as to what capacity. We can add a footnote that explains that the Gibraltar campaign was a war declared by Spain against Britain for its control, and later used as a bargaining chip. However, there were many other 'chips' on the table. If you want to say anything further, it's incumbent on you to provide a source that supports any specifics in no uncertain terms. e.g.If you're thinking about asserting an opinion that Gibraltar was just as important in establishing peace with the U.S. as was the major campaign of Yorktown, Cornwallis' surrender, the French and Spanish alliance with the U.S., and the U.S. winning all the territory east of the Mississippi, along with recognition of U.S. independence, with loss of support among Whigs and many Tories for continuing the ARW, lots of luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, so from this we can leave the Infobox in this article and it's content as it is, and in the Great Siege of Gibraltar article too. As it doesn't seem there is an argument for considering you said We can say that Gibraltar was "part of" the ARW. That is good enough for me. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "part of", and briefly incorporated into the narrative or a footnote in a comprehensive fashion -- not just as a stand alone statement stuck in the article for the sole purpose of saying "part of". Gibraltar is already mentioned several times in the narrative and in footnotes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral Proposal : The Siege of Gibraltar was also involved in the ARW as it took away British resources from the war on the American continent, and later negotiations over Gibraltar's fate was involved in the overall peace settlements between Britain, the United States, Spain and France. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, Gibraltar is "part of" the European "War of the American Revolution" - - as cited and reference by RS contributed by four editors, with some agreement for the foundation of a consensus:

Anglo-French conflict 1689-1815 :: . . Europe & empire wars . . :: Europeans at war in America

Second Hundred Years' War :: . War of the Spanish Succession . :: Queen Anne's War

Second Hundred Years' War :: . . . . . The Seven Years' War . . . . :: French and Indian War

Second Hundred Years' War :: . War of the American Revolution . :: American Revolutionary War

Gwillhickers, the Encylocpedia Britannica online, "The American Revolutionary War", conflict between Great Britain and rebel/independence Congress in North America, for and against US independence;

XavierGreen, [[Clodfelter (4th ed. 2017), "War of American Revolution: 1775-1783", “American Revolutionary War … the war that was to expand into a multinational conflict, spanning oceans to singe four continents, did indeed begin as a simply a colonial uprising in Britain’s growing empire.[124] In 1778 the American Revolutionary War became the global War of the American Revolution.”[128] "The rest of the war in North America was anticlimatic and insignificant after Yorktown.";

Eastfarthingan, (2002), "The Second Hundred Years’ War ... [was] fought primarily between the two great powers of the day, France and England (Britain after 1707) ... Americans fought in every one of those wars ... The most important point … is that each nation fighting against Britain had its own reasons for entering the war [against Britain], which had little or nothing to do with aiding American independence."

posted - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RS Mashup of Clodfelter & Ferreiro

Dear fellow editors: With thanks to XavierGreen & Wee Curry Monster, here is draft #1 Jul 14 @ 8:30, to better organize the historiography related to wars from 1689 to 1815 within the territory that will later become a part of the United States. I will be happy to revisit and revise from your suggestions here and on my editor Talk page.

Native American Wars	Wars within North America of the Second Hundred Years’ War	American Dates	Major Operations Ended	European Dates	European wars within the Second Hundred Years’ War *	Other Euro Colonial Wars
-	King William's War	1688-1697	- / -	1689-1697	War of the Grand Alliance (wp: Nine Years' War)	-
-	Queen Anne's War	1702-1713	- / -	1701-1714	War of the Spanish Succession	-
-	King George's War	1744-1748	1739-1742 1742-1748	1739-1748	War of Jenkins' Ear War of the Austrian Succession	-
-	French and Indian War	1744-1748	- / -	1739-1748	Seven Years' War	-
-	American Revolutionary War (North America, North Atlantic)	1775-1783	1781 / 1783	1775-1783	War of the American Revolution (Clodfelter)	-
-	Quasi-War	1798-1800	- / -	1792-1802	French Revolutionary Wars	-
-	War of 1812	1812-1814	- / -	1803-1815	Napoleonic Wars	-

• Ferreiro, Larrie D. “The American Revolution and the Second Hundred Years’ War”, the introductory essay in Allison, David K. and Larrie D. Ferreiro, The American Revolution: a world war. (2018) Smithsonian ISBN 9781588346599 p.1,2,8,9
• Clodfelter, Micheal. Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A statistical reference to casualty and other figures, 1500-2000 (2002) McFarland & Company ASIN B01K2RBMVG “War of the American Revolution 1775-1783” entry.
• "American Revolutionary War 1775-1783", Encyclopedia Britannica.
• US Department of State, “The Treaty of Paris was signed by U.S. and British Representatives on September 3, 1783, ending the War of the American Revolution.”

Sincerely TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Comments & table fill-ins:

Why change AWR to “American Revolutionary War (worldwide)” ?

Let’s (old-timey Wikipedia) summarize a few of the latest reservations and replies to them on the question of defining article scope of the American Revolutionary War (ARW) as "a military conflict between Great Britain allies and the rebel-independence US Congress and allies in North America for and against the independence of the United States in North America".

See Clodfelter, “War of the American Revolution 1775-1783”. The distinction between the general usage of the term “American Revolutionary War” to refer only to conflict over US independence in North America, versus the term “War of the American Revolution” worldwide (WoAR) among Europeans, including their tangential involvement against the British in North America, the North Atlantic, and the Caribbean (but not on US-claimed territory for Spain). That WoAR is described by Ferreiro as set within the Anglo-French Second Hundred Years' War 1689-1815.

Please reference the comparative table of wars Euros fought in North America correlated with wars Euros fought in Europe and worldwide among their colonial dominions at Talk section “RS Mashup of Clodfelter & Ferreiro” above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Intention is not a part of ARW

ARW worldwide: Repeated denials that INTENTION of belligerents over US independence can define the ARW, because Euros Great Powers were not seeking independence. ((u|XavierGreen}}, Stockley refers to Spain and France's hostilities as being within the scope of the American Revolutionary War. That source supports what I have been asserting for months here. 1:41 pm, 16 June 2020.

“ARW in America”: Treaty of Alliance (Avalon Project) defines “the American war” for US independence. The treaty is NOT a US commitment war for French empire expansion in India and Spanish acquisition of Gibraltar. Without US agreement, the secret Franco-Spanish treaty at Aranjuez does NOT commit US invasion of Caribbean islands for France NOR of Gibraltar for Spain. Treaty, Article 2. “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.”

Stockley (2001), makes the following important distinctions: "The task of making peace and ending what has BECOME KNOWN as the War of American Independence”..." Stockley’s focus of diplomatic, not military history, and he establishes that the book will be British-navy-centered: For Britain, the American War for Independence brought on “armed conflict ... in all four corners of the world". But here, Stockley makes is a distinction among the conflicts: “By 1782, Lord North ... had to deal with" 1) "armed rebellion in North America from 1775", and ... "outbreak of war" 2a) "with France in 1778", 2b) "with Spain in 1779", and ... 3) "with the Netherlands towards the end of 1780". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

French war on Britain changed the ARW

ARW worldwide: With the entry of France [into that American war for independence], that war spread to conquer the British empire worldwide.

“ARW in America”: Two events six-and-a-half years apart define the first part of the answer. The 4 July 1776 Declaration of Independence by Congress explains the necessity “for one people to dissolve the political bands” with Great Britain, and declares independence. The 5 December 1782 George III Speech from the Throne, I collect to be the sense of my Parliament and my people … I offer to declare them FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES, … Religion, language, interest, affections may, and I hope will, yet prove a bond of permanent union between the two countries.”

Second, the Treaty of Alliance (Avalon Project) contradicts any implication that French and Spanish imperial war was based on “the American war”. The treaty is NOT a blank check just like the German “treaties of subsidy” for George III to deploy their troops in America. In the Alliance Treaty, France could NOT dispose US troops for Spain to conquer Gibraltar, etc. Treaty, Article 4. “In case either [France or US] should form any particular Enterprise in which the concurrence of the other may be desired …they shall regulate by [addendum] the quantity and kind of [help], and the Time and manner of its being brought into action, as well as … [its] compensation.”

Third, British naval historian RS distinguish between ARW in America and the European imperial contests at sea everywhere around the globe. Mackesy notes in his introduction: "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 [British] enemy were the Bourbons [the kings of France and Spain].” Mackesy’s focus is GB and GB’s wars; the Anglo-American, Anglo-French, Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-Dutch wars, which are contemporaneous shooting-wars among all four ONLY from 1780-1781. That is NOT the scope of this article, chronological, geographic, or national objectives, ARW in America 1775-1783. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Gibraltar is in ARW, there is no ‘Anglo-French War’ anywhere

ARW worldwide: XavierGreen, “Anglo-French War” has not a single source that actually refers to the Siege of Gibraltar, the Battle of the Saintes, or Cape St. Vincent as being a part of anything but the American Revolutionary War. 9:38 am 16 June.

“ARW in America”: The French declaration of war on Britain in 1778, and at the Franco-Spanish Treaty of Aranjuez (1779), Spain, is the Anglo-French War (1778) to retake the French and then Spanish dominions lost at their defeat in the Seven Years’ War, and NOT for US independence. The Anglo-French War article cite in 30 RS, and there are an additional 30 articles linked by Gwillhickers, 1:00 am 12 July 2020 at Popular press is not RS. See the several dozens in the Library of Congress catalogue category and subcategories that include Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Major Operations of the Navies in the War of Independence (1912, 2020).

CLODFELTER (2017) says that the "Southern Campaign" of the British in North America against the forces of the US Congress is within the American Revolution. He adds that British VICTORY at the Battle of the Saintes and the Siege of Gibraltar are "overseas" from the ARW; they are a part of his War of the American Revolution, a global European conflict “overseas”, elsewhere than where the British-US conflict over independence takes place. Please reference Talk section “RS Mashup of Clodfelter & Ferreiro” above.

Whether an editor can find the “Anglo-French War(s)” is wp:other stuff. Our concern here is the scope of the military ARW in America. At [[https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States/The-American-Revolutionary-War Encyclopedia Britannica, “American Revolutionary War”], “The military verdict in North America was reflected in the preliminary Anglo-American peace treaty of 1782, which was included in the Treaty of Paris of 1783”. FYI, at the Library of Congress, Other Armada (1779), Major operations of the Navies (1913, 1969), Patterson (1960), Tentative d’invasion de l’Angleterre de 1779 (1939), Spanish Court: Manifesto de los motivos … a la Inglaterra (1779), Memoire pour server a l’histoire du siege de Gibraltar (1783). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

ARW determinative battle is at Gibraltar, NOT Yorktown

ARW worldwide: XavierGreen, “The mere statement that ‘Yorktown was the last battle of the war’ is blatantly incorrect, there were other battles in the North American theater alone well after Yorktown such as Wayne's Savannah Campaign and the Battle of Blue Licks, not to mention the Battle of the Saintes. 9:26 am 6 July.

“ARW in America”: At the RS provided by XavierGreen, Clodfelter, notes at the closing paragraphs of his American Revolutionary War in America narrative, "The rest of the war in North America was anticlimatic and insignificant after Yorktown." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No ‘Treaty of Paris” apart from “Peace of Paris”

ARW worldwide: The GB-US settlement of independence, peace and ceded territory at the Treaty of Paris (1783) is of no wp:significance. The Euro Great Powers settlements ONLY are relevant to the “Military ARW in America” article. Eastfarthingan, “I have proved … that the Peace of Paris [the three British treaties with US (prelim Nov 82 - Sep 83 conclusive), with France (prelim Jan 83 - Sep 83 conclusive)], was essential because of news from Gibraltar (as was the news of the Battle of the Saintes a few months earlier).

“ARW in America”: Peace with the US and GB (prelim Nov 82) was effected with no reference to Gibraltar, it was later addressed at the Anglo-Spanish Treaty of Versailles 1783 (prelim Jan 83 ). The US Department of State, “The Treaty of Paris was signed by U.S. and British Representatives on September 3, 1783, ending the War of the American Revolution.”

GB-US Preliminary Peace settlement of 20 Nov 1782 (a) completed BEFORE Gibraltar; (b) confirmed in George III Speech from the Throne 5 Dec 1782 BEFORE Gibraltar; British FR-SP Preliminary Peace in Jan 1783 BEFORE Gibraltar. (c) The final FR-SP assault on Gibraltar FAILED Feb 1783. Spain treaty of US independence Mar 1783; (d) US Congress ratifies British Preliminary Peace 15 April 1783 BEFORE news of Gibraltar. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

RS double standard

ARW worldwide: XavierGreen, “The vast majority of sources treat the campaigns in Europe as part of the American Revolutionary War. To assert otherwise is fringe. 9:26 am 6 July. Eastfarthingan Picking apart authors ie their backgrounds, why they are wrong, using Harry Potter as an excuse just because the publisher is the same. 9:09 am 13 July. You need to come up with an argument from a historian who says that Gibraltar WASN'T a part of the American Revolution. So far you have failed to do this and just slammed authors into the ground saying their wrong. 10:43 am 14 July.

“ARW in America”: Wikipedia produces an encyclopedia based on “reliable sources”. These are more narrowly defined than "popular press" editions of the commercial best-sellers found airport gift shops worldwide. At wp:reliable sources, scholarship:

• “Material [article, book] that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.” wp:RS
• “Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. Journals that are not peer reviewed … should NOT be considered reliable, EXCEPT to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. wp:RS

There is no “equal editorial weight” or “authority equivalence” to be awarded between (a) wp:reliable source with academic peer review in scholarly journals, and (b) best-seller books by the Harry Potter folks or newspaper publishers.

Nor are (a) professional advance-degreed historians, published in university presses, reviewed in academic journals, and at tenured professorial posts, to editorially be placed on an equal plane with (b) authors who are best described in their publisher blurbs as” (i) a 30-year career business consultant who has done nothing else professionally, (ii) part-time archaeologist and wife sidekick who collect wines, or (iii) a park ranger assigned to artifact curations, who sidelights as a screen writer.

They are all worthies, fellow history-enthusiasts who know more about Gibraltar than I do, and I would love to have dinner with them all, each and severally, especially nearby M. Chartrand who is my favorite. But that is a personal choice, not an editorial one. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk page clean up

It was suggested that some of the dated sections on the this Talk page be removed, which I tend to agree with as the Talk page is a 'mile' long, making it difficult for new-commers and others to navigate the discussions. I've removed a few, but if anyone feels that a given section should be restored, they'll get no objection from me. Sooner or later the archive bot will remove sections that are no longer active anyway. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposals

• Neutral Proposal : The Siege of Gibraltar was also involved in the ARW as it took away British resources from the war on the American continent, and later negotiations over Gibraltar's fate was involved in the overall peace settlements between Britain, the United States, Spain and France. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The first premise is good. Although it is of some interest to naval historians that De Grasse won at the first encounter with Graves nearby Yorktown when he led the British out to sea in line. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The transports of supply slipped behind the fleets to land troops and siege guns for Washington and Rochambeau BEFORE the first broadsides were exchanged sailing off east into the North Atlantic.

However, later negotiations over Gibraltar were NOT submitted to US ministers in Paris, neither by British, Spanish nor French governments. US independence was recognized by treaty with France in February 1778, by preliminary agreement with Britain in November 1782 and George III announcement 5 December 1782, and by treaty with Spain in March 1783. NONE OF THEM returned to the table with Franklin or Jay to ask how Gibraltar should be disposed of or partitioned, nor Isla de Menorca . . .

and the US ministers were signatory to no other treaty with Britain but their own at the TREATY of Paris (1783), conforming to the preliminary GB-US peace settlement of November 1782, Congressional acceptance April 1783, conclusive GB-US peace signed by GB & US, ratifications February US, March GB, with ratifications exchanged in Paris April 1784, conforming to the November 1782 preliminary peace terms. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

TVH — Good points, but aside from those developments I believe we can at least say that during the peace settlements Gibraltar's fate was negotiated, making it clear that the U.S. was not a signatory to any treaty involving Gibraltar. Trying to be as neutral as possible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal 2: The Siege of Gibraltar was also involved in the American Revolutionary War as it took away British resources that could be employed in the war on the American continent. Negotiations involving Gibraltar's ultimate fate however did not involve any settlements with the United States.

We'll of course need to include the proper citations/sources, which I'll overall leave to you, but I'll look for and include any sources I can find. (Since done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC))

Citations

Notes

Sources

• "British-American Diplomacy — Preliminary Articles of Peace; November 30, 1782". Yale Law School, Avalon Project. 1782. Retrieved July 15, 2020.
• "Continental Congress: Remarks on the Provisional Peace Treaty". U.S. National Archives. 1783. Retrieved July 15, 2020.

• Ferling, John E. (2007). Almost a Miracle. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-1997-5847-0.

• Miller, Hunter, ed. (1931). Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America: 1776-1818  (Documents 1-40). Vol. II. U.S. Government Printing Office.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If there are no issues I'll incorporate this into the narrative in the Treaty of Paris section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Archiving Notices

I mean to sort through the Talk:ARW sections to reduce the 36 sections to only those that are still under active consideration. I will try to represent posts archived OLDER than 21 days with a summary that can be used to carry forward those discussions anew by any editor interested in picking up the thread. For the purposes of this section, each archived discussion may classify Editors into one of three categories:

(1) Editors as ARW-America for those addressing the scope of "American Revolutionary War in America" as a North American conflict between Britain and the rebel / independence Congress, a shooting war 1775-1781, formally ended at the Treaty of Paris (1783) between them. Reference: Dictionary of War, “American Revolution (1775-83)”, p. 13;

(2) Editors as WoAR-Global for those addressing the scope of a "worldwide American Revolutionary War", formally ended at a confluence of three separate treaties between Britain with US Congress, then France, then Spain. That worldwide conflict was principally comprised of events and developments among the three Great Powers of western Europe in its geographic reach, national expenditures, total troops and ships-of-the-line engaged, and largest combat casualties. Reference: Clodfelter (2017) "War of the American Revolution", p. 124.

(3) Editors as Neutrals for those focusing on Wikipedia procedural issues and editorial "blue-pencilling" with copy edits. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Archiving 'Unbalanced coverage'

ARW-America generally, Gwillhickers, Dilidor, Jersey John, Vyselink, TheVirginiaHistorian.

WoAR-Globally generally: Lord Cornwallis, Canute

neutral: Ridley.

Upshot: editors explicitly calling for a "sister article" expanding coverage of conflicts with Britain 1778-1783 among all belligerents and their allies connected worldwide: Lord Cornwallis, Ridley, Dilidor, Gwillhickers, TheVirginiaHistorian. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)