Talk:French and Indian War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Intercontinental??-- edit request[edit]

One of the alternate names given for the "French and Indian War" is "Fourth Intercontinental War". Looks like a mistake; should be "Fourth Intercolonial War". I was about to change it, but then I saw that King Williams' War is also known as the "First Intercontinental War". So, is this the same mistake in both places? Or is that actually another alternate name? If it is a valid name, then the article should list both "Fourth Intercontinental" and "Fourth Intercolonial". If not, it should be changed to read "Intercolonial". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.236.85 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015[edit]

There is a period which should be removed. At the sending of the message you are reading, what I see in early paragraph describing the outcome is:

>It ceded French Louisiana west of the Mississippi River (including New Orleans) to its ally Spain, in compensation for Spain's loss to Britain of Florida. (Spain had ceded this to Britain in exchange for the return of Havana, Cuba).

Please remove the period after "Florida", since this should only be one sentence.

128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015[edit]

In "North America in the 1750s", I find this:

>The colonial governments were used to operating independently of each other, and of the government in London, a situation that complicated negotiations with Native tribes.

Please change "each" to "one", because "each other" is usually used only when there are only 2 people or items involved. Also, the remark is brief enough that you can remove the comma just after "other".

128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yellow check.svg Partly done: Agree with the comma removal, but don't think "each" necessarily needs to be changed to "one", see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/each%20other Cannolis (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015[edit]

SushiGod (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016[edit]

the war actually was 9 years not 7 2601:240:C500:2A6D:A5D8:4D8D:EAC2:354E (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. And? It clearly says that it was fought between 1754 and 1763 and that it is part of the worldwide Seven Years' War which lasted 11 years. Do you have a specific thing you want to change in this article? --Majora (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Heavy on British Failure and Light on British Successes[edit]

Someone has talked up British failures during the 7 Years War and talked down British successes. The way the lede reads is that the British won in spite of themselves, rather than editing according to historical accuracy as supported by the sources. Twobells (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016[edit]

A request to edit the French and Indian War wikipedia page under the Albany Congress heading with details and excerpts from the Plan of Union which expand on the basic framework set out.

"It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony may retain its present constitution, except in the particulars wherein a change may be directed by the said act, as hereafter follows."[1]

Osully2023 (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 08:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on French and Indian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


Other official names for the war[edit]

In the US historians often also use the term Great War for the Empire. --77.56.118.154 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017[edit]

please change "part of the seven years war" to "also known as the seven years war" Unicornprotector909 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It is correct as is. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Jumonville Glen[edit]

Hey this article references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jumonville_Glen, so I'm wondering if someone with edit power can link over to that wiki page. Thanks. 50.255.203.33 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Nate

This battle is wikilinked multiple times in the article. No need for any more. Dabbler (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the tag that states the first portion of the article is too long[edit]

I respectfully disagree. I came to this article seeking a brief, concise overview of the war, and though the introductory section is longer than most Wikipedia articles, so it the article itself. Thus, the intro gave me exactly what I was looking, a concise overview of the war without having to delve into the complex details contained in the rest of the article. In this one reader's opinion, that tag should be removed and the into section should be left as is. 47.138.93.197 (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on French and Indian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

1750s map distorts reality[edit]

The main map illustrating the pre-war situation is drawn as if colonial territorial claims described reality, which they clearly didn't. Contemporary maps (like this one) offer a different view as does current scholarship, like this map (not free culture) from the Cambridge History of Native Peoples of the Americas. Some kind of update seems like an urgent need for this page.--Carwil (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


Should use "the British monarch" instead of "His Britannic Majesty"[edit]

Was originally titled: "Usage of "His Britannic Majesty" instead of neutral language"
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) There have been objections raised about an ostensible lack of neutrality in the phrasing of the RfC statement, which, per WP:RFC, should be neutral and brief. It can be trivially established that the statement is indeed not neutrally worded, as the WP:WRFC test proves (another editor who doesn't know your opinion shouldn't be able to guess it from reading the question). However, it is not mandatory to annul an RfC because of its non-neutrally worded statement. Here, the RfC participants evidently have not been affected by the way the statement was formulated, so the direction of the debate was [not] affected, per WP:NACRFC.
The case for using the term "His Britannic Majesty" is extremely weak since it is based on nothing of substance, or even WP policy. Wikipedia articles are formulated on the basis of sources. And our sources for historical articles obviously are history texts. It is trivially demonstrable that historians do not refer to royals by their honorifics unless they are quoting (documents, sayings, laws, etc). Since, in this case, the text describes and does not quote, the terms that should be used are those used in the relevant sources, i.e. anything that denotes the British monarchy ("the British King", "the British monarch", "the Crown", etc), but not honorific terms. -The Gnome (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


The usage of "His Britannic Majesty" instead of the efficient "the British monarch" is improper, and this goes site-wide. With no disrespect to the British, but this site is written in Global English, not "the King's English."-Inowen (nlfte) 01:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The passage is in the lead, as I have edited it:

"The Acadians were expelled, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to the British monarch."

The passage is in the lead. It was previously:

"The Acadians were expelled, both those captured in arms and those who had sworn the loyalty oath to the His Britannic Majesty."

which is improper form. -Inowen (nlfte) 03:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep It is the official term for the sovereign power of the United Kingdom, and nothing to do in relation to British or Global English. As an official term for the British King or Queen, it has been used in 10's of millions of official documents, going back 800+ years, and whenever the United Kingdom or British Empire was, at that particular time, in relation to official government function. scope_creep (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know if it is a direct quote, in which case I might argue to keep it as HBM, which was the usual form in the days when there were other monarchs who might be confused. Another term for the office which I would prefer is "the British Crown". Both HBM (which is still printed in the introduction to modern British passports) and the British Crown are more appropriate than "the British monarch".Dabbler (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Additional Comment The original oath reads (in English "I promise and swear by my Faith as a Christian that I will be entirely faithful and will truly obey His Majesty King George II, whom I acknowledge as the sovereign lord of Acadia or Nova Scotia, so help me God." So I would accept King George II or the British Crown as acceptable and George II as more appropriate as he is actually named in the oath.Dabbler (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Britannic Majesty. scope_creep (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment @Scope green:"Its the official term for the sovereign power of the United Kingdom." Its not "official" in the US, or Wikipedia. In places outside of the UK we don't use "King's English," we use Global English which is a lot like American English (because of the Global preference for democracy). And your term "sovereign power" needs translation. Its in King's English. Wikipedia doesn't care what's is "official" inside of the UK, even for a thousand years, because the UK doesn't host Wikipedia, and because Wikipedia is built on democratic principles, not aristocratic styles. ...So it doesn't matter that "Her Royal Highness" and "His Royal Majesty" and "His Britannic Majesty" are formal in the UK, they are not formal on Wikipedia. "The British Crown" may be in the less unacceptable range, but the term "Crown" has a way of being a British-ism;, there is more than one crown isnt there, but not in British English usage. "The British monarch" is simple and should be regarded as formal for Wikipedia. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    Inowen, there is no "global preference" for American English over British English, and there's definitely no Wikipedia preference (see MOS:ENGVAR), but we do prefer terms that are more likely to be widely understood (per MOS:COMMONALITY). I'm wandering off-topic now, but take some advice: I've looked at some of your edits with concern. You happen to be correct in this instance, but stick to policy. This weird obsession you have with any (real or imagined) lack of democracy in the UK should be left at home when you come to Wikipedia to edit. Someone could pretty easily make a case for a WP:TBAN in this area for you, or possibly even a block. You should also read WP:RGW carefully. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • WTF? Change. If the oath was to a specific monarch, change to the name of the monarch in power at the time; if it was to the nation, then specify "British Empire" (or even British monarch(y), abstractly). But change it to something else at least. Use of such a title in Wikipedia's voice is generally inappropriate except under specific circumstances, and this isn't one of them. We refer to George III as "George III", not "His royal hyenas highness ..." except when specifically detailing his titles (per MOS:HONORIFICS). Even if you could argue that this is a generic term, it runs afoul of MOS:JARGON. The only valid reason to keep would be if it's a direct quote, but it's not listed as one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    No need for a gratuitous insult which demonstrates your own lack of NPOV. In any case George III would never be referred to as His Royal Highness by any knowledgeable person. The correct honorific is His Majesty as he was a King not a Prince or Princess. Dabbler (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Dabbler: Um, there's no insult in there whatsoever. In any case, the specific title doesn't matter – the point I was making remains just as valid. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    So referring to a "Highness" as "hyenas" may not seem insulting to you (even with the weaselly strikeout), but it is to me and I am sure many others. Dabbler (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    The link to The Kentucky Fried Movie should have been a clue that there was something funny going on. It would be worth it to search the Youtubes for "Kentucky Fried Movie courtroom". There you should find a 7:54 clip, and it would be worth watching from about the 6:09 mark. I'd give you a link except for that pesky WP:COPYVIOEL thing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedural close. Although I agree with the RFC proposer (see reasoning above), this should probably be closed because it's not neutrally worded. The title "Usage of "His Britannic Majesty" instead of neutral language" already implies that the text in question isn't neutrally worded (so meta), rather than simply asking if the text should be changed, or something to that effect. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Deacon Vorbis. You were firm in the change column, what happened? Have you 'been the lobby?' (Read as "been the lobby" → "been to the lobby" → "been lobbied"). If there is a problem with the title of this section, there is nothing wrong with changing it to remove the direct implication, something like "Use of "His Britannical Majesty" instead of "the British monarch." -Inowen (nlfte) 01:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

    @Inowen: (This response is also based on the comments at User talk:Deacon Vorbis. I am leaving it here since I feel it better to mention here.) See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief and Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment. The problem is not just with the title but the question itself which says:

    The usage of "His Britannic Majesty" instead of the efficient "the British monarch" is improper, and this goes site-wide. With no disrespect to the British, but this site is written in Global English, not "the King's English."

    which is clearly not neutral.

    To be clear you're welcome to express any policy based opinions in a follow up !vote to the RFC, but the question itself needs to be neutral. And you can't just change it now since it's been a while and people have already responded to the question. It should hopefully be obvious why it's highly problematic to change what people have responded. Maybe more importantly, the damage has already been done to those who've already responded, as well as those who've seen the RFC but not responded.

    Also changing the question now in the talk page will not change all the other places it is, in this instance Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. (I believe other occurrences are transcluded from these.)

    Also you need to WP:AGF and not accuse people of having being lobbied with zero evidence. A neutral RfC is a requirement. It's quite common that people have first impressions and then later notice something they missed or didn't consider problemproperly. From what I can tell Deacon Vorbis still supports the re-wording but also feels, quite reasonably, that it would be a mistake to do so via this RfC given that it's too flawed. So rather than editors spending time discussing something when there's a good chance the result will be contentious given the problems with the RfC, it would be better to close this and try again in some other way. Perhaps via a future neutrally worded RfC.

    Personally I suspect your question is damaging your case as much as anything since as Deacon Vorbis has said, the idea we use some sort of "global English" is simply wrong but ultimately as much as we don't expect people to get their RfCs perfect, I do agree it's problematic enough that it may be better to just close this.

    P.S. For those confused by the title issue, see [1]

    Nil Einne (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

    Actually the bot will deal with any changes in wording of the question in terms of places it's automatically copied to so I've struck that. But the essay linked above also agrees that ideally re-wording should be done soon after the RfC is opened. I admit I'm not sure on re-wording RfCs after a few days. My feeling based on normal talk pages rules was that it couldn't be done with so many responses. But the only RfC cases I've seen have been the problems ones which have made it to ANI. Significantly the essay does suggest it's acceptable to re-word even if people have responded, so perhaps it would be okay. Although it's been a while the number of responders isn't that high. I have no objection if others agree to re-wording the RfC and keeping it open. Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, I honestly don't know how best to proceed in these cases. It almost seems silly to close and then reopen a similar one, but getting something that's neutral is kind of important. I probably wouldn't object to however anyone else wants to proceed here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Summation of events until present: Deacon Vorbis agreed with the basic assessment above, but after outside consultation thought the above section title as originally posted was not neutral and therefore improperly worded for an RFC. I have changed the section title, since it doesn't change the meaning of the RFC or interfere with the linkages to this talk (which are in the above RFC tags and not in the section name). Deacon Vorbis agreed that the language "Her Britannic Majesty" instead of "the British monarch" is clearly improper for Wikipedia. One argument for why its improper is because its not neutral language. Another argument is that its the language of an aristocratic and anti-democratic government, ("they resisted democracy") and therefore self-promotional and not oriented toward working well with others, which is perhaps the core ethos of Wikipedia.
PS:Nil Eine is saying that Deacon Vorbis objected to both the title (rewritten) and the wording in the statment (un-changed), but that is inaccurate. Deacon Vorbis was vociferous in his agreement with the premise, and his concern was only with the title. Nil Eine's attack on my writing style is an attempt to interfere with this RFC as it seems likely to fall against the usage of British-isms like "Her Britannic Majesty" in Wikipedia articles.-Inowen (nlfte) 22:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Change to "the British crown" or "the king" or something along those lines. "His Britannic Majesty" is a trifle grand and pompous, and it does not flow well in the context and style of the intro. —Dilidor (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.