Talk:French and Indian War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name and lead

See Archive 1: Naming

The conflict is referred to as the "Seven Years' War" in Canadian (British Columbian) school textbooks...and we refer to it as such, so this "US and Canada" naming thing is bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.46.60 (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that the introduction needs altering to emphasize that this is a name used in the US to describe the conflict but not elsewhere in the English speaking world. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Further to this, I have never heard the term 'War of the Conquest' used by Canadian Anglophones. The convention 'Seven Years War' is pretty much universal, the same as in the rest of the world. The word 'Conquest' would be seen as very undesirable, although it may reflect legitimate opinion by some in Quebec (hence La Guerre de la Conquête). I won't edit this right away, and perhaps someone can cite evidence that 'War of the Conquest' is actually in use.Joe Photon (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Do note that the word "Conquest" does not refer to an opinion, it is a historical fact. The British conquered the territories that were under the rule of the King of France. It is interesting to note why would the 'War of the Conquest' not be used by Canadian Anglophones... Maybe to spare sensibilites. The term "La Conquête" in the French-Canadian perspective is useful to define a kind of historical hinge point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.55.133 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

---

(moved to correct place in sequence.Xyl 54 (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC))
I agree with Philip Baird Shearer on the nomenclature. Looking in my family's library, all the Canadian history books on the shelf refer to the conflict as the Seven Years War, while treating the subject separately from the Seven Years War in Europe In my schooling through the early 2000's, this nomenclature was also used. I will change the first sentence of the article to reflect canadian usage. A redirect will be added from "The Seven Years War (North America). The disambiguation page does not seem to need changing as it already refers to the convention of referring to the North American theatre of the Seven Years War.--Fbfree (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Links to Seven Years' War or to this article?

Several articles, such as Quebec#Seven Years' War and capitulation of New France and Fredericton link to Seven Years' War when it would be more exact to link to this article instead. Presumably, this is a vestige of the time before this article was created. Should these be changed according to WP:SPECIFICLINK? Some articles, such as Expulsion of the Acadians, link to both, which in my view is a case of WP:OVERLINKING, although it is not described as such in that section. (BTW, personally, I'm not a big fan of the name "French and Indian War" due to the confusion with French and Indian Wars, but that's another story, and I'm not questioning that here.) — Sebastian 03:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Slobodan Milosovic, Wikipedia Historian

This phrase in the Outcome section is extremely distorted:

"the British had expelled French settlers from Acadia (some of whom eventually fled to Louisiana, creating the Cajun population)"

The British carried out a famous and famously-deadly forced march to Louisiana of Acadians who refused to swear allegiance to the British crown. At a minimum this genocidal infamy could be noted as:

"the British had expelled French settlers from Acadia (some of whom were force-marched to Louisiana, creating the Cajun population)

Forced march? Why didn't they just ship them down the Mississippi on barges? I'm amazed the british had the patience required for such a march.Zebulin (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there were actually varoius destinations and routes, among them, shipping expelled Acadians to Louisiana or the Carribean, as well as overland routes. someone needs to verify this. (maybe I will when I verify below)

--206.116.103.138 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The expulsion of the Acadians is confusing and not sure how to "summarize" it. The deportation started before the end of the war since the British had held Acadia for many years prior to the war. Many Acadians fled to French controlled Quebec (or what is now New Brunswick). Many went to (French) Haiti and were forced to flee the Haitian revolution. Not simple. Student7 (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This commentary is long out of date; the article no longer has the 2008 language, and actually contains a reasonable summation of where the Acadians went in the Consequences section. (As far as I know, nobody was force-marched to Louisiana; the deportations were by ship, including at least one that sank with significant loss of life.) Magic♪piano 16:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Balance

A great deal of space in this article is devoted to the leadup to the war; the war itself occupies just three dense paragraphs. No discussions of logistics and war planning on anyone's part. I wonder if there should be campaign-style articles for each year. (I know, I could be bold; I'm currently frying other fish.) Magic♪piano 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Becoming Canada

I find the following statement to be quite odd, considering that Canada did not come into being until more than a century later.

"The conflict, the fourth such colonial war between the nations of France and Great Britain, resulted in the British conquest of Canada.[5]"

The Treaty of Paris, 1763, resulted in King Louis 15th ceding New France, Acadia and New Orleans, along with the Louisiana territory, to the British. There were two very significant consequences. The first was that the Catholic Church lost political claim to the continent of North America. Until that time, the headquarters of the Catholic Church was in Quebec (City). It is quite remarkable to think of what might have happened had France not lost. A map posted on the site of Quebec survivance author and professor at Marianopolis College clearly shows this . Professor Bélanger's site clearly expresses a significant Francophone perspective on these events.

The second significant item was that the lineage of King Georges became rulers of the North American colonies, eventually resulting in the revolution that created the United States of America.

Thirdly, and equally significantly in Canada, was that directly after the time of the transfer of property, the British Crown (King George III)agreed to protect the rights of Aboriginal peoples . due to increasing restlessness south of the border, and in order to forestall franchophone alliances with the Americans, the Treaty of Quebec, 1774, promised French Canadians the right to live as Catholics, gave the Catholic Church powers of taxation, granted Quebec its own internal governance and the right to practice their own civil law. . Thus the pre-constitutional rights of Aboriginal peoples and of the francophone in Canada flow from the conversion of New France to British rule, and the events this set in motion.

The Canadian Encyclopedia notes that the Quebec Act of 1774 resulted in the splitting of the former colony of Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada, today roughly equivalent to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, though at that time the areas were much larger, stretching into the northern United States and westward into the what is now Western Canada.

It is slightly nonsensical, though, to say that the British "conquered" Canada, with the term 'Canada' being the nonsensical part. It might be said, depending on what your politics are, that the British conquered the French when the British General Wolfe defeated the French Marquis de Montcalm in a heroic battle fought on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City in 1759, in which both leaders lost their lives. The British did win, but at great cost. Francophones writing in the survivance tradition, such as Claude Bélanger, do term the British takeover a "conquest", but not of Canada, which did not exist, but of North America, which was French. The significance is much greater. However, it might be more accurate to say that King Louis 15th "sold out" his French interests due to lack of strategic action or misplaced confidence and resources, which is not to say that British were not all too glad to take advantage of this.

I await a response!

Sookevista (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Sookevista

You did follow the link for Canada, yes? "Canada" is not a name that only came into existence in 1867. (It is arguable that this link is an easter egg, and should be exposed.) "Canada" is used, for example, throughout American period writings in the American Revolutionary War, even though the place was then called Quebec.

Second, you did read the section entitled "Consequences", yes? It addresses some of your issues (such as the impact on natives, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and the Quebec Act of 1774), but not others (impact on the Catholic Church).

Third, calling North America Catholic (or French) at the time would be rather POV -- I can think of at least fourteen British Protestant reasons why, not to mention the uncounted native ones. The fact that France had a large territorial claim is mitigated by the relatively tenuous control it had over most of that territory; this war shows that France was unwilling or unable to defend its claims.

Fourth, this (quoting you above):

The Canadian Encyclopedia notes that the Quebec Act of 1774 resulted in the splitting of the former colony of Quebec into Upper and Lower Canada.

This is strange; please show me the where this reading appears in the act's text. (Perhaps you meant the Constitutional Act of 1791?)

It is true that the article lead is deficient in summarizing some of these things. Be bold. Magic♪piano 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The war was against the French and the British. The Mohawk Indians were allies of the French. They helped them in the war. the British won the war.They fought for the land west of the Mississippi River.

Umm, the Mohawks were on the British side, not the French side. Just pointing it out. Stef Wells(talk) 9:41 AM December 11, 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply: I see that the article has been much expanded while I have been away.

A moot point, I think, in regards to the development of the article, but in regards to calling North American Catholic, I think you slightly misread me. The Catholic Church, via the French King, laid religious claim to North America. This did not, of course, make sense to include the lands claimed and occupied by the British on the Eastern coast of what is now the U.S., as you point out. However, there was much in dispute at that time - the Spanish held California, Russians laid claim to Alaska and so on, so even to say that the French or the British laid claim to... whatever they were laying claim to, it is more a hypoethetical claim - a wishful claim. --206.116.103.138 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 208.64.220.242, 5 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the beginning of this article, at the forth paragraph, there is a minor, although important, error. The paragraph reads as below:

The outcome was one of the most significant developments in a century of Anglo-French conflict. To compensate its ally, Spain, for its loss of Florida to the British, France ceded its control of French Louisiana east of the Mississippi. France's colonial presence north of the Caribbean was reduced to the tiny islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, confirming Britain's position as the dominant colonial power in the eastern half of North America.

In the second sentence the word 'east' should be 'west'. To compensate Spain, France gave the future Louisiana Purchase property to Spain (this is WEST of the Mississippi!) The French held property EAST of the Mississippi was ceded to Britain.

208.64.220.242 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Magic♪piano 02:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ohio Company founded in Virginia?

Re: this statement: "In 1747, some British colonists in Virginia established the Ohio Company for the purpose of developing trade and settlements in the Ohio Country.[17]" which is footnoted to Jennings, I'm a bit surprised. Given that there's a plaque on the Boston building along State St (originally King St.) where the Bunch of Grapes Tavern was, noting that the Ohio Company charter was signed there, with settlers preparing to leave for the territories thereafter. Plus we learned in Ohio History many years ago that it was from Boston. Plus, while VA claimed West VA, I don't ever recall any claims to Ohio. Check the Marietta/Campus Martius website also...in other words, this needs fixing.198.176.188.201 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Boston-based "Ohio Company" was formed in 1786 link. See also Ohio Company vs. Ohio Company of Associates. I believe Virginia's original charter claims were "sea to sea", and thus intersected those of other states as one went west (see map at Colony of Virginia). Magic♪piano 18:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2012

About 2/3 of the way through the article, there's a reference to a "Frot Duquesne".

69.85.158.7 (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks for pointing that out. AlexiusHoratius 05:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

conquest of Quebec

the single most important outcome of this war was the conquest of Canada. The battle of the Plains of Abraham at Quebec City is barely mentioned. The capture of Quebec City ensured British (and American) victory and opened up the Ohio Valley for American expansion. The cost of the war to remove the French from Canada was a direct cause of increased taxes on American colonists. Also, the Quebec Act (1774) gave the new colony of Quebec much of upper state New York, Michigan, Ohio, and other modern day US states, much to the anger of New England business leaders. The French And Indian War (Seven Years War) was a major driver to the American War of Independence, but there seem to be little understanding of that in this article. More work is needed on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blhende (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Strangely, I find all of the things you list mentioned in the article (mostly under the aptly named "British conquest" and "Consequences" sections). How much more (and what kind of) "understanding" do you think is needed? Magic♪piano 19:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Michigan disputed territory?

Michigan had been settled by France well in advance of this war (St. Ignace, Michilimackinac, Detroit). It shouldn't be colored the same as the truly disputed territories (like the Ohio valley) on the map. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

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)

Done Cannolis (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2015

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)

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

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

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

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

• 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

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

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."

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

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 _S  08:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806083032/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0007300 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0007300
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806083032/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=a1ARTA0007300 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007300
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131221124712/http://ns1763.ca:80/remem/7yw-timeline-w.html to http://ns1763.ca/remem/7yw-timeline-w.html

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)

Intercontinental??-- edit request

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)

Intercolonial wouldn't be correct, just call it the Fourth Intercontinental War. Jacksonkhancock (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Other official names for the war

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

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

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

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131072213/http://americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2005/6/2005_6_75.shtml to http://americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2005/6/2005_6_75.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130606121014/http://www.wqed.org/tv/specials/the-war-that-made-america/ to http://www.wqed.org/tv/specials/the-war-that-made-america/

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

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"

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

Length of War

So, I don't know what Dilidor (talk · contribs) wants me to present on this talk page, but I'm just here to maintain the status quo (i.e. maintain the years that has been used in the article since its inception; and the years that are stated in the majority of the sources). Dilidor, keep in mind, you are the one presenting the change to the article. If someone contests it, it is your job to defend why your change should remain, not the other way around.

As for the change itself, as stated earlier, it goes against the range used in this article since inception (not to mention the sources used, its biblio, and the external links provided in this article reflect the [1754-1763] date range). Dilador, I've already asked for you to provide a citation if you want to make this change (and indirectly, rectify the difference in range of years between your citation, and the ones in this article). So at the very least, if you want to get this discussion rolling, provide your citation. Leventio (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've had a moment to address this. The name "French and Indian War" is an American usage which refers absolutely and strictly to the war fought on American soil. I recognize that some Europeans view this as "the North American theater" of the Seven Years' War--but Europeans do not refer to this conflict as the French and Indian War! This is a strictly American term for an American war, and it ended in 1758. I have attempted to make this more clear in the introduction, and have added the Seven Years' War into the dates section--but the French and Indian War ended in 1758. —Dilidor (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The terminology is North American (which includes English Canadians, whose way of using it has been adopted by some European historians with regards to its relation with the Seven Years War).

And in saying that I keep asking for you to present a source, because what your doing is amounting to WP:OR. Because all the sources in this article, including those which are created/presented in a American perspective, do not differentiate the events from 1759 to 1760 as a separate conflict from the ones that occurred prior to 1758. You have yet to provide any source that presents the suggested date range (54–58), or a source with a historian that suggests that the conflict should be studied as two separate conflicts (not to mention once you do find that, you'd need to rectify it them to not conflict with the current sources). In fact, pilfering through the sources used in this article, none of them suggest that the events past 1758 are viewed as a separate conflict, and are very much grouped and discussed as a part of the same French and Indian War (just looking at ELs linked here, see the PBS, the chickasaw.tv links). Further Googling of published online sources also reflects this (Britannica, Office of the Historian of the U.S. Department of State). I mean, the conversation of breaking down the war can be had, but you need to find a source that distinguishes the fighting pre-1758 and post-1758 first. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is a reflection of what is published on WP:RS, not what the editor on his own rationalizes about it (i.e. OR). Leventio (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"The name "French and Indian War" is an American usage which refers absolutely and strictly to the war fought on American soil." Are you seriously claiming that the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (and other actions in present-day Canada) aren't considered by Americans to be part of this war? (There were military actions on what is now US soil in both 1759 and 1760, rendering your claimed 1758 end date somewhat absurd within a narrow interpretation of "American soil".)

Also, most wars of that period seem to be judged to have ended when the treaty is signed, not when major hostilities ceased. We don't say that the American Revolutionary War ended in 1782, for example (when the last hostilities of note took place in North America). Magic♪piano 22:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Strange map

Why are some areas "disputed" in this map so far in what are today the United States? Or why is a small New France around Quebec said to be undisputed while it could be said England disputed everything all the time? Whose definition of a mini-New France is that? Whose definition of disputed territories are those? I suspect this represent a British view or even the American view which never accepted that the Province of Quebec (1774) went as far south as Illinois and even the Mississipi River (one of the causes of the Rebellion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.210.7 (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020

FRENCH CANADIANS should be edited to Quebecois Keroucdezbois (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Not synonymous. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2020

At the beginning of the article, it states that French Colonists were supported by the Lenape Nation. However, in Teedyuscung's 1758 Speech, he clearly states that the Lenape were in support of the British and fighting against the French.

Please change "The British colonists were supported at various times by the Iroquois, Catawba, and Cherokee tribes, and the French colonists were supported by Wabanaki Confederacy member tribes Abenaki and Mi'kmaq, and the Algonquin, Lenape, Ojibwa, Ottawa, Shawnee, and Wyandot tribes." to "The British colonists were supported at various times by the Lenape, Iroquois, Catawba, and Cherokee tribes, and the French colonists were supported by Wabanaki Confederacy member tribes Abenaki and Mi'kmaq, and the Algonquin, Ojibwa, Ottawa, Shawnee, and Wyandot tribes."

Citation: Vanderwerth, W. C., & Carmack, W. R. (1979). Teedyuscung Delaware. In Indian Oratory: Famous Speeches by Noted Indian Chiefs (pp. 15-24). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 2601:246:103:7BF0:FCCE:8781:CBA6:F8CE (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Are there any secondary sources you could point to for this? – Thjarkur (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"La Conquete" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect La Conquete. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 11#La Conquete until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC for scope & title of the American Revolutionary War

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Which of two (2) titles should be chosen to define the scope of the existing article American Revolutionary War?
discussion summarized by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A. "American Revolutionary War”

B. "War of the American Revolution"

- continuity - used at this WP article and sisters for 19 years - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America - participants British & US Congress with their respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure - results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury - reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader - prominent adherents - 15 Pulitzer history winners

- modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search - scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean - participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore - war aims -- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system -- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure -- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade -- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean -- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic - reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist - prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow

Comments:

“none of the above”. What is the common term for such wars around the world? Usually, each country refers to local events as The War of Independence. So, internationally we would refer to The War of Independence of India, The War of Independence of Spain, The War of Independence of Ireland, etc. But “The War of Independence of the United States of America” is too much of a mouthful. So I think the most descriptive title is The War of American Independence. It can’t be The War of Independence of America because that common synonym isn’t the official name of the country and it might be argued that in the 18th century “American“ didn’t have quite the same meaning that it does after a couple of centuries of nationhood. Nevertheless, if the choice is to emphasize “revolution”, so be it. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

21:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Danie090802 (talk)

Change

At this time, Spain claimed only the province of Florida in eastern America. It controlled Cuba and other territories in the West Indies that became military objectives in the Seven Years' War. Florida's European population was a few hundred, concentrated in St. Augustine and Pensacola.[citation needed]

to

At this time, Spain claimed only the province of Florida in eastern America. It controlled Cuba and other territories in the West Indies that became military objectives in the Seven Years' War. Florida's European population was a few thousand, concentrated mainly in St. Augustine. Danie090802 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Done, although placed requested citation into a cite journal template and narrowed it down to relevant page. Leventio (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

change "so hejoined Tanaghrisson's froces" to "so he joined Tanaghrisson's forces" Zbaker33 (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Deauthorized. ^(talk) 00:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)