Talk:Great Siege of Gibraltar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Great Siege of Gibraltar POV

• The claim that the Great Siege of Gibraltar was "part of" the American Revolutionary War is dubious, and unfounded, esp since there were no Americans fighting in that campaign. 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 for the war for/against American independence on the other side of the ocean. There are a couple of sources than say this campaign was part of the American Revolutionary War, but the reference is only made in passing. Most RS on the Revolutionary War don't even mention Gibraltar, and the couple that do only mention Gibraltar in passing reference. e.g. While the ARW was being fought in America, Britain was also fighting in Gibraltar. If there is a RS that actually explains how the war in Gibraltar was part of the ARW, it has yet to be presented on the ARW Talk page where this issues has been thoroughly addressed, or here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
• The only thing this article says about the American Revolutionary War is that Britain's involvement in that war presented Spain with an opportunity to supply the Americans with funding and arms. The actual war in Gibraltar, specifically fought for control of Gibraltar, had nothing to do with the struggle for American independence. To say the war in Gibraltar was "part of" the Revolutionary War is entirely misleading, given the objective of control of Gibraltar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Spain and France joined in the American War of Independence, in part to take advantage for their own ends. I'm not sure why you have such strong feelings about this but this action was part of the American Revolutionary War, it tied up resources that would otherwise have been dealing with those rebellious colonists. W C M_email 09:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with WCM; in the overall strategtic, military and poltical level the British, French and Spanish perspectives were reliant on the outcome of the seige in order to gain an iron fist in the Paris peace talks. In this it was vitally inportant on the end of the whole American Revolutionary war. With the defeat of the assault and the relief of the garrison this meant that Britain could finally end the war with honour with a 'good hand'. There was also a couple of Americans fighting on the Franco Spanish side. One of these was Louis Littlepage. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• While the prospect of control over Gibraltar was used as a bargaining chip at the Treaty of Paris, it had little to do with Britain's concessions with America, and the British were certainly not in a position to continue the war over seas, esp with France and Spain still eager to maintain war with Britain, and eager to threaten British interests in the West Indies. That is the only connection to speak of between Gibraltar and the ARW. The Gibraltar campaign was a war declared by Spain against Britain for the express concern of gaining control of that strategic location. Yes, Britain committed resources to the Gibraltar campaign, which could have been used on the American continent, but that is just a circumstantial association. The ARW was started and fought over gaining American independence -- Gibraltar, with virtually no Americans fighting there, was fought over control of Gibraltar – two entirely different reasons why those wars were declared. If the Gibraltar campaign was fought with American independence as its primary objective, or at least one of its major objectives, that would be different. To say the Gibraltar campaign was "part of" the ARW is a stretch at best, and very misleading to the readers who come to WP for information. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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 the Americans 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).

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see your point; regardless of what you said there was still fighting in America at the same time and this didn't stop – and only ended with the peace in Paris. Therefore if the Gibraltar siege was still going on with Spain assisted by France, the conflict in America was too. That is why the two are linked. It is almost like your saying that Japan in WWII is not linked to what the Germans were doing in the West. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Two wars occurring at the same time for entirely different reasons, involving different enemies, doesn't make them part of the same war. The WWII analogy doesn't stand either – both Japan and Germany were heavily engaged with the United States. Spain at Gibraltar was not. We may as well refer to the ARW as WWI and bump up the numbers for the other two world wars. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Once again, Gibraltar had no bearing on ending the ARW -- Gibraltar's fate was negotiated in terms of a peace agreement between Spain and Britain only. The Americans settled, in London, ala Prime Minister Shelburn, because their independence was recognized and because they got all the land east of the Mississippi, along with fishing rights in Nova Scotia and the Mississippi River etc. That agreement ended the war between America and Britain. Gibraltar did not factor into those negotiations, which occurred separately from Spain and France. To say Gibraltar was "part of" anything in terms of the American Revolution is a stretch, at best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Again you can't hide from the fact that this is a result of the AWR. It is still linked like the French and Indian War is linked to the Seven Years war. Also going back to the point about WWII the US did not sign any alliances like the US and French did in AWR. The Bourbon Pact Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) signed by France and Spain in a great opportunity to join in on the rebellious colonists side and take away possessions from the British which they lost in Seven Years war. The Franco-American Treaty, Art. II is a defensive alliance for US 'independence and sovereignty' in North America. The US does NOT obligate itself to war with Britain until France meets its imperial objectives in India as Spain wants with Florida, Menorca and Gibraltar. What do you propose instead? Anglo-French War? Anglo Spanish war? Tell me are there historians who share the same view and have argued for another war? If not then it is clearly a NPOV Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Insert : The only "link" to Gibraltar and the ARW is that they occurred in the same time period. Spain had wanted Gibraltar back since 1704, long before the ARW had started. Spain simply took advantage of the situation that Britain was largely committed on the American continent and in the West Indies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

A popular military history may help. Warring against Britain at GIBRALTAR at the same TIME Britain is suppressing a North American rebellion IS NOT the same as PARTICIPATING in that British civil war in NORTH AMERICA; US independence is not colonizing Gibraltar, Gibraltar in not in the US territory ceded by Britain; Britain does not cede Gibraltar to Spain because it lost thirteen North American colonies.

DISTINCTIONS are made in TWO places early in the book, Falkner (2009), (a) GIBRALTAR CHRONOLOGY: 1783. 20 Jan ‘Peace preliminaries signed in Paris’ for GIBRALTAR. That Gibraltar date is NOT the 1782. 30 Nov date for British-US preliminary peace ending the AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Gibraltar starts two months later, or one month after George III announces for US independence in his December 5 Speech from the Throne at a public joint session of Parliament. Gibraltar does not dictate the American settlement two months before.

(b)Second sentence of the BOOK: Referencing Spain's claim to Gibraltar in 1779, “ … that was the rather spurious claim made at a time when Great Britain was striving to suppress rebellion in North America.” The PURPOSE of the Spanish assault was not American independence in North America, but rather gaining, “this strategically vital point guarding the entrance to the Mediterranean.” (publisher blurb). The JOURNAL REVIEW in “The Past in Review” is quoted there, “This book does a wonderful job in describing a portion of the Rock of Gibraltar’s history during the Napoleonic Wars”. The JOURNAL and the PUBLISHER puts Gibraltar in a FORWARD military era, because Gibraltar is NOT A PART of the American Revolution, the American Revolution is OVER.

@Gwillhickers, Eastfarthingan, and Wee Curry Monster: Sincerely, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Virtually all comprehensive works on the Great Siege of Gibraltar reference it as part of the American Revolutionary War. Take for example Adkins' "GibraltarThe Greatest Siege in British History" [1], Rene Chartrand's "Gibraltar 1779–1783 The Great Siege" [2], and James Falkner's "Fire Over the Rock The Great Siege of Gibraltar, 1779-1783" [3]. As far as i can tell, general books on the war such as Tucker's "American Revolution: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection" [4] and Clodfelter's "Warfare and Armed Conflicts A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures"gibraltar casualties all treat Gibralar and the other battles in Europe like Minorca and Cape St. Vincent as being part of the American Revolutionary War. There was no separate Anglo-French War or Anglo-Spanish War. On the main American Revolutionary War talk page, Gwillhickers and TVH have been for the past several months making the same assertions they make here, but have yet to come up with a single source that utilizes the term "Anglo-French War". As such, their assertions that Gibraltar and the other non-north American campaigns were not part of the war are fringe theories of their own synthesis that should be accorded no weight within the article.XavierGreen (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It is NOT a NPOV. It hasn't been discussed in by any historians – once all is linked to the peace of Paris of 1783

THIS Paragraph is very important in that article
=== Peace with the United States ===
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.

I'd be interested to see the comments regarding this. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, due to the clauses forcing America and France and France and Spain in their respective treaties of alliance to conduct simultaneous peaces with Britain in order to end the war, France and in turn the United States could not make peace with the British until Spain too agreed to end the war. Spain refused to end the war so long as home held out that Gibraltar could be taken. After Cape Spartel, the French were able to pressure the Spanish into agreeing to end the war. Once the French agreed to end the war, the Americans could then finally comply with their treaty of alliance with France and make peace as well.XavierGreen (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

edit break

Britain would have made peace with the United States regardless if Spain refused to cooperate, and as said, Shelburn was happy to negotiate with the US without Spain or France, as they did, even though in the end all parties signed the treaty. The US came out of it with all the land east of the Mississippi, etc. It is pure speculation that Britain and America would have continued the ARW if Spain did not concede Gibraltar to Britain. All the text you copy-pasted from another article regarding the resupply of Gibraltar is entirely beside the point and only involves Spain and Britain. Spain chose to declare war on Britain over Gibraltar because she knew Britain was preoccupied in and had committed vast resources in America. Simply because Spain declared war during the latter part of the ARW doesn't mean Spain's war was part of the ARW. Again, for Spain's war to be part of the ARW, the campaign at Gibraltar would have had to of been fought for the same cause -- American independence. Regardless of where casualties at Gibraltar are listed it is entirely conjecture to claim that Gibraltar was "part of" the American Revolution -- and no where does Clodfelter, or anyone, explain how or why Gibraltar was part of the ARW other than to note it occurred in the same time period as the ARW. Once again, the only thing the ARW and the Siege of Gibraltar have in common is that they occurred in the same time period and involved the British. They were still fought for two completely different reasons. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

What reliable source says the "to be part of the ARW, the campaign at Gibraltar would have had to of been fought for the same cause -- American independence" that is an assumption of your own synthases. Wars have been fought by multiple belligerents for different aims throughout history. Do you think Hejaz cared who killed Franz Ferdinand or not Alsace-Lorraine was German or French when it joined the hostilities during World War One? Stating that all belligerents in a conflict must have one singular aim in prosecuting that conflict for their campaigns to collectively be one war does not only fail to comport with reliable sources, it flys in the face of reality.XavierGreen (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Britain would have made peace with the United States regardless if Spain refused to cooperate. That is complete rubbish; as was stated, Britain was waiting for news from other fronts in order to gain a hand in the peace. I must also mention that the Battle of the Saintes in April 1782 forced the French after their defeat there to call the Peace conference in September. This coincided with the Grand assault in Gibraltar and the relief of the garrison by the Royal Navy. Both victories meant a get out clause and that Britain could sign a peace with all parties as a matter of satisfactory honour. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Britain was indeed waiting for the best situation to occur between the given countries, but nothing said here nails the idea that Britain would have gone back to war with the US if Spain refused to concede Gibraltar. Ridiculous. With the U.S. out of the way Britain would have been in a far better position to deal with Spain and France. Prime Minister Shelburn was happy to deal with the U.S. without France and Spain, and indeed the U.S. came out of it with all the territory east of the Mississippi. Any war that was fought by multiple belligerents, regardless of their own particular interests, had a strong common theme that put matters under the heading of one war, and no one, sources included, has yet to explain what the Gibraltar campaign had in common with the ARW inasmuch as it can be referred to as part of the American Revolutionary War. The Anglo-French war at Gibraltar was fought over its control. How is it that we can refer to that campaign as the war for American independence, or the American Revolution? Where is the connection? Is there a source that explains why Shelburn would have held back on such a generous offer if Spain didn't get Gibraltar? Is there one that says Britain would have resumed the war in America if Spain didn't concede Gibraltar? There was much more than just British honor at stake here, and I'm assuming Shelburn and the Crown weren't so vain as to put that in front of its major national interests. Besides, Britain's dealings with America were honorable all by itself. Britain didn't have to rely on Spain to save face with the United States. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The war with the US was still going on in 1782 – offensive operations were halted but certainly not defensive which were still a major part of the British strategy ie defence of Canada, New York etc. The war in the West was still going on for example where this region of warfare ended up being a stalemate due to numerous British victories. Battle of the Blue Licks for example took place around the same time as the nadir of the Franco-Spanish siege at Gibraltar. Who cares about Shelburn he is irrelevant here – the only relevancy is the end result of the Gibraltar siege which was reliant by 1782 on ending the war for EVERYONE'S sake. Also Gibraltar was a major Spanish objective of the war NOT French so how can it be Anglo-French War?? Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition to Blue Licks and other operations in the western theater, there was at least one major offensive campaign in the east that occurred after Yorktown as well, Anthony Waynes Savannah Campaign of 1782 [5] which ran from January of 1782 to July of 1782. Naval combat between American and British forces continued right up to the end of the war. For example there was an engagement between USS Alliance and various british vessels in 1783 USS Alliance (1778)#1783, not to mention privateer actions that continued right up until the peace was signed.XavierGreen (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

How is Spain in the Anglo-French War?

THE FRENCH DECLARED WAR ON BRITAIN, initiating the Anglo-French War (1778). It was waged by the French Court to re-litigate the 1763 Treaty of Paris at their defeat in the Seven Years' War. They sought to recover lost territory (RS use the phrase "turn the tables on the British", etc.) The French could not dominate the English Channel without ships from Spain, so France violated its defensive treaty with the US (Morris), and engaged Spain in the 1779 secret Treaty of Aranjuez to secure the required Spanish alliance to dominate the British in European waters. Spain in turn required of France that it war with Britain until Spain regained Minorca, the Floridas, and Gibraltar it lost in the 1763 peace settlement.

- SPAIN DECLARED WAR ON BRITAIN as an ally with France against Britain for imperial gain. It did so without the US as signatory to the French-Spanish Treaty. Though formally invited in the Franco-American treaty to ally against Britain there and guarantee US independence, and again approached by US ministers in Madrid, the Spanish Court chose not to directly engage in a treaty with the US Congress to any any purpose until AFTER de facto independence had been granted by George III December 5, 1782 Speech from the Throne to a public joint session of Parliament.

- The two shifted the balance of power in Europe. France and Spain began preparations to invade Ireland and England. The British public patriotically responded. From 1775 to 1778, they had been reluctant to enlist against their American cousins, so much so, that the Crown required German auxiliaries to begin a campaigns to put down the rebellion. But now Britons of all classes and descriptions enthusiastically flocked to join local militias and regular British Regiments.

- One XavierGreen favorite RS that I share is Clodfelter (2017), 131. Clodfelter concludes that "The rest of the war in North America was anticlimatic and insignificant after Yorktown." INDEPENDENTLY of British-French-Spanish peace, SPAIN recognizes US independence in a conclusive treaty on March 17, 1783.

- THIS BEGS THE QUESTION: if the Spanish Court will recognize American independence and the end of the American Revolutionary War ONE MONTH before the US accepts the British terms for its independence by Act of Congress, why can't XavierGreen? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Clodfelter

Clodfelter specifically includes not only Gibraltar, the Saintes, St. Vincent, Suffern's East Indies campaign and a variety of non-North American actions as being part of the American Revolutionary War, his statement that the remainder of actions on the North American continent were anti-climactic does not conflict with that. The vast majority of sources state that the Siege of Gibraltar is part of the American Revolutionary War. That is all that matters in relation to this issue. Your own beliefs and views are irrelevant in this regard and violate wiki:SYNTH.XavierGreen (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

YES, BRITAIN AND FOUR BELLIGERENTS share a CALENDAR for almost TWO years, 1780–1781. NO, Clodfelter does NOT say that GIBRALTAR et al elsewhere than North America are a part of the American Revolutionary War ('ARW').

- GIBRALTAR et al are a part of Clodfelter's global War of American Revolution (‘WAR’) in his innovative historiography. It is given definition by the same time period to coincide with his interest in BRITISH military history from an ANGLO-CENTRIC point of view. (a) It is wp:fringe to the ARW because Britannica does not have an entry for it relative to its "American Revolutionary War" article. (b) It is wp:fringe to the ARW because Wikipedia consensus does not allow it wp:significance to merit a stand-alone article (as WP does for new historiography's Second Hundred Years' War 1689–1815, which also has no entry at mainstream RS Britannica).

- MOST TELLINGLY, (c) Gibraltar in particular is wp:fringe to the ARW because one of the XavierGreen RS has a publisher that sees the siege in Europe as prologue to the NEXT major conflict in Europe, so on the dust jacket, it places their GIBRALTAR book in the "Napoleonic Wars", BECAUSE it takes place AFTER the American Revolution.

- Clodfelter carefully DISTINGUISHES between “The American Revolutionary War” in North America 1775–1783, and “The War of American Revolution” elsewhere. He does, BUT they are wp:error CONFLATED in the vast majority of popular histories published WITHOUT academic wp:peer review. Couple that with misrepresentations of accounts from wp:reliable sources on these Talk pages, and we can see difficulties that can come without the SCHOLARLY DISTINCTIONS apparent in the RS as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Popular Press is not RS

We need to see a better sampling of the "vast majority" in the historical literature backing up Clodfelter's new historiography that has not yet taken hold. We must look beyond the misrepresentation of CLODFELTER's global "War of American Revolution by XavierGreen, miscast by him – but NOT by our RS scholar Clodfelter – as the "American Revolutionary War". Clodfelter is careful to distinguish and separate the two in his narrative,

Let's see what we have so far. Remember, POPULAR PRESS IS NOT RS. (1) Chartrand (2006) is produced by a popular press famous for the Bolt Action series, a division of the London-based house famous for the Harry Potter series; (2) Falkner (2009) is published by a newspaper chain without peer review; (3) Adkins & Adkins (2019) is a husband-wife duo headed up by the part-time archeologist published by another popular press.

THAT IS, THE 'VAST MAJORITY' of the XavierGreen amorphous cloud of uncited references are so far, EASILY not RS on inspection, because they are NOT peer reviewed by academics in the field. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are now questioning the sources? That's getting a bit desperate. Good luck with that. But perhaps you should read these:

• Why the siege of Gibraltar mattered so much as the siege of Yorktown.
• The greatest siege
• The history behind the Great Siege of Gibraltar

Now show this talk page with an article that shares your view. Eastfarthingan (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

MAINSTREAM ANSWER: BOTH PREMIER SCHOLARLY REFERENCES. The publishers ARE wp:reliable sources Encyclopedia Britannica and Routledge Publishers: Britannica’s “American Revolutionary War”, and at the Routledge Dictionary of War (1999), “American Revolution (1775–83)”.

Both stipulate that (a) the ARW was a conflict 1775–1783 in North America the North Atlantic and the Caribbean Sea; (b) it was a British imperial rebellion or American constitutional revolution, between Britain, auxiliaries & Indians against the rebel/independence Congress, France & Indians; (c) their last major battle was at Yorktown, followed by the formal Peace of Paris (1783) between Britain & the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

---

@XavierGreen:Do you not think I will take you seriously enough to look at your source links? Hey! You’ve led me to TWO (2) GREAT REFERENCES that I am using to improve section introductions and topic transitions at American Revolutionary War. PROPS TO YOU, MY MAN. But I do wish you would get off this gig about saying everything is all about the British Empire everywhere all the time with everybody worldwide. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

---

So, to business, in the order of your last post:

- 1. At the webpage About “Researching the American Revolution”, we see the hobbyist Gene Prock has a personal website. He is a self-described tech savvy management consultant for thirty eight years, “my only full time employment since college graduation.” The link provided takes us to a book published in the popular press, with no peer review, NOT a wp:reliable source.

- 2. ANOTHER LINK TO THE SAME WEBSITE, this features a Don N. Hagis review for a book by the archeologist, The Greatest Siege: not a professional historian, not RS. THE BOOK/REVIEW MISREPRESENTS WITH A HALF-TRUTH that was NOT corrected by an academic peer review: “fifteen months after France declared war on Great Britain, in direct support of the American Revolution, Spain likewise declared war.” NO, France and Spain entered into the Treaty of Anarjuez (1779) for Spain to join France in reacquiring territory lost in their Seven Years’ War defeat, expanding the Anglo-French War (1778). SAME BOOK AS BEFORE, published in the popular press, written by a non-historian, not scholarly, NOT a wp:reliable source.

- 3. LINKS TO A REALTY INTERNET SERVICE InYourArea, (flights to Scotland have resumed with Longalair) in Croydon, south London. At its “on this day” feature, it notes that the Siege of Gibraltar takes place during the same time period as the American Revolution [overlapping nearly two years in 1779–1781]. SAME AS BEFORE, published in the popular press, written by a non-historian, not scholarly, NOT a wp:reliable source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

ARW peace sequence

BRIEF ARW SEQUENCE:

(a) preliminary ARW peace (GB-US) signed in Paris November 30, 1782, (b) George III publicly announced for US independence December 5, 1782,

(c) March 1783, Spain treaty recognizing US independence “this is not needed by them” (Enlightenment King Carlos III); (d) Congress accepts British terms of peace April 1783 meeting its four demands: independence & British evacuation, territory west to Mississippi River & navigation, north to Great Lakes, Newfoundland fishing rights;

(e) conclusive peace September 1783, (f) ratifications by Congress and Parliament February, March 1784; (g) formal exchange of GB-US ratifications April 1784. Cheers!

Addendum:

FINAL ASSAULT ON GIBRALTAR February 1783 DID NOT ALTER preliminary peace January 1783 among the British-French-Spanish to end the Anglo-French War; there was no mention of Gibraltar, Gibraltar remained British; French-Spanish FAILURE at Gibraltar.

GIBRALTAR DID NOT ALTER the GB-US Treaty of Paris (1782): The US kept its independence as announced by George III on December 5, 1782, on British terms agreed to by Act of Congress April 1783, Spanish-French failure at Gibraltar in a different war did not hurt US at Treaty of Paris conclusive GB-US signing September 1783 ending ARW; it was unrelated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Popular press is NOT wp:rs

Oh look here's another for you to dismember

• 'Gibraltar' explains how a British battle you probably never heard of led to American victory in the Revolution
  It's getting tedious now. Your arguments are not really getting anywhere. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if this is worthy of WP:ANI, you have two determined editors who are exporting the same dispute to multiple places on wikipedia and simply ignoring the fact the weight of literature is against them. When I first saw this article, I thought the reference rather strange till I did my own research and found it was a common view. I suggest both editors need to back away from the deceased equine and drop the whip. W C M_email 17:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Good call, I'll even mention that on the ARW talk page too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:50, 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. @Wee Curry Monster:

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. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, all thanks to their British victory at Gibraltar.

As mentioned.

• Why the siege of Gibraltar mattered so much as the siege of Yorktown.
• The greatest siege
• The history behind the Great Siege of Gibraltar
• 'Gibraltar' explains how a British battle you probably never heard of led to American victory in the Revolution

You're welcome. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

THAT WAS the “Gibraltar Historiography” on an amateur’s hobby-webpage from the 30-year business consultant who promotes popular press releases: Russell (1965) Heinemann Press, McGuffie (1965) Dufour Press, Chartrand (2006) Osprey Press, Falkner (2009) Pen & Sword Military Press, Adkins & Adkins (2018) Viking Press.

ALL SAY Gibraltar takes place “DURING the American Revolutionary War” in the sense of TIME, within the period 1775–1783. They CAREFULLY explain TO THE READER that Spain at the siege 1779–83 is concerned with recovering Gibraltar, and NOT the American independence. The American war overlaps the European less than two years.

NONE OF THESE AUTHORS are scholars with academic degrees, none of the publishers have academic peer review, none of the books are reviewed in academic journals: the sources are NOT wp:reliable source, by definition, on three counts.

MEANWHILE SCHOLARS, both British-trained and American, explain that (a) Lord North’s personal correspondence shows that he believed the imperial American cause was lost by 1780, (b) in a final “southern strategy” gambit in 1781, Loyalists failed to flock to the King’s Colours as the British Court had been assured, and when they did, (c) the best of them in the British Legion that had been commissioned a regular regiment in the British Army, lost 85% in their one direct clash with Valley Forge-trained Continentals.

IT IS TRUE that the British naval assets committed to Gibraltar that might have taken off Cornwallis’ army from Yorktown back to the port of New York. BUT the loose blockade that Washington had strung around there made it impossible to feed any additional troops. And neither General Gage with orders to reconcile with rebels, nor General Clinton with orders to make “merciless war” on them, would sortie out of ship-of-the-line cannon range without a year’s supply train in tow.

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." Cheers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No, there is ample evidence that among scholars the Great Siege of Gibraltar is considered part of the American Revolutionary War [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I think you need to drop the stick. W C M_email 12:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

WCM. I wouldn't bother, I've tried that already but they'll just pick apart the historians and say THEY are wrong quoting Harry Potter. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no "pick apart" about it. Most good reads in an airport gift shop are NOT scholarly RS, there are editorial criteria to be met here before use in article sourcing. "Everyone has an opinion" is NOT to be the editorial test for inclusion in the Wikipedia.

Without reliable sources available to you, you must rely on mischaracterizing the fact that a NON-wp:RS publisher that you cited issues popular literature like the "Harry Potter" series and the "Bold Action" adventure series by authors who are NOT historians, published WITHOUT academic wp:PEER REVIEW, NEVER reviewed in SCHOLARLY JOURNALS, and finally gain recognition by newspaper best-seller lists, NOT Pulitzer Prizes for scholarly contributions to the ACADEMIC FIELD OF HISTORY. 11:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

---

TODAY, I hope to be able to put together a Wiki-table to explain how the GOOD RELIABLE SOURCES from Wee Curry Monster such as Larrie D. Ferreiro in the Smithsonian-published book, and from XavierGreen such as Micheal Clodfelter in the McFarland-published book can be a useful organizational historiography for military articles about wars at Wikipedia.

The communication problem with me HAS BEEN (used-to-be) when good references from Wee Curry Monster such as Larrie D. FERREIRO, and from XavierGreen such as Micheal CLODFELTER are buried in a cloud of popular press NOT-wp:reliable source titles AND THOSE fluff and chaff are the ones first and most often cited, and the TRUELY RELIABLE SOURCES are cited only AFTER weeks of prompting. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

---

As I say, I intend to embrace both FERREIRO and CLODFELTER in a Military Project proposal shortly. In the mean time before I get to that, let’s review two of the bad (not applicable to Wikipedia article sourcing) references linked above. You are under a wp:good faith editor OBLIGATION to read my posts before you comment on them.

THE FIRST TWO are by authors who are NOT wp:reliable source scholars. They are issued by publishers that are not wp:reliable source academic publications. NEITHER have an academic wp:PEER REVIEW. Their books are NOT reviewed in ACADEMIC journals of university presses. They are POPULAR presses that earn a place on newspaper best-seller lists, NOT Pulitzer Prize winners in scholarly HISTORY.

1. Gibraltar 1779–1783. AUTHOR: Chartrand is a PARK RANGER, museum curator, and movie script editor., not a scholar. PUBLISHER: Bloomsbury is the popular press of “Bolt Action” adventure series, a wholly owned subsidiary of the popular press of “Harry Potter”. No peer review, not reviewed in academic journals.

2. Gibraltar: The Greatest Siege. Author: Roy Adkins is an inactive ARCHAEOLOGIST who teams up with his prolific wife. PUBLISHER: Little, Brown Book Group prints science fiction/fantasy and inspirational non-fiction. No peer review, not reviewed in academic journals. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RS Mashup of Clodfelter & Ferreiro

Dear fellow editors: 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.
• Encyclopedia Britannica, "American Revolutionary War 1775-1783".

Sincerely TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments & table fill-in suggestions:

What does this prove? This is irrelevant to the siege of Gibraltar and it also doesn't really prove anything from previous arguments we have had. In fact if anything the above just shows that the American Revolution was in fact a world war much like the Seven Years war. I rest my case. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"What does this prove?" Is that your out-of-hand dismissal of me? Okay, I had hoped I could help here. By the "natural light of reason" among sentient beings, and wp:good faith among Wikipedia editors, I had hoped that the graphic use of box organization would help show (were one to READ the header-titles, and then use a finger to follow the line-up of the boxes in straight lines):

(a) "War of the Spanish Succession", and the "Seven Years' War" among Europeans in Europe and among their worldwide colonies, is like the "War of the American Revolution" (WoAR), (So Gibraltar qualifies for this category box.)AND THEN,

(b) "Queen Anne's War", and the "French and Indian War" of Europeans making war in North America, is like the "American Revolutionary War" (ARW). (So GIBRALTAR does NOT qualify for the 'American Revolutionary War' category box.)TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

- Nevertheless, it seems that it is more difficult for one to follow an array in the general population of Wikipedia editors than I had hoped. The reader paired 'American Revolutionary War' and 'Seven Years' War', but they are NOT found in a straight line on the table, neither vertically, nor horizontally.

- I suppose it is a sort of 'specialty' skill for math-science-medical secondary education tracts only in some countries now; sorted out by age 14 in Germany? The US teaches ALGEBRA and its Matrix multiplication in the eighth or ninth year of state-funded public school, for both academic-scholarly AND technical-crafts education tracks, one cannot graduate with a h.s. diploma or GED equivalent (good in US, Mexico & Canada) without one year, including Matrix multiplication. The British systems in the Commonwealth were once better that the US hodge-podge as a general rule until grad schools. Ah, well all good things must come to an end...but I did use several items from New Zealand's online sources for teachers in classroom instruction for secondary social studies...once upon a time and long ago.

- I like the two RS I've confirmed from editors on this page, thank you: CLODFELTER (2014) from XavierGreen, and FERREIRO (2002) from Eastfarthingan. I still don't like (a) pulp fiction publishers without academic peer review or university credentials and (b) I don't like the use of authors without advanced degrees in a scholarly field of history, to be POV padded into Wikipedia citations. Cheers. posted – TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So we're green light then for this article to be linked with the American Revolutionary War. Cheers. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the appropriate place is in the "See also" section of the American Revolutionary War (in America), but not in the existing article AWR Infobox until the article is retitled FROM "American Revolutionary War" TO "American Revolutionary War (worldwide)".

The various Euro Great Power battles might be organized by the lead assaulting forces, so a subsection in 'See also' at ARW named 'Spanish engagements' would then include a line for " * Great Siege of Gibraltar ". posted – TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Info-box and lede misleading

For an article whose info-box says Part of the American Revolutionary War one can only wonder how many readers are going to leave the article scratching their heads. There is no context in the article as to how the siege was actually involved in the American Revolutionary War. Aside from the info-box, the only place the term American Revolutionary War is mentioned throughout the entire article is in the lede sentence: i.e. "...during the American Revolutionary War. That's it. There is no explanation as to why there was no American military, belligerents, involved in the siege. If we're going to claim that Gibraltar was "part of" the ARW, this needs to be explained. There are also no details about how Gibraltar's fate was negotiated separately by American ministers, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay.   British P.M Shelburne, largely responsible for negotiating Gibraltar's fate, is not mentioned even once in the article also. The one sentence in this article that covers the Treaty of Paris in 1783, the only thing that remotely connects the Siege with the ARW, only gives us the generic and fuzzy claim that it reaffirmed previous treaties, a statement with no citation. As the info-box says "Part of the American Revolutionary War", the article needs to explain why. This idea is not even hinted at in the entire article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"DURING the American Revolutionary War" means ONLY during the time period, 1775–1783, as we can tell from multiple POPULAR PRESS sources (Chartrand, my personal favorite). Titles with "Anglo-French War in Spain on The Rock" do not jump off the airport gift shop shelves the same way that those "during the American Revolutionary War" do, if we can place them next to McCullough's John Adams, and facing out to the foot traffic passing by the store.

- MILITARILY there is NO OVERLAP between ARW and Gibraltar, as ALL significant ARW combat ends with Battle of Yorktown 1781 (Clodfelter), and the Great Siege of Gibraltar takes place "overseas" from the ARW in America (Clodfelter), with a final Spanish-French assault on The Rock in February 1783, one month AFTER preliminary peace negotiations begin between Britain and Spain (Falkner). That is before news of Gibraltar reached the Congress who RATIFY the British "Preliminary Peace" 15 April 1783 (US State Department), without waiting for more in Paris on the Spanish demand that Britain cede Georgia to Spain (against US interests, per Morris).

- For cited Fire Over the Rock: The Great Siege of Gibraltar 1779–1783, the back-cover blurb EXULTED, “an important addition to the literature of the NAPOLEONIC Wars” - - because Gibraltar 1783 was AFTER the American Revolution, militarily; it was PRELUDE to the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars that were to follow The Great Siege, according to the publisher (‘Pen & Sword Military’, the XG-RS).

- "During the American Revolutionary War" does not belong in the Infobox here. Though, it may be a useful in a CHRONOLOGICAL SETTING for the article introduction, if it can be clearly indicated the 1779–83 time period is at the tail-end and after the ARW shooting war, where major campaigning ends September 1781. The outcome at Gibraltar does NOT influence Britain granting US independence in the Preliminary Peace November 1782, agreed to three months BEFORE the final Spanish assault. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added a source on which proves that theory wrong. Also I'll add the peace of Paris was reliant on the outcome of the Grand Assault in September 1782 and the final relief of Howe in October. So Im inclined to know what the final 'Spanish assault three months before' is all about? Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Gibraltar's fate was not involved in the peace settlement between P.M. Shelburne and John Jay. Peace was established between Britain and the United States primarily over getting nearly all the territory east of the Mississippi and recognition of U.S. independence. Once again, when Spain declared war on Britain to regain control of Gibraltar in 1779, the resultant three year Siege of Gibraltar became involved in the American Revolutionary War, but only inasmuch as it took away British resources that could be employed in the actual war in America. The negotiations involving Gibraltar's fate did not involve any negotiations with the United States and was only involved in settlements between Britain, Spain and France. Negotiations over Gibraltar were not submitted to American Ministers Jay, Adams and Franklin, the U.S. ministers in Paris, by the British, Spanish or French governments. U.S. independence was recognized by treaty with France February 6, 1778, by preliminary agreement with Britain in November 1782 and George III announcement December 5, 1782, and by treaty with Spain in March 1783. None of them returned to the negotiation table with Benjamin Franklin or John Jay to settle on how Gibraltar should be ceded.
  Once again, when a reader comes along and sees no mention of the American Revolution in the text, that no Americans fought in the Gibraltar campaign, and that the war was declared by Spain against France for the sole purpose of regaining its control, which it lost in 1704, they will walk away from the article wondering.  Is this what we want?

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Allison's book attempts to promote the idea that because Britain was involved elsewhere around the globe during the American Revolutionary War, trying to protect her other interests that had nothing to do with American independence, the ARW became a "world war", a very loose term which can involve separate wars fought for completely different reasons. This doesn't change the basic premise of the ARW, that it was declared by the American colonists against Britain for winning independence, and that they were not involved in any other engagement other than the one for winning that independence. Simply because Britain sailed off in other directions doesn't make every involvement part of the ARW. The book, a collection of essays, typically fails to outline how e.g.Gibraltar, Mysore, etc, was actually "part of" the war for American independence. Any associations between these campaigns and the ARW are based on conjecture and are remote at best. Anyone can list a bunch of separate wars under the heading of a "world war", but the attempt to link the ARW as "part of" any other specific war remains to be largely unfounded. This article has not even attempted to make a solid connection between the ARW and Gibraltar, which is understandable, because other than Gibraltar using British resources that could be used on the American continent, there are no such connections. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Somehow the Eastfarthingan post is NOT proof, it’s chronologically BACKWARDS; and so it is not good history. Answer, part 1 A military history observes that to win, Britain had to dissolve Congress (ARW); but to win, Congress only had to outlast the British will to war in North America. British Oct 1781 defeat at Yorktown directly led to the fall of war PM Lord North, Parliament's bill to end war against Congress, signing preliminary peace with independence, and George III announcing for it, aligning to Parliament and "the sense of my people".

A year after the 1781 British defeat, the victory in 1782 did NOT prompt Britain cession of American territory beyond the proposed French boundary at the Appalachians and west to the middle of the Mississippi River. And, while Spain had demanded that Britain cede Georgia as part of a Euro Great Powers deal, no evidence in Allison suggests that a faction in Congress was moved to postpone the Nov 1782 British offer for all-13-colony independence for a later chance to cede Georgia to Spain.

Eastfarthingan cites Allison (2018). All confirm US independence at the TREATY of Paris between the GB and US, without FR or SP signatories. A “Peace” of Paris has no document, it's the abstraction of historiographical convenience for Euros to minimize Americans in the ARW. But what SHOULD be minimized is an assumption of an international determinative power by an American imperial Congress (Lockwood 2019): Congress in its ARW does not “expand the war worldwide”. It cannot collect its own tax requisitions. It does not run the Court of France or the Court of Spain to spread anything.

Answer, part 2. Yes, the separate French and Spanish respective treaties signed at Versailles 15 Sep 1783, and those EURO treaties about EURO war and EURO territory worldwide, WERE RELIANT on the outcome of Spanish Grand Assault failure Sep 1782. But there is no US minister signatory ot a "Peace of Paris". At the Allison intro, it observes that among the wars 1779–1783 fought against Britain “the portion of the Revolution fought on American soil ... was not even the most critical to Britain.” Perhaps not CRITICAL to Britain because, the shooting war against Congress had ended in their ARW in Sep 1781. While France and Spain had threatened to directly invade the British Isles (not for US independence, without US consent).

XavierGreen cites RS Clodfelter. He explains at “War of the American Revolution” (WoAR), that the popular term “American Revolutionary War” is limited to North America 1775–1783, BUT HE ARGUES that the wider wars against Britain by Euro powers “overseas” from the ARW were more properly to be called the "WoAR", titled after others of its kind, such as the “War of the Spanish Succession” among Euro Great powers and their respective colonies worldwide in the Anglo-French “Second Hundred Years' War” 1689–1815. Please refer to the chart above at RS Mashup of Clodfelter & Ferreiro to see the parallels graphically. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What can be a "reliable source" at Wikipedia?

Picking apart historians again, I must commend you. Please I want to see more. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The Adkins couple are not historians. As once explained, editors are allowed to scrutinize sources, esp when other sources vary. Also, like with the NPOV on the ARW article, no consensus is needed to tag an article, as it say on the tag it remains the issue is resolved. Several sources maintain that peace with and recognition of US independence were esatblished before the final treaty was signed, as outlined above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Im not talking about Adkins; Im talking about Allison. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Adkins is a major part of the NPOV issues. You simply can't remove a tag until the issue has been resolved. Please stop your edit warring. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This is your own opinion. Just because you cant accept the facts. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Insert : — That you have to digress with personal attacks only tells us you can't defend Adkins as a reliable source. It was explained to you in detail why the Adkins couple can't be considered reliable sources. They are not historians of a scholarly caliber. Their review, such that it is, comes from a newspaper, not a peer reviewed panel of established historians. The title of the book is, Gibraltar: The Greatest Siege in British History -- not American history, which this article claims Gibraltar is a "part of", per the ARW. Is the Adkins couple the best you can do? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Settlement over Gibraltar with Spain and France were needed to conclude the T.O.P. but it was not Gibraltar that established peace with the U.S. Without the recognition of U.S. independence, and without the territory east of the Mississippi, the U.S. never would have signed. That is the distinction you've been ignoring all along. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks? What part of the article is the problem related to Adkins? The recent edits I have made isn't related to that author in question. I will be posting more about why Gibraltar matters to the AWR as they're is plenty of material to pick from – eg Falkner is one I've added, as is Mackesey. Let's see what you say about them and the others thst follow? Good evening. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Wait a minute @Eastfarthingan and Gwillhickers: that's both disingenuous and glib. It's NOT "your own opinion", and it is NOT "you can’t accept the facts". Critical assessment of amateur non-historian authors and popular fiction publishers THOSE WITHOUT degreed credentials, scholarly peer review, or academic journal reviews, are all available at the links AT THEIR OWN WEBSITES for the authors, books and publishers mentioned.

- Editors using the term "RS" should first, in {wp:good faith} READ {wp:RS}.

• “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." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eastfarthingan: in the interests of moving the discussion forward, please 'search' on the term 'Falkner' and 'Macesey' as they have been misapplied here before. I have provided page citations and direct quotes searchable at online 'book samples' to show the misapplication, misunderstanding, misdirection involved, what have you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies these sources

• Falkner, James. Fire Over The Rock: The Great Siege of Gibraltar 1779–1783 (2009) Pen and Sword
• Mackesy, Piers. The War for America: 1775–1783 (1992) Bison books

I too have provided quotes & page citations. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

- Not a problem  Done. The linked "Look Inside" feature for the superlative RS Mackesy source is extensive; it includes the direct quotes cited in the following post. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

- @Eastfarthingan: Please do your homework here. When we search for ‘Falkner’ at this Talk over the last 11-and-a-half years, the only ‘Falkner’ discussion is from myself and XavierGreen. Why do you purport to assume the work of another editor, when it is clear for all to see, that you are NOT he?

Editors advancing “ARW-worldwide” seem to be of three predilections:

(a) misapply and mislead, citing RS but without direct quotes or explanation,

(b) call for not-RS publishers to overthrow the “ARW-America” scope used in MAINSTREAM scholarly references, Britannica and the Routledge Dictionary of War, “American Revolution (1775–83)”, especially important to English-speaking military historians worldwide. , or

(c) conflate military history chronology, events in a shooting war – versus - diplomatic history timelines of meetings, letter exchanges, preliminary signings, respective ratifications, conclusive signings, respective ratifications, and finally formal exchanges (cheers!). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Falker (2009)

Re: Falkner (2009).

Falkner’s second sentence in the book does NOT claim to support ARW-worldwide, " ... that’s a rather spurious claim made at a TIME when Great Britain was striving to suppress rebellion in North America.” That is, 1783 Gibraltar is not IN the ARW, but DURING the time of the ARW shooting war 1775–1781, if you count DIPLOMACY Oct 1782-Sep 1783 in a MILITARY article.

- Falkner is summarized by the publisher, the PURPOSE of the Spanish assault was not American independence in N.Am, but rather gaining “this strategically vital point guarding the entrance to the Mediterranean.”

- The book jacket places Gibraltar AFTER the ARW-America: "Gibraltar’s history during the Napoleonic Wars".

- Falkner is published by a newspaper chain without peer review, Pen & Sword Military Press.

The author does NOT support ARW-worldwide, best-seller book is NOT wp:reliable source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The book jacket is a clear error '1779–83' IS NOT during the Napoleonic wars.

Falkner states this in introduction without much doubt had Great Britain not been so deeply engaged in the task of trying to fight a war in North America, Spain would not have tried to regain Gibraltar in such fashion.

He goes the describe the ARW as a world war -major British naval efforts to sustain Gibraltar's garrison proved to be a distraction from the troubled task of winning the war for the North American colonies. he goes arguable that was the price paid for Great Britain's continued possession of the Rock. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Point #1. So now the cite must conform to YOU, regardless of what IT says? NOT good research. Yorktown ends important ARW-America as a shooting war; Gibraltar is one-and-a-half years LATER, after GB-US peace preliminary peace at Paris is signed. The NOT-r-s publisher chooses to market the book regardless of chronology, one way or the other. If the object of the NOT-peer-reviewed source is sales at the Gibraltar fortress site, and most tourists in the fall are interested in the Napoleonic Wars, the blurb will say "Napoleonic". That's the Wikipedia POINT in defining "reliable source" beyond "best seller within FORTRESS walls" criteria.

Point #2. Gibraltar "garrison proved to be a distraction" may be, but MILITARY SCHOLAR Mackesey supporting others in the scholarly field: the British launch a "Southern Campaign" comparable to previous in America, larger than any British war overseas before, and the problem there was (a) Cornwallis disobedience to Clinton; (b) Germain picking Cornwallis as Clinton's successor and with free reign outside the chain of command; (c) Carolinas Tories did not show up to fight; British Legion lost 85% casualties at Cowpens.

- GIBRALTAR is still provisioned in 1781, Britain is confident enough to offer Spain a Gibraltar-for-PUERTO RICO swap, as Caribbean was more profitable than Mediterranean – the Med's sugar islands had been superseded before 1600. BRITAIN STRATEGIC INTEREST is dominating world trade lanes, NOT the Falkner belief it was possession of The Rock where it could bottle up Ottoman commerce; the Silk Road to China had been superseded by the 1600s with sea trade.

"For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself." – Sir Walter Raleigh

Point #3. Yes, Gibraltar was periodically advantageous as a naval base in Continental (Euro) balance-of-power wars, and for diplomatic bragging rights (military "triumph" there is soon forgotten), but unlike the not-scholar Falkner, NOT ESSENTIAL for the North-and-South American, Indian-and-Far East trade. Winning or losing "The Rock" does not change the fact of BRITISH DOMINANCE in US trade, commerce and banking until after World War I, and the relative French decline worldwide, according to MILITARY SCHOLARS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent choice of words. Great quote from Raleigh too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Mackesy (1993)

Re: Mackesy (1993).

Mackesy notes in his introduction [xxvi]: "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 places the ARW-America as “Britain’s only clear defeat in the long contest with France [W&M Revolution of 1688-Waterloo].” He does NOT implicate the British victory over Bourbon Spain at Gibraltar a year after American independence at the Yorktown defeat.[xxiv] (See the sourced chart at “RS Mashup of RS Clodfelter & Ferreiro” above.)

The author does NOT support ARW-worldwide, the book is an ESSENTIAL wp:reliable source for students of MILITARY naval history in the North Atlantic, Caribbean Sea and Mediterranean Sea, 1750–1815. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The author does NOT support ARW-worldwide – please look at the title of the book – The War for America: 1775–1783 regarding the war as a world war as stated above. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you look BEYOND a Google Search of title snippets (XavierGreen), and WITHOUT a pre-conceived agenda. Read the source text provided at the link, Mackesy (1993). You should NOT dismiss an author's self-description of HIS book in an introduction which is published by a wp:reliable source publisher.

It is NOT proper procedure to say an author says something he does NOT, because you want him to say something CONTRARY to the thing that he DOES say. wp:Good faith requires that you take the time to read direct quotes from the author BEFORE misunderstanding the author, misapplying his conclusions, and misleading the reader. NOT good scholarly form, and a sticky wicket for an editor, eh? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As above. I admire your excellent choice of words, and stand corrected. Thank you. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

More sources

Here are a few more sources to add to reinforce the view that Gibraltar was part of the AWR; and in addition was vital to the wars (now global) end and I don't even need to ref Adkins either:

INSERT: I've separated out the LIST by sub-section to make replies to each next to them, signing with Eastfarthingan's original time stamp, prior to my replies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Books

Allison quote

• Allison, David K; Ferreiro, Larrie D, eds. (2018). The American Revolution: A World War. Smithsonian Institution. ISBN 978-1-58834-659-9. Quote critical event in the war outside America was a contemporaneous European siege that was bigger, lasted longer, and ultimately was as critical to establishing peace as the Yorktown victory – Page 220 Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Allison quote: TRUE, in that “Euro powers war against Britain” was CONTEMPORANEOUS with Congress war against Britain, December 1779-September 1781 (two-years). The Gibraltar DEFEAT for the Euros was “as critical to establishing peace” with Britain, “as the Yorktown VICTORY” was for the Americans establishing peace with Britain.

TRUE, as far as it goes diplomatically. But Yorktown American victory Sep 1781 leads to US independence: overthrow of war PM Lord North Mar 1782, Preliminary Peace to end the American Revolutionary War in, for, by America is signed by Britain November 1782, BEFORE the Gibraltar Spanish defeat Sep 1782 leads to preliminary end of the British-two-Bourbon “Anglo-French War” in Europe and worldwide, for competing Euro imperial intersts, by the French and Spanish in Jan 1783. Chronological sequence of military activity matters for good editing in a military history article, even within a diplomatic context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Bemis quote

• Bemis, Samuel Flagg (2012). The Diplomacy of the American Revolution. Read Books Ltd. ISBN 978-1-4474-8515-5. Quote – That tremendous citadel thus became a vital factor in the diplomacy of the American Revolution Page 77. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Bemis quote: TRUE, in that (a) British signed preliminary peace in Paris, George III announcement for US independence, and Congress ratification of it Apr 1783 – ARW-America over, no shooting war. (b) British-Spanish-French peace negotiations begin Jan 1783, Spanish defeat at Gibraltar Sep 1783 “became a vital factor in the diplomacy” of the 1779–1783 "War of the American Revolution" - worldwide (Clodfelter-NOT the commonly understood ARW 1775–1783 as the America-only ARW). Spain could not demand Gibraltar as a new agenda item in defeat.

TRUE, as far as it goes diplomatically. But Yorktown American victory Sep 1781 leads to US independence: Preliminary Peace to end the American Revolutionary War in, for, by America is signed by Britain November 1782, BEFORE the Gibraltar Spanish defeat Sep 1782 leads to preliminary end of the British-two-Bourbon “Anglo-French War” in Europe and worldwide, for competing Euro imperial intersts, by the French and Spanish in Jan 1783. Chronological sequence of military activity matters for good editing in a military history article, even within a diplomatic context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Botta quote

• Botta, Charles (1850). History of the United States of America: War of independence, Volume 2. National Library of the Netherlands: Fullarton & Company. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Quote – On the other hand the victories of Rodney and Elliot had not only dissipated all fears for the West Indies and Gibraltar but also put in safety the honour of Great Britain. With the exception of the independence of the United States which she could no longer refuse to acknowledge she found herself in a situation to treat upon a footing of equality with her enemies relative to all other articles. Victorious at Gibraltar, holding the scale of fortune even in the seas of Europe, she had caused it to incline in her favour in the West Indies – Page 552. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Botta quote: TRUE, in that (a) AFTER cease-fire ending the shooting war of the ARW-America Sep 1781, British aggregated naval superiority in the Caribbean and the French suffered defeat at Battle of the Saintes; Elliot defeated the Spanish and British naval superiority relieved Gibraltar. Britain, never threatened in the homeland by American independence (only by the Bourbons together 1779–1782), but Britain was “put in safety” from Euro threats in the Euro war in Euro waters. The articles of peace with Congress in America were signed Nov 1782 for a separate GB-US peace. Britain could THEN “treat upon a footing of equality with her enemies relative to all other articles” related to Euro war, Euro trade, Euro swapping among colonial territories.

TRUE, as far as it goes diplomatically. Chronological sequence of military activity matters for good editing in a military history article, even within a diplomatic context. Yorktown American victory Sep 1781 leads to Preliminary Peace to end ARW in, for, by America is signed by Britain November 1782, BEFORE the Gibraltar Spanish defeat Sep 1782 leads to preliminary end of the British-two-Bourbon “Anglo-French War” in Europe and worldwide, the “War of the American Revolution” for competing Euro imperial interests, by the French and Spanish in Jan 1783. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Clowes quote

• Clowes, William Laird (1898). The Royal Navy, a History from the Earliest Times to Present, Volume 3. S. Low, Marston, Company. Quote – the relief of Gibraltar marked the close in European and American waters. – Page 542. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Clowes quote: TRUE, in that after the close of hostilities with the US Congress in the American Revolutionary War Sep 1781, “the relief of Gibraltar [Oct 1782] marked the close [of hostilities with Euros] in European and American [Caribbean & North Atlantic] waters” in the Euro British-Bourbon (France & Spain) war, the Anglo-French War (1778), actually the "Anglo-French and Spanish War (1778,1779-1782) shooting war.

TRUE, as far as it goes diplomatically. Chronological sequence of military activity matters for good editing in a military history article, even within a diplomatic context. Yorktown American victory Sep 1781 leads to Preliminary Peace to end ARW in, for, by America is signed by Britain November 1782, BEFORE the Gibraltar Spanish defeat Sep 1782 leads to preliminary end of the British-two-Bourbon “Anglo-French War” in Europe and worldwide, the “War of the American Revolution” for competing Euro imperial interests, by the French and Spanish in Jan 1783. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Fredriksen quote

• Fredriksen, John C (2006). Revolutionary War Almanac Almanacs of American wars Facts on File library of American history. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8160-7468-6. Quote reality convinced Vergennes of the impracticability of waging war upon Spain's insistence that Gibraltar be recaptured and also weakened French motives to support their aspirations for land already claimed by the Americans. – page 556. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Fredriksen quote: TRUE, in that “reality” of Parliament’s bill to end war with the independence Congress Mar 1782, Anglo-American preliminary peace granting independence Nov 1782, George III announcement for independence of all 13 rebelling colonies, “convinced Vergennes of the impracticality of waging war upon Spain’s [Franco-Spanish Treaty of Aranjuez (1789)] insistence that Gibraltar be recaptured.” Reality also convinced Vergennes not to support “their aspirations for land already claimed by the Americans.” … in the separate French and Spanish negotiations with Britain without the US, after the GB-US peace settlement: viz Georgia to be ceded to Spain by Britain, as shown in the Spanish proposed “American settlement” maps for the Euro Great Power settlement without consulting the 13-colonies, Congress, Native-American, African, or sub-continent Indian colonials. BUT THE CAT'S OUT OF THE BAG already because the British had already acknowledged Americans as EQUALS at George III 5 December 1782 Speech from the Throne to a PUBLIC joint session of Parliament announcing for US independence, peace and trade.

TRUE, as far as it goes diplomatically. Chronological sequence of military activity matters for good editing in a military history article, even within a diplomatic context. Yorktown American victory Sep 1781 leads to Preliminary Peace to end ARW in, for, by America is signed by Britain November 1782, BEFORE the Gibraltar Spanish defeat Sep 1782 leads to preliminary end of the British-two-Bourbon “Anglo-French War” in Europe and worldwide, the “War of the American Revolution” for competing Euro imperial interests, by the French and Spanish in Jan 1783. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Frentos quote

• Frentzos, Christos G; Thompson, Antonio S, eds. (2014). The Routledge Handbook of American Military and Diplomatic History: The Colonial Period to 1877. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-81335-4. Quote Among the problems were that American border negotiations were delaying some of France's own interests such as the British relinquishment of Gibraltar. – page 117. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Frentos quote: TRUE, in that “American border negotiations [fishing access to Newfoundland that the French had lost in the Seven Years’ War at the Peace of Paris (1763)] were delaying some of France’s own interests such as the British relinquishment of Gibraltar [promised by one Bourbon king to the other in the Franco-Spanish Treaty of Aranjuez (1789)]". France finally determined not to honor the Franco-Spanish treaty, rather, it negotiated a separate peace with Britain.

TRUE, as far as it goes diplomatically. Chronological sequence of military activity matters for good editing in a military history article, even within a diplomatic context. Yorktown American victory Sep 1781 leads to Preliminary Peace to end ARW in, for, by America is signed by Britain November 1782, BEFORE the Gibraltar Spanish defeat Sep 1782 leads to preliminary end of the British-two-Bourbon “Anglo-French War” in Europe and worldwide, the “War of the American Revolution” for competing Euro imperial interests, by the French and Spanish in Jan 1783. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Mackesey quote

• Mackesy, Piers (1992). The War for America: 1775–1783. Bison books. ISBN 978-0-8032-8192-9. Quote The Bourbon powers had indeed been protracting through the summer hoping that Gibraltar would fall to their September attack. It's failure and the arrival of Howe's relieving convoy a month later destroyed this expectation and France opened negotiations in earnest. – page 506. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Mackesey quote: TRUE, in that after Anglo-American armistice to end ARW conflict Oct 1781, and Parliament’s bill to end offensive operations in America passed in Mar 1782, “the Bourbon powers had indeed been protracting [peace negotiations] through the summer [even as the British-American talks began in Paris] hoping that Gibraltar would fall to their September [1782] attack. It’s failure and the arrival of Howe’s relieving convoy destroyed this expectation and France opened negotiations in earnest [separately from Spain, in violation of the Bourbon French-Spanish treaty of Aranjuez (1779)]".

TRUE, as far as it goes. Yorktown American victory Sep 1781 leads to Preliminary Peace to end ARW in, for, by America is signed by Britain November 1782, BEFORE the Gibraltar Spanish defeat Sep 1782 leads to preliminary end of the British-two-Bourbon “Anglo-French War” in Europe and worldwide, the “War of the American Revolution” for competing Euro imperial interests, by the French and Spanish in Jan 1783. BUT THEN MACKESEY notes in his introduction, the book IS NOT ABOUT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, in America, for American independence, it is about BRITISH NAVAL STRATEGY worldwide and its implementation by government in London and commanders in the field. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Page quote

• Page, Anthony (2014). Britain and the Seventy Years War, 1744–1815: Enlightenment, Revolution and Empire. Macmillan International Higher Education,. ISBN 978-1-137-47443-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) Quote aside from some lamentation, Britons were not traumatised by the loss of America. In addition to the fact that cultural and economic ties soon revived this owes something to the fact that Britain effectively won the last year of the global war. With the Americans split from their allies peace was signed with France and Spain in January 1783 – page 39. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Page quote: TRUE, in that “Britain was not traumatised by the loss of America … cultural and economic ties soon revived, this owes something to the fact that Britain effectively won the last year of the global war [with Euros over Euro trade, worldwide colonies, and Euro balance of power]. With the Americans split from their allies [Preliminary Peace signed Nov 1782, Congress ratified Apr 1783], [preliminary] peace was signed with France and Spain in January 1783 [two months later]".

TRUE, as far as it goes diplomatically. Yorktown American victory Sep 1781 leads to Preliminary Peace to end ARW in, for, by America is signed by Britain November 1782, BEFORE the Gibraltar Spanish defeat Sep 1782 leads to preliminary end of the British-two-Bourbon “Anglo-French War” in Europe and worldwide, the “War of the American Revolution” for competing Euro imperial interests, by the French and Spanish in Jan 1783. - - - It is of note, that Page considers the signing of a preliminary peace as "the done deal", because the final "conclusive" treaty did not have ANY substantial changes for the Euro-only treaties at VERSAILLES, in the same way, the preliminary ARW-American Treaty Nov 1782 for the British-American-ONLY Treaty of Paris. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Web Journal

• Hagist, Don N (2014). "THE GREATEST SIEGE". JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. There were many sieges during the American Revolution. Some are well-known even to novice students of the war, like Boston and Yorktown; others are known only to those who study in more depth, like Newport and Charleston. They lasted for weeks or sometimes months; the siege of Boston spanned almost a year. They pale in comparison to the longest siege during the conflict, a dramatic standoff that lasted almost four years. It occurred not in America but Gibraltar, the British bulwark at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, where British and German troops were hemmed in by a massive Spanish and French force. It is among the longest sieges in the last 500 years and the longest ever endured by the British army

A pleasant afternoon Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

1. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION is not an RS journal.' At "About" for the webpage “Researching the American Revolution”, we see the hobbyist-historian Gene Prock maintains this as a personal website. He is NOT a professional historian, he is a self-described tech savvy management consultant for thirty eight years, “my only full time employment since college graduation.” Links provided takes us to books published in the POPULAR PRESS, with no peer review, NOT a wp:reliable source.

2. Don N. Hagis wrote a REVIEW for the not-RS webpage without the intellectual rigor or ethical oversight to be gained from a scholarly peer review. The BOOK was authored by the archeologist and his side-kick wife who are not professional historians, The Greatest Siege: NOT a PROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC, SO NOT RS author. Both the book and its review echo the same half-truth: “fifteen months after France declared war on Great Britain, in direct support of the American Revolution - TRUE -, Spain likewise declared war" - FALSE -.

- NO, France and Spain entered into the Treaty of Anarjuez (1779) for Spain to join France in reacquiring territory lost in their Seven Years’ War defeat, expanding the Anglo-French War (1778). This is the same book critiqued above, published in the popular press, written by a non-historian, reviewed in newspapers not academic journals: it is NOT a wp:reliable source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issue

At the hand of another editor, in the middle of an unresolved discussion, the article now includes a quote, an opinion, which claims that negotiations were just as critical for ending the ARW as was Yorktown, which ignores the facts outlined above, which need to be included in the article also. The article is using an unrelaible source, Adkins, who are a British married couple, not historians, and are obviously preaching to a British audience. Statements cited by this source need to be cited by scholarly reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If the article can explain that it was recognition of U.S. independence, and the Americans obtaining most of the territory east of the Mississippi that established peace between Britain and the United States – while, at the same time – explaining how concessions involving Gibraltar were also required to conclude the overall Treaty of Paris, that would be neutral and acceptable. To claim, however, that Gibraltar's fate, by itself, was just as important as Yorktown in ending the ARW, as if U.S. recognition and the said territory were not the major factors in the settlement between Britain and the United States, would be grossly misleading and would not resolve the NPOV issue here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If Adkins et al is major problem to you then I'll happily remove it and use other sources. However that source has not even been used in what this disuccssion is about ie Gibraltar and the peace of Paris. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

My main concern is over the issue outlined directly above. In the spirit of cooperation I can go along with the Adkins' so long as they are not used to source anything one sided or otherwise controversial. I've no doubt Gibraltar factored into matters during the T.O.P., but it was not what won the Americans over, who, if not happy with the concessions they obtained, would not have been on board with the final treaty, and there would have been no official end to the ARW at that time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Adkins as far as I can see just uses the accounts of Spilsbury and Drinkwater (first handers) and goes into detail on the siege. Gibraltar didn't win over the Americans at all, I agree. They knew the British would sign peace with them and acknowledge independence since it was inevitable. Britain devoted the military and navy to protect India, the Caribbean and Gibraltar as they were more vital financially. The American delegates were keeping an eye on the events as it was the final peace between the French, Dutch, British and Spanish that could end the war that had spread beyond North America. I've said before the Battle of the Saintes and Gibraltar victories were crucial for British in getting a good hand at the peace table. I'll add a bit more to this article as to why Gibraltar mattered at POP & TOT for European settlement of the American Revolutionary War. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Since this is the 'Siege' article (covering actual battles, supply problems and such) I'm not looking to add a whole lot of details about the Treaty of Paris, only that it required, among other things, that Britain, Spain and France settle on Gibraltar, which the American Ministers took no part in other than to go along with the overall T.O.P. in the end.  Without U.S. recognition and territory the Americans would not have signed anything. Again, my only pressing issue is the claim that Gibraltar was just as important as Yorktown, recognition of U.S. independence, territory, etc, in finalizing the American Revolution. However, I've no issues over also mentioning that the T.O.P. helped to bring an end to all of Britain's other campaigns. If we're in basic agreement on that I'll leave the wording, citations and sources to you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I found an interesting John Jay quote regarding Gibraltar and the results of the final operations leading to peace. Need to find it and then I'll use it. Many thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm still not crazy about the info-box main banner which says 'part of the ARW', but as long as we're clear on matters I suppose I can live with it. What I don't quite understand is that Britain's Great Siege, a land mark historical event, and a British victory, should not be listed under 'British history' or some such title, but instead is listed under the American Revolutionary War, which more than suggests that this was primarily an American affair, not one whose principal belligerent was British, and that there is no insistence among Britons and their historical lot for it to be so categorized -- or are we missing something? In any event, in retrospect the jousting was good exercise I suppose. Thanks for your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you too. If historians had labelled this as part of an 'Anglo-Spanish war', then I would've happily marked it as such, but academics haven't even come up with that 'war'. Which then brings me to the use of terms like the Hundred Years War (it really wasn't) as a reflection of wars linked with mini wars. As for British history? Not really; Gibraltar is an overseas territory so it really is Gibraltar's history (it has been tagged as). Keeping Gibraltar at the time was to raise national spirits in a losing war and gain honour in the treaty. The public were angered at Shelburne who wanted to give Gibraltar up even after the heroic defence – Shelburne naturally backed down. The celebration of Elliot's defence (which was characterised with many cartoons in the press) in 1782 & 83 was soon well forgotten after the war. The loss of American colonies would naturally totally overshadow what had happened at Gibraltar (& Battle of the Saintes which was just as big a naval victory as Chesapeake). As you can see there's only a few books written about it. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

John Drinkwater Bethune

Realizing the capacity of Drinkwater's service at Gibraltar was mostly administrative, it would seem appropriate to mention him somewhere in this Siege article, since he did write an eyewitness account of the Siege. Drinkwater was publicly thanked by the military commander, General Eliott, for his work and was provided with funding to establish the Gibraltar Garrison Library. His regiment was then sent to defend Toulon against the French, where he acted as military secretary until the British had to evacuate in December 1793. Seems his name is worth a mention somewhere in the article.
I added his work to the Bibliography, even though it's listed among the text. I noticed that the date of the work in the Bibliography is 1839, whereas the listing in the text is 1862.

• Drinkwater, John (1839). A history of the siege of Gibraltar: With a description and account of that garrison, from the earliest periods. T. Nelson.

Enjoy if you haven't already -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes Drinkwater is in the 'see also' section and that book is used as a major source in the article. His eyewitness account of the seige is second to none and reliable, esepcially given the accounts of other diaries and eyewitness accounts. I'd also say that John Spilsbury a captain of the 12th Regt of Foot drew up many sketches that tied perfectly with Drinkwater's descriptions. Wiki commons has a whole page with Spilbury's drawings and sketches; a few have been used in the article too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Different publications for Drinkwater

The 2011 publication now in the bibliography has different page numbers for any given statement in question. In the article, citation [32], indicates p.11, but links up to the 2011 publication where the information in question is found on p. 23 instead. Also, the 2011 publication only offers partial viewing, while the 1844 publication is completely viewable, downloadable and searchable, while all the illustrations are also viewable. I noticed that all Drinkwater citations now refer to the 2011 version, whereas previously these citations indicated a 1839 publication whose page numbers are not consistent with the 2011 version. It's good that all the citations now refer to a publication of the same year, but IMO it would be better linking to a P.D. version which is completely viewable, and searchable for the readers that may want to inquire further. Meanwhile citation [32] refers to the wrong page number in the 2011 version, while the other Drinkwater cites still have the same page numbers they did before we switched to the 2011 version and therefore are in error also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be looking into this today. I have the 2011 book and will determine if I need to revert back. For accessibility you're right it might be best as a link for all to read and check. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• No biggie. Just a note: The 1844 publication (used only in cite 32) also has different page numbers from the 1839 publication, originally used in the other Drinkwater cites. Both have different page numbers from the 2011 version. While both the 1844 and 1839 versions are downloadable, only the 1844 version is searchable as a stand alone pdf file off line. The 1844 text is also much more clear, so on that note, I'd recommend using the 1844 version. Your call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Page number conversions

If we go with the 1844 1905 publication here are the page comparisons from the 1839 publication: (citation 32 already uses a page number from the 1844 publication) Page number conversions : 1905 1839 Citation # 53 50 43 100 97 53 103 100 55 116 113 57 147 144 119 157 154 120 186 183 61 216 211 68 224 218 72 272 266 87 374 364 16 244-246 238-240 77 295 289 112 306 300 88 307 301 116 309 303 118 340 332 20

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been reading Drinkwater's book and it's been fascinating. As for page no.s I'll revert it back 1844 ed due to its accessibility. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

To expedite matters, above find the same list with the corresponding citation numbers, remembering that adding another citation to the article beforehand will cause the following cite numbers to shift. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Correction: As there are several publications of Drinkwater's work, I managed to get one confused with the other. The 1844 publication is where the map of Gibraltar was obtained, but this work for reasons that I don't understand, only has 172 pages. The work that I was previously referring to as the 1844 publication is actually a 1905 publication, having 375 pages, which is the one now used in the Bibliography. My apologies for the mix up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't realise you had put the 1904 version just before my edit which I just placed the 1844. Apologies. See what you think. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No problems. I simply switched back to the 1905 version, while preserving your last two edits. With so many versions we'd better double check to see if the citations/page numbers are in shape, because sometimes the information in question can spill over to the next page in one version, but not the other, or come before the one cited, etc. In any case, all page/cites are generally correct, but there may be an exception or two lurking around -- off by one or two page numbers, perhaps. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have checked and verified the page numbers now with the published 1844 version; they are 99% correct relevant to sentences, figures & paragraphs. I'll double check again today. Regards Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This has now been done. I've also replaced a few too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean the 1905 version I'm assuming, the one that's currently in the Bibliography. In any case, good foot-work. I'll be giving things a double check directly. Still can't figure why the 1844 version is only 172 pages, while the other versions are well over 370 pages. I'm also wondering who was the artist who made the engravings of the Gibraltar map and the Spanish floating battery, and whether Drinkwater was also a map maker and/or an artist, but I suppose that's more to do with Drinkwater than the actual Siege. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The 1844 version has smaller writing with two columns therefore takes up a lot of one page given the small page no.s. As for the maps Im not sure, but Im sure he had friends in high places. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course – smaller print and quite possibly bigger physical pages. And here I was, looking for some 'esoteric' explanation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Article first sentence

The article first sentence was revered to this: ”The Great Siege of Gibraltar was an unsuccessful attempt by Spain and France to capture Gibraltar from the British during the War of the American Revolution.” The rational given was by Eastfarthingan, “Undid revision by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) revert good faith edit. Not what the source says & siege took place before, during & after.” The revert removes the edit to place the “unsuccessful attempt by Spain and France” to capture Gibraltar in the context of military history in “the War of the American Revolution”, as referenced.

(a) While the revert claims that the ‘French-Spanish attempt’ failed before the onset of the ARW, wp:consensus is that it was the ARW that began in 1775, BEFORE the article Infobox dates that specify 1779 to 1783. - wp:error. The context of military history in the first sentence should be restored.

(b) As a matter of scholarly consensus in the chronology of North Atlantic military history, at Yorktown in October 1781, the fighting ended in America for the American constitutional revolution into a republic, also known as the American War for Independence. So, DURING the article Infobox dates 1779–1782, the American shooting war ended. It ended eleven months BEFORE the decisive ‘Final Assault’ by the Spanish-French allies with the last, most critical 40% of the siege yet to unfold.

- As Eggenberger and the other RS have it, Yorktown in October 1781 ended the fighting in the American Revolutionary war as an historical event. Meanwhile in Eggelberger’s narrative, as Merriam-Webster explains, “meanwhile” means |“at the same time”. Meanwhile, during a coincident time period, Britain had become engaged in a maritime war with the Bourbon alliance of the Third Pacte de Famille extended by the Treaty of Aranjuez (1779). The French and Spanish declared war on Britain for territorial expansion and imperial gain, as called out in the articles of the Aranjuez treaty, but not for the American War for Independence. The Spanish do NOT join France in the conditional and defensive Treaty of Alliance to guarantee US independence and trade. France and Spain agree to offensive war on Britain without US consent, contravening the Franco-American treaty. The Bourbon alliance the next year launched an unsuccessful invasion of England.

In the article first sentence, the reverted edit here should be restored. It will clarify the military history chronology, and it is required to avoid the general reader from confusing the coincident time placement of the 'Great Siege of Gibraltar' “during the American Revolution” which is true, with a wp:error: conflating the time period containing the 'Great Siege of Gibraltar' with the historical event “the American Revolutionary War”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Id be happy to restore it but it's too long. Remember this is the lede not the main body of the article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Agree. I'll try a rework and run it by you here. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)