Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–1783)/Archive 1

2091:

the other. This is particularly true of those battles between 1778-1783. i.e. Gibraltar, Saintes, Mona Passage, et al. I believe we have all demonstrated that the sources vary, and that those who refer to battles like the Saintes as being "part of" the ARW only do so in a passing capacity -- nothing to really write about in terms of the ARW as compared to covering battles like Saratoga and Yorktown as being part of the ARW. Therefore, esp in terms of Due-Weight, the focus should be on what has defined the battles in question foremost, i.e.trading disputes and naval dominance between Britain and France, which clearly ties them to the ongoing Anglo-French conflicts between the two countries, as they always have throughout the 18th century. This is why we should not dump all these battles into an article about French belligerents, in America, fighting for American independence. We have two specialized articles that cover the different sets of battles – one for the actual fighting in America over American independence, one for naval dominance and trading disputes between Britain and France elsewhere about the globe. Imo we should keep it that way. --

1431:

vary in their terminology we must look at the greater picture, that the Anglo-French Wars were ongoing before, during and after the 18th century, the reasons of which did not come to a stop when the ARW came along, and were fought for their own specific reasons, aside from the actual war over American independence, while the examples provided do indeed confirm that the Anglo-French wars have been referred to as such all along, as was already discussed. That you categorically dismiss the examples provided by the Library of Congress also, previously discussed, only tells us you are habitually denying everything, without one single exception. You've only demonstrated that you're simply rehashing the discussion over points that have been fully explained for you several times in an apparent attempt to once again cloud the discussion. --

354:. Editors in favor of a merge argued that very few reliable sources refer to conflicts between France and England outside of the North American theatre during this period by this name or otherwise treat them as separate conflicts from the American Revolutionary War. Editors opposed to a merge felt that there was sufficient coverage of military encounters between France and England in the Caribbean, Europe, and Asia under this name to justify a separate article. One editor opposed to a merge argued that merging would make the target article too unwieldy. While 31: 2012:. Yet I don't see you advocating to rename those pages (or sections of those pages) "Anglo-French War (1740 to 1748)" or "Anglo-French War (1701–1714)", yet by your own sythases they would have to be renamed as such. Wiki:CommonName mandates that this page be merged, neither you nor TVH have been able to show that "Anglo-French War" is used by anymore than a mere handful of sources. 1601:. Are you saying that there is no current master’s thesis, doctoral dissertation, or strategic study in the armed forces of the US, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand with the term “Anglo-French War 1778-1783" in their title, heading, notes or bibliography? Just look at the native English speaker RS for now, such as Tony Bunting in the lead sentence of this paragraph. 1531:. Marley, 1998, uses the term Anglo-French conflict on p.376; Anglo-French hostilities on p.201, etc; Dull, 2015, uses the term Anglo-French negotiations and Anglo-French relations on p.388; Many of these books are not available for viewing on line, but given these examples I think we can safely say that the term Anglo-French occurs again more than once. -- 975:", which has a similar context. Like France, Germans and Spain had military conflicts during American Revolutionary War, but they also played significant roles in politics, and economy. I think France had a same role during American Revolution, so it is not awkward to merge them. But I think we should write some articles about military conflicts in 1298: 1261:— XavierGreen and Eastfarthingan overall are just rehashing past arguments that have been well addressed, regardless of any new and redundant sources with the same sort of passing references they may drag in. This doesn't change the fact that the sources plainly vary in their terminology as we have demonstrated. ( 1789:

Thanks once again TVH. I believe we've demonstrated all along that we need one article for the conflicts involving the actual fight over American independence, and another article covering the conflicts between Britain and France over shipping, trade and naval dominance scatted about elsewhere on the

358:

is usually used before an RfC, rather than after one, in this case editors may find it helpful, as it may help to have a mediator focus the discussion around individual pieces of evidence that can then be more easily evaluated by third parties. As it stands, the sprawling nature of the arguments here

1765:

XG — As we keep trying to explain, and have well demonstrated over and again, the sources vary in their references to battles between the british and French over shipping and trading rights in the West indies and elsewhere. In case where the ARW is referred to, they do not explain any connection to

206:

regards to France, the French signed treaties of alliance with the United States and Spain and fought the war together. There was no seperate Anglo-French War as this page asserts, France's participation in the war was joined at the begining as a direct part of the same conflict America was fighting.

2377:

Mackesey's ARW "American War" is between British government and the rebel-/-independence Congress in North America and the North Atlantic, war waged between them, and peace made between them alone. As you have known this for two months, the question remains for administrators, Why disrupt here with

1707:

Again, your own synthases is irrelevant, by your own admission Tucker plainly states that the campaigns in Europe, the Caribbean and the East Indies are part of the American Revolutionary War. I fail to see how marxism or the comintern have anything to do with whether or not Wiki:CommonName applies

1448:

The Library of congress is the only source used for mentioning Anglo-French war and even when used as a source in books it is not used as that term Mahan for example uses that LOC source on Bibliography notes on page iv but never uses the term. On wiki commons this is a picture source and not used

1430:

The sources vary, as was demonstrated with the numerous examples above. A ban of a given user doesn't negate the idea that the info this editor provided, years ago, is automatically nonsequitur any more than your block record does, so let's stop with the weasel contentions. As the sources do indeed

1180:

If you know which page should be removed, use {{merge to|DESTINATIONPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal}},on the source page, and on the destination page,{{merge from|SOURCEPAGE|discuss=Talk:DESTINATIONPAGE#Merger proposal}}. Please use the discuss parameter to direct to the same talk

1062:

article involves only those battles fought by the French helping the Americans gain independence, with a summary paragraph about other battles fought over disputes about possessions in the West Indies, etc. This is why we have two dedicated articles for each set of battles, rather than dumping all

741:

article involves France and French belligerents in the fight for American sovereignty. This article however, primarily lends itself to the battles between Britain and France over shipping and trading disputes in the West Indies, and elsewhere, having nothing to do with the actual war over American

2090:

There's really nothing to "solve". I was not going back to 1100 in regards to the Anglo-French Wars, but overall have repeatedly referred to the Anglo-French Wars of the 18th century, where Britain and France were trying to protect or expand their colonial possessions, very often at the expense of

1095:

article covers battles fought by France and Britain over their possessions, involving no Americans. As I've always maintained, these are two separate sets of battles, which is why we've always had two dedicated articles for each. Trying to bunch them all together into one article will only create

966:

When I read two articles, there was no much different between articles. Both articles are talking about how France had invovled in American Revolutionary War. Then we should think about merging, because one article is about the war, and the other is written with broader context. Well, as there are

2109:

It is all very well explaning the Anglo-French wars but we are talking about France in the American War of Interdependence for this article to be merged with. Did you not see the list of sources I produced as above. This your opinion. In what sources links Saintes, Gibraltar & Mona Passage to

2056:

Gwillhickers, we are all aware of the Anglo-French wars since 1100 but using that term as a basis for your argument regarding all of those wars isn't going to solve this. Also Im not ignoring everything you pointed out. Jaques does not mention 'Anglo French war 1778-83' at all, so please clarify

1524:

Well, your first sentence here only tells us you've been ignoring all the examples that have been presented to you. At least you've demonstrated that all these books come under the heading of Anglo-French War at the Library of Congress. Also, several of the books you list here do indeed use the

515:

covers France, as a major belligerent in the American Revolutionary War. The Anglo-French wars were their own wars, fought between Britain and France over trade and shipping, having nothing to do with the actual fight for/against American independence overall, and merits its own article. Also, as

220:

This is just wrong. Spain never assigned a alliance treaty with the US, and nether it participated in the "main conflict", all its alliance was with France and all its dwellings were with France too. About this being a separate conflict, when I came back with some time I'll show a dozen article~s

141:

This article is not before time, and is crucial to a proper understanding that there were many more facets to the so-called American Revolutionary War than merely those that took place on the American continent. The events of this war are only cursorily covered in the main artical on the American

2034:

We've already been through this sort of thing. The Anglo-French wars were indeed fought before, during and after the 18th century, the reasons of which did not cease during the ARW. Overall the battles in question remain unrelated to the actual war over American independence and should not be

1947:

Only three sources?? "Pales in comparison"? This is getting a bit much. Again, you're categorically ignoring all that's been pointed out for you, including sources you brought to the table. This is troubling. Also, no one ever said that all the battles of the American Revolution were fought on

1082:

Wendylove - A number of battles fought by the French against the British during the Revolutionary War had nothing to do with the fight over American independence -- they were fought for their own specific objectives, involving contested French and British Possessions. We also don't dump all the

205:

The Netherlands and Mysore were never officially aligned with the Spanish, French, and Americans and did not directly participate in the main conflict. They were merely co-belligerents in common cause against the british and primarily fought their own seperate conflicts. This is not the case in

1058:- Wendylove. The reason there are two articles is because one article covers the Anglo-French wars of this period that only involve conflicts between France and Britain over their possessions in the West Indies and elsewhere, having nothing to do with the fight for independence. However, the 516:

much as I frown on sock-puppetry, if the editor in question has added sourced information, it is just a credible as sourced info added by an IP or other editor, so let's not try to discredit any work with some 'guilty by association' process. In any case, observe the Table of Contents in the

1879:

occurs in the title of this book, thus setting the prevailing theme, that these wars were fought for their own specific reasons, having little to nothing to do with the actual fight for American independence. You keep trying to side-step that glaring reality with your opinionated claims and

1905:

It still pales in comparison to the sources I have produced.. there are only three sources that state Anglo French War 1778 (Anglo French Naval crisis 1778 clearly doesn't say what you think it means). As for Pondicherry many sources use the term American Revolutionary war like here -

335:

This is only a minor issue, but the Treaty of Versailles was the treaty that ended WW1, while the Treaties of Versailles ended the 1778-1783 war between Britain in France. Maybe to avoid confusion, call it the Treaty of Paris. This is in the results piece in the short information box.

524:

articles. These articles are not "very much the same", and to make such a ludicrous claim only creates doubt as to the motives behind the attempt to merge, the likes of which came under heavy criticism from numerous editors on the American Revolutionary War Talk page not long ago. --

734:

Content fork? It's a completely different topic, albeit, remotely related to the ARW in some instances. It's as if you're saying all the battles during the Anglo-French War were automatically part of the ARW, where in reality only a couple of them were remotely connected. The

2261:

If the term Anglo French war 1778-83 were used then the war then it would be a collection of wars and would be called the American Revoltionarary wars like Napoleonic Wars. Here are some examples of the war being one global war and no mention of this article's nomenclature.

2400:

What Mackesey says about the 'is not a history of the War of Independence' does not make it mean in a cryptic fashion that it's the Anglo French war 1778-83. otherwise he would've mentioned it but he doesn't why? Because it is clearly only used in a rare manner hence LOC.

2039:

article which involves the French in the actual fighting for American independence. e.g.The French were not fighting for American independence when they were trying to invade Jamaica in 1782. Such conflicts have always characterized the French–Anglo Wars. --

1766:

the actual fight over American independence, as Tucker does not. It remains a passing reference and should be covered in a separate article that covers other such conflicts between Britain and France, over trade disputes, not over American independence. --

1948:

American soil, only that the vast majority, nearly all of them, were. Again, we have demonstrated that there are scores of sources that employ the term Anglo-French War, not only in the titles, but in the narrative, some of which you have provided. --

1907: 1970: 1675:]. Literally every single combat action and campaign in the scope of this article Tucker prefaces by stating "American Revolutionary War (continued)...", plainly prefacing his section on each battle as being part of the American Revolutionary War. 2283: 2126:

We should not dump all those remote battles over trade between Britain and France elsewhere on the globe into an article about France in the actual fight for American independence. Two sets of battles, fought for two specific reasons. --

1344:

e.g.They continue to hold up Clodfelter who lists Battles like Mona Passage under the ARW, but continue to ignore the fact that Clodfelter qualified this by noting that wars during this time were part of the overall Anglo-French wars, as

416:. Both articles are very much the same, the nomenclature is also dubious given this is part of the American Revolution and very few historians have named it such. It was moved without authorisation while there was an ongoing discussion 945:

From what I can see it is distinct but can too easily be used as a content fork. If the material on the American Revolutionary was a paragraph with a reference to main article that would overcome the issue and allow wider development

718:, per Wiki:COMMONNAME it must be merged into that article. There are only a handful of sources which use "Anglo-French War" as a term for the subject content of this page, while there are hundreds which use American-Revolutionary War. 1394:

The sources do not vary greatly, they are virtually universal in using "American Revolutionary War" or "American War of Independence". Virtually none use "Anglo-French War". And again, the LOC search parameter you used refers to all

1368:

No one has refuted the fact that the sources vary greatly, so hopefully you'll not be pulled into another prolonged and rehashed debate, review the big picture, and reconsider your original decision, which was point on, imo. --

1307:

has been used to describe battles between Britain and France throughout the 18th century, so they attempt to counter that by saying the sources didn't mention the 'Anglo French War (1778-1783)' specifically, which is not true.

1403:. And as for the history of the title of this article and commons category, that is plainly explained in Eastfarthingian's statement at the beginning of the merger discussion. They were created by a since banned sockpuppet of 394:

I welcome this comment - since we are at an impasse and very few editors have weighed in to form a consensus. I'd be happy (if there's no consesus) to look at restructuring this article and may, yes.. even expand it!

350:, editors remain at an impasse. There were four editors on each side of the argument, with one additional editor arguing against merging but suggesting a restructure of the article to minimize its overlap with 490:. There are plenty of sources that cover the Anglo-French wars, and refer to them as such, during the 18th century. Also, here is another direct reference to the Anglo-French wars that occurred in 1778-1783: 2065:

by David Eggenberger if you look on page 17 there's a list of battles of the American Revolutionary war with battles including Saintes, Cuddalore, Menorca, St Vincent, Ushant, Grenada, Gibraltar. The there's

843:

INTERNATIONAL EVENTS COMBINED TO FORCE Britain to grant the US Congress independence and so cause the loss of its North American empire. ARW-Global editors CLAIM there may be RS that suggest it was NOT the

2218:“this IS a history of the WoI”, when it is repeated in multiple venues after corrected at the first Talk. That is, for an editor to misrepresent a direct quote, sourced and linked: “NOT-A” - - - to mean 657:) and his “European war 1778-1783” among the British against French & Spanish. The RS view of a WoAR separate from ARW-America -- and NOT the wp:OR-conflated ARW-Global -- is found in the narrative by 1794:

article, again, will almost double the size of that article and only muddle up the narrative involving the French in the actual fight for American independence. It will also cause a Due-Weight issue. --

581:, with a chart showing 20 books. The clusters are in the 1790s from participant-contemporaries, in the Victorian Era, 11 books in the 1970-80s, 12 books in the 1990-2000s, most recently 2003, 2007, 2009. 861:

ARW-Global, we find only editor posts of misunderstanding, misapplication and misdirection claiming that a string of BRITISH VICTORIES worldwide on land and at sea uninterrupted, EVERYWHERE FOR A YEAR

814:. In your ARW-Global, the "American theater" plays but a "small part" in independence for the United States, including sources deprecating the "imperial American Revolution" (Collingwood, Eggenberger). 901:

of the proposed target. Regardless of what terminology sources use, there was only one war Great Britain and France were involved in between 1778 and 1783, and that is the American Revolutionary War.

1280: 303:

There's plenty more, just got those in a 30 secs search. As anyone can see, they are all pretty valid and common practice everywhere. Americans should not be so touch about this one specifically.

1708:

here. The sources overwealmingly favor usage of the term American Revolutionary War, and therefore this article must be merged into France in the American Revolutionary War as a POV content fork.

1312:

is the name of a Knowledge (XXG) article covering a given time period, not an isolated series of battles in the overall Anglo-French Wars of the 18th century, which is supported by this source:

1322:"From 1778 until 1783, with or without their continental European allies, the French continually contested British naval dominance in the English Channel, the Mediterranean, the India Ocean, 494:"From 1778 until 1783, with or without their continental European allies, the French continually contested British naval dominance in the English Channel, the Mediterranean, the India Ocean, 571:, charts some of the listed 32 books dedicated to the subject, clustered in the 1790s, during the Victorian Era, and in the mid-20th century, most recently 1983, 1998 and 2005. - - 2167: 2336:

here. Makesey does NOT say that the Bourbon imperial war on Britain 1778-1783 is the "American War", he clearly says it is not, as you have seen in a direct quote, without any

2364: 556: 2247:

this is precisely why it should be merged. The American Revoltuionary war is a world war and what's more he doesn't come up with the term the Anglo French war 1778-83.

71: 66: 2277: 1635:. For the most part, I will get to each and every citation of your misunderstanding, misapplication and misdirection on this Talk page, one every two days. Cheers. 1362: 1357: 852:

that led to the March 1782 bill in Parliament to end offensive war in America, the fall of war Prime Minister Lord North, and British-initiated peace negotiations.

1927: 2344:

has provided you ample citations of the LOC history topic that should be used here to title a military history article for "general readers" at Knowledge (XXG),

1453:

by Gerald Saxon Brown. Let's look at at some French sources; note there is no term for the use of Anglo French war translated as 'Guerres Franco-Anglais 1778':

1079:

Why don't we merge the articles by handling every conflicts that French had involved during American Revolution? I think it is simple issue.... Well if there wa

363:

may both improve the article as it stands and make it easier to determine whether there's enough material to justify having a separate article for this subject.

85: 1083:

coverage of these battles into one article because that would tend to over-shadow the idea of the American-French alliance to win American independence. The

2192:. "The American War was Britain’s only clear defeat in the long contest with France which began with the Revolution of 1688 and ended at Waterloo ." (xxiv) 168:

and maybe more. Pretend that every concomitant war with the ARW is the same thing make no sense at all. And the ARW article is pretty crowded as it is now.

1449:

as a source base and probably set up by a sockuser linked with Vinukin. Even more oddly term 'Anglo-French' is used more as a source based on this book -

1352: 1172:, "This is usually done on the proposed destination page's talk page. include the proposal itself, the list of the affected pages, and a merger rationale." 2271: 2265: 1063:

the other battles into the target article. Hoping you will reconsider based on that idea. Thanks for your interest, no matter what you have decided. --

417: 359:

are not conducive to getting uninvolved editors to weigh in. Alternatively, adopting the suggestion to restructure the article to have less overlap with

1331: 1262: 742:

independence overall. Yes, there are sources that define and use the term Anglo-French Wars. This appears to be yet another attempt to remove the term

503: 1190: 1158: 1085: 1059: 968: 737: 715: 521: 512: 462: 413: 360: 351: 184: 2200:, but a study of British strategy and leadership in a world war, the last in which the enemy were the Bourbons. …the Whitehall perspective." (xxvi) 2188:: Publisher’s blurb: …for the British, the American colonies were only one front in a world war. England was also pitted against France and Spain. 465:. Virtually no sources call the subject matter "Anglo-French War (1778-1783)". A similar content fork created by the Vinukin sock puppets entitled 470: 1206: 1198: 1924:

The major fleet engagements of the American Revolution were classic sea fights between European opponents not between the British and Americans

1618:: a timeline embracing the Anglo-French naval engagements in the “West Indies” after “the end of the Revolution” at Yorktown, is meant to note 1202: 918: 47: 17: 1292: 1286: 1149: 191:; I encourage editors to discuss the proposal there. I'm taking the liberty of notifying wikiprojects associated with all three pagespaces. 1615: 2058: 1975: 1016:, that would overcome the issue and allow wider development." -Snowded, 2:13 am, 15 August 2020, Saturday (28 days ago), posted above. 972: 1493:

By Alfred Thayer Mahan..... as we can see all of these sources all use the term American Revolution or American war of independence.

258: 1723: 1690: 1851:

Please note that the chapter on page 148 states 'A. Local detention or Transportation to Europe, The American War of Independence'

1400: 517: 293: 984: 1994:

Gwillhickers, again, the term "Anglo-French Wars" as used in Morieux (and most of the other works you cite) is used to refer to

298: 288: 283: 273: 268: 263: 2359:, make war on Britain in a Bourbon-King alliance, without American knowledge or consent as provided for in the Franco-American 1346: 188: 1194: 634:"American Revolutionary War-Global" to subsume both the “Anglo-French War (1788)” and the “Anglo-Spanish War (1789)” into the 253: 2462: 2391: 2235: 1731: 1698: 1640: 1214: 1042: 877: 678: 803: 631: 2004:

specifically to the American Revolutionary War. Again, if your stance is to be adopted, Morieux's work includes in its the

1249:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

386:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2486:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1826: 1227:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

976: 662: 2182:, and regardless of the British rebel-independence Congress seeking independence from Britain on British-ceded territory. 654: 1309: 1091: 926: 658: 1919: 2245:

This, then, is not a history of the War of Independence, but a study of British strategy and leadership in a world war

1365:

is even categorized under this category. Knowledge (XXG) overall should be consistent with its titles and categories.

1053: 1002: 980: 666: 1595:

The Library of Congress category “Anglo-French War ” is a legitimate topic of scholarly inquiry and military history

2074:

By Richard Middleton please take note of the chapter 'European Operations' again no term Anglo French war is used.

2062: 1486: 1124: 466: 108: 38: 2466: 2410: 2395: 2304: 2256: 2239: 2138: 2119: 2102: 2083: 2051: 2021: 1989: 1959: 1940: 1891: 1860: 1844: 1806: 1777: 1735: 1717: 1702: 1684: 1644: 1560: 1551:

as a basis for your argument. The article is called Anglo-French War (1778-83) and that is the title in question.

1542: 1502: 1442: 1416: 1380: 1218: 1136: 1107: 1074: 1046: 1001:. From what I can see it is distinct but can too easily be used as a content fork." So ---leaving this article as 988: 952: 937: 912: 881: 757: 727: 709: 682: 536: 482: 449: 404: 374: 312: 230: 215: 200: 177: 151: 135: 120: 111:, any information found here not there should be merged into that article and this article redirected to that one. 97: 2458: 2435: 2387: 2356: 2231: 1727: 1694: 1636: 1210: 1038: 873: 697: 674: 433: 2406: 2300: 2252: 2180:

that the American Revolutionary war was a contest among Euro great powers for empire overseas away from America

2115: 2079: 1936: 1856: 1556: 1498: 828: 445: 400: 1178:, "To propose a merger of two or more pages, place the following template at the top of each page or section: 1547:

Anglo-French Naval crisis, Anglo-French hostilities, Anglo-French conflict etc. Stop using any old term with

650: 1268: 1154: 165: 161: 1274: 785:

You and Eastfarthingan have indeed provided three dozen "sources" that you claim support editor conflating

2134: 2098: 2047: 1985: 1955: 1915: 1911: 1887: 1840: 1802: 1773: 1597:, a term in an RS article online this month at Encyclopedia Britannica by British scholar Tony Bunting at 1538: 1466: 1438: 1376: 1103: 1070: 753: 532: 248: 157: 2337: 1912:'The Encyclopedia of the American Revolutionary War: A Political, Social, and Military History, Volume 2' 2017: 1713: 1680: 1664: 1454: 1412: 824: 723: 478: 425: 243: 211: 116: 2329: 1829:

The Society of Prisoners: Anglo-French Wars and Incarceration in the Eighteenth Century, Morieux, 2019

1470: 308: 226: 173: 131: 2225: 1175: 1169: 898: 2402: 2296: 2248: 2111: 2075: 1932: 1852: 1577: 1552: 1494: 458: 441: 396: 2454: 2360: 2071: 2067: 1510: 1490: 1482: 1462: 705: 669:. We should have a full discussion in each case on the merits of our best sources going forward, 147: 2379: 2325: 2219: 2203: 2171: 2159: 1929:

1778: Why was One of the Battles of the American Revolutionary War Fought in Pondicherry, India?

1833:

This work mentions French admiral de Grasse who was taken prisoner at the Battle of Saintes. --

1627: 1611: 1153:

are supposed to be formally initiated at the TARGET article, in this case the proposal to merge

577: 2341: 2128: 2092: 2041: 1979: 1949: 1881: 1834: 1796: 1767: 1668: 1585: 1532: 1432: 1396: 1370: 1132: 1097: 1096:

months of continued controversy and endless debate, and we've been at it since early June. --

1064: 849: 836: 747: 691: 567: 526: 196: 2352: 2013: 1709: 1676: 1581: 1475:'Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present' 1408: 922: 719: 474: 207: 112: 2383: 1474: 1450: 355: 1620:“those non-North American events that specifically impact the future of the United States” 1478: 1458: 821:

the worldwide Euro conflict in 1782 AFTER American armistice and US armies furloughed home

700:. Appears to me that there are more than enough RS's to justify this having its own page. 429: 304: 222: 169: 127: 93: 2295:

There are many more examples as seen by what I have quoted before in previous sections.

1598: 630:

editors seek all-embracing “War of American Revolution” references conflated into their

589: 2190:

Their tactical response to the American Revolution a part of a grand imperial strategy

1633:"During", as ‘coincident time period’, is NOT "during", as ‘connected historical event’ 868: 278: 2288: 1487:'The French Navy and American Independence: A Study of Arms and Diplomacy, 1774–1787' 701: 421: 367: 143: 1875:

Page 148 is not viewable, but in any case, it doesn't negate the idea that the term

2457:, which was then abrogated by France at Aranjuez the very next year (Morris 1983). 1526: 1404: 1128: 994: 947: 902: 437: 192: 1667:

is part of the American Revolutionary War, on page 324 he plainly states that the

2369:

but a study of British strategy and leadership in a world war, the last in which

2266:'To Begin the World Over Again: How the American Revolution Devastated the Globe' 2367:). Mackesey's 'War for America', "is not a history of the War of Independence, 1589: 1256: 931: 832: 238: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2070:

by Piers Mackesy which mentions nothing on the subject of an Anglo-French war.

1451:'The Anglo-French Naval Crisis, 1778: a Study of Conflict in the North Cabinet' 794:

among British subjects over the constitutional establishment of the US Congress

1622:

that will be included in the “Spanish-American War” account – on the timeline.

89: 1123:

There is already sufficient coverage of the battles directly relevant to the

142:

Revolutuion so any attempt to integrate them should be rigorously opposed.--

2061:'conflict' in that sense does not justify that claim. Here's another few - 872:

in the course of world military history. I for one, am not yet persuaded.

1459:'La Société des Cincinnati de France et la guerre d'Amérique (1778-1783)' 1089:

article covers how the French helped the Americans win independence. The

235:

About other wars being treated as separated articles from broad subjects:

1471:'The Men Who Lost America: British Command during the Revolutionary War' 2284:'The American Revolution Was Just One Battlefront in a Huge World War' 1187:

Guidelines recommend notification to all interested WIKIPEDIA PROJECTS

420:. I should also note that a lot of this articles content was added by 1399:, not specifically to the conflict referred to here. For example see 812:

a struggle for worldwide imperial dominance by European Great Powers

1455:'Diplomatie franco-anglaise de la Guerre d'Independance americaine' 1157:

into "France in the American Revolutionary War" should initiate at

810:, expanding the scope of the "American War for Independence" into 187:, an article around since 2005. A merge discussion was started at 88:. It failed. Then s/he created this article. POV fork? Duplicate? 2272:'Gale Researcher Guide for: The American Revolution: A World War' 1127:

on that page. Merging would divert the focus of the ARW article.

1998:

of the wars between Britian and France during the 18th century,

473:, this situation is identical and the remedy should be the same. 1326:." The first fleet action in European waters came early in the 600:"Siege of Pondicherry (21 Aug-18 Oct 1778), engagement in the 498:." The first fleet action in European waters came early in the 2451:

war for American independence and defensive war for free trade

2208:

Misinterpreting a passage for editor POV purpose is misleading

1355:, and there is also an Anglo-French category in Wiki Commons ( 25: 2332:

on the ARW:Talk page on 12 June 2020 (1 month, 29 days ago),

1964:

Again you produce sources that use the term Anglo-French War:

2063:'An Encyclopedia of Battles: Accounts of Over 1,560 Battles' 1918:

by Richard Ernest Dupuy, Gay M. Hammerman, Grace P. Hayes.

1525:

term Anglo-French. First, Brown's work, 1956, is entitled

1181:

page. Otherwise, two separate discussions could take place."

2422:

because it is in the TIME of, but not an EVENT in the ARW,

1673:], he does the same for the Siege of Gibraltar on page 323 610:

over French support for the rebel United States of America

1147:

Now we have additional confusion ADMINISTRATIVELY because

919:

Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–1783)#Proposal to Merge denied

1030:; write an article about military conflicts'. So, I say, 2197:"This, then, is not a history of the War of Independence 1163:

all discussion is to be confined to the TARGET Talk page

1914:

by Gregory Fremont-Barnes, Richard Alan Ryerson. Then

831:, and (3) British celebration news of a withdrawal by 1920:'Blue Water Patriots: The American Revolution Afloat' 1012:- "If the material on the American Revolutionary was 107:

This article is a direct content fork of the article

2420:

the article into 'France in the American Revolution'

2214:“This is NOT a history of the WoI”, is the same as 2170:by Piers Mackesy and John W. Shy (1964, 1993). The 183:This article is a recently created content fork of 1491:'Sea Power and the American Revolution: 1775-1783' 84:The creator of this article opened a move request 1608:Over the last 14 hours, you cannot make an answer 1483:'The Historical Atlas of the American Revolution' 1358:c:Naval battles of the Anglo-French War (1778–83) 827:in the Caribbean Sea, (2) English victory at the 221:where wars by countries are treated in separate. 1361:) for the many related images. The image of the 331:Treaties of Versailles, not Treaty of Versailles 2432:offensive war against Britain for imperial gain 2186:However, read these examples to contradict that 2072:'The War of American Independence: 1775-178'=3' 1599:“Siege of Pondicherry: Anglo-French War (1778)” 1465:by Léon Guérin. Further sources confirm this - 999:Don't merge but structure to avoid content fork 943:Don't merge but structure to avoid content fork 598: 590:“Siege of Pondicherry: Anglo-French War (1778)” 189:Talk:American Revolutionary War#Merger proposal 1479:'Navies and the American Revolution 1775-1783' 588:, British scholar Tony Bunting at Britannica, 1663:Tucker literally states on page 373 that the 1353:Library of Congress for the Anglo-French wars 1014:a paragraph with a reference to main article 856:But on INSPECTION of three-dozen (36) sources 789:the "American Revolutionary War in America", 327:The Spanish should be listed on the article. 8: 1616:Almanac of American Military History, Vol. 1 1467:'Naval Documents of the American Revolution' 1303:) They can't refute the idea that the term 624:"American Revolution-related historiography" 412:: This article should be merged (back) with 1035:the article elements of 'military conflict' 2059:neither does this (Barnes, Ryerson, 2006) 1790:globe. To drag all these battles into the 2424:is NOT "a cryptic fashion" for proposing 1922:By James M. Volo take note page 82 quote 1671:is part of the American Revolutionary War 1614:, interpretation of scholar Tucker at RS 1610:my post exposing the irrelevance of your 1176:wp:Merging#Step 2: Tag the relevant pages 2037:France in the American Revolutionary War 1825:Here is yet another definitive example: 1792:France in the American Revolutionary War 1159:France in the American Revolutionary War 1086:France in the American Revolutionary War 1060:France in the American Revolutionary War 969:Spain and the American Revolutionary War 917:Close overturned: see below discussion, 738:France in the American Revolutionary War 716:France in the American Revolutionary War 638:conflict of British subjects in America. 522:France in the American Revolutionary War 513:France in the American Revolutionary War 463:France in the American Revolutionary War 414:France in the American Revolutionary War 361:France in the American Revolutionary War 352:France in the American Revolutionary War 185:France in the American Revolutionary War 2280:by David K. Allison, Larrie D. Ferreiro 1916:'The American Revolution, a Global War' 1908:'Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: P-Z' 1724:1. Almanac of American Military History 1691:1. Almanac of American Military History 471:Spain in the American Revolutionary War 2453:, as specified in the Franco-American 2365:Morris 1983, "The Great Peace of 1783" 2289:'The American Revolution: A World War' 2278:'The American Revolution: A World War' 1170:wp:Merging#Step 1: Create a discussion 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2430:about the 1778-1783 Bourbon Alliance 2351:Euro France & Spain, under their 1324:and most importantly, the West Indies 671:using the DISTINCTIONS the RS give us 496:and most importantly, the West Indies 7: 1245:The following discussion is closed. 977:France in American Revolutionary War 382:The following discussion is closed. 2441:Whatever the wp:article title, the 2162:ARW-Global editors misrepresent RS 1528:The Anglo-French Naval Crisis, 1778 796:(rebellion or independence) - and - 2346:the "Anglo-French War (1778-1783)" 2334:there is no defense for that claim 2322:So, I see that after informing you 1469:by the US Naval History Division. 973:Germans in the American Revolution 504:Stoker, Hagan & McMaster, 2009 356:the dispute resolution noticeboard 24: 1351:Also, there is a Category at the 18:Talk:Anglo-French War (1778–1783) 2482:The discussion above is closed. 2153:2. The War for America 1775-1783 2068:'The War for America: 1775-1783' 1232:The discussion is being rehashed 1223:The discussion above is closed. 1007:article about military conflicts 29: 2330:citation, link and direct quote 867:to bring about the LOSS of the 850:Siege of Yorktown November 1781 2416:An editorial determination to 2222:: “IS-A” - - - on a Talk page 2010:War of the Austrian Succession 1108:19:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC) 1075:01:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC) 1047:13:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC) 989:12:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC) 818:The foremost ARW-Global proof: 608:war between Britain and France 98:14:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 1: 2355:, agreed by a further secret 2228:for editor contributions here 2168:The War for America 1775-1783 2006:War of the Spanish Succession 1463:'Histoire maritime de France' 1347:fully explained to them here. 467:Anglo-Spanish War (1778-1783) 259:Anglo-Spanish War (1796–1808) 2110:'Anglo French War of 1778'? 1401:Anglo-French War (1213–1214) 1310:Anglo-French War (1778-1783) 1191:WikiProject Military history 1092:Anglo-French War (1778-1783) 647:there is RS to separate them 578:"Anglo-Spanish War, 1779-83" 568:“Anglo-French War 1778-1783” 518:Anglo-French War (1778–1783) 461:. This is a content fork of 405:12:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 375:20:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC) 294:Swedish–Norwegian War (1814) 2467:01:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 2411:17:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 2396:16:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 2371:the enemy were the Bourbons 2305:10:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 2257:10:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 2240:07:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 2139:19:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 2120:00:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 1880:continued obfuscations. -- 1239:See above section for close 1150:wp:Proposed article mergers 1137:00:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC) 953:06:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 823:(1) English victory at the 557:Anglo-French War, 1778-1783 313:03:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) 299:Anglo-Swedish War (1810–12) 289:Anglo-Russian War (1807–12) 284:Anglo-Turkish War (1807–09) 274:Anglo-Spanish War (1625–30) 269:Anglo-Spanish War (1654–60) 264:Anglo-Spanish War (1762–63) 231:20:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 216:17:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC) 201:21:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC) 178:19:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC) 152:17:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC) 136:20:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC) 121:18:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC) 2501: 2103:19:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC) 2084:00:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC) 2052:21:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 2022:21:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1990:21:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1960:20:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1941:20:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1892:21:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1861:20:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1845:20:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1807:19:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1778:21:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1736:17:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC) 1718:14:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC) 1703:09:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC) 1685:21:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1645:19:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1561:00:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC) 1543:19:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1503:13:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1443:04:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1417:00:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 1381:22:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC) 1332:Hagan & McMaster, 2009 1219:22:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 1207:Version 1.0 Editorial Team 1199:WikiProject United Kingdom 1125:American Revolutionary War 1024:Don't Merge but avoid fork 1022:with a BLENDED 'Snowded': 938:20:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC) 913:18:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC) 882:22:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 758:22:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 746:from the radar screen. -- 728:01:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC) 714:This is a content fork of 710:18:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC) 683:10:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC) 667:Eggenberger (2012), Amazon 612:had repercussions in India 254:Anglo-French War (1627–29) 109:American Revolutionary War 2445:wars on Britain are just 2436:Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) 2357:Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) 2158:At this Talk page above, 1473:by Andrew O'Shaughnessy, 1203:WikiProject United States 663:Clodfelter (2017), Amazon 659:Clodfelter (2017), Google 622:In our wiki-fencing over 553:catalogue uses the term, 537:22:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC) 483:18:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC) 450:12:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 2484:Please do not modify it. 2324:of the misleading POV, " 1457:by Jean-Claude Castex, 1330:, on 27 July, 1778. < 1247:Please do not modify it. 1225:Please do not modify it. 829:Great Siege of Gibraltar 563:The Open Library website 502:, on 27 July, 1778. < 469:was already merged into 384:Please do not modify it. 1155:Anglo-French War (1778) 993:This reasoning akin to 967:some articles such as " 551:The Library of Congress 166:Second Anglo-Mysore War 162:First Anglo-Maratha War 1976:Barnes, Ryerson, 2006 1461:by Ludovic Contenson, 839:, ALL THREE YEAR-LONG 616: 249:Fourth Anglo-Dutch War 158:Fourth Anglo-Dutch War 2178:supporting their view 2057:what you mean ? Also 1665:Battle of the Saintes 1363:Battle of the Saintes 825:Battle of the Saintes 426:User:AdjectivesAreBad 244:Third Anglo-Dutch War 42:of past discussions. 2459:TheVirginiaHistorian 2388:TheVirginiaHistorian 2232:TheVirginiaHistorian 1728:TheVirginiaHistorian 1695:TheVirginiaHistorian 1637:TheVirginiaHistorian 1481:by Robert Gardiner, 1211:TheVirginiaHistorian 1039:TheVirginiaHistorian 874:TheVirginiaHistorian 869:First British Empire 804:wp:original research 698:TheVirginiaHistorian 675:TheVirginiaHistorian 655:Simms (2007), Google 651:Simms (2007), Amazon 632:wp:original research 432:who is a well known 2268:by Matthew Lockwood 2174:ARW-Global editors 1026:and 'Wendy love': 859:supposed to support 586:Most current online 459:User:Eastfarthingan 2455:Treaty of Alliance 2361:Treaty of Alliance 2176:cite this book as 1926:. And even here - 1248: 1195:WikiProject France 1143:NOTES ON PROCEDURE 615: 385: 2434:agreed to at the 2274:by Anthony Miller 2224:is not among the 1669:Battle of Grenada 1514: 1477:by David Marley 1397:Anglo-French Wars 1246: 1182: 897:. This page is a 837:Second Mysore War 599: 383: 156:There's also the 77: 76: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2492: 2353:Pacte de Famille 2338:editor synthesis 2210:To assert that, 2035:dumped into the 1910:by Tony Jaques. 1877:Anglo-French War 1593: 1508: 1485:By Ian Barnes, 1328:Anglo-French war 1305:Anglo-French War 1260: 1179: 1057: 934: 910: 783:SUBSTANCE reply: 744:Anglo-French War 606:The outbreak of 602:Anglo-French War 500:Anglo-French war 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2500: 2499: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2378:another posted 2328:ARW-Global" by 2166:(1964), citing 2155: 1575: 1254: 1251: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1234: 1229: 1228: 1145: 1051: 1005:(Wendy love)'s 932: 903: 617: 430:User:SuffrenXXI 388: 379: 378: 377: 366: 342: 333: 325: 105: 82: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2498: 2496: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2439: 2403:Eastfarthingan 2382:of misleading 2375: 2349: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2297:Eastfarthingan 2293: 2292: 2291: 2286: 2281: 2275: 2269: 2249:Eastfarthingan 2201: 2193: 2183: 2154: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2112:Eastfarthingan 2088: 2087: 2086: 2076:Eastfarthingan 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 1973: 1966: 1965: 1962: 1933:Eastfarthingan 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1853:Eastfarthingan 1848: 1847: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1623: 1602: 1578:Eastfarthingan 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1553:Eastfarthingan 1545: 1506: 1505: 1495:Eastfarthingan 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1252: 1243: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1233: 1230: 1222: 1184: 1183: 1173: 1144: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1017: 1010: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 915: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 853: 846:British defeat 815: 797: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 685: 639: 605: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 582: 542: 541: 540: 539: 509: 508: 507: 491: 485: 452: 442:Eastfarthingan 407: 397:Eastfarthingan 389: 380: 364: 346: 345: 344: 343: 341: 340:Merge proposal 338: 332: 329: 324: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 301: 296: 291: 286: 281: 279:Neapolitan War 276: 271: 266: 261: 256: 251: 246: 241: 236: 233: 139: 138: 104: 101: 81: 78: 75: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2497: 2485: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2443:Euro-declared 2440: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2427: 2421: 2419: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2386:? Sincerely, 2385: 2381: 2376: 2374: 2372: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2287: 2285: 2282: 2279: 2276: 2273: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2263: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2227: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2202: 2199: 2198: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2179: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2164:Piers Mackesy 2161: 2157: 2156: 2152: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2131: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2095: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2064: 2060: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2038: 2033: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2000: 1999: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1977: 1972: 1968: 1967: 1963: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1952: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1931: 1930: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1878: 1874: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1837: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1799: 1793: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1770: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1722:See reply at 1721: 1720: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1689:See reply at 1688: 1687: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1672: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1631: 1629: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1606: 1603: 1600: 1596: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1530: 1529: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1512: 1511:edit conflict 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1489:by John Dull 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1373: 1366: 1364: 1360: 1359: 1354: 1349: 1348: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1311: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1296: 1295: 1290: 1289: 1284: 1283: 1278: 1277: 1272: 1271: 1266: 1265: 1258: 1250: 1231: 1226: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1209:. - posted - 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1177: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1151: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1119: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1094: 1093: 1088: 1087: 1081: 1080: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1067: 1061: 1055: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1034: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1015: 1011: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 991: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 970: 965: 962: 961: 954: 951: 950: 944: 941: 940: 939: 936: 935: 928: 924: 920: 916: 914: 911: 909: 908: 900: 896: 893: 883: 879: 875: 871: 870: 866: 860: 857: 854: 851: 847: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 819: 816: 813: 809: 805: 801: 798: 795: 792: 788: 784: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 759: 755: 751: 750: 745: 740: 739: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 712: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 694: 689: 686: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 645: 644: 640: 637: 636:"ARW-America" 633: 629: 625: 621: 620: 619: 618: 613: 609: 603: 591: 587: 583: 580: 579: 574: 570: 569: 564: 560: 558: 552: 549: 546: 545: 544: 543: 538: 534: 530: 529: 523: 519: 514: 510: 505: 501: 497: 493: 492: 489: 486: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 456: 453: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 423: 422:User:Red Rudy 419: 415: 411: 408: 406: 402: 398: 393: 392: 391: 390: 387: 376: 373: 372: 371: 362: 357: 353: 349: 339: 337: 330: 328: 322: 314: 310: 306: 302: 300: 297: 295: 292: 290: 287: 285: 282: 280: 277: 275: 272: 270: 267: 265: 262: 260: 257: 255: 252: 250: 247: 245: 242: 240: 237: 234: 232: 228: 224: 219: 218: 217: 213: 209: 204: 203: 202: 198: 194: 190: 186: 182: 181: 180: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 154: 153: 149: 145: 137: 133: 129: 125: 124: 123: 122: 118: 114: 110: 102: 100: 99: 95: 91: 87: 79: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2483: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2431: 2426:How to title 2425: 2423: 2417: 2415: 2370: 2368: 2345: 2342:Gwillhickers 2333: 2321: 2244: 2223: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2196: 2195: 2189: 2185: 2177: 2175: 2163: 2130:Gwillhickers 2129: 2094:Gwillhickers 2093: 2043:Gwillhickers 2042: 2036: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1995: 1981:Gwillhickers 1980: 1971:Jaques, 2007 1951:Gwillhickers 1950: 1928: 1923: 1883:Gwillhickers 1882: 1876: 1872: 1871: 1836:Gwillhickers 1835: 1828: 1827: 1798:Gwillhickers 1797: 1791: 1769:Gwillhickers 1768: 1764: 1632: 1625: 1619: 1607: 1604: 1594: 1586:Gwillhickers 1549:Anglo-French 1548: 1534:Gwillhickers 1533: 1527: 1507: 1434:Gwillhickers 1433: 1429: 1405:User:Vinukin 1372:Gwillhickers 1371: 1367: 1356: 1350: 1343: 1334:, p. 51: --> 1327: 1323: 1304: 1299: 1293: 1287: 1281: 1275: 1269: 1263: 1253: 1244: 1224: 1186: 1185: 1162: 1148: 1146: 1121:Don't merge. 1120: 1099:Gwillhickers 1098: 1090: 1084: 1066:Gwillhickers 1065: 1032: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1013: 1006: 998: 963: 948: 942: 930: 906: 904: 894: 864: 862: 858: 855: 845: 840: 820: 817: 811: 807: 799: 793: 790: 786: 782: 749:Gwillhickers 748: 743: 736: 693:Gwillhickers 692: 688:Don't merge. 687: 670: 646: 642: 641: 635: 628:"AWR-global" 627: 623: 611: 607: 601: 585: 576: 572: 566: 562: 554: 550: 548:Don't merge. 547: 528:Gwillhickers 527: 511:The article 506:, p. 51: --> 499: 495: 487: 454: 438:User:Vinukin 409: 381: 369: 368: 348:No consensus 347: 334: 326: 155: 140: 126:I disagree. 106: 103:Content fork 83: 60: 43: 37: 2428:the article 2014:XavierGreen 1710:XavierGreen 1677:XavierGreen 1582:XavierGreen 1409:XavierGreen 1033:Don't merge 833:Tipu Sultan 791:ARW-America 720:XavierGreen 643:To counter, 488:Don't merge 475:XavierGreen 239:Finnish War 208:XavierGreen 113:XavierGreen 36:This is an 2226:wp:pillars 997:earlier: " 899:WP:POVFORK 808:ARW-Global 323:Combatants 305:SuffrenXXI 223:SuffrenXXI 170:SuffrenXXI 128:SuffrenXXI 2418:Not Merge 981:Wendylove 434:Sock User 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 2380:wp:error 2326:wp:error 2220:wp:error 2204:wp:error 2172:wp:error 2160:wp:error 1873:Insert : 1628:wp:error 1612:wp:error 702:Vyselink 520:and the 370:Rosguill 365:signed, 144:Godwhale 80:Untitled 1626:- Your 1588:, and 1129:021120x 1020:CONCUR, 995:Snowded 949:Snowded 907:Calidum 865:crucial 835:in the 806:for an 665:), and 592:begins, 575:is the 573:Related 436:called 193:BusterD 39:archive 2384:wp:pov 1590:Buidhe 1257:Buidhe 1205:, and 1161:. and 971:" or " 964:Merge. 933:buidhe 1028:Merge 979:. -- 946:----- 895:Merge 863:were 802:your 561:. -- 455:Merge 410:Merge 90:Srnec 16:< 2463:talk 2407:talk 2392:talk 2301:talk 2253:talk 2236:talk 2135:talk 2116:talk 2099:talk 2080:talk 2048:talk 2018:talk 2008:and 2002:not' 1986:talk 1956:talk 1937:talk 1888:talk 1857:talk 1841:talk 1803:talk 1774:talk 1732:talk 1714:talk 1699:talk 1681:talk 1641:talk 1557:talk 1539:talk 1499:talk 1439:talk 1413:talk 1377:talk 1215:talk 1133:talk 1104:talk 1071:talk 1054:웬디러비 1043:talk 1037:. - 1003:웬디러비 985:talk 878:talk 841:1782 754:talk 724:talk 706:talk 696:and 690:Per 679:talk 661:(or 653:(or 533:talk 479:talk 457:per 446:talk 418:here 401:talk 309:talk 227:talk 212:talk 197:talk 174:talk 148:talk 132:talk 117:talk 94:talk 86:here 2447:not 2216:(b) 2212:(a) 1996:all 1978:-- 921:. ( 905:-- 800:(b) 787:(a) 2465:) 2449:a 2409:) 2394:) 2373:." 2340:. 2303:) 2255:) 2238:) 2230:. 2206:: 2137:) 2118:) 2101:) 2082:) 2050:) 2020:) 1988:) 1974:— 1969:— 1958:) 1939:) 1890:) 1859:) 1843:) 1805:) 1776:) 1734:) 1726:. 1716:) 1701:) 1693:. 1683:) 1643:) 1584:, 1580:, 1559:) 1541:) 1501:) 1441:) 1415:) 1379:) 1297:, 1291:, 1285:, 1279:, 1273:, 1267:, 1217:) 1201:, 1197:, 1193:, 1189:: 1165:. 1135:) 1106:) 1073:) 1045:) 987:) 929:) 925:· 880:) 848:, 756:) 726:) 708:) 681:) 673:. 649:: 626:, 614:.” 584:- 565:, 535:) 481:) 448:) 440:. 428:, 424:, 403:) 311:) 229:) 214:) 199:) 176:) 164:, 160:, 150:) 134:) 119:) 96:) 2461:( 2438:. 2405:( 2390:( 2363:( 2348:. 2299:( 2251:( 2234:( 2133:( 2114:( 2097:( 2078:( 2046:( 2016:( 1984:( 1954:( 1935:( 1886:( 1855:( 1839:( 1801:( 1772:( 1730:( 1712:( 1697:( 1679:( 1639:( 1630:: 1605:- 1592:: 1576:@ 1555:( 1537:( 1513:) 1509:( 1497:( 1437:( 1411:( 1407:. 1375:( 1300:7 1294:6 1288:5 1282:4 1276:3 1270:2 1264:1 1259:: 1255:@ 1213:( 1131:( 1102:( 1069:( 1056:: 1052:@ 1041:( 1009:, 983:( 927:c 923:t 876:( 752:( 722:( 704:( 677:( 604:. 559:" 555:" 531:( 477:( 444:( 399:( 307:( 225:( 210:( 195:( 172:( 146:( 130:( 115:( 92:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index