Talk:Spain and the American Revolutionary War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

this needed to be a separate article as said on the American Revolutionary War talk page; i just put this out here so it can be improved. here's a source for anyone looking to expand it: http://www.getnet.com/~1stbooks/vital.htm. Scholarus 22:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions from Spain[edit]

1. Money loans

The first recorded moneys were two million livres in hard currency and war materiel. Thus, the United States currency, the Continental, was secured by Spanish silver dollars.

This should also be mentioned of "dummy" trading companies.

2. Other Military Fronts: Major Forts on the Mississippi River.

3. Observers more importantly Juan de Miralles.


Need to be somehow listed or panned out to be explained or looked over. --68.209.227.3 00:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filipinos[edit]

In relation to Military history of Asian Americans, were there any Filipinos serving with the Spanish Forces in the American Revolutionary War?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste move of this article to an old title[edit]

Please see a complaint about a cut-and-paste move, 'Duplication of content in two articles'. If anyone prefers to see the content of this article back at the old name (Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83) please make a proposal here, or open a WP:Requested move. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I removed the infobox because it is full of errors:

  1. "Anglo-French War" is both anachronistic and incorrect. It was part of ARW.
  2. The terminal dates of 1779 and 1783 are completely made up. There was a great deal of assistance between Spain and the rebels before and after the Spanish declared war to Britain, likewise a large part of involvement are excluded arbitrarily.
  3. The "locations" are overlapping.
  4. Spain got allied with France, not with the US.
  5. Spain and Britain were not the only combatants.
  6. The notion that there was an "Anglo-Spanish War" separate from the American Revolutionary War is silly, even more it was part of the "Anglo-French wars".
  7. Even if it were this couldn't be a name of anything without proper disambiguation from other conflicts with the same name.

So I removed it. It is not worth fixing. This was not a separated "conflict" in any sense. See France in the American Revolutionary War or United Kingdom and the American Civil War if you wish. Uspzor (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. Carlstak (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your first point. Yet... Anglo-French War (1778–83). —Srnec (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why you were wrong to remove the Infobox:
  1. This is the biggest howler: there is nothing anachronistic—"Anglo-Spanish War" is neutral and not a retroactive projection of current nomenclature— and obviously correct: Spain and Britain declared war, then negotiated a peace treaty. Moreover, the Infobox specifically designated the Anglo-Spanish War as "part of" the ARW; the fact that this field exists, and was being used correctly, should have given you pause for thought.
  2. The dates of 1779 and 1783 are empirically sound (declaration of war; Peace of Paris); your alternate dates, rather, are "completely made up."
  3. Sloppy locations is not cause to delete a template.
  4. Irrelevant.
  5. Easily fixed if you think France, for instance, participated in enough joint operations with Spain to merit inclusion. Other ARW participants not relevant.
  6. It's only about as silly as the notion that there was a "Peninsular War" distinguishable from the general "Napoleonic Wars," or a Greco-Italian War in the midst of World War II (to cite two out of countless examples). Note, incidentally, that your appeal to United Kingdom and the American Civil War is a category mistake: the UK did not declare war on and engage the Union in various theatres of operations.
  7. Wasn't the article at Anglo-Spanish War (1779), with Anglo-Spanish War as the disambig?
So you removed it based on a concatenation of flawed premises and erroneous conclusions: there was nothing wrong with it. Spain and Britain engaged in enough conflict outside the Eastern seaboard (the Caribbean, the Gulf Coast, the mid-Atlantic, Central America, Europe) to thoroughly justify a separate Infobox. Albrecht (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

Why exactly the other article got deleted? It's ironic that it was ten times better than this. Bertdrunk (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, it was the same article with a different name. Carlstak (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should check again cause it wasn't. Bertdrunk (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just to be on the record that I'll recreate the article as in my opinion they aren't overlapping and there's plenty of expansion room both sides, if anyone disagree pls feel free to fill a AfD case. Best regards. Bertdrunk (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At present you won't be able to create a new article at Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83) because that title is a fully-protected redirect to this one. See the move request of December 2015. You have two options -- either open a WP:Requested move to get the article moved back, or check the history of Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83) to see if there is any old material there that might be brought across into the current article. If you actually want to have two separate articles, you could propose that in the Requested move and give your rationale. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was the other editor, but now let me elaborate it. I don't know where this notion that something has to be moved came from, as there isn't any discussion about it, so who knows how this idea got fixed on your minds. I don't wish to move, copy, cut or carbon anything, no one with a sane mind would want to do that with a terrible article like this anyway. My only humble wish is, as there is a Anglo-French War (1778–83), as there's a Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604), a Anglo-Spanish War (1625–1630), a Anglo-Spanish War (1654–1660), a Anglo-Spanish War (1727–1729), a Anglo-Spanish War (1762–1763), a Anglo-Spanish War (1796–1808), actually as there is one for every other single instance except this one, is to cover a crucial period to a proper understanding of the conflict. Those events aren't even cursorily covered anywhere and there's no good motive they shouldn't be integrate in a main article. Anyway, all this talk is a little without sense, isn't it? If it may offend someone I don't need to point that there are appropriate places to correct the mischief, prevent it cause a single editor want his way isn't quite right, I think. Bertdrunk (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And before anyone says again these are the same things, pls take a look at France in the American Revolutionary War and the Anglo-French War (1778–83), or the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, or the Second Anglo-Mysore War, or the... Well, you catch the point. Bertdrunk (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current page has a history of being moved abruptly without proper discussion, sometimes by cut-and-paste. That is most likely how Anglo-Spanish War (1779–83) wound up protected. Usually we make some effort to ensure that articles don't duplicate one another. You could propose that one of the two should be a main article and another be a sub-article on just one theater of war. (See WP:Summary style). But you would need to have a plan for how to distribute the material. I note there is already an article on Great Siege of Gibraltar which treats one episode of the war in a lot more detail. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the burden of proof on me? Why don't you unprotect the pages for a start, and then exercises verifiability around. There's plenty of work to do. Bertdrunk (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Setting up a different arrangement of articles imposes a burden on other people. You should make some effort to show how this will work. Just waving your hands and saying it will be all right may not be enough. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard that someone would have to seek permission beforehand, especially when the matter is already set by administration tools. As whatever my concerns are they don't seem to count, maybe other editors could contribute, AN perhaps? Bertdrunk (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article got moved to its current title per WP:RM which is a consensus process. If I am the admin who winds up deciding, I won't undo the protection unless there is some evidence of a new consensus, for instance a new RM. Just one person making a request is not a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which RM man, there's nothing here. Why you keep insisting I need a RM after I exhausted my vocabulary explaining I don't want to move anything is beyond my comprehension. The other guy asked you for a closure and now we're all locked in a endless circular argumentation. Bertdrunk (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requested moves#CM for why controversial moves ought to be discussed. If you have more questions please use my talk page, or ask for unprotection at WP:RFUP and another admin will look at the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 6 September 2020[edit]

Remove pp-protected, wrap the remaining reason template with an {{Rcat shell}}, to fix categorisation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unzaga = Gonzaga?[edit]

This passage confuses me: General Charles Lee sent two Continental Army (the army of the United States) officers to request supplies from the New Orleans Governor, Luis de Unzaga. Gonzaga, concerned about overtly antagonizing the British before the Spanish were prepared for war, agreed to assist the rebels covertly.

Who is Gonzaga? If he is Luis de Unzaga, shouldn't that name -- or perhaps, to avoid contiguous repetition, "The Governor" -- be used instead of Gonzaga? Or if Gonzaga is necessary, shouldn't that new name be explicitly defined/explained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almadenmike (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spain_and_the_American_Revolutionary_War&oldid=1210478864"