Talk:France in the American Revolutionary War

message: My first reaction to this article was that it was horribly vandalised. Then I saw it was translated from 
the french wikipedia article. Although it has been improved since then, it still needs some editing. I'll be coming here from time to time, but others are welcome to dig in too (:... --Victor falk 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Traduttore, tradittore ... ([http://www.google.com/search?q=traduttore+tradittore&btnG=Search or why this article needs a total copyedit])

message: Under French involvement, paragraph 2. 
::"The war was benefiting from popular support, La Fayette was gaining notoriety, and the avenging spirit was ready to express itself."
Totally doesn't make sense.
Htmlqawsedrftg (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: La Fayette gains...notoriety?

message: :Hide is the introduction as write by user:74.170.56.51, he destroyed the article 3 times, and then put a bad introduction which was not reverted.
:So, I corrected (see the change) 
:Based on the last good introduction available : 30 january 2008, by Valentinejoesmith ()
:Yug 07:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restore old Introduction

message: Who is Haley and what purpose does that giant biased paragraph serve? The second one to clarify.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.97.250 (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haley don't display any famous historian of French or american history. Also, just "Haley" (without name) virtually means "every Haley on the earth" -> I deleted "Haley argue", and replace it by "Some argue". 220.135.4.212 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Haley

message: The reaction in the colonies to the French entry into the war was not an overwhelmingly positive one, as it left a number of American officers unhappy. Notable amongst them was Benedict Arnold who up to this point had been one of the most fervent supporters of American independence, and the outstanding hero of the cause for his services in Canada and at Saratoga, was apalled by the alliance with France. The reason for this mainly stemmed from his early experiences fighting against the French in the Seven Years War where he saw the French and their Native American Allies commit a number of atrocities. 
Combined with this was also a disgust for the French absolute monarchy, which was far less democratic than the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom. To some this new alliance also seemed to combine with a growing elitism within the Continental Army, as demonstrated by the appointment of untried European aritstocrats such as Lafrayette over more expereinced American officers. 
Overall many considered the new alliance a betrayal of the radical foundations on which the new Republic had been established. In Arnold's case this  played, along with many other factors, a large part in his descision to defect to the British. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please get a source. Codik (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have some questions about the present version of this. I looked for a usable source and came up empty-handed. Perhaps we would be better off not commenting on "American Reaction to French Involvement." --Coleacanth (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I removed the following line from the lead: Recognition of France's participation in the Revolution was mainly manifested in the United States' appreciation of French military heroes like the Comte de Rochambeau and the Marquis de Lafayette. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: American Reaction to French Involement

message: Is it me or is this is usual alternating the reality of the french support? "A naval and distant support". I don't think all the money, advisors, ground troops, resources, aside from their navy to combat the most fierce navy in teh world could be considered distant support.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.4.140 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: a present day bias?

message: The first link in the English Bibliography does not work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.60.249 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Link

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-American_alliance  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.73.116 (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any need to. They are seperate, distinct subjects. French involvement in the war began before the alliance, with public opinion, covert assistance to the rebels (etc.). Even after 1778 France's involvement in the war wasn't confined to its alliance with the US. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge articles 

message: There are no footnote links in the text but only a list of sources at the end.  I think someone fix this soon.  Thank you. Risssa (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: From the article: "About 3,000 French joined with 2,000 Americans in the Siege of Savannah, in which a naval bombardment was unsuccessful. An attempted assault of the entrenched British position was repulsed with heavy losses.
"Support became more notable when, in 1780, 6,000 soldiers led by Rochambeau landed at Newport...."
Does this mean the French sent a total 9,000 soldiers?  Thank you. Risssa (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that France's contribution was not limited to the American theatre. France fought in Europe, East Indies, in the Carribean and on the high seas. Blaue Max (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Did France send a total of 9,000 soldiers to the US?  Rissa, copy editor (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many troops did France send? 

message: >....even a hero for aspirations for a new order inside France.
"New order" needs to be explained and linked.  Readers new to this subject, for whom the term "new order" has no historical significance, won't understand what this means. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Order, isn't that a musical group? 

message: The debate over whether to merge the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) article with this article is occurring on the Anglo-French War (1778-1783)  Talk page -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: agree -- Wendylove (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you make thar point here at all Wendylove? Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal, August, 2020

message: In the intro, it says that French involvement began in 1776, but goes on to reference its first act of support as having happened in 1775 -- all in the same sentence. It's possible that it is trying to say that the Thirteen Colonies was established in 1775, but in any case the language is unclear. The intro:
French involvement in the American Revolutionary War of 1775–1783 began in 1776[1] when the Kingdom of France secretly shipped supplies to the Continental Army of the Thirteen Colonies when it was established in June of 1775.
Should the language be clarified a bit here? Xelpollodiablox (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro is a tad confusing. 

message: The article frequently goes back and forth between 1776 and 1777 as the start of aid. Each time it fails to cite a source.  Is there a document that was signed by Louis, ship manifest or something that dates aid? 
At one point it talks about Franklin arriving in France in Dec 1776 to negotiate aid then in the following sentences it says that aid was flowing and was millions of "dollars"(whatever the money was) by the spring of 76. 
Citation is needed throughout. Xcerptshow (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1776 or 1777?? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Bryan Randall (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Content Area Literacy