User talk:FR1917

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


May 2024

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to List of wars involving the United Kingdom have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

To begin, please stop making edits for now until we resolve the dispute via discussion, otherwise this will turn into an edit war. You have made three reverts in a row already (three revert rule), so doing another revert/manual revert will force me to make a report.

Firstly, I'm glad that you've understood that you can't remove credibly cited information from the Valtellina War article. But the same also applies for the Treaty of Monzón article. I assume now that you know this, we can leave those two articles alone (consider them resolved) and move on.

We are currently disputing the contents on the following articles:
1. Franco-Spanish War (1635-1659)
2. War of the Montferrat Succession
3. War of the Mantuan Succession
4. List of wars involving Spain

In some of your reverts, you didn't provide any explanation for them at all (like for example saying "Undid revision"). This is not recommended to do.

Nonetheless, for this discussion, I would like to hear the reasoning for your stance on each of the articles clearly. Address each article by their number (i.e. 1. for Franco-Spanish War, 3. for Mantuan Succession, etc). I will respond to everything you say, and hopefully we come to a resolution for each article.

Bubba6t3411 (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and wish to communicate. For a start, certain articles should be returned to their original state before you also started editing for the purpose of discussion before changing.
I would also state that it would be hypocritical of you to do so as you have done it. I would also have to report you. I would suggest you should bare in mind when making threats, as you have been suspected of sockpuppeting and editing articles to fit a 'Spanish leniency' previously by other users.
Firstly, thank you for what appears to be a condescending point. Although I would like to clearly state this to you, I have no issue with using the source, however there are major issues with how you have used the source to fit your POV. Let's begin with stating, that Savoy being forced to seek an alliance with Spain put France in a dangerous position, at no point does the source say this. It states Richelieu was put in an increasing dangerous position due to a rebellion and he sought to open negotiations.
Next you keep putting the point of 'all forts torn down', it does not say this, it states that Papal troops occupied the forts but it hints they were not. Next, the result, states the Spanish Road was re-opened, the source states there was confusion about who had right of passage following the treaty.
Following this, you have put a 'serious reverse for France', again this is a total misrepresentation of the source, it states for Richelieu, it is not made clear if this is his foreign policy, his position in France due to both issues home and abroad etc. Lastly, the big point of making this 'Spanish victory', it does not state this, it says 'Spain won the first round', this is not clear to whether they won the negotiations, the war or more likely it is implied it gave they the initial advantage in the wider 30 years war which the book is about.
There are also no other sources (primary or secondary) found currently on the topic and no consensus can be formed or clarity provided. Therefore, putting the treaty down as the result, both allows for an objective approach and allows the reader can make their own conclusions. I would also point out that you were not happy that in the Franco-Spanish War page that Darby was not quoted word for word but happy to change the wording and sentence structure and meaning here.
Frankly the only objective and clear points are the treaty of Monzon and that it returned to the pre-1617 status quo. I would suggest is favourable to Spain, however should be for the readers interpretation.
There needs to be a serious re-edit to prevent a misrepresentation of secondary source here.
On the Franco-Spanish War page, the result is the Treaty, that does not simplify anything that is objective, the aftermath section is easily accessible for the reader. Next, the point, is not just a quote, traditional histography does suggest this. This does not state it was a French victory but it is useful information for the reader, that modern histography provides some counter.
The Montferrat succession, the article makes clear the fighting was indecisive and both sides agreed a peace treaty and to seek mediation through the imperial tribunals which ultimately resolved the succession crisis in the aftermath. This means that the peace treaties are the only direct result of the war, further information can be found by the reader and they can make their own assertions. The successor also doesn't always mean victory (Britain in the Spanish war of succession.)
The Mantuan succession, it is a direct quote the peace was favourable to France.
The Spanish Wars, both of the above (Montferrat succession and Valtellina) should be changed to just the treaty while this is debated. The Franco-Spanish War can remain the same, however, the political side is always more important in determining who won, and should really just be defeat. The 30 years war was not inconclusive for Spain or the Habsburgs, this is incorrect. Spain and the wider Habsburgs were at a loss from the war, their power began to decline and their rivals (France, Sweden and Brandenburg) all benefited significantly, even if most of the other German protestant allies didn't. FR1917 (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To begin, no, I have not made three reverts, I've made two.
Next, I was not making any threats; I simply explained the three revert rule to you (which you have now broken on practically all of the articles, sadly, but I will not be engaging any further with this edit war until it is resolved - and it will be resolved, whether by conversation or by an admin). If you received it as a threat, that was not my intention.
Finally, the false allegation thrown against me for being a suspected sockpuppet was resolved by the admins as such - a false allegation. None of my edits were ever lenient to a specific nation. If you took 5 minutes to read what I wrote, you'll see that I was correcting the casualty figures on the Franco-Spanish War article - I fixed a previous user's incorrect 1 million French casualties with the correct 500,000 figure from Clodfelter 2017 - something I would expect a user like you to agree with.
The case has already been resolved, and the user who made the false allegations has simply stalled the RfC I started in the Spanish Empire article for over a month. So you threatening me (supposedly) alone based on an irrelevant topic doesn’t really serve a point.

Nonetheless, I will first address this statement of yours:
Let's begin with stating, that Savoy being forced to seek an alliance with Spain put France in a dangerous position, at no point does the source say this. It states Richelieu was put in an increasing dangerous position due to a rebellion and he sought to open negotiations.
All you had to do was change the word "France" to "Richelieu" in the paragraph (instead of rewriting the entire paragraph to fit a narrative different from the book)...

Second statement from you:
Next you keep putting the point of 'all forts torn down', it does not say this, it states that Papal troops occupied the forts but it hints they were not.
I'm going to assume that English isn't your native language for this one. I understand that the wording might be unusual for a non-native speaker, but there is no "hinting" that they were not torn down.

Third statement from you:
Next, the result, states the Spanish Road was re-opened, the source states there was confusion about who had right of passage following the treaty.
In the Treaty of Monzón article (the article we're editing in this case), you can see a paragraph dedicated for that. You could've read it first.

----
Now, as to the other things you've said, almost everything is practically incorrect or stated with little or no due diligence, respectfully.
For instance, you made this statement, which is incorrect:
Following this, you have put a 'serious reverse for France', again this is a total misrepresentation of the source, it states for Richelieu, it is not made clear if this is his foreign policy, his position in France due to both issues home and abroad etc.
????
In the Treaty of Monzón, I clearly wrote: "The terms of the treaty essentially presented a reversal for Richelieu [...]."
With all due respect, what are you even reading?

Then, you made this statement, which reflects little due diligence:
Lastly, the big point of making this 'Spanish victory', it does not state this, it says 'Spain won the first round', this is not clear to whether they won the negotiations, the war or more likely it is implied it gave they the initial advantage in the wider 30 years war which the book is about.
The page is directly talking about the Valtelline conflict and the imposing Treaty of Monzón. Wilson says Spain won, end of the story, I don't get why you're trying to hard to contest that (Wilson, 2010, p. 458 (PDF)).
Even if you believe that it "more likely" implies that Spain gained the initial advantage for the TYW, the Valtellina War is a precursor (i.e. why Wilson says "the first round," since its the first precursor war with France before French entry into the Thirty Years' War).

----
As for what you've said regarding the Thirty Years' War, it shows you've done little research and you don't quite understand the conflict, but that's a topic for another day.
Lastly, another user (@Robinvp11) has even corrected you on the Franco-Spanish War article, confirming what I explained regarding Darby's book, so I really don't see how you think the edit you made was justifiable.
Also, you added another source from ebsco, which says it is a French victory (according to which source in the bibliography? Nothing is cited on the webpage), but this is essentially encyclopedic and is therefore not what you should've cited - it is recommended that you take a look at the books in the bibliography and cite them instead, as Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (ebsco is tertiary).

----
To conclude, I am generally disappointed with the arguments you brought up.
On a side note, to @Robinvp11: since you're one the few users I know who frequents articles surrounding France in the 17th century, it would be appreciated if you could weigh in on this - hopefully you can help resolve the debate.
@Palastwache - you could also weigh in if you'd like.
Bubba6t3411 (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can conclude in any way you wish.
Ebsco is a site of a research database of ebooks and ejournals so it is outside the encyclopedic perametres and therefore fine as a source. I think presenting the alternative viewpoint is helpful as well as the latter argument of a more even end of political French victory/Military stalemate.
He also didn't add back the 'See aftermath'.
English is my first language thank you and I have a number of qualifications in history from Russell Group universities, so I do have a good grip on the subject. Much of the study of history is also about disagreement.
I've cross referenced some different sources on a few of the subjects.
Mantuan Succession - Aswell as Kamen stating it was a favourable peace for France, Jonathan Isreal writes in Conflicts of Empires 'Spain suffered a series of major defeats and humiliations;In the Mantuan War in Northern Italy...', Katherine Ewart writes, 'So there begins with the treaty of Cherasco a new period in Italian history, the period when French influence supplanted Spanish'.
Ultimately it does appear a consensus of historians on this subject that the war ended in the French favour. What is your opinion on this matter? Is there any countering viewpoints?
Ewart also does dicuss the Monferrat succession and does go into the war being concluded with a peace treaty and that the issue was concluded post war in the imperial courts. Thus matches the current state of the article.
I do understand Ewart is an older source but it does state that, 'it was the manner and not the matter of the treaty which caused so much anger...the question of the passes remained open'. This source makes it seem the treaty between France and Spain was mutually beneficial/indecesive and there was no clear winner, just the Italian allies of France (and Spain) were not happy with the peace.
Ceasre Cantu (Il Sacro macello di Valtellina) - States 'Religious victory for the catholicism but a political compromise.
Ulrico Martineli (La Guerre per la Valtellina nel secolo XVII) 'Strategic Stalemate' - Spain and France achieved partial objectives.
Joesph P.Brynes article states 'Granted the Valtellina self-rule guranteed by the Papacy, Spain and France, with Spain and France having de facto right of passage.'
Even when we get past the previously mentioned, there is no clear consensus on the subject, it appears both sides achieved some objectives in the war. FR1917 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving the Kingdom of France

[edit]

Stop trying to cause another edit war. You've already made yourself look bad enough in the other articles. For the last time, keep the result on the article the same as what is written in Franco-Spanish War (1635-1659). Bubba6t3411 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Bubba6t3411 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]