This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@TheMedian, 187.15.52.55, and 213.205.198.34: Now that you've made your disagreement known, it's necessary to discuss it on the talk page rather than continue with the revert/revert business. Given the battle was marked as inconclusive, worrying about which side gets to consider it a victory seems petty. What are your arguments? —jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's entirely possible that sources written by interested parties may have conflicting opinions about who gained the most. That should be represented in the article rather than giving only one side's view. —jmcgnh(talk)(contribs) 06:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I will join in here - the new source doesn't explain why, whilst the previous (unexplained deleted) sources in the article does. So perhaps we can have a few quotes of Caastex to show this? Shire Lord (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Wrong, wrong and wrong. I didn't deleted anything, the sources were written on the article and don't said anything about a supposed british strategic victory and to quote Claastex (my translation): "This battle wasn't determinant. But it quite served the French. The next day, the French squadron sailed for Cuddalore." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMedian (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
.jpg)
.svg)
