# Talk:Battle of Oriskany

[Most of my points listed in this original comment have since been addressed and/or fixed in the article.]
I do not endorse or substantiate the following points. I am merely noting some possible issues that may later be questioned in the history of this article:

Some American historians argue that Oriskany was, circuitously, a strategic victory for the colonial cause due to its ultimate effect on the Saratoga campaign. The collapse of Barry St. Leger's "third prong" has been deemed the other turning point of the Revolutionary War; hence, some believe this engagement facilitated Cornwallis' surrender at Saratoga.
Cornwallis' surrender at yorktown or Burgoyne's at saratoga?84.229.192.97 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is conflicting information regarding the overall casualties of the Battle of Oriskany. Based on various historical websites, the casualties listed in the info box of this article are perhaps somewhat lacking.
In the historical documents I have read regarding this battle, the Royal Green Jackets are repeatedly mentioned. Therefore, I assume the Royal Green Jackets was a nickname for Sir John Johnson's King's Royal Regiment of New York.
Again, I do not put forward any of these points as arguments of my own. Just noting them. -- Flask, 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The link to the Royal Green Jackets is wrong. It says they were started it 1966. Maybe someone (more knowledgeable than myself about the matter) should correct this. -- Cdogsimmons, 03:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The Royal Green Jackets was a regiment of the British Army descended from the rifle regiments raised during the Napoleonic Wars. It did not exist in 1777. The Regiment in question was the King's Royal Regiment of New York, a loyalist provincial regiment in service of the Crown during the Revolutionary War.  It has sometimes been called, "the Royal Greens" or "Johnson's Greens," but the correct appellations were "the King's Royal Yorkers" or the "Royal Yorkers."
I made a few corrections to the Oriskany narrative to reflect current scholarship, and particularly Gavin K. Watt's Rebellion in the Mohawk Valley: The St. Leger Expedition of 1777, Toronto: Dundurn, 2002.  This is the definitive work on the subject. -- User:rbgstewart 09:21 EST, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The original article stated that the Indians decided to leave both because of the attack on their camp and because of their loses at the Battle of Oriskany.  This is false.  The Indians did not leave until reports of an other relief force was received.  In fact, after the Battle of Oriskany the Indians wished to continue fighting by attacking German Flatts, but St. Leger said no. BradMajors 17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

in the result box on the right, it says "american pyrric victory" but in the introdution, "It was a clear victory for the loyalists over the rebels" -will someone please clarify?
also, there are discrepencies about the losses, for example [1] and [2] state that they are equal.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.192.97 (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 

The result box has been deleted. Why? Drutt (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Because the outcome is too complicated to express as a simple victory for either side. Magic♪piano 19:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There are repeated references to the Oriskany Creek in the article. The battle did not take place on the Oriskany Creek, which is located 2 or 3 miles east of the battlefield, and is significantly larger than the creek at the battlefield. At its mouth, Oriskany Creek is probably 50 feet wide, whereas the battlefield creek is, as mentioned in the article, just a few feet across.
I have no idea what the official name of the actual creek is, if it has one. I grew up in Oriskany, and we always just referred to it as Bloody Creek. It is not named on USGS topo maps.
Google Maps view
The battlefield is labelled along Rt 69, whereas Oriskany Creek flows through the village of Oriskany, SE of the battlefield. The battlefield creek is so small it doesn't even show up on Google's Terrain view.
Colden46 (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

After posting my previous comment about the Oriskany Creek, I looked at the footnotes for the article. The entire page outside of the introduction is a word-for-word duplicate of the one online footnote: http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/770806.htm Colden46 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the plagiarist and copyright violator is myrevolutionarywar.com. I wrote the majority of this Wikipedia article after visiting the battlefield. Indeed, I was very proud of writing this particular sentence: "Historians interpret Herkimer's reply not only as a testament to his valor, but also his bitterness towards those officers who—having earlier branded Herkimer a coward for his caution and goaded him into the ravine—now urged him to retreat for his own safety." It is a shame that myrevolutionarywar.com has chosen to plagiarize this Wikipedia article without giving proper credit. -- Flask (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The battle was not fought anywhere near Oriskany creek, and thus the references should be removed. The creek in question is little more then a stream which originates in nateral springs in what is now Whitesboro NY, and now empties into the barge canal. Prior to the canal being built, it emptied into the Erie canal, and prior to that,the Mohawk river.
It is called "Blood Creek" by the locals, and according to the Oneida County historical society, it has no "official" name  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Oriskany/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Just a few iffy spots
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
1 spot needs a citation
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Specific concerns

Just a note, most of the images would have issues at FAC because of more information being needed to confirm their licenses, but it's pretty clear to me that they are good for GA level.
Background: A bit of an easter egg link in the "besieging it" links to the "Siege of Fort Stanwix" article. Is there a way to word this that doesn't make it non-obvious? Clarified
Also, you've got links in the first paragraphs that are linked in the lede, there is no need to relink in those cases. I've done some delinking, but it wouldn't hurt to double check.  Should be better
Indians or Natives? You use "Natives" in the lead, but "Indians" in the background. Pick one. Done
Prelude: Make it clear that the Brants were Iroquois and were adhering to the British cause? Clarified
Battle: "Contrary to the plan, the Indians near the rear of the column, apparently unable to contain themselves any longer, opened fire, taking the column completely by surprise." Make it clear which side the Natives were on that opened fire? Since there were Natives on both sides... Done
Need a cite for "About half of Herkimer's force was killed or wounded, as was about 15% of the British force." Done
Legacy: I'd move the last sentence into the caption for the painting, where it makes more sense. Done
Not required, but it'd be nice to put dates in the captions of the paintings. Done
Need a publisher for the Kelsay ref Done
Need an access date for the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online. Done
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed feedback.  I think I've taken care of everything.  (I've also added {{Information}} templates to the photographs, which they lacked.) Magic♪piano 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted a link to a video on the Battle of Oriskany that was removed. It does not advertise or promote anything. It stayed on the article for over 6 months! It was linked to an article on the Battle of Oriskany and very nicely supplements that article. There are other external links that have been allowed. This video was made as a final project for an undergraduate college course. 
Could you please be more specific in your reasons for the video being removed? I really don't understand why it was removed. In any event, I will not argue the case any further. If you don't want it back, so be it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MFerris341 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 

See WP:ELNO, number 11. Magic♪piano 20:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Abler's Chainbreaker: The Revolutionary War Memoirs of Governor Blacksnake, and Graymont's The Iroquois in the American Revolution, Blacksnake was present at the Battle of Oriskany, however, the Seneca war leaders were Sayenqueraghta and Cornplanter.
The main Indigenous groups participating in the battle were the Seneca, Cayuga, Mohawk, Onondaga, and Mississaugas. Members of other tribes were present, however, their numbers were small.
Loyalists present at the battle were either members of the King's Royal Regiment of New York under the command of Sir John Johnson, or British Indian Department rangers under the command of John Butler. The Indian Department rangers would later form the core of the provincial regiment known as Butler's Rangers, and while John Butler was the commanding officer, he was not promoted to Lieutenant Colonel until 1780.
When writing about the Indigenous peoples of the Americas it is best to avoid using "Indians" as many now consider the term outdated and offensive. "Indigenous warriors" is perhaps a more accurate term to describe the members of more than one tribe participating in a military action.
Have also noted several discrepancies between the information in the infobox and the information in the text that need to be fact-checked. Griffin's Sword (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone will argue about prisoners being tortured FarSouthNavy (talk · contribs) and Griffin’s Sword (talk · contribs). That was a common ritual of indigenous warriors at the time, no matter which side the warriors or the  prisoners came from. Some captives were enslaved too. However the claim of cannibalism is highly suspect. I don’t have access to Watt’s Rebellion in the Mohawk Valley so I can’t comment on that source. However, Stone’s 1865 (or is it 1838?) Life of Joseph Brant is readily available.
The page 459 affidavit by Younglove says “they dragged one of the prisoners out of the guard … and this deponent was informed, by both tories and Indians, that they ate him”.
So the story is at least third hand. 
Stone says Younglove had “strong feelings and prejudices” and “any statement … would be likely to receive a strong coloring…”. That makes it even more questionable. 
The affidavit also says (not included in the article) “this deponent was informed by several sergeants orderly on Gen. St. Leger, that twenty dollars were offered in general orders for every American scalp.” Again, this is at least third hand, and it is now known that the stories about the British paying for scalps were just smart propaganda by Benjamin Franklin.
In a footnote, Stone wrote “… every historian who has written of the battle of Oriskany, has recorded it as a defeat of the Provincials,” but claims “Captain Brant himself, in conversation with Samuel Woodruff, admitted that they were the victors…” Whether it is true or false doesn’t matter. My point is that once more it is thirdhand information.
I conclude Stone isn’t a reliable source and, consequently, I have deleted the statement about eating prisoners. If the cannibalism story is going to be included, it needs support from unbiased modern historians. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Younglove's account of the treatment of prisoners after the Battle of Oriskany informed the narratives of many 19th century and early-20th century historical writers. For this reason his accusation of cannibalism should remain even though Watt and other historians have punched numerous holes in Younglove's story. In Rebellion in the Mohawk Valley, Gavin Watt went as far as saying that Younglove "rivalled Benjamin Franklin for imaginative accounts of native atrocities," but affirms that some Patriot prisoners were tortured and killed by Indigenous warriors.
Stone can be considered a reliable secondary source given that he referred to and transcribed a primary source: Younglove's deposition to the Albany Committee of Safety. Other historical writers have drawn upon the more detailed account written by Younglove's brother Samuel.
Watt referred to both accounts and concluded that they are "contradictory and highly coloured" as well as being "extremely suspect."
The following amendment is suggested:
Patriot prisoner Dr. Moses Younglove later claimed that Britain's Indigenous allies tortured and even ate some of their prisoners.. While some Patriot prisoners were tortured and killed by Indigenous warriors after the battle, many of Younglove's claims are highly suspect, and his accusation of cannibalism has been debunked. Griffin's Sword (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I can live with that change. However I wonder if it is sufficient to use Watt alone. Stone/Younglove is then consigned to the attention of historians such as Watt, rather than including such colored accounts in Wikipedia.
Proceed as you think best. Thank you for your cooperation. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The amendment has been expanded and published. While 19th century historical writers accepted Younglove's accusations without question, more recent work, such as Graymont's The Iroquois in the American Revolution, Mintz's Seeds of Empire, and Thomas Abler's Chainbreaker ignore Younglove completely, and rely on other sources to describe the treatment of prisoners after the battle. Watt directly addresses and provides evidence that disproves Younglove's accusations. Griffin's Sword (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

A recent edit changed the word "Indigenous" to "Indians" without explanation. As stated previously, when writing about the Indigenous peoples of the Americas it is best to avoid using "Indians" as many now consider the term outdated and offensive. "Indigenous warriors" is a more accurate term to describe the members of more than one tribe participating in a military action. Note that Indigenous is capitalized. See Native American name controversy for more information.
Griffin's Sword (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

What is going on with the introductory paragraph for this article? “Wokapedia“ Etc.? I’ve never seen anything like this on Wikipedia. I have a feeling nobody’s ever pointed this out.
The above was added at the top of this page by Village Idiot jr (talk · contribs) without using Add Topic and has been moved here. The paragraph in question refers to an edit on 14 April 2025 by 67.40.27.88 (talk · contribs) that was reverted a few hours later. The paragraph expressed an opinion about Wikipedia in general and a belief that oral history should supplant reliable secondary sources. Griffin's Sword (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

'It was one of the few battles of the war in which most non-Indigenous participants were settlers born in the Thirteen Colonies.'
Odd. So had most of the Patriot soldiers in other battles been born in Europe? How come? Was it because most of the American non-indigenous population in general had been born in Europe? 62.73.72.101 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)