# Talk:Battle of Groton Heights

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Groton Heights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: JonCatalán(Talk) 05:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments: Looks good, all around.  

"British casualties were also high; General Arnold was criticized by his superiors for the number of casualties incurred." → I changed this to, "British casualties were also high, leading to criticism of General Arnold by part of his superiors."
"Arnold, who believed the fort could be easily taken when he ordered Eyre to seize it, reached a prominence from which he could see its defenses, and realized that it was more complete than anticipated, and that taking it would not be easy." → This came off as overly complicated, so I changed it to the following, "General Arnold ordered Eyre to assault the fort, believing the fort would fall easily. However, upon reaching a prominence from which he could see its defenses, Arnold realized that the fort was more complete than anticipated and that taking it would not be easy."
"On the return of the second flag..." → What does this mean?
Clarified The flag is previously mentioned; I've added "parley" to clarify meaning. Magic♪piano 00:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
"The damage done to New London was substantial: one estimate placed the value destroyed at nearly $500,000..." → What dollar value is this in?
Comment Randall doesn't say, but it is presumably contemporary dollars.  I've added a sentence including the official state assessment. Magic♪piano 00:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I did some other relatively light copyediting, as well.
JonCatalán(Talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your changes look fine to me, I've added things to clarify the other issues. Magic♪piano 00:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright, looks good then.  I will promote shortly. JonCatalán(Talk) 06:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
== In this piece, as with most pieces about the U.S. War of Independence, there is not even a pretence of impartiality. British victories are bad, U.S. Victories are good. I suppose this is inevitable but to someone in the UK it still grates.

"The state determined in 1792 that more than £61,000, or $200,000 Continental dollars." in Aftermath seems to be incomplete.  I'm insufficiently aware of the background to help.--User:Gaarmyvet/Sig 14:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing; that somehow slipped my copyediting. Magic♪piano 15:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Groton Heights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721180705/http://www.fortgriswold.org/id9.html to http://www.fortgriswold.org/id9.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I’ve amended the Introduction here per MOS:INTRO to reflect what the article actually says further down. The Battle section does not say "the Americans surrendered—whereupon the British entered the fort and massacred the defenders"; it says "Montgomery's men were finally able to open a gate from inside, and the British force poured into the fort.  Seeing that the fort was penetrated, Colonel Ledyard ordered a cease fire and prepared to surrender it to the British", but then "the British continued to fire on the Americans despite Ledyard's signs of surrender".
So they weren’t taken prisoner, then lined up and shot (like, say, at Malmedy), which is what the word "massacre", and the phrasing in the Introduction suggests; they were killed at the end of the action because the attackers ignored, or didn’t accept, their surrender (much like, for example, at the end of the beach scene in the film Saving Private Ryan).
I would also note that: 

1) in the Prelude section it says Eyre was threatening to give no quarter if the militia did not surrender;
2) as well as 85 killed there were 60 wounded, which suggests the Brits didn’t go round afterwards finishing off anyone who was down but not out; and
3) the British officer who killed Lelyard was then killed by a soldier named Lambo Latham, which suggests the fighting hadn’t ended at that point.
Regardless, MOS:INTRO states that the introduction should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight, and be written with a neutral point of view, so that’s what has been done. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

If he was a former slave, there must be evidence that he was freed, and it should be reported. Is it only coincidental that his surname was "free man"? Can it be ruled out that he was recorded as "Jordan, free man" and this was not corrupted into Freeman? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Who said the flag had been shot away? Who raised it again? How quickly was it raised? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Saying the flag was "quickly re-raised" sounds suspiciously like an apologia to discount reports of Americans continuing to shoot British soldiers despite apparently having surrendered. If there is no further information, the sentence needs to be reworded. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

“the British continued to fire on the Americans despite Ledyard's signs of surrender”
Were the British firing or just using bayonets? More importantly, what were those signs of surrender since this suggests there was more than one. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This quotation is actually from page 27 of Jonathan Rathbun’s book. It is found in the section  "NARRATIVE OF RUFUS AVERY ". So these are not Rathbun’s words, unless he invented them and included them in Avery’s account.
The quotation begins "WE ARE INFORMED that the wretch who murdered him…" (my emphasis). So it is at least third hand. Aside from that, Avery supposedly says, "…[Ledyard] was about six feet from them when I turned my eyes off from him…” If this is true, he didn’t see what happened. Rathbun himself says nothing of the capture of the fort and the alleged massacre. 
Since the quotation is out of context, is by a different person, and that person didn’t see what he describes, I have deleted it. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)