Talk:Battle of Fort Washington

message: The Washington Heights history page says "The British now had New York and its harbor but were unable to control the Hudson River as they had initially wanted. They were bottled up in New York." This is different from our conclusion.--agr 11:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#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: 
#:: I think this article has improved a lot in the past month and I think it is a GA article.
Bernstein2291 (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I've tagged Battle of Fort Lee, a fairly stubby article, to have the minimal battle content maybe merged here.  (That article also has content about the Fort Lee memorial sites, which might make the article useful under a different name.) Discuss on its talk page. Magic♪piano 00:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Fort Lee]] merge/rename 

message: The link for James Patterson goes to a modern author.  This James Patterson isn't on the disambiguation page.  I'm not certain how to handle creating a disambiguation link for a person that doesn't have an article of their own.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.78.125 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Link 

message: "About 200 yards from the American lines Percy halted the advance, waiting for the feint by Lord Stirling"
The above statement is confusing:  Lord Stirling (William Alexander, [disputed] Earl of Stirling) was a 'patriot' and became a general in Washington's army. The (British) feint was assigned to the 42nd (Royal Highland) Regiment of Foot, which, according to Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island, was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Stirling (no wiki entry--not notable I guess).  I think 'by Lord Stirling' should be deleted.   Afragola (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Stirling? 

message: Hello.  My first WP discussion, I think.  I'm not sure that Hesse-Kassel should be listed as belligerents.  They were merely merceneries in the service of GB, and did not, as a nation, declare war on the 13 colonies.  It would be like listing Nepal in any war in which the Gurkhas participated.  See also the page on American Revolutionary War.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippocrocopig (talk • contribs) 10:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hesse-Kassel not belligerents 

message: Hello.  My first WP discussion, I think.  I'm not sure that Hesse-Kassel should be listed as belligerents.  They were merely merceneries in the service of GB, and did not, as a nation, declare war on the 13 colonies.  It would be like listing Nepal in any war in which the Gurkhas participated.  See also the page on American Revolutionary War.Hippocrocopig (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hesse-Kassel not belligerents 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Fort Washington. 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/20120627191727/http://www.washington-heights.us:80/history/archives/evacuation_day_122.html to http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/evacuation_day_122.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Fort Washington. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/evacuation_day_122.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100213001047/http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_fwas.asp to http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_fwas.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604193021/http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/battle_of_fort_washington_35.html to http://www.washington-heights.us/history/archives/battle_of_fort_washington_35.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The figure in this statement, referencing Ketchum in 'The Winter Soldiers,' is misleading.
THe original phrase states: "[On] the river eighty Highlanders were killed or wounded." 
 
The 42nd Royal Highland Regiment under Lt Col Stirling, to  which the statement refers, reported 
11 men killed (1 Sgt; 10 men)  and Lieutenants Patrick Graeme, Norman Macleod & Alexander Grant,
together with 4 Sgts and 66 men, wounded;  84 casualties in total for the action of November 16th.  
The 42nd did suffer disproportionately for what was intended to be a feint attack but the above figures are for the whole action, from the landing, the assault up the bluffs and the advance on Fort Washington, not simply the passage across the East River. Ketchum details how perhaps 150 militia in total took up position to fire on the troops  being ferried across the river. Given the inexperience of the American troops, the innacuracy of the smoothbore musket as Ketchum himself has previously explained, and the difficulty in delivering accurate fire from a height, the proportion of casualties inflicted is unlikely to have been as high as Ketchum's narrative asserts. A regimental historian of the 42nd, simply described the enemy opening  "a smart fire" without additional comment, while an officer of the 42nd on detached service elsewhere in the field,  represented the enemy fire as one of the 'difficulties' over which the men of the 42nd prevailed, and pushed on through, to engage the enemy on the heights above.
As such, I suggest the subject statement is ill-founded and should be amended
JF42 (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "firing at the British troops who were still crossing the river, killing or wounding 80 men." 

message: I am curious as to why in Albion Jack's revision of  01:57, 26 January 2019  the term 'American' has been changed to 'U.S.' throughout (AFAICS), when the entity of the United States  had not at that time come into existence.
JF42 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "U.S." 

message: What  purpose do these qualifications serve?
'Pre-organized' looks like empty jargon. Clearly it could not be a 'post-organised pitched battle.'   Any meaning it might have is rendered redundant by the term 'pitched battle' (itself is rendered  redundant by the  article title ' Battle of Fort Washington') which  suggests two armies forming up for a general field engagement. However  the assault on Fort Washington was no such encounter, given that the isolated  garrison had no choice in the matter.   
The need to qualify the 'Battle of Fort Washington' seems wholly unnecessary. I reccommend this introductory sentence be amended.
JF42 (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a pre-organized, pitched battle"