Talk:Valley Forge

message: It would be nice to mention the PA state park that turned into the national park in 1976.--J Clear 03:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Park 

message: At some point it will likely make sense to split the park info into a new article.  Leave the historical events of 1777-78 and its historical implications here.--J Clear 03:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the split should be Valley Forge National Historical Park. --evrik 18:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: There has been some graffiti on this article; is there anyone who can clean it up? 63.229.196.75 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -I'm cleaning it up little by little.  Maybe seek out someone to reprimand the vandal.  Oglahai 04:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graffiti 

message: I was suspicious about the tone of some sections of this article, particular those involving von Steuben.  A quick google search reveals this source -- this is almost certainly a case of plagiarism. See here.
The working is shifted around slightly, but conduct like this does not belong on Wikipedia. I'm trying to determine the correct procedure for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.224.50 (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This edit is very suspicious, and it appears to be the source of much of the plagiarized content. 128.135.224.25 07:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The content on revolutionaryday.com appears to have come from the National Park Service making it public domain.--J Clear 14:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just because it's public domain doesn't mean you can copy it verbatim. It still needs to be cited and rewritten. Plagiarism is still plaigirism, even if you're plaigirising the government. phbbt107 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually it does. That's the point of it being public domain. It is however cited in the article. Garion96 (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might just be me, but this article is quite awkward in its wording. It might be a good idea for someone to go through the rewrite it. Also, making it sound slightly less like a bad historical novel would be a bonus! Padsley (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, it sounds like a children's history text book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.137.28.22 (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unquoted and unsourced copying 

message: Much of this articles text was an exact or close match to a website noted above.  An admin removed it as a potential copyright infringement.  Further investigation showed that at least some of the text was from the National Park Service web site, which would be public domain.  The admin (see the delete log) is investigating the rest.
Before editing this article consider that much of what's missing may be restored shortly and major changes at this juncture will impact the restoration process to some extent. --J Clear 01:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Text has been restored. Happy editing. --J Clear 12:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio Investigation 

message: Presents a good history of Washington's encampment there, but what is the early history, including the settlement and incorporation dates of Valley Forge township, if it is a township? 76.102.31.185 (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is History of Valley Forge? 

message: The story of "bloody footprints in the snow" is a long debunked piece of fiction. Perhaps this article should pay attention to some of the recent (last 25 years) writing on Valley Forge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.218.42 (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloody Footprints 

message: I very much doubt women received half pensions as stated in the text.  Despite significant effort I have been unable to find independent corroboration (and no source is given in the wiki article) and the following authoritative article appears to contradict the statememt (see esp final paragraph): http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1999/summer/pitcher.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.210.9 (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's Pensions 

message: Hello,
I have no experience whatsoever with editing wikipedia articles, however I am a university student reading history, and my research suggests that there may be inaccuracies in this article:
-The article gives the notion that Valley forge is lost in the middle of nowhere. It has no actual map giving the location of the valley compared to Philadelphia. Showing this map would precisely locate the Valley, and take it out of it's 'somewhere nowhere' status.
-Washington was petitioned by the government of Pennsylvania, before taking up winter quarters, to set up an aggressive winter camp, from which he could hinder British supply operations. His other options would have been to launch a dangerous winter campaign like he had previously across the Delaware, or set up a rear camp, far behind the lines, to recuperate and reorganise.
-Instead he chose Valley Forge. Now, Washington was no Marlborough, Napoleon or Frederick the Great, but he definitely had some conception of where one ought to station one's troops, and he did NOT put them somewhere where it was impossible to supply them. To suggest that he willingly put them somewhere where they could not be supplied is bizarre. The Shuylkill river is navigable to boats, and the area had good roads, because it was a dense farmland area. He chose Valley Forge because it was connected, relatively safe, and close enough to Philadelphia to harass the British.
-During the winter, however, the supply system collapsed, partly because the system was not well organized, and partly because, after Thomas Mifflin, the previous Quartermaster, resigned, Congress had neglected to appoint another one.
-Furthermore, troops were not only present in Valley Forge: they were spread over a wide area, although admittedly the densest part was concentrated in the camp at Valley Forge.
-Throughout the winter, the American troops engaged in active patrolling and skirmishing activities. Their main goal was to prevent the local farmers from supplying the British. They failed to do this, and Pennsylvanian farmers supplied British troops willingly, bringing food to the Philadelphia market, where they were guaranteed payment, instead of waiting for American forage expeditions to sieze the food, paying them only with receipts which would theoretically be exchanged for compensation after the war. The best example of skirmishing was the Darby raid, where British troops went out of the city to try to get food. They were continually harassed by Americans all the way, and were pretty worried for their safety.
-Washington used Congress. There is indication that he was frustrated at the lack of support he was being given, and exaggerated the state of the army before the brunt of the supply crisis was borne. The absolute worst moment, it seems, was from the 5th of February to the 15th of February. The representatives from Congress were supposed to be there to investigate waste and discuss reform with Washington. During those days, the flooding of the roads, and freezing of the river, provoked a huge supply crisis. Animals died, men starved, and almost rioted. Washington worried Congress with alarmist letters, saying the army was on the verge of dissolution, when many of the regiments, on arriving at Valley Forge, were relatively well fed. This mood of panic allowed him to press Congress to nominate a new Quartermaster, and pass a number of reforms, as well as resist the Board of War's reforms, led by Horatio Gates, Washington's rival.
-so there's a small outline of some of the doubts I have about the article. My sources are pretty scattered, but the core of it is the work done by Stephen Conway (The war of American independance), E. Wayne Carp (To starve the Army at Pleasure) and Wayne Bodle (the Valley Forge Winter)-
51.7.250.218 (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies