Talk:Baylor Massacre

message: Er, how can this represent a world view? This battle only occured in the US...
I'm removing the tag unless someone explains why they feel that way.
EricDerKonig 206.154.229.139 13:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is written entirely from U.S. sources, and does not have much information on the British perspective of the battle.  Also note that the title "Baylor Massacre" is the U.S. name of the battle.  I don't know what the British name of the battle is.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Republique, I'm one of the primary authors of this article, and I've tried to write it based on the facts as I was best able to determine, but all of my readings are from U.S. sources.  There are obvious limitations based on this, and so the set of facts about this incident is almost certainly incomplete.  Please read the NPOV policy and about efforts to counter systemic bias. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you talking about the Nelson book, ?  It was published by the Fairleigh Dickinson University Press .  According to the Amazon review here, the author is American. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris: I stand corrected. Even so, I do not think that this tag is warranted. I don't think this article has anything other than simple facts. When evaluating NPOV, Wikipedia states articles should, "assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'" As far as viewpoints are concerned, I honestly do not view this article as presenting an unbalanced viewpoint. As far as I can see, this article is nothing more than a factual timeline put into narrative form. I don't think you give yourself enough credit. Shirulashem (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but we don't have any British sources to even know if there is a dispute on the facts.  The facts we have are told by American sources, and we don't even know the British name of the battle.  Calling the battle a massacre isn't exactly NPOV. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US Centric

message: Shouldn't the title be Baylor massacre? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, the term "massacre" is part of the title of the battle.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The British title of this (very minor) incident appears to be "The surprise of Lady Washington's Dragoons". It should be noted that British sources such as Martin Hunter (who was involved in the incident as a junior officer) make no mention of Tory "spies" or "massacres".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanley c jenkins (talk • contribs) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Can you point out the sources? Thanks. shirulashem (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: The numbers are inaccurate. There is mention of "about 135" men in the info box and "about 100" in the article. Dr Griffith's letter  suggests 104 privates (not including officers). Counts of the wounded and killed appear to have been taken from this letter, but do not include the officers (an extra 1 dead, 3 wounded, 5 prisoners). Could this make out for the difference between the total of 61 in the infobox and 69 in the article?.. — Daniel Mahu · talk · 22:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength, casualties and losses 

message: I put back the stub markers because
# the article is still rated as stub class in the talk page, and 
# to make it easier to find for anyone with access to any documents providing a British viewpoint — Daniel Mahu · talk · 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub markers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Baylor Massacre. 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/20051215000743/http://www.rivervalenj.org:80/History.htm to http://www.rivervalenj.org/History.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060419095008/http://www.co.bergen.nj.us:80/Parks/Cultural%20and%20Historic/Baylor.htm to http://www.co.bergen.nj.us/Parks/Cultural%20and%20Historic/Baylor.htm
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) 04:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't see how the attack on the 3rd light dragoons could be a diversion for the attack on Little Egg Harbor since they were 2 1/2 weeks apart. More likely, the Baylor attack fell under the heading of trying to stir Washington into action.
If no one objects, I think the paragraph mentioning Little Egg Harbor should be deleted. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action at Little Egg Harbor 

message: This quotation is from a commemorative plaque. The information is of unknown origin. It is clearly not neutral, and it lacks author, publisher, and date. It is not a reliable historical source and I have, therefore, deleted it. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of block quotation