Talk:Battle of Bloody Marsh

message: Some sources say that this battle effecively ended the War of Jenkin's ear.  That should be put in there if it is correct, but I'm not well-enough versed in it to be sure.  Does anyone know?  Bubba73 (talk) 01:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Also, the article says that the ambush was during the Spanard's siesta hour, but the external links didn't mention that.  Is that correct?  Bubba73 (talk) 03:54, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
: The pages on the Fort Frederica site that I just looked at did not mention that either. Sounds legend-ish. -WCFrancis 23:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ended the war? 

message: The only British casualty was a highlander who passed out and died from the heat. I remembered this as being Bloody Marsh.  I remembered this wrong from childhood visits to Fort Frederica's museum. The battle of Gully Hole  creek preceded Bloody Marsh - the Spaniards drove the British back to Fort Frederica from Fort St. Simons. -WCFrancis 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Gully Hole Creek

message: This battle is labeled as mid-importance, "The subject is not well-known or particularly significant ".  This battle drove the Spanish out of the Colonies and they didn't return.  It also established the area as Brittish territory - originally the Brittish claimed only down to the Altamaha River.  Isn't that significant?  Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to high-importance (for Georgia). Gulbenk  (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mid-importance?

message: Recent changes give it as being in the Province of Georgia rather than the state of Georgia.  As I understand it, the location was not in the province of Georgia as of 1742.  The 1732 boundary of Georgia went down to the Altamaha River; it wasn't until 1763 that the area was claimed as part of the Province of Georgia.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Province of Georgia? 

message: There is some confusion about the old style versus new style date.  I thought that July 7 was the old style date for the battle.  Is that right?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  old/new-style dates 

message: I've tagged the article as unaccurate. All my editions having been removed without any satisfying explanation by several anonymous IPs and the users BadgerStateHistorian1967 and 2602:30a:2cc9:1790:706e:4719:7e2f:a0dc, it makes a highly unaccurate, outdated narrative of the events. The work is based entirely in English-language sources, many of them dating back to the first half of the past century, which are endogamic and have neglected the study of the Spanish sources on the battle. There is evidence in and outside Spanish works which points that the traditional Anglo-saxon view of the battle is a myth. New academic works such as David Marley's Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the Western Hemisphere, 1492 to the Present (2008) or Fernando Martínez Láinez and Carlos Canales' Banderas Lejanas: La exploración, conquista, y defensa por España del territorio de los actuales Estados Unidos (2009), both of which have made use of Spanish sources, give a very different narrative of the battle's course, outcome and casualties. They state that a Spanish force of some 150 or 200 grenadiers was sent to cover the withdrawal of the Spanish troops defeated at Gully Hole Creek and that the 'battle' was no more than a skirmish with few casualties. A 1996 article by Thomas G. Rodgers, military historian from the Alamaba University and author of Osprey Publishing, Colonials collide at Bloody Marsh, supports this view and states that the Spanish losses were 7 men killed and 2 prisoners. In a 2010 academic article entitled La Batalla de Bloody Marsh: Una victoria de la Florida española durante la guerra de la oreja de Jenkins, the historian Salvador Larrúa Guedes, collaborator of the Colonial Heritage of Florida, even claims that the battle ended in a Spanish victory, as the goal of stopping the British chase was achieved. Local historians like Jingle Davis had recently published works which assume the new approaches and consider the traditional one a myth. Weymar Horren (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly these "new" claims seem extremely far fetched and heavily dependent on the version told by the losing side.  Given the revisionist (and nationalistic for the Spanish) version of events I would argue that the "disputed" claim should not be there because it is only "disputed" by what would appear to be extremely biased, or otherwise unreliable sources.2601:341:4000:600:DCFC:1179:8406:88E3 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The works that I've cited rely both on English and Spanish sources, unlike the older ones. Their authors are historians of different background. I guess they are reliable. Moreover, Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability and other principles note that, regarding to neutrality: "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view". We can discuss which view is the more supported currently, but it's evident that a number of works approach to the battle in a way that isn't shown in the article. Weymar Horren (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Let me disagree. I think not only that the point of view that I have expressed is currently the more supported by historians, but also I'm sure that the sources I have provided are 100% reliable according to Wikipedia's policies, so it should be included. I hope you will be at least open to a third party mediation. And please, don't remove the tag if there is no consensus. Weymar Horren (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

text: As a sockpuppet investigation has proved that all the users whom I've been discussing above are the same person, I've restored the inaccuracy tag. I hope we will be able to reach a consensus to include all the views and left aside the bombardment of references to push a POV. Weymar Horren (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work Weymar Horren. I support the use of the lower casualty numbers, which were a stable part of this article until BadgerStateHistorian1967 began a series of unproductive edits. Gulbenk  (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Gulbenk. I've checked several of the books cited by Badger, and they only mention the battle in a few lines (at most). In comparison, the works that I've mentioned above are far more detailed and give a complete narrative of the fight. Interestingly, several Spanish reports on the campaign were published in English in 1913 [1]. I wonder why they have been forgotten so long... When I've finished with a matter in which I'm now busy, I'll make a rewrite of the article in my sandbox in accordance with the current state of the topic's research. Weymar Horren (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate article 

message: I was at Fort Frederica National Monument yesterday and I watched the NPS film about Frederica and the battles of Gully Hole Creek and Bloody Marsh.  At Gully Hole Creek they were in close contact and the film said that ten Spaniards and one British soldier were killed.  (It also gave the number killed and captured.) At Bloody Marsh, the forces were shooting at each other from a distance.  The film said that the casualties were "light".  It also said that the British exaggerated the results of the battle.  By saying that the casualties were light, I think they mean probably fewer than ten killed.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A series of edits by sock puppets and (subsequently) blocked users championed the higher number of killed. Reputable, modern, sources support the lower numbers. Gulbenk  (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article currently says "Roughly 200 killed" and has a ton of references.  But (I'm just guessing about this) they may all trace back to a single source. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number killed (again) 

message: According to the Spanish Wikipedia: 7 Spaniards killed in action, and 10 taken prisoner. I think that Bloody Marsh became a Georgian foundation legend, with a great deal of local bragging.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.90.6 (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Wikipedia vs. English wikipedia