Talk:Battle of Waxhaws

message: In the passage: 
"Reports differ as to what happened next. Somehow a gun may have gone off. British sources say that Tarleton's horse was shot from under him, and his men believed that he had been killed, but other circumstances suggest this was a fabrication. In any case..."
I changed "other circumstances suggest this was a fabrication" to "American accounts differ" (im assuming it is in American sources that these circumstances have been detailed).
Seeing as the issue of whether Tarlton's horse was shot by a Virginian or not is central to understanding what happened it would seem prudent to mention what the circumstances were and/or provide links. Until then i have changed it to the less debatable wording (assuming 'American accounts differ' is true which i havent checked). I also changed 'murder' to 'kill', although it may be that 'murder' is the correct word here, a clarification of whether an American fired first or not would certainly be helpful in assessing its suitability.
(There is also a general US slant to the article, but not so chronic as the sections i altered) -Isthatyou
Even the intro is very pro-American/ anti-British
:Yes, the article was very poor and unbalanced, even though the facts of Tarleton's horse being shot from under him has been well documented for a very long time, the article while not dismissing the facts placed them deep within the article, almost as an after-thought yet the betrayal during a surrender was central to the events. I have subsequently tried in my own poor way to balance the article referring to best wiki practice regarding neutrality, balance, always referring to the sources.Twobells (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and accuracy

message: Should the title be changed to the neutral "Battle of Waxhaws"?
-- Zsero (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree, as it would be the more neutral name.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It's not always referred to by that name in history books.  "Battle of Waxhaws" or "Battle of the Waxhaws" seem to be more frequent usages, even in books written by American historians. Magic♪piano 14:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: It appears that Dr. Robert Brownfield was an American surgeon's mate not British this changes entirely the nature of his commentary.  In the author's defense this appear to be an often repeated inaccuracy (but should be fixed!).  See A Sketch of the Life of Brigadier General Francis Marion by William Dobein James. The letter is found in the appendix.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.81.109 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracy

message: I've removed this section:
The wounded of both parties were treated with equal humanity by the British. The American officers and soldiers who were unable to travel, were paroled the next morning, and placed at the neighbouring plantations and in a meeting house, not far from the field of battle. Surgeons were sent for from Camden and Charlotte town to assist them. Every possible convenience was provided by the British.
It appears to be original research (no citations of any kind, no sources mentioned) and is illogical, as British forces who had just killed wounded and surrendering Americans would not be likely to offer "every possible convenience" to the same group of Americans, even if they did spare their lives.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.50.35 (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: In two different cases, this article reports violations of the rules of war. They need to specify what the rules of war were more than 200 years ago. I presume there is a readily available source from that period which was handed to all commanders to explain what they could and could not do. Failing that, and the statements don’t hold water. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules of war 

message: If Robert Brownfield was an eyewitness to the capture of the rearguard, he was presumably (a) captured at the same time (b) saw Captain Pearson being slashed with sabers, and (c) didn’t take part in the main battle.
Unless the British Legion released him and said run ahead so you can observe our attack, he could not have been an eyewitness to the main battle.  So it is highly unlikely that he could have been an eyewitness to both events.
Can someone clarify exactly where Brownfield was at the time of the skirmish with the rearguard and at the time of the main battle? At what point did he stop being a spectator and begin to treat the wounded? 
As far as I know, the only source of information from Brownfield is his letter written decades after the event. While it makes statements about what happened, nowhere does it describe his own part in the battle. So we cannot determine whether he truly saw what he said happened or was just repeating a myth.
If no clarification is available, I propose to remove the word “eyewitness” and present his statements as hearsay written decades later. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eyewitness Robert Brownfield 

message: “Meacham” is given as a source for Andrew Jackson tending the wounded. But a single word isn’t a sufficient reference even for those thoroughly versed in the subject. Since much is made of Jackson being there, it needs a direct quotation from him. Else, what is the basis for claims of his presence? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackson’s presence 

message: “Some Loyalists were incensed that the rebels had (they thought) killed Tarleton.”
This says we (or someone) know what unidentified Loyalist soldiers were thinking and feeling in the middle of a battle. It needs a source! Humphrey Tribble (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incensed Loyalists