Talk:Battle of Harlem Heights

message: The edits to this section do not seem to be at all an improvement on the original contribution, except for some additional facts.  Can we have the original text back, please?
::: I agree with the above unsigned comment.
:::British troops made a tactical error by having their light infantry buglers sound a fox hunting call, "gone away," while in pursuit. This was intended to insult Washington, himself a keen fox hunter, having learned the sport from Lord Fairfax during the French and Indian War. "Gone away" means that a fox is in full flight from the hounds on its trail. The Continentals, who were in orderly retreat, were infuriated by this and galvanized to hold their ground.
:::What evidence is there for this? The British Light Infantry routinely used hunting horns to transmit battlefield commands, as demonstrated at Harlem Heights.  How can this be presented as a tactical decision, let alone  a tactical error?
:::There is no indication that the British bugle calls reported by Joseph Hodgkins- "which was for a reinforcement"- and by Joseph Reed (despite the comments made to his wife, quoted below) were anything other than battlefield commands.  The identification of the bugle calls as a fox-hunting call 'Gone Away' appears to be a modern embroidery of Reed's aside, "as is usual after a fox chase". Random derisory bugle calls would not only show a lack of discipline in a crack unit but risked causing confusion. Certainly, a drummer would not have sounded non-regulation bugle calls without instruction.
:::It was Joseph Reed's subjective perception that the British "sounded their bugles in a grossly insulting manner"; an understandable conclusion given his admitted sense of disgrace at that point and given that the Philadelphia attorney had little experience of the British light infantry in action.
:::  Reed had already analysed the situation: "Finding how things were going, I went over to the General, to get some support for the brave fellows who had behaved so well." Do we have a record of how Washington perceived the British bugles and any impact it had on command decisions? If not, then the subject matter of this rather rambling section is partisan folklore and should either be edited as such or excised. JF42 (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this has been addressed in the revised OTD for Friday 16 September 2016. Bugles and hunting-calls and sundry speculations alike are now gone, following discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors The link to OTD in the box above has not yet been updated (to do so is way beyond my capacity). Haploidavey (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Fox Hunt" edits

message: Hey there. I see you replaced the Hessian component in the belligerents section of the infobox on Battle of Harlem Heights. I think that while it is technically true that the Hessians were involved, there's not much reason to separate them out from the British. There were lots of militias involved on the American side, but for this battle, we can lump them all together into the Continental Army. Perhaps if we can figure out the numbers, we can put them in the strength section (see Battle of Long Island. However, to argue your side, if you look at Battle of Fort Washington, there is Hessians in the belligerents section. Perhaps we should bring something up on the project space to standardize this? What do you think? Tan  |  39 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No answer from editor. Per consensus from Task Force discussion here, removing Hessians as belligerent force. Tan  |  39 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hessians

message: This page, along with White Plains keeps being altered to an American victory, deleting the references and placing marks on the page to not alter it. These two pages need to be locked to established users only (Trip Johnson (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article is next on my list of battles to expand to GA status (it's the chronologically logical continuation of Landing at Kip's Bay, which I just greatly expanded and improved). Anyway, we will have to discuss this, because David McCullough, in 1776, cites this battle as an American victory. Tan  |  39 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet Britishbattles.com cites the battle as a draw, as there was no clear victor in strategic or tactical senses. Also, the page should be locked to stop the vandals who keep editing it (Trip Johnson (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: fulldisclosure: I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the fact that I'm tan's admin coach and am watching his edits/projectsThat being said, I'm a history buff, and I suspect that this is a scenario wherein the history is written by the victors/differing sides---with different expectations. What to an established military might be considered a draw, might be deemed as a victory to a struggling nation.  In other words, the very fact that the British Army wasn't victorious, could be seen as a victory needed by the American military..Balloonman (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement does not make sense. By that reasoning, because the British didn't win decisively, they were defeated decisively? Neither side held the ground that the very battle took place on, Washington retreated and so did the British = draw. (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One could say that it was victory for the Americans to hold their ground against a numerically superior British force.  There may not have been any real strategic victory achieved, but I am certain that this battle must have been a great psychological victory for the Americans at that stage of the war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.5 (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This was obviously a huge moral victory for the Americans after the collapse at New York, it also stalled the British advance into the Hudson Valley. The British also had more deaths and wounded. (SaudiArabia44 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am reluctant to wade back into this fray until I am sure Trip Johnson has left the building, and while I appreciate your input into this, Saudi, I think that it should be pointed out that all of our opinions are essentially moot. This entire debate should not be consensus-building of our own personal opinions of the outcome of this battle; the debate should be a building of consensus from references. What is published? What do significant historians say? That is what I pointed out way above, and something valuable I learned from Kevin Myers. You and I aren't here to analyze the data and formulate a conclusion. Tan  |  39 19:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I'm so sorry for disagreeing with your opinions Tan. I didn't realise I had to follow the false information around here. You want to know why I'm difficult to work with? Because I'm not a sheep thats why. I don't follow other opinions, If I don't like them. So, again, sorry for not agreeing with your opinions, but hey, deal with it. I think this could be done to be left as it is. If you don't like to work with me, fine. I aint going to lose sleep over it. That is no justification for talking about me wherever you please and trying to bait me into an argument, to try and get me banned. And for god's sake casualties is NOT a grounds for victory. Saying the Americans won this battle because they suffered less casualties is like saying Germany won both World Wars because they suffered less losses in both wars.  (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid the usage of websites to resolve this has provided an inaccurate result. An exhaustive query of books available online found 19 in favor of "American Victory", and 2 in favor of "British Victory", discounting a few essays, genealogies, and dictionaries. As these 21 sources each have drawn from 5-8 sources on the New York campaign, it is fairly clear at this point that the idea of a British victory is along the lines of WP:FRINGE. If another editor is able to produce an equal amount of reliable sources (Not "Myrevolutionywar.com" etc.), I would support changing the outcome to draw. Until then, it is unnecessary to mention the victory was psychological in the infobox, that is for the text of the article to accomplish. MrPrada (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per your latest change, Trip Johnson, can you show where this consensus is? Reading this admittedly exhaustive argument here, it seems that you were the one making the claim of "American withdrawal, American psychological victory" and wouldn't accept any other answer. It appears that all the other editors (including me) basically just gave up arguing with you. Is this the consensus you are claiming? Tan  |  39 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd personally like to recommend that Trip Johnson VERY CAREFULLY read WP:CIVIL, especially the section on "Engaging in incivility."  This recent edit summary is completely inappropriate, and I think an apology to MrPrada is in order.  Alphageekpa (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't, so if you wish to delete my account, go ahead. I couldn't care less. I would rather spend more time in real life than argue with a bunch of total thickheads who claim to be mature editors. So do it, because to be frank, I don't give a damn. I think what this place needs is a total wash over, because whenever I disagree with an admin's opinions I get reported for vandalism. Its just biased favouritism for wanting to downplay British victories / draws in this war. I provide sources, they get removed, but do the admins do anything about it? No of course they don't because they're too damn lazy to do anything about it. But when its me doing something the admins are gloating their authority around, pretending to sound mature by giving me "formal warnings". And if you people here can't see that, then you're more ignorant than I took you for.(Trip Johnson (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm... can't find any other citations backing up the wounded note, perhaps that directory from 1950 really meant Battle of Trenton when he took a bullet in the shoulder? Not finding second citations to back it up. there do seem to be other citations though implying that harlem heights was monroe's first command and perhaps first major combat action in the third virginia regiment. So there might be something worth mentioning in there with more research. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Monroe (a lieutenant at the time) was wounded in the (first) Battle of Trenton, per David McCullough in 1776. This is sort of confirmed by Middlekauf in Washington's Crossing; he "served with distinction" at the Battle of Harlem Heights and White Plains but was still on active duty in November 1776, etc. In fact, Monroe is one of the prominent figures in Leutze's Crossing the Delaware! I agree this should go in the article, though. As all the recent drama in this arena seems to have died down, I plan to finish my contributions to the Landing at Kip's Bay article soon - and this one was the next (chrono)logical article to work on. If you or some other editor hasn't added Monroe's participation by then, I'll put it in. Tan  |  39 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to hate on consensus or anything, or get another huge debate going, but reading that the Americans withdrew was a huge surprise, as everything else in the article says the Americans won. Did the British pursue the withdrawing Americans and retake the ground they had lost? Regardless of definition, withdrawing cannot be considered a true tactical victory. The article says "This instead infuriated the Americans who galvanized to hold their ground. " in the intro, when in reality, to my understanding, they didn't ultimately hold their ground. However insignificant in the whole scheme of things it seems, the fact that the Americans withdrew should be mentionned in the intro. Just my thoughts. M.Nelson (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, technically the Americans did hold their ground. The Americans held their own against the initial British attack, so they held their ground against the first wave. The British withdrew as the Americans had the high ground, and the Americans only withdrew when Cornwallis advanced up with a much larger number of troops than could be fought by Washington. This is where the big debacle comes in over the result; was it a draw because there wasn't really any clear victor, or was it a British victory because the Americans withdrew or was it an American victory because the British attack into New York was blunted? (RockDrummerQ (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, your POV on the battle does not really compare to that of an historian like Edward Lengel. He, in the book(I have it) specifically says it was an American victory. I have other books that concur with what he says. The source says it was an American victory and thus, it should be left as such.-Kieran4 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I hope you're not serious. I have not interest in making this article anything other than accurate. The source says it was an American victory. Do not revert it unless you find multiple sources contradicting it. I have many, many sources which cite it as an American Victory. If you don't have any sources, you have no argument.-Kieran4 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: An American Victory

message: Hi, I lined this article up for GA review earlier this evening, but was called away from the computer before I had quite finished the review and now see that the article has been passed by someone else. Although I respect their review, I did have some comments on the article that the editors may find helpful.
*"British troops made a tactical error by sounding a fox hunt bugle call while in pursuit, meant to insult the Continentals, who were in orderly retreat. This instead infuriated the Americans who galvanized to hold their ground. After flanking the British attackers, the Americans slowly pushed the British back. After the British fled, Washington had his troops end the chase. The battle went a long way to restoring the confidence of the Continental Army after suffering several defeats." - a number of problems here: 1) state at the start of the sentence when the British made the error (e.g. early or late in the battle). 2) "meant" isn't quite right in the context, I think "intended" would be better 3) "who galvanized": at the very least it should be "who were galvanized", although I'm not convinced by the word galvanized here (perhaps "turned and held their ground" is a better way of putting it) 4) There is no mention in the article at all of the British fleeing, withdrawn is a much better word to use (unless they actually did flee, in which case it should be clearly stated in the article) 5) "a long way" is a bit colloquial, perhaps "helped" or "aided"
*"After a month without any . . ." do you mean after the battle? If so, say so.
*"defeats, at White Plains and Fort Washington. After these two defeats," - try to vary the words used, in this example, the "defeats" appear too close to one another. This problem recurrs throughout the article.
*I'd like to see a little more background at the start of the background section: how old was the war at this point and who, if any one was winning at this stage. I know the British objective is mentioned in the lead, but conisider repeating it in greater detail in this section.
*"flee at the sight of the enemy, and even with Washington's arrival on the scene they refused to obey orders and continued to flee." - try "fall back" instead of one of the "flees"
*"retreat. The retreat" - make one of the "retreats" a "withdrawal"
*"2nd and 3rd Battalions" - of what? you haven't named the regiment that fought Knowlton.
*"too far away" - you mean "far enough away"
*Although OK for GA, the writing of the battle is a little simplistic: who made the crucial decisions at each stage (i.e. the attack on the British on the hilltop?), How many seperate attacks were made on the positions the British withdrew to and what happened in them (its says the British "held out" on the hill, but against what?), under what weather conditions was the battle fought? etc.
*"buckwheat Field." - misplaced capital
*I mean no offence, but the sentence that ends "the troops gave a loud "hurra" and left the field in good order." reads a lot like the work of a rebel propagandist - who says so and where exactly?
*Aftermath seems very incomplete: how is the battle commemorated today and how has it been commemorated since? Memorials, events renactments etc. What is the battlefield like today? How was the defeat received in Britain? How in America outside the army?
Although this is quite a long list, it would not all have been essential in my GA review. There are however some quite serious problems that should be addressed very soon. In summary, a decent article but not a "Good" one quite yet in my opinion. That said, I respect the review and have no plans to challenge it, these suggestions are given solely for the future improvement of the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: For years Narson and I have worked on the War of 1812 and tried to get as much straight as we could.  Far too much time has been taken up by a one liner in an info box. Folks very little can be ascertained by an info box, the War of 1812 is perhaps one of the best points where 3 nations had major changes in outlooks to one another, major alliances formed where none existed before, and Modern Canada arose from the ashes of that war, yet all anyone wants to talk about is an outcome in an info box...  Perhaps we all need to grow up a little and start seeking to really improve the articles and the citations and give the public the beauty of knowledge this project has always promised to be.Tirronan (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Info boxes, and wastes of time

message: The battle of Monmouth is a 'long term American victory'? They were both rear-guard actions, the British fought a successful rear guard at Monmouth, Washington fought a successful rear-guard here. The Americans evenutally took the ground at Monmouth, the British took the ground here. So either the result on the Monmouth page is wrong, or this page is wrong. Ben200 (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: How can this be an American victory if.... 

message: Is there no better illustration available than this wildly anachronistic print showing the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment wearing Crimean War-era uniforms from the mid-C19th?  Their headgear is also on the wrong way round.JF42 (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ILLUSTRATION 

message: Apart from being captioned  "The Battle of Harlem Heights" and having the area of Harlem Heights marked in small print in the extreme upper right hand corner of the box, I am unclear as to  why  the map currently included.  It can't be considered an aid to understanding the  battle. Surely there are more detailed maps of the battle area available.
Would this one be serviceable:
https://archive.org/stream/battleofharlemhe00john#page/n97/mode/2up  >  ?
By the way the links below are 'orphans' and the last two are dead.
JF42 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map- "The Battle of Harlem Heights" 

message: The narrative in  most recent edits was still seriously out of kilter with reference to the sequence laid out by Johnson, the cited source. I have adjusted that, and I believe made the narrative more concise and clearer in relation to the geography. THere are still gaps in the timeline relating to the end of the first phase of the running fight in the woods and the start of Washington's attempted flanking manoeuvre.
JF42 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjustment of narrative  

message: The information box evidently remains unresolved. The current information re. numbers involved is misleading, and that for casualties incoherent
The figures shown for the American army reflect the estimated number of troops that were gathered in the main exchange of fire in the buckwheat field. The figure of 5000 for the British  represents a generous estimate of the troops that might have been available had the Reserve and all the German troops come up and  been engaged. It does not represent the number of British troops engaged at the height of the action on the heights (probably three battalions at most and the jägers). A comparable figure for the American side would include troops remaining in Washington's lines. Analysis of the units known to have been directly engaged supports Johnson's  conclusion that the number of British engaged was slightly less than the Americans confronting them.
The numbers for casualties are also misleading. It is not consistent to show the estimated figures of American casualties as if they are a proven fact and then enter figures for British casualties so wildly variant as to be meaningless. Moreover, the figure '92–390 killed and wounded' does not match any figures in the main text, which undrmines the authority of the article. All that can be derived from the figure '92-390' is that the figures are disputed and it might be better simply to state that. 
With regard to the sources cited, it's not clear where McCullough's figures come from, although inflated estimates were recorded on both sides. The article in Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, a comprehensive revision of Boatner's Biographical Dictionary of the American War of Independence 1763–1783 quotes, with reservations, Howe's reported estimate of 92 British casualties and then categorically states,  without explanation, "the toll was 14  killed and 154 wounded." The source for this figure seems to have been taken from Kemble's diary entry (which reports 16 dead including two officers mortally wounded and 157 wounded).
Johnson's  calculation of British casualties - 14 killed and 157 wounded- reflects Kembles diary entry more accurately (although he mislaid the two mortally wounded). As this calculation is used as the source for American casualties in the information box,if it is felt necessary to offer concrete numbers where none exist, it would be sensible and consistent to use Johnson's figures for the British side as well.
I suggest that the place to explore inconsistencies in casualties reported should be in the main text, not in the information box.
JF42 (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box 2018: Numbers engaged; Casualties 

message: I have been reflecting on this quotation from Lengel. Washington's response may have been astute but deciding to exploit the mistake of the British patrol for the benefit of boosting his troops' morale at little risk, while perfectly sensible, does not seem to demonstrate to any great extent the qualities to which Lengel refers.  Washington  showed more resolve in the withdrawal from Brooklyn, and more courage, to the point of recklessness, trying to stem the rout in the face of the British advance the previous day. This quotation risks being unduly flattering towards  Washington and does not add to our understanding of the battle.
JF42 (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Note JF42's deletion. Shenme (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  an early glimmer of the courage and resolve  

message: I've just come across this article and it seems heavily slanted towards the US version of events. Is there some sort of co-ordinated effort going on here or is there a lack of sources for the British side? Thanks! digital_me (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you illustrate what you mean by "seems heavily slanted", giving examples and a breakdown of what the article should contain in order to present an overall neutral point of view?. I have watched this article for several years and I don't share your perceptions of bias or imbalance, at least not overall. Many episodes in history are better represented or described by one side (usually the winners) than by the other. Haploidavey (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in the article?