Talk:Battle of Vinegar Hill

message: There appear to be a few POV statements that are not backed up by citations in this article; e.g. "and a massacre of stragglers ensued, mainly women and children, causing hundreds more deaths. The infantry followed and were guilty of more atrocities."  Statements like this need to be rewritten in a more NPOV way, or backed with citations.  DrFrench 11:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last sentence unnecessarily aggressive, IMO. A request for citations isn't unusual or offensive. Additional citations would also be useful if/when status reviews are requested. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. Nice article, BTW (see comments, below). Folks at 137 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Some more detail, if available:
#why were there so many non-combatants on the hill?
#where were they from?
#apart from the bombardment at "dawn", there's no indication of timescale: did it take a morning, a day?
#what was the composition - order of battle - of each side, ie, units, type?
#the British commander, Lake, is mentioned elsewhere for his brutal attitude towards Irish rebels and the differing attitude of his commander, Cornwallis. These would add background to the treatment of the rebels (with citations, of course).
#the pic of Vinegar Hill shows it to be defensible. How then did the British troops, heavily outnumbered, suffer only 100 casualties?
Folks at 137 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More info

message: Was it the 21st, as a lot of sources date the 12th, I can gather and post them if you'd like. I just want to be clear on the correct date. -RiverHockey 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: This article lacks objectivity and uses some contempory American terms which do not apply to the historical situation. Examples are "republicans" this is IRA speak, "military" to mean "armed forces".
A geat deal more is needed on the objectives, composition and operations of the forces of the Crown.
Bwalker (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Ladies and gentleman, I tripped over this article when rambling through history articles on wiki - I have no particular understanding or interest in Irish history.  I read it and found it (although very well written), rather confusing.  At first I thought it was just weird style, but having come to the talk page there's lots of description of POV issues.  
I certainly find it weird that the rout of the Irish forces, pursued by cavalry, is described under the heading "Atrocities", when pursuing a routed army has always been standard tactics.  What were the British supposed to do when an enemy army routs, let it retreat and reform?  Might I suggest that the atrocities heading be removed and the description of the rout be amendend and included in the description of the battle itself?  
Also, the description of a general massacre is at odds with the numbers of casualties.  500-1000 killed in the whole battle yet "hundreds" of stragglers killed in the rout and "hundreds" killed by heavy artillery fire.  It's also odd that the British only lost 100 men, particularly given the description of a serious battle in which the Irish inflicted "heavy casualties" in the battle and then "heavy casualties" in the town.
If 38 000 people are involved in a pitched battle and a maximum of 1100 are killed, well it's hardly a battle, more a skirmish or a stand-off, and the idea of a general massacre certainly does question the NPOV.
I wouldn't doubt that the refs are correct, but the general picture of the battle (although well written) comes across as confusing to the casual reader and I would invite the writers to consider a rewrite.  
However, all this said with the greatest respect, I certainly couldn't have written this myself and applaud the effort so far.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.225.202 (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: I've just revisited this article after a year and a half.  I can see there's been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing amongst the edits but can I just say that it reads really well and really clearly now and well done to everyone who has contributed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.31.226 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not So Confusing