Talk:Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument

message: The main contractor for the Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument was PJ Carlin and the subcontractor who supplied the granite and erected it was John Hynes who had stoneyards at 3rd Ave and 3rd St. and Union and Bond streets in Brooklyn. There is a souvenir journal in existence as well as the ceremonial program. This monument will be 100 years old in 2008 and there are some efforts to refurbish the monument and surrounding area for the centennial.Ahynes432 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The wording of the opening sentence suggests that the crypt is for 11,500... I know the Memorial is to the 11,500+ who died on the ships, but are there really 11,500 interred in the crypt? A page in the NYC Parks web site ( http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/FortGreenePark/highlights/13308 , retrieved July 6, 2011) says that only a small portion of all the remains are interred in the crypt. "The remains of the prisoners were moved to the site in 1873 into the newly created 25 by 11 foot brick vault. Twenty-two boxes, containing a mere fraction of total volume of remains, were interred in the vault." I have seen pdf's of articles from the New York Times dating around 1900 that refer to interments occurring after 1873, but haven't seen anything that suggests that all 11,500+ martyrs are in the crypt.
Is it safe to reword the opening sentence to reflect that it is a crypt, and that the site is a memorial to the 11,500+ who died on the ships?
Frank Lynch (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crypt for 11,500 or a crypt for far fewer? 

message: Wow, such a flood of revisions. We all need to focus on this set, and make sure they're legit. Some are phenomenally nit-picky (the insertion of 'interred', the replacement of "beneath" for "below," for example).
But those slight changes are nothing compared to the wholesale changes represented in this comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prison_Ship_Martyrs%27_Monument&action=historysubmit&diff=471738413&oldid=471596951
Is there a venue to complain that the extent of these changes are simply too much? These require a lot of people to weigh in.
:You didn't sign your comment.
:I got rid of a lot of very bad writing. I read a source (Cray) that was already cited and not well used. I cited it repeatedly with page citations that had not been included previously.
:I moved material around because the sequence of info didn't make sense.
:This is the place to complain. Some are just word choices which are, by definition, nit-picky. Phenomenally is in the eye of the beholder. 
:There are still plenty of problems. There is no full description of the monument. Instead details appear in the narrative only where they surface under recent history, like the eagles and interior staircase. That will require material to be shuffled around.
:There's more descriptive detail that I haven't included here
:I hope to visit and take photos next week, weather permitting. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "A" crypt instead of "The" crypt? Really? You bothered to make that change? On top of everything else, you need to change the article? Frank Lynch (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bmclaughlin9 revisions on Jan 16 2012 

message: The paragraph about the Monument and the Antiquities Act has several sources, but they've been challenged. It's clear that the park and monument are *not* federal sites. Should this paragraph be deleted? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that this Monument does not appear on the list of monuments covered by the Antiquities Act here, so I am deleting the paragraph that attempts to link the Monument to the Antiquities Act. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiquities Act 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131230232257/http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/lpc/arch_reports/172.pdf to http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/lpc/arch_reports/172.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The number 18,000 comes from this calculation in Edwin G Burrow's article in the Long Island History Journal:
:....Altogether, something like 30,000 Americans were confined in New York at one time or another during the Revolutionary War.
:How many of those 30,000 perished will never be known for certain, though the available evidence suggests that the overall mortality rate hovered between 60 and 70 percent.  (Of the 2700 men taken captive at Fort Washington in November 1776, 1100 died over the winter and another 900 on the way home after they were let go – an effective mortality rate of almost 75 percent.)
In Burrow's article, that is the only support for a figure as high as 70%, and it is arrived at by adding in those who died after release and on their way home to the 40% who died in the prison camp. Civil war prison camp fatalities were around 35%, he says, and one would assume deaths in the hulks were at least as bad (the percentage of deaths on transatlantic slave ships seems to have been lower, at around 12%: ). The figure on the monument - 11,500 - is closer to 40% of the 30,000 who were held on the hulks "at one time or another". But as this number (30,000) includes those who were released at some time or another, and without knowing how many that was, it's difficult to make a proper estimate of deaths in captivity. It would be helpful to see some better historical evidence for the numbers quoted. Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers of deaths