Talk:Baylor Massacre

US Centric

Er, how can this represent a world view? This battle only occured in the US... I'm removing the tag unless someone explains why they feel that way. EricDerKonig 206.154.229.139 13:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is written entirely from U.S. sources, and does not have much information on the British perspective of the battle. Also note that the title "Baylor Massacre" is the U.S. name of the battle. I don't know what the British name of the battle is. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comical really. Most of Wikipedia's Revolutionary War articles predominantly cite US historians... use Wikipedia at your peril. The British view point about many of these battles, particularly when you look through the regimental diaries and histories, paint a different picture. The casualties don't make any sense either. The case of Tarleton is worst example - he is labelled as a butcher simply because he bested the Americans in many skirmishes and was an effective cavalry commander.

As for world view I'm not american and this entry is also my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republique2007 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Republique, I'm one of the primary authors of this article, and I've tried to write it based on the facts as I was best able to determine, but all of my readings are from U.S. sources. There are obvious limitations based on this, and so the set of facts about this incident is almost certainly incomplete. Please read the NPOV policy and about efforts to counter systemic bias. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to remove the limited tag. i used a book published in london as a source, and it gives the same tone as the american sources. agree? Shirulashem (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Nelson book, ISBN 083863673X? It was published by the Fairleigh Dickinson University Press [1]. According to the Amazon review here, the author is American. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris: I stand corrected. Even so, I do not think that this tag is warranted. I don't think this article has anything other than simple facts. When evaluating NPOV, Wikipedia states articles should, "assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.'" As far as viewpoints are concerned, I honestly do not view this article as presenting an unbalanced viewpoint. As far as I can see, this article is nothing more than a factual timeline put into narrative form. I don't think you give yourself enough credit. Shirulashem (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but we don't have any British sources to even know if there is a dispute on the facts. The facts we have are told by American sources, and we don't even know the British name of the battle. Calling the battle a massacre isn't exactly NPOV. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this page [2] quotes some British accounts (that may be of course better researched and then included here). Also, quoting from a journal article reference, For British accounts of the Old Tappan action, see Sir Henry Clinton to Lord George Germain, Oct. [8], 1778, University of Michigan, William L. Clements Library, Sir Henry Clinton Papers, 43:3 and 43: 4. For a detailed American description of British atrocities at Old Tappan, see: James Thacher, A Military Journal During the American Revolutionary War from 1775 to 1783...(Boston, 1823), 179-81. IMO the viewpoint tag should remain until those British accounts are described (also since the word "massacre" seems to have been only used by one of the sides, it might be better to leave it out). — Daniel Mahu · talk · 22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't the title be Baylor massacre? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, the term "massacre" is part of the title of the battle. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The British title of this (very minor) incident appears to be "The surprise of Lady Washington's Dragoons". It should be noted that British sources such as Martin Hunter (who was involved in the incident as a junior officer) make no mention of Tory "spies" or "massacres".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanley c jenkins (talk • contribs) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you point out the sources? Thanks. shirulashem (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Source is William Scarth Moorsom, Historical Record of the 52nd Regiment (1860).

See also "Sir Martin Hunter: With the 52nd in America 1773-1778", printed in The Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Light Infantry Chronicle, Vol VI, 1897 pps.122-134, which contains details of other incidents in the American war.

His reference to a small number of casualties, some of whom had been bayoneted, ties-in with the figures quoted.

Stanley C.Jenkins Stanley c jenkins (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanley c jenkins (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It may also be worth pointing out that, according to Martin Hunter, the British light infantrymen were mounted. Stanley c jenkins (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying to add this information in the form of a footnote (No.5) but have not been able to do so - perhaps a more experienced user could put the suggested footnote in the correct place? Stanley c jenkins (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Strength, casualties and losses

The numbers are inaccurate. There is mention of "about 135" men in the info box and "about 100" in the article. Dr Griffith's letter [3] suggests 104 privates (not including officers). Counts of the wounded and killed appear to have been taken from this letter, but do not include the officers (an extra 1 dead, 3 wounded, 5 prisoners). Could this make out for the difference between the total of 61 in the infobox and 69 in the article?.. — Daniel Mahu · talk · 22:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Stub markers

I put back the stub markers because

1. the article is still rated as stub class in the talk page, and
2. to make it easier to find for anyone with access to any documents providing a British viewpoint — Daniel Mahu · talk · 15:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

1779

The battle took place in 1779 not 1778 wikipedia is not a source to rely on. this information is rong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.0.37 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 20 February 2010

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baylor Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051215000743/http://www.rivervalenj.org:80/History.htm to http://www.rivervalenj.org/History.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060419095008/http://www.co.bergen.nj.us:80/Parks/Cultural%20and%20Historic/Baylor.htm to http://www.co.bergen.nj.us/Parks/Cultural%20and%20Historic/Baylor.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Action at Little Egg Harbor

I don't see how the attack on the 3rd light dragoons could be a diversion for the attack on Little Egg Harbor since they were 2 1/2 weeks apart. More likely, the Baylor attack fell under the heading of trying to stir Washington into action.

If no one objects, I think the paragraph mentioning Little Egg Harbor should be deleted. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of block quotation

This quotation is from a commemorative plaque. The information is of unknown origin. It is clearly not neutral, and it lacks author, publisher, and date. It is not a reliable historical source and I have, therefore, deleted it. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Presence of a soldier of the 52nd Foot

The light battalion was made up of the light companies detached from other regiments. Similarly the grenadier battalion was made up of the grenadier companies detached from other regiments. The light and grenadier companies of a British regiment were their best soldiers, and specialized as light infantry and assault troops respectively. The light and grenadier battalions probably included a detached company of the 52nd regiment of foot. Hence, some soldiers of the 52nd were likely present even though the regiment itself wasn't.

This might account for the diary record even though on the regiment wasn't officially part of the action. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out here. When you make changes, I would appreciate it if instead of an overly detailed edit summary, you were able to find sources and citation supporting your position. When a change like this is made, you're implying that the applied source ("Skirmish Near Tappan". Rivington's Royal Gazette. 3 October 1778. Retrieved 2013-01-18.) is saying what you're adding in. This is considered hijacking a source and is a pretty bad idea, considering everyone here is trying to tell the story as honestly and accurately as we can. BusterD (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I see your point. I'll try to find another way to get the message across. Revert if you think it can't wait. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No big deal, and I very much thank you for helping get the page right. Based on my cursory reading of your overall contributions, your editing seems excellent, but for the modest critique I've made above, intended to steer you in a more effective direction. If I came across as authoritative or condescending, I apologize. I've been around since the days when your actions in this case would have been in the range of normal (because the page lacked incline cites at all), but since we do have cites, it's wise to respect them or improve them if they aren't up-to-date. These days Wikipedia is really more about creating something like a "term paper" with sources which a teacher might approve. Please edit boldly! BusterD (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The quickest fix is to revert in my head it. Coming up with a reference for the composition of light and Grenadier battalions will take longer. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Earlier in the article, there is no mention of the 52nd because that regiment wasn’t involved as a whole. Martin must have been part of the light or grenadier batallions.

(Two years on, I still haven’t stumbled upon the exact composition of the light and grenadier battalions. Sources make general comments about the light and gren. companies of regiments being combined. Possibly it would have to be deduced from letters such as Martin’s, but that’s a job for the historians.) Humphrey Tribble (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)