Talk:Battle of Long Island

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Joycewupolsc110.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

There appear to be editorial comments added to this page ("LIKE WHATEVER!!" and "grr"). Are these objections to incorrect or misleading text (in which case they should be made more clear), or simply expressions of emotion (in which case they should be deleted)?I don't know who won

Just mild vandalism. Thanks for the heads-up. Rmhermen 15:22, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

(OP) The user at IP 65.117.158.5 seems to specialize in vandalism. Check his list of changes to find more. orthogonal

I removed the reference to the day on which Nathan Hale was hanged (September 21) because it was causing gramatical difficulty. If anyone else is able to add it back without sounding cumbersome, please do so. Thanks. AlexanderWinston 00:27, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

Confusion? And Howe!

This article has passages like the following:

"After strengthening his forces for over seven weeks on Staten Island, General Howe moved 88 frigates under a bridge to Gravesend Bay."

However, there were two Howes, brothers, present at the battle - the overall naval commander, then Admiral Richard, Lord Howe, and General Sir William Howe, later (General Sir) William, Lord Howe (more easily termed General Howe and Admiral Lord Howe). Admiral Lord Howe was the Commander-in-Chief of the operation (evidenced by, among other things, that when a delegation including Adams and Franklin met before the battle to discuss peace, it was he with whom they conversed). If any frigates were being ordered anyway, it would be Admiral Lord Howe. If any strategic or overarching decisions were made, it would be Admiral Lord Howe. If any tactical or operational commands were issued, it would be General Sir William Howe. Wally 04:11, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't help that one was "Earl Howe" and the other was "Viscount Howe"... and both were knighted... but yeah, the frigates would have been moved by the admiral, not the general. ugen64 02:46, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

---

These pictures are not formatted in the best manner, but I can't really figure out a way to make it better, unless someone adds a battle chart... :-\ ugen64 01:15, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Should Hale be in this page?

(Note: I have no independent knowledge of this battle, or of Nathan Hale, so my question may merely expose my ignorance.)

The article says that Washington evacuated his forces to Manhattan on August 30. But according to his article, Nathan Hale didn't go under cover until September, after the battle. So I am wondering if Hale should be mentioned on this page.

If the answer is "yes" (because, perhaps, Hale's name is especially associated with this battle), I think the paragraph mentioning him needs to be rewritten, as it implies that his mission took place before the evacuation to Manhattan and also that the British forces surrounded the Americans only after (and perhaps even because) Hale was discovered. Molinari 19:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Use Battlebox template?

Should Revolutionary War articles take advantage of the Template:Battlebox?

Only if we don't have to use that pink background assigned to North America. It's so ... um ... dainty. ;-) Kevin Myers 13:30, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Pink is an ok colour for a battlebox - just so long as it doesn't replace the current Europe battlebox background :-pSoLando 01:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

nononoonooooooooooooo

Fear not, Battlebox is dead...LONG LIVE Template:Infobox Military Conflict!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Tentatively classified as B, although the article is perhaps a little list-like for that. Carom 17:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it down to "start", since B class now requires some citations. —Kevin Myers 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Suggest using "1776" by David McCullough as a reference. I read it and thought it was outstanding. It has also garnered good reviews from NPR and USA Today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Founders Intent (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No comments? Maybe I should just do it, eh?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no need to ask, just do it. There's been no major work on this article for a couple of years, I think, so don't expect many replies here. Just dive right in. Another obvious recent reference is David Hacket Fischer's Washington's Crossing. —Kevin Myers 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a neophyte regarding Wikipedia editing, but there is an important new book that provides a great deal of insight on the Battle of Long Island by Charles H. Lewis, "Cut Off: Colonel Jedediah Huntington's 17th Continental (Connecticut) Regiment at the Battle of Long Island, August 27, 1776" (Heritage Books, 2009). This book presents a detailed look at the battle from the perspective of one of its regiments and the soldiers involved. User: Bob Schacht —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobSchacht (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Date format

The dates are linked. I believe they shouldn't be. If no one objects, I'm going to change the format. See WP:MoSNUM.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain or British Empire?

Which style should be used in these articles? I would say the latter. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 11:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Number of British

The number of British soldiers given in this article conflicts with the number given in the info box in the top right hand corner (32k vs 20k), which is correct? Or does the former number include civilians? 194.73.97.131 (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Long Island or Brooklyn

Should this article be named the Battle of Long Island or the Battle of Brooklyn? It seems to be known as both. Thoughts?-Kieran4 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Thus far, of all the footnotes 100 are McCullough while 30 are from other sources, mainly Lengel. Does anyone think this poses a problem?-Kieran4 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Heights

The bluff called in the 19th and 20th centuries Brooklyn Heights is, far as I can tell from Mapserver] about 95 feet at summit. From climbing it afoot and on bicycle and kick scooter, I can tell you it is steep on the west and north sides. Certainly it's an excellent defensive position from attack from the water, thus a good site for Fort Brooklyn but the back slope is gentle and I think it was similarly so 200 years ago, providing no natural aid in defending from an inland attack.

The Harbor Hill Moraine, on the other hand, about two miles away, and sometimes in the 18th Century called "Brooklyn Heights" despite being well away from the village, is about 130 feet at the low point now called Grand Army Plaza, and was probably a bit more rugged then than it is today, thus more easily defensible. This is no doubt why a party of attackers went all the way around to Jamaica Pass, now East New York, to flank the defenders and enter Brooklyn. Anyway I have a Monday appointment shortly after Sundown in Park Slope and intend first to buy a new camera in Manhattan and then to visit Grand Army Plaza to snoop around for the alleged plaque describing and mapping the battle. I could certainly use more hints as to its location.

And no, it's true the battle ended in Brooklyn, but most of the fighting was done far outside the village of the time, so "Battle of Long Island" is the correct designation.

But, "Guana Heights?" Eh? It makes me suspect mere vandalism. Jim.henderson (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Guana Heights is what it is called in General George Washington by Edward G. Lengel. Perhaps just a different name?-Kieran4 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I was unaware. Seems the term covered the portion of the morraine east of Flatbush Pass. The eastern limit remains unknown to me, as does a name for the southern branch unless Park Slope be taken as a term of physical geography. Knowing little of military history, I think the present article is written from inadequate familiarity with the territory. This territory, I know well from bicycling, for example guiding a young German this past August from Rockaway Park to DUMBO including a mile along the ridgeline. It makes me wonder whether it might be fun to conduct a battlefield tour in the summer. Has to be on wheels to cover the various skirmishes that ranged all over the county except the far east and north. And the immediate aftermath ran all the way into Queens County. But then, there's a great deal about the geography of the battle that I don't know. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So on Monday I took the BMT to 7th Avenue, walked up Vanderbilt and beat around the Brooklyn Public Library in bright twilight, failing to find any plaque or other sign of the battle. Then climbed Flatbush Avenue and past the summit, past the closed Zoo, entered Prospect Park north of Malbone Street to walk up the East Drive. North of the Zoo, half a mile south of Grand Army Plaza I found three plaques but by this time the twilight had darkened and I could only take the three lousy flash pix I that uploaded a few minutes ago into commons:Category:Battle of Long Island with the old camera. Probably the new camera got better shots but those are more difficult to read with my antiquated equipment. I'll extract and upload them tomorrow evening or more likely the next day or day after. I found no map plaque. Two and a half weeks from now, I intend to be there again about the same time of day but Sunset will be nearly half an hour later, allowing better photography. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The images are quite good, but if you believe that you can get better ones in the near future I can wait until then.-Kieran4 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Only the Dongan Oak plaque commons:File:Dongan Oak eagle plaque jeh.JPG came out better with the new camera than with the old. Owning the camera only an hour and a half, the majority of that in broad daylight or in the subway, I failed to exploit its superior twilight capabilities. I didn't intend any of these pix to illustrate the article (though if others think they would help I don't mind) but rather to convey their words to fellow editors. That's all the pix from me until my next visit, probably the first Tuesday in March, hoping again to find the alleged map plaque. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So, I had fun tramping around in the snow, got some nice pictures of the Oriental Pavilion and the replica Flatbush Plank Road, but found no other battle memorials than last month when there was no snow. Good weather will have me out photographing the suburbs this weekend and thus my backlog of processing and uploading pix will grow rather than shrink. I plan no more research on the ridgeline this month but don't know whether business will bring me through appropriate parts of Brooklyn sooner. Jim.henderson (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Readiness for ACR?

Bernstein2291 asked me to comment on the readiness of this article for a MILHIST A-class review. These are mostly general observations right now; see first item.

• It's not clear from edit history since the peer review how much of the advice gathered there has been acted on. Can someone comment on this before I do a close reading of the article? (From skimming the article I don't see any glaring omissions, but some of the review comments included statements about correctly characterizing the locations involved; has this been done?)
• If ACR is intended as a prelude to FAC, the writing needs work. From my skim, it might be good enough to pass MILHIST ACR, but I doubt it will pass FAC. (I'm not a good enough critic of writing to be able to characterize the issues, but having put articles through FAC, I known this is a non-trivial problem.)
• All of the images should have {{Information}} boxes with correctly-filled-in dates (of creation and/or publication), authors, and sources.
• The commemorations section should be written as prose, not a bulleted list.
• The map showing the movements of the battle could be improved (or replaced), since it has blurry text, even when embiggened.

Cite error

There appears to be an error with citation # 19. Unfortunately I don't know what it should say, so I can't fix it myself. Can someone with the source fix it up? Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong or Missing Information

The article makes no mention of the term "Maryland 400", their actions is where Maryland's state motto of "The Old Line State" originates. That the six charges they made were against British troops who held the Vecht house or "old Stone House" Cornwallis occupied the house and turned into an artillery position blocking the retreat path.

The name of the creek they had to cross was the "Gowanus Creek". Brooklyn Heights is not directly on the other side of the creek. The fact that the first engagement was between American rifleman and British troops foraging for watermellon around the Red Lion Inn at Martense Lane and the Narrows (Shore) Road around current day 39st.

John Glover's regiment was known as the "Marblehead Regiment", it was comprised of fisherman from marblehead Mass. It doesn't mention Haslet's Delaware Regiment. It doesn't mention the Bedford pass around current day Bedford and Rogers Avenues.

William Howard (1725-1777) owner of the Rising Sun Tavern at current Broadway and Jamaica Avenue, supported American independence and tried to resist the General, but Howe threatened to have him shot if he did not comply with his demands. Howard and his 14 year old son William (1729-1814) "led the British along the Rockaway Path (through what is now the Evergreen Cemetery, the old Indian trail that skirted the Jamaica Pass) to Jamaica".

The Hessians were commanded by Leopold Philip de Heister Joseph Plumb Martin was present at the battle.

It's Height's of Guan not Guana Heights A history of the city of Brooklyn and Kings county, Volume 1 By Stephen M. Ostrander 7mike5000 (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nature of victory

It is listed as a "Decisive victory"

While it was surely a victory for Howe, Washington and his generals never thought they could hold LI for long. (Or NYC, for that matter). Despite all the blunders and panic, Washington's left with the vast bulk of his army.

It could have easily been a decisive victory for Howe, but his cautiousness let Washington slip out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.130.226.185 (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Map

Some thing struck my eye as wrong when looking at File:Battle of Long Island.Dean.USMA.edu.history.gif, and I couldn't quite place it for a moment. Then, I took a closer look:
I looks like the map is slanted off from north a bit, and could use some rotation to reset it properly. I know that it is a common misconception that Manhattan's western shore is a straight north-south shot, but this image seems skewed at least ten or fifteen degrees too far. Did the Hudson's course shift a bit in the last two hundred years, or should I ask the graphics lab if they can fix this? bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"Inconsiderate and even criminal"

I took out this quote that was sourced to Gallagher. Howe does say those words in his statement to Parliament but what he meant was it would have been inconsiderate, even criminal, to lose 1000 to 1500 British soldiers even if he'd managed (which he didn't think likely) to kill or capture twice as many Americans. I've put in a longer quote from Howe's statement and put in the reference to it on Internet Archive Marfinan (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox numbers

the infobox lists the highest British figure and the lowest American figure. If it is to list the highest figure for each it should actually read more like 20,000 Americans and 30,000 British. In reality only 20,000 British were involved, the Lengel source given for the British figure even indicates this. Thecitizen1 (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Biggest Battle of the War?

The lead states: In terms of troop size, it was the largest battle of the entire war. The infobox adds up to 42000, and other sources mentioned on this talk page might make that up to 50000, but suggest less is likley. The Great_Siege_of_Gibraltar page also makes the biggest battle claim, and indicates 70000 total troops taking part in the Grand Attack (7500 British, 33000 French and Spanish army, 30000 sailors and marines, mostly involved in the bombardment). So should this page read In terms of troop size, it was the largest battle of the war to be fought in the North American theater? A note or link to the Gibraltar page might also get some editors who have contributed to this good looking article over there where a non-Gibratarian point of view might help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.245.64 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Americans?

Is the reference throughout the article to Americans correct? Shouldn't the forces fighting the British Army be called rebels?Royalcourtier (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You might think so, but the contemporary British military map included in the article labels the two sides as 'British army' and 'American army'. So it would seem that description was in use at the time. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Long Island. 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/20090303195932/http://www.prospectpark.org/visit/history/timeline to http://www.prospectpark.org/visit/history/timeline

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) 18:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Easy error to fix

"The sight today" in a sidebar should almost certainly read "The site today" - I'd fix it myself but the article is locked for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.151.19 (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Long Island. 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/20141218191827/http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx to http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2017

I would like the change the sentence, under the section "Battle Pass": "Many of the Americans who surrendered were bayoneted by the Hessians." to the following: "It appears that some Americans who surrendered were bayoneted by the German and British forces."

My reasons are as follows:

Although the cited source, a biography of George Washington, by Edward Lengel, claims that "many" of the prisoners were killed, he does not himself cite any information to support that claim.

By contrast, two other works: "The Hessians", a 1981 monograph by Rodney Atwood, and "Washington's Crossing," a 2004 campaign study by David Hackett Fischer, assert that while some massacre occurred, it is impossible to know exactly how many were killed, and a much larger number were spared rather than executed. (Fischer 2004, 97 and Atwood 1981, 68) Furthermore, Fischer makes it clear that both the British and the Hessians, not just the Hessians, engaged in this massacre if it occurred. Both authors cite primary sources, which Lengel does not.

Most importantly, Atwood examines the casualty figures from the battle, showing that 300+ Americans were killed both in and out of combat, and over 1000+ Americans surrendered safely. Even if all troops who were killed were massacred in the process of surrendering (an unlikely idea), a much larger proportion of Americans surrendered safely.

As a result, I believe that "It appears that some Americans who surrendered were bayoneted by the German and British forces." much better fits the available evidence. Asburns52 (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Wikipedia operates on cited reliable sources and the sources do not necessarily require further cite-chasing. The interested reader can follow those sources themselves and decide what to make of them. If you think Lengel is not a reliable sources, then please present reasons why you think it should be discarded. Regardless of which source you chose, however, they agree that Continentals and militia were bayonetted and saying that "some surrenders were accepted" does not wipe away the essential truth of the fact. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)