Talk:Battle of Fort Washington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated A-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. A-Class
A-Class article A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Hudson Valley (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hudson Valley, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Hudson Valley of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
Good article Battle of Fort Washington has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Battle of Fort Washington is part of the New York and New Jersey campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Consequences[edit]

The Washington Heights history page says "The British now had New York and its harbor but were unable to control the Hudson River as they had initially wanted. They were bottled up in New York." This is different from our conclusion.--agr 11:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I think this article has improved a lot in the past month and I think it is a GA article.

Bernstein2291 (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Lee merge/rename[edit]

I've tagged Battle of Fort Lee, a fairly stubby article, to have the minimal battle content maybe merged here. (That article also has content about the Fort Lee memorial sites, which might make the article useful under a different name.) Discuss on its talk page. Magic♪piano 00:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad Link[edit]

The link for James Patterson goes to a modern author. This James Patterson isn't on the disambiguation page. I'm not certain how to handle creating a disambiguation link for a person that doesn't have an article of their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.78.125 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lord Stirling?[edit]

"About 200 yards from the American lines Percy halted the advance, waiting for the feint by Lord Stirling"

The above statement is confusing: Lord Stirling (William Alexander, [disputed] Earl of Stirling) was a 'patriot' and became a general in Washington's army. The (British) feint was assigned to the 42nd (Royal Highland) Regiment of Foot, which, according to Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island, was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Stirling (no wiki entry--not notable I guess). I think 'by Lord Stirling' should be deleted. Afragola (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hesse-Kassel not belligerents[edit]

Hello. My first WP discussion, I think. I'm not sure that Hesse-Kassel should be listed as belligerents. They were merely merceneries in the service of GB, and did not, as a nation, declare war on the 13 colonies. It would be like listing Nepal in any war in which the Gurkhas participated. See also the page on American Revolutionary War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippocrocopig (talkcontribs) 10:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hesse-Kassel not belligerents[edit]

Hello. My first WP discussion, I think. I'm not sure that Hesse-Kassel should be listed as belligerents. They were merely merceneries in the service of GB, and did not, as a nation, declare war on the 13 colonies. It would be like listing Nepal in any war in which the Gurkhas participated. See also the page on American Revolutionary War.Hippocrocopig (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Construction and defense[edit]

Great article. I was especially interested in the section "Construction and defenses", which states: "For over a month the troops brought down boulders from the heights of Manhattan to the edge of the river where they loaded them into a collection of hulks and cribs made of timber and stretched it across the river. The purpose of this chevaux de frise was to prevent British ships from sailing up the Hudson and outflanking the American position. When the chevaux de frise was finished, work on the Fort itself began." (I added italics to indicate specific words or phrases.) I suggest two areas for possible clarification, but I do not have sufficient competency to do so myself.

First, I viewed the hyperlinked article, "Cheval de frise", which states: "An anti-ship version was designed by Robert Erskine as a means of keeping British warships out of the Hudson River during the American Revolutionary War. The device was never deployed in the Hudson, but similar devices planned by Ben Franklin were used in the Delaware River near Philadelphia, in between Fort Mifflin and Fort Mercer. A cheval de frise was retrieved from the Delaware River in Philadelphia on November 13, 2007 in excellent condition, after more than two centuries in the river." The "Cheval de frise" statement that "[t]he device was never deployed in the Hudson" appears to conflict with the reference in the "Battle of Fort Washington" article. I have no idea which might be correct. Perhaps the "Cheval de frise" article means only that Erskine never deployed one, but that is not clear.

Second, not being familiar with the terms "hulks" and "cribs", I searched in Wikipedia and found "Hulk (ship)" which I assume describes the term used in this article. I am unsure however if the term "cribs" (as used in this article) refers to box crib or crib pier or something else. Can anyone provide further detail?--Rpclod (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • There must be an error, i think also. Perhaps a barrier was made across the Harlem River, rather than the Hudson River, which is too wide and deep. No way! And the Harlem River would have to have been blocked, or else indeed the British ships could go right around Fort Washington and "outflank" it. Specifically, I came to question the very same passage, that "They first prepared a cheval de frise to prevent British ships from sailing up the Hudson and outflanking the American position. For more than a month, the troops transported boulders from the heights of Manhattan to the edge of the river, where they loaded them into a collection of hulks and cribs made of timber and stretched it across the river.[9] When the cheval de frise was finished, they began work on the fort.[10]". --doncram 16:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Further, if the British ships sailed up the Hudson, you would not say they "outflanked" Fort Washington (which overlooked the Hudson), you would say they simply ignored it and went past it. If they went around it by going up the Harlem instead, then yes you would say that they outflanked it. --doncram 16:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
No, no error. Definitely the Hudson. It's well documented. Absolutely nothing to do with the Harlem. The Hudson was a major strategic target of the British to separate New England from the mid-Atlantic colonies. The whole point was to stop the British from controlling the Hudson. --Mikey P.
Sure, you don't want ships to get to the upper Hudson, by either coming up the Harlem to the Hudson or coming up the lower Hudson. I was just guessing about the Harlem, so drop that idea. But, the article would be better if it was more credible about there really being a barrier. To Mikey P., I don't know you and don't know if you saying "it's well documented" should be convincing. --doncram 04:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
About credibility on there being a barrier: I added copies of pics from the article to the above right here. Why is there no depiction of any barrier in any one of the 2 paintings and 2 maps in the article? There are 2 little diagonal projections from the water in the 2nd picture, but unless a source with knowledge says those are a depiction of some part of some barrier, I tend to think they're something else: small sloops? A picture would be worth a thousand words. Has anyone seen any depiction of a barrier? Without seeing book sources that are in the article directly myself and without some more specific evidence I really tend not to believe there was a barrier. There's too much possibility that an article in Wikipedia just gets it wrong, from someone misunderstanding a source. Maybe someone back then wanted there to be a barrier, and even started to try to build one, and a source says that, but that got twisted in the article writing and editing. Does someone who really has a source in front of them, see that the source really says there was a barrier actually in place across the Hudson, not across the Delaware as Rpclod suggests? An exact quote would help. Is there specific mention of a ship hitting a barrier or anything else about the barrier existing during the battle? Was the barrier partially completed? Did it stretch across and you could walk across it--i doubt that/ Was the barrier later dismantled? There's a lack of specificity here. And if it is not believed by Rpclod and me, it's probably not believed by other readers. --doncram 04:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
A depiction of there being a barrier, at least on a map. Underwater.
Hmm, here's a map pic, from a section in the Hudson River Chain article, which is mostly about a real chain up at West Point. Okay, i believe there was some underwater barrier going on, from that pic and article, but then still this article could use some updating, including in the modern 2013 map. Harrumph. :( --doncram 04:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


The above (after 2011) appears to be trolling about one sourced Background sentence by someone who doesn't bother to read the references or external links before insulting the editor who wrote that sentence. I removed the 4 images, which were misleading as placed and are all in the article anyway. 72.251.70.170 (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)