Talk:Battle of Oriskany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Battle of Oriskany 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 Oriskany is part of the Saratoga 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 20, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
March 6, 2010 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-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.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject New York (state) (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state 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 project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Article Notes[edit]

[Most of my points listed in this original comment have since been addressed and/or fixed in the article.]

I do not endorse or substantiate the following points. I am merely noting some possible issues that may later be questioned in the history of this article:

  • Some American historians argue that Oriskany was, circuitously, a strategic victory for the colonial cause due to its ultimate effect on the Saratoga campaign. The collapse of Barry St. Leger's "third prong" has been deemed the other turning point of the Revolutionary War; hence, some believe this engagement facilitated Cornwallis' surrender at Saratoga.
Cornwallis' surrender at yorktown or Burgoyne's at saratoga?84.229.192.97 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is conflicting information regarding the overall casualties of the Battle of Oriskany. Based on various historical websites, the casualties listed in the info box of this article are perhaps somewhat lacking.

Again, I do not put forward any of these points as arguments of my own. Just noting them. -- Flask, 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


The link to the Royal Green Jackets is wrong. It says they were started it 1966. Maybe someone (more knowledgeable than myself about the matter) should correct this. -- Cdogsimmons, 03:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The Royal Green Jackets was a regiment of the British Army descended from the rifle regiments raised during the Napoleonic Wars. It did not exist in 1777. The Regiment in question was the King's Royal Regiment of New York, a loyalist provincial regiment in service of the Crown during the Revolutionary War. It has sometimes been called, "the Royal Greens" or "Johnson's Greens," but the correct appellations were "the King's Royal Yorkers" or the "Royal Yorkers."
I made a few corrections to the Oriskany narrative to reflect current scholarship, and particularly Gavin K. Watt's Rebellion in the Mohawk Valley: The St. Leger Expedition of 1777, Toronto: Dundurn, 2002. This is the definitive work on the subject. -- User:rbgstewart 09:21 EST, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The original article stated that the Indians decided to leave both because of the attack on their camp and because of their loses at the Battle of Oriskany. This is false. The Indians did not leave until reports of an other relief force was received. In fact, after the Battle of Oriskany the Indians wished to continue fighting by attacking German Flatts, but St. Leger said no. BradMajors 17:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusion in outcome[edit]

in the result box on the right, it says "american pyrric victory" but in the introdution, "It was a clear victory for the loyalists over the rebels" -will someone please clarify?

also, there are discrepencies about the losses, for example [1] and [2] state that they are equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.192.97 (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The result box has been deleted. Why? Drutt (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Because the outcome is too complicated to express as a simple victory for either side. Magic♪piano 19:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oriskany Creek[edit]

There are repeated references to the Oriskany Creek in the article. The battle did not take place on the Oriskany Creek, which is located 2 or 3 miles east of the battlefield, and is significantly larger than the creek at the battlefield. At its mouth, Oriskany Creek is probably 50 feet wide, whereas the battlefield creek is, as mentioned in the article, just a few feet across.

I have no idea what the official name of the actual creek is, if it has one. I grew up in Oriskany, and we always just referred to it as Bloody Creek. It is not named on USGS topo maps.

Google Maps view The battlefield is labelled along Rt 69, whereas Oriskany Creek flows through the village of Oriskany, SE of the battlefield. The battlefield creek is so small it doesn't even show up on Google's Terrain view. Colden46 (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

After posting my previous comment about the Oriskany Creek, I looked at the footnotes for the article. The entire page outside of the introduction is a word-for-word duplicate of the one online footnote: http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/770806.htm Colden46 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the plagiarist and copyright violator is myrevolutionarywar.com. I wrote the majority of this Wikipedia article after visiting the battlefield. Indeed, I was very proud of writing this particular sentence: "Historians interpret Herkimer's reply not only as a testament to his valor, but also his bitterness towards those officers who—having earlier branded Herkimer a coward for his caution and goaded him into the ravine—now urged him to retreat for his own safety." It is a shame that myrevolutionarywar.com has chosen to plagiarize this Wikipedia article without giving proper credit. -- Flask (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oriskany creek references should be removed[edit]

The battle was not fought anywhere near Oriskany creek, and thus the references should be removed. The creek in question is little more then a stream which originates in nateral springs in what is now Whitesboro NY, and now empties into the barge canal. Prior to the canal being built, it emptied into the Erie canal, and prior to that,the Mohawk river. It is called "Blood Creek" by the locals, and according to the Oneida County historical society, it has no "official" name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Oriskany/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Just a few iffy spots
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    1 spot needs a citation
  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:

Specific concerns

  • Just a note, most of the images would have issues at FAC because of more information being needed to confirm their licenses, but it's pretty clear to me that they are good for GA level.
  • Background: A bit of an easter egg link in the "besieging it" links to the "Siege of Fort Stanwix" article. Is there a way to word this that doesn't make it non-obvious? Clarified
  • Also, you've got links in the first paragraphs that are linked in the lede, there is no need to relink in those cases. I've done some delinking, but it wouldn't hurt to double check. Should be better
  • Indians or Natives? You use "Natives" in the lead, but "Indians" in the background. Pick one. Done
  • Prelude: Make it clear that the Brants were Iroquois and were adhering to the British cause? Clarified
  • Battle: "Contrary to the plan, the Indians near the rear of the column, apparently unable to contain themselves any longer, opened fire, taking the column completely by surprise." Make it clear which side the Natives were on that opened fire? Since there were Natives on both sides... Done
  • Need a cite for "About half of Herkimer's force was killed or wounded, as was about 15% of the British force." Done
  • Legacy: I'd move the last sentence into the caption for the painting, where it makes more sense. Done
  • Not required, but it'd be nice to put dates in the captions of the paintings. Done
  • Need a publisher for the Kelsay ref Done
  • Need an access date for the Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online. Done
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed feedback. I think I've taken care of everything. (I've also added {{Information}} templates to the photographs, which they lacked.) Magic♪piano 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Oriskany video[edit]

I posted a link to a video on the Battle of Oriskany that was removed. It does not advertise or promote anything. It stayed on the article for over 6 months! It was linked to an article on the Battle of Oriskany and very nicely supplements that article. There are other external links that have been allowed. This video was made as a final project for an undergraduate college course.

Could you please be more specific in your reasons for the video being removed? I really don't understand why it was removed. In any event, I will not argue the case any further. If you don't want it back, so be it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MFerris341 (talkcontribs) 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO, number 11. Magic♪piano 20:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Oriskany. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)