Talk:James Abercrombie (British Army officer, born 1732)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Abercrombie (British Army officer, born 1732) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The article offers only hints (in both directions!) about which side he fought on at Bunker Hill. His father's article might suggest the Brit side; the now removed anachronism that he was a US lt. col. suggests the Yanks. I have an opinion based on the article on the battle, but we should be able to verify better than that. Help, historians! --Jerzy (t) 19:03, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
See the DoCB citation I have added to the page. First, it is unlikely that he was the other Ambercrombies son. Second, the article title is wrong, since he never used Jr., and third, he fought for the British, not for the Americans. The article needs a serious overhaul. Fawcett5 20:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the excruciatingly documented DoCB article makes it unlikely enuf as to warrant mention of that theory only as an apparent error, among the other theories. Someone should rewrite accordingly.
- Renaming to James Abercrombie (Bunker Hill), & inserting Minimum Astonishment wording.
- As to which army he was part of, IMO the DoCB utterly closes the case by offering the only evidence, in saying
- On 17 June he was wounded leading his men against the American positions near Bunker Hill
- --Jerzy•t 09:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Son or not, that doesn't preclude somebody, especially in that time period, from referring him to "Junior" as the younger of a couple of people with the same name. Gene Nygaard 20:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There is, in my view, an unhelpful insistence by some Wikipedia contributors on referring to the action at Ticonderoga in 1758 as the battle of Fort Carillon, which as far as I can is based on one author's decision to deviate from the traditional identification of long standing using the Indian name of the place (or at least a version of it) rather than the short-lived French post built there. This seems perverse to me
Here the practice obscures the fact that James Abercrombie was with the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment at that regiment's notorious and disastrous attack at Ticonderoga in July 1758. One should not have to click through for clarification of that. Will insert 'Ticonderoga'JF42 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)