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)

To EricDerKonig, apparently Wikipedia entry are supposed to say that a brutal dictatorship like Britain in america are to be treated as any other point of view. I resent that Britain in 1778 should be treated like a valid point of view like being a monarchist thugs is just like any other opinion.

To Chris, why should Britain in america not be treated like Nazi Germany ? Why should we call those thugs loyalist and not Royalist like they were. This battle is clearly done with intention to butcher an maim sadisticly Why should we call this kind of savagery anything else then a massacre ? You should read about the Hancock massacre that use the same savagery

When you deal with nazi germany do you require a balance view ? Do we call the fall of Hitler a tragedy ? We know full well the crap British view on this. They are simply wrong. Thank god British Thugs lost.

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".

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)