Talk:Battle of Long Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	NYC Portal This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

An event mentioned in this article is an August 27 selected anniversary.

---

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)?

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)

Contents 1 Confusion? And Howe! 2 Should Hale be in this page? 3 Use Battlebox template? 4 Assessment

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Assessment

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