Talk:Battle of Queenston Heights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Battle of Queenston Heights has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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.
Battle of Queenston Heights was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 6 September 2006

[edit] Decisive vs. Not

Was the Battle of Queenston Heights really a decisive British victory? I don't think it was...the Americans took considerably larger losses, but the British lost two of their highest senior officers (Brock and Macdonnell) while no major Americans were killed, and those captured were later exchanged. I'm not changing it back right now since I think it bears thought, but I dunno. Lord Bob 03:01, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, from the conclusion of the article: "Of General Van Rensselaer's 6000 troops, about 500 were killed or wounded, and 1000 were taken prisoner, including Brigadier-General William Wadsworth, Colonel Scott, four other lieutenant-colonels and sixty-seven other officers. By comparison, the British suffered about fourteen men killed, with seventy-seven wounded; one of the wounded was James Secord, husband of Laura Secord."
The loss of Brock was most certainly quite signifigant to the British side, as noted right after the above quote. However, remember the context: just prior to the battle, the US forces had crossed the border at the Niagara River and attempted to invade Canada. After the battle, they retreated back across the river.
If the US military had won the Battle of Queenston Heights, they could have continued their invasion campaign. They lost the battle, and so they retreated back to within their own borders. The complete failure of the US October 1812 invasion campaign across the Niagara means the battle was a 'decisive' victory, no? :) Cheers, Madmagic 13:05, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, then. Lord Bob 19:48, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Decisive-Yes! Comparing the strength of both armies-the Americans haev SIX times more men than the British! Yet the british managed to defeat the army losing a lot less men and destroy their plans of invading Canada. Therefore, the victory is decisive....In my opinion. I just wondered if America did invade Canada, will the map of Canada will just be an extended area of the US? (I came across this article lately and thought that i would like to debate this).

__

From what we learned about the War of 1812 (Ontario), the battle was considered decisive, since it halted American ambitions to conquer the whole of Upper Canada (Ontario). If the capture of Quebec was seen as the key to the fall of British North America, the conflicts in Upper Canada, historically, would prove to be a thorn in those plans.

My understanding is that Brock himself believed that, if the Americans captured Queenston Heights and its commanding position over the Niagara region, then the entire province would be lost. The Americans had the numbers to do just that, but the state militias on the other side of the river refused to cross. Despite the loss of Brock, the British prevailed against the odds. And the symbolism of the victory helped to encourage Canadian nationalism -- and hence, a conscious break with our cousins to the south.

SCrews 03:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree when it said Brock was shot because of his bright red coat. I think this needs to be clearer. Most British troops wore red. (Yes some Canadian mitlia units wore green) He was at musket range right? So would it be safe to say he was singled out by a rifleman because the was an officer leading the charge. Didn't he have an officers hat and sword instead of a shako and musket? Also he was on foot when he made the second charge. If you want to add that.

If you think it's worth adding, be bold and do so! It should be noted that a jacket for a general like a Brock is markedly different than the regular enlisted man's redcoat, so he would be presumably be fairly easy to see even in the crowd. Lord Bob 03:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe Lord Bob is making a pure speculation that General Brock was shot because “his bright red coat made him an easy target”. Is there a source where it states that he was targeted because of his bright red coat? Was it an American rifleman who took deliberate aim at him because “of his bright red coat” or was it just American riflemen shooting practice to shoot British officers who were leading a charge?

"[Brock is] brilliant in his scarlet coat, buttons gleaming, plumed hat marking him unmistakably as a leader...does he realize that he is a target? No doubt he does–he has already been shot in the hand..." Berton, The Invasion of Canada, page 240. Technically Berton talks about the hat as marking him as a leader, but his "two rows of gilt buttons on the crimson tunic" are mentioned later on the same page, and Brock's shirt is not that of a regular soldier. Lord Bob 05:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Brock was also an exceptionally tall man (for the times), and thus would stand out as a target for a sniper. Plus, it is good practice for snipers to shoot officers. This continues to modern times. Shooting regular soldiers doesn't have a huge effect on an army. Shooting officers does. 64.141.90.136 05:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] America vs US

Using 'America' for the US can be confusing in modern times, but here it is certainly a bad choice because British territories were also American. So where the US is meant, that name should be used, I'd say. DirkvdM 08:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

At the time Canada was known either as "Canada" or "British North America", and the inhabitants were called either Canadian or British. The word "American", then as now, was almost always used to refer to a citizen of the United States of America. The only contradictory meaning was when refering to "the Americas" which meant the continents of North and South America, so there is no confusion between Britsh (or even Canadian) and American soldiers. That being said, if someone's taken the effort to make the article more technically precise by replacing all the "America"s with "US"s, I'm inclined to leave it as is, though the proper abbreviation ("U.S.") should be used. Geoff NoNick 14:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Geoff NoNick on the use of "American", and should also point out that "British" is used consistently in this article to refer to the soldiers under Brock and Sheaffe and (in my original versions and Albrecht's edits) "American" to the soldiers under Van Rensselaer and Smyth. Personally, I find "American" a much better term, because a) it is simply a better adjective when describing a person from the United States, and b) I feel the chance of confusion is virtually nil. Lord Bob 15:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I did change it all consistently, but that got reverted and now it's half one and half the other. Indeed, 'US' doesn't work well as an adjectve. I avoided that by using terms like 'US army' or 'US position'. In this case that worked nicely on all occasions, but I agree it can be a problem. But at least it isn't ambiguous and I hate ambiguities (bit of a logic-freak). The point is that the this is often disputed on Wikipedia, as elsewhere (see also Use of the word American). Not everyone means the US by America (although that usage is often tolerated, so to say). The best solution I can think of is never to use 'America' but only 'US' or 'Americas'. That last term is also disputed, but at least it isn't ambiguous. And in this article it is especially confusing because it is about a period when who or what constituted America was disputed at the time and this battle is a good example of that.
About the use of dots, that is not a standard. Actually, there are different standards on that (meaning of course there is no standard). I read an article on that, but can't remember where now. Here, I prefer consistency (being a logic freak :) ) and never use dots. As in USSR, UK, UN, laser, tv, vcr, eg. But when I write US on Wikipedia it always gets changed to U.S.. (That second dot is a period as in end of sentence - speaking of confusion :) .) Those in favour of no dots have pretty much thrown in the towel as I concluded from a discussion somewhere. Anyway, this is a minor point (there you go, I also throw in the towel :) ). DirkvdM 06:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
While I never use "America" to refer to the United States (that's just lazy writing), I stand by "American" as the best adjective for the situation. As you say, what America was was disputed at the time, certainly, but right now, in common usage, when the United States is doing something and Colonel Ed is described as an American, most people will know what country Colonel Ed is from. Of course, they'll also know where he's from if he's described as a US-er, but "American" saves us from awkward constructs to avoid the fact that "US" is pretty crummy, in terms of using it in sentences, as an adjective. Lord Bob 15:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Which is the only reason to use 'America' for the US. Then again, if you'd say he were a Yankee, everyone would understand what country he was from, too. Is that more lame than using 'American'? I'm not convinced. But 'Yankee' has the advantage that it isn't ambiguous (except to those who happen to know it originally referred to the Dutch :) ). And it can be used as an adjective. Still, I wouldn't quite be in favour of using that. But isn't the awkwardness of, say, 'Statesider' or 'Stateside' (as an adjective) not really a matter of us not being used to using that term? It has the advantage of also having part of the name of the country in it, but in a non-ambiguous way. But I wouldn't be in favour of using that either, so I'm rather stuck. The best way out seems to be to avoid 'American' where possible, and that is possible on all occasions in this article (as it is now). DirkvdM 08:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
"Yankee" is somewhat perjorative these days, "American" is not. And yes, I know there's a baseball team called the New York Yankees. There's a Washington Redskins too, but we're not calling the Mohawks that. I just think that 'American' is the best possible solution to what I only with effort can call a problem. And, by the by, as a Canadian I agree with Adam Bishop below (I posted above him since he didn't seem to be in direct reply to this comment). Lord Bob 16:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I wish you Europeans (or whatever you are) wouldn't be so concerned about the rest of us non-American North Americans. I don't know about South America, maybe they like to be called Americans, but I think it is fairly obvious that no South Americans are involved in this battle. Canadians are not Americans and there is absolutely no confusion here. It's kind of insulting that you think we should be confused about it. Adam Bishop 14:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If I may demean myself for a moment...

There is precisely nothing ambiguous or confusing about the current nomenclature. The only possible referent for "American" in the context of the article is: United States of America. Not Canada. Not Peru. Just the US.

The Manual of Style: "use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self identification). This can mean calling an individual the term they use, or calling a group the term most widely used by that group."

"American" stays.

This "discussion" is dead. Albrecht 18:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. Non-American North American? DirkvdM 07:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, they are different things... Adam Bishop 16:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination with invitation to renominate

The main reason for failing this nomination is its lack of line citations. I also suggest starting stub articles to eliminate the redlinks and some copyediting. The introduction could be about a paragraph longer. Please renominate when ready: this is close to good article quality. Durova 18:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/t/Talk%7EBattle_of_Queenston_Heights_20bf.html"