Talk:Battle of Harlem Heights

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500–c. 1792) American Revolutionary War task force

Contents 1 "Fox Hunt" edits 2 Hessians 3 Vandalism 4 Infobox disagreement 5 An American Victory

[edit] "Fox Hunt" edits

The edits to this section do not seem to be at all an improvement on the original contribution, except for some additional facts. Can we have the original text back, please?

[edit] Hessians

Hey there. I see you replaced the Hessian component in the belligerents section of the infobox on Battle of Harlem Heights. I think that while it is technically true that the Hessians were involved, there's not much reason to separate them out from the British. There were lots of militias involved on the American side, but for this battle, we can lump them all together into the Continental Army. Perhaps if we can figure out the numbers, we can put them in the strength section (see Battle of Long Island. However, to argue your side, if you look at Battle of Fort Washington, there is Hessians in the belligerents section. Perhaps we should bring something up on the project space to standardize this? What do you think? Tan | 39 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No answer from editor. Per consensus from Task Force discussion here, removing Hessians as belligerent force. Tan | 39 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This page, along with White Plains keeps being altered to an American victory, deleting the references and placing marks on the page to not alter it. These two pages need to be locked to established users only (Trip Johnson (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Well, this article is next on my list of battles to expand to GA status (it's the chronologically logical continuation of Landing at Kip's Bay, which I just greatly expanded and improved). Anyway, we will have to discuss this, because David McCullough, in 1776, cites this battle as an American victory. Tan | 39 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet Britishbattles.com cites the battle as a draw, as there was no clear victor in strategic or tactical senses. Also, the page should be locked to stop the vandals who keep editing it (Trip Johnson (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

fulldisclosure: I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the fact that I'm tan's admin coach and am watching his edits/projectsThat being said, I'm a history buff, and I suspect that this is a scenario wherein the history is written by the victors/differing sides---with different expectations. What to an established military might be considered a draw, might be deemed as a victory to a struggling nation. In other words, the very fact that the British Army wasn't victorious, could be seen as a victory needed by the American military..Balloonman (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) sorry, didn't see entire discussion below

That statement does not make sense. By that reasoning, because the British didn't win decisively, they were defeated decisively? Neither side held the ground that the very battle took place on, Washington retreated and so did the British = draw. (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Infobox disagreement

Extended Discussion
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
OK, so we have some sources saying draw some saying american victory for various reasons. I would suggest we avoid the whole debate and instead opt for a result of Result disputed. or perhaps simply American withdrawl or British remain in control of the field or one of many other possibilities (Like combining various ones, Tactical result disputed, American withdrawl). Trip, Red, any of this tickle the fancy? Narson (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Good idea. I've changed it to "American withdrawal, British remain in control of the field, tactical and strategic outcome unclear". (Trip Johnson (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) For the record, I disagree with this solution. Do we have a precedent for something this long and awkward? I have four reliable references here, let's see what they say: "But then, the very next day, September 16, to the astonishment of everyone, it would be the Americans' turn to claim success.", "Reporting to Congress on the Battle of Harlem Heights, Washington referred to it only as 'a pretty sharp skirmish' and made no claims to a great victory. But to the troops it was a genuine victory at long last, and an urgently needed lift to their self-respect." - McCullough, David (2005). 1776. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 216, 219. ISBN 0-7432-2671-2.  "The British light infantry came on, full of confidence. When they reached the fence, the Americans rose up and fired. The British infantry stopped, then fell back under heavy fire. The Americans came forward firing, and the British retreated with heavy losses. It was a small victory, but timely. An American officer wrote, 'Our troops were in the most desponding Condition before, but are now in good spirits.'" - Fischer, David Hackett (2004). Washington's Crossing. New York: Oxford University Press, 107. ISBN 0-19-517034-2.  "The next day British carelessness and contempt for their enemy produced the battle of Harlem Heights, hardly more than a skirmish... As Frederick Mackenzie [a British soldier] confided to his Diary, the light infantry pursued the Americans without 'proper precautions or support' and blundered into an unfavorable position 'and were rather severely handled by them'". - Middlekauff, Robert (2005). The Glorious Cause. New York: Oxford University Press, 356. ISBN 978-0-19-516247-9.  Howe now realigned and turned north, but at Harlem ran into a strong position in considerable depth, with both flanks anchored on water." - Griffith II, Samuel B.; Jane Griffith, Belle Gordon Griffith Heneberger (2002). The War for American Independence. University of Illinois Press, 313. ISBN 0-252-07060-7.  Now, I don't have any "vested interest" in an American victory here. I really just want this article to be as accurate as possible, and as this is next on my hit list to expand to GA status (after I finish Landing at Kip's Bay), I would really like there to be agreement on this before I start mucking about with things. Also note that Britishbattles.com states, "An inconclusive fight which revived American morale but had no particular benefit for either side." While this isn't quite the victory that McCullough, Fischer or Middlekauff claim, it does seem a bit more than a draw. Was not the morale-boost provided to the Americans here a desperately needed spoil of the battle? Eh, that's my own analysis, I guess, and we should discount that. But I think the referential consensus is definitely leaning towards an American victory - perhaps "American morale victory"? Tan | 39 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Well my assessment would be an American tactical victory, British strategic victory. Though that is my opinion and frankly the cites so far are so mixed it is difficult to draw much. Some of them praise it as a US victory because they didn't flee at the first sight of the British, which is, IMO, a poor standard. The Americans fought the British to a stand still before withdrawing in good order, at least according to those sources provided by trip and Red. Frankly, I'd call the whole thing 'Indecisive' but I know people like the quick info up there. Narson (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Well, for the moment ignoring Trip Johnson's dismissive attitude and unwillingness to discuss changes, I could agree with this - however, isn't it the opposite - "American strategic victory, British tactical victory"? The Brits technically "won", as they ended up taking the ground, but the morale boost to the Americans was more intangible and thus probably a "strategic" gain. What a mess. I wish some other people would quote other sources. My four I quoted above skew towards American victory, and the Britishbattles.com (is this a non-biased reference? I don't think it can be considered as significant or reliable as Pulitzer winners as I have quoted) even touches on the fact that it was an American morale victory. We need some more opinions in here ;-) Tan | 39 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Well, tactically it was really a stalemate (The British attacked and withdrew, americans withdrew from the field), strategically it was mostly indecisive (British kept the real estate, Americans got a feather in their cap) I was just trying to simplify :). It is a pain to try and assign some grand result to little skirmishes like this, it is like finding great philosophical meaning in south park episodes. Narson (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I agree. The more I think about it, the infobox "result" doesn't need to be exact, just relatively accurate; the article itself (and even eventually the lead summary paragraph) can explain in more detail. I'll wait to change until we perhaps get some more opinion here, but "Indecisive" is probably the most concise, accurate way to go. Tan | 39 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I believe that this battle was a tactical victory for the British, but a strategic victory for the Americans. The battle had the immediate result of delaying subsequent moves by the British. Also, it increased the support for the reorganization of a permanent army for the duration of the war rather then the short-time enlistments that were occurring. I believe putting American Strategic Victory/British Tactical Victory would be acceptable in the info box. dashiellx (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Remember though, as Kevin Myers pointed out to me in another discussion: "In any content dispute on Wikipedia, the very first question that must be answered is: What do the published secondary sources say? A common mistake Wikipedia editors make is to think that they should analyze the evidence and come to a conclusion, but that's original research and not allowed here. I'm not saying that's what either of your are doing; I'm just saying that finding out exactly what the sources say is the next step in resolving the question, rather than asking for other opinions. What does Fischer say? How does Ketchum characterize the outcome? If the battle was a "pyrrhic British victory", which historians have called it this? Discuss the sources rather than the evidence." Kevin is right. We cannot analyze this ourselves, we must figure out what the consensus of historians have said. Per the five I quoted above (and the only ones I have access to at the moment), this is an American victory. Even the britishbattles.com reference states (paraphrased), "draw, but some benefit for Americans". There is no historian that has said "a complete indecisive battle, a total draw" and there is no historian that has said, "American strategic victory", etc. We are drawing our own conclusions by doing this, and that is against Wikipedia policy. In the body of the article, we can obviously explain that it was mostly indecisive and only had limited morale benefits for the Americans, but when it comes right down to it, we have multiple Pulitzer historians above (McCullough, Fischer) stating, almost unequivocally, that this was an American victory. Tan | 39 19:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC) From poking around on google books I am finding a few sources that show it as a delaying action, so, I have to admit, I'm leaning towards an American victory. The real issue is that this is a minor skirmish in a much larger series of maneuvers so most mentions of it span a whopping two sentenced. Narson (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Tan, bating me into an argument isn't going to work, sorry. British battles does not say it was a gain for the Americans. I'll copy the exact quote: "An inconclusive fight which revived American morale but had no particular benefit for either side". Disregarding Tan's false statement based on a claim on the result of spamming my talk page, I believe we could call this battle a "British victory overall, American psychological victory", in terms of the American morale boost as they were not instantly routed. (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) Personal attacks aside, I quoted above exactly what you did from britishbattles.com (can you explain how this is as reliable a source as a History Pulitzer winning book?) and then stated a paraphrase from it. If you disagree with my paraphrase, that's fine, I respect that. However, from the consensus of reliable sources I have quoted, I would say the consensus is for an American victory. This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of published historians. "Baiting" you into an argument is apparently the only method that gets you to discuss the issue, instead of just ignoring my question on your talk page, deleting it without a response, and making the controversial edits anyways. For the record, here and here are the edits where you simply deleted my "spam"; apparently this constitutes the "false claim" I made. Others can make up their own mind about how agreeable you are to work with on building an encyclopedia via Wikipedia policy. I have no idea why you are so combative about this; I haven't even changed this yet without a consensus on this discussion. Tan | 39 22:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Tan, you are clearly over-reacting. I hardly think adding a couple of flags and nations into the Belligerents section and deleting a few words is hardly warrant enough for a massive online discussion. If it was so then every talk page would be filled with "Can I add a flag to this battle?" or "I think "pyrrhic victory for the Romans should be removed" and so on. I hardly call those controversial edits. What would be a controversial edit is if I edited something like the Saratoga campaign as a Decisive British success, and re-wrote every article as a British victory. That would be controversial, not adding a couple of flags, something which does not need a discussion. Also, pugnacious and vindictive attitude aside Tan, as I have said, baiting me into an argument is not going to work. I will willingly discuss any matter, but not if it is so petty as to adding a couple of flags to a belligerents section on the military engagements infobox. The fact that you technically re-wrote what was on the Britishbattles site to nod to an American victory is a false mark on history. Both sides withdrew, so neither side held the ground that was attacked. All of the sources I put on here before they were deleted by red, all point to a draw. Argument baiting and the attitude aside, I believe we should edit this to what I stated above: "British victory overall, American psychological victory". (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) You didn't merely add flags, you changed the belligerent from "Continental Army" to "US", which is, well, wrong. You are using britishbattles.com as your end-all-be-all reference and COMPLETELY ignoring the four that I quoted. It's pretty clear that you and I (well, you and anyone, considering the other comments on your talk page) are not going to get along on here, so perhaps we should steer clear of each other. However, when you start making blanket, undiscussed changes to a dozen battle articles in a WikiProject that I participate in, I'm not going to stand by. I start with a mild comment on your talk page, then a second, but when you dismiss me as "spam" without a reply, it's going to escalate into something like this. Tan | 39 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Well in that case, the Siege of Yorktown needs some editing doesn't it? I mean, that has United States on it so it must be seriously wrong. Also, rather than bashing new members to Wikipedia, how about you set a good example and give advice instead of placing sarcastic hints into your comments like an experienced wiki-goer is supposed to do? If United States is wrong, here is some pages that will require some serious editing: Siege of Yorktown, Battle of Eutaw Springs, Battle of Green Spring, Battle of Hobkirk's Hill, Battle of Guilford Courthouse, Battle of Cowan's Ford, Battle of Cowpens, Battle of Camden .... need I go on? (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) Yep, haven't got to them yet, but yer right, they need to be worked on. Harlem Heights was just my next logical project after Kips Bay. Tan | 39 22:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC) How's about as a good gesture of good will and putting this petty bickering aside, I go through and give you a hand, editing them to British Army and Continental Army as such where required? (Trip Johnson (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) I believe it is an American victory for a few reasons. 1. I have found 4 references saying it was an American Victory. 2. The British suffered heavier casulties than the Americans. 3. It was undoubtedly an American Moral victory. What is up now is a good short term solution, but we will need to make a decision here sometime soon.(Red4tribe (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)) The one thing I would say is that casualties are not the sole thing to be looking at. There are quite a few battles where the victor incured more casualties, especially in siege or situations where there is an obvious attacker/defender and any kind of preperations. Narson (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I would like to discuss the term belligerent. I believe that belligerent refers to the overall opposing parties (i.e. United States and Great Britain) not to the forces they employed. I have stated a discussion on the Main Talk Page of the American Revolutionary War task force hoping for some other opinions as I think this does need clarification. dashiellx (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

Just because the British suffered heavier losses that does not mean it is an American victory. If that is the case, the British won the War of 1812 and the Germans won World War 2. Both sides retreated, so it was nothing more than a overall draw, but the fact that the Americans did not retreat instantly, means this battle should be a psychological victory for the Americans. I have more than four references stating that it was a draw, but I really don't think it is down to a bunch of people squabbling to dictate history. (Trip Johnson (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Generally, not always, when one side suffers heavier losses, they lose the battle. However, in this battle I do believe it was a huge moral victory(as said above) and with the heavier losses on the British side=American Victory. (Red4tribe (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Remember that it is not up to us to decide, analyze, or interpret this. We have to use the consensus of published historians. Right now, we're running 4-1, more or less, on referenced material stating that this was an American victory, albeit a minor one. Again, I have zero vested interest in this - I just finished a 4x major expansion of a battle where the Brits demolished the Americans - don't think this is a personal thing. It's history, not a sport. Trip Johnson, if you have four references there that say this was a draw (I assume one of them is Britishbattles.com), can you cite them here (with quotes) in this discussion, as I did with mine above? It's really hard to give ephemeral references any weight... Tan | 39 14:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to discuss the term belligerent. I believe that belligerent refers to the overall opposing parties (i.e. United States and Great Britain) not to the forces they employed.

I have stated a discussion on the Main Talk Page of the American Revolutionary War task force hoping for some other opinions as I think this does need clarification. dashiellx (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I happened to talk a glance at what was written about the battle in other languages, and all of the ones that had an outcome written had an American victory. And it appears at the moment, as tan said, we are running 4-1 for an American Victory. (Red4tribe (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

That does not mean you can alter the result. No consensus yet, so do not change it. For the record, here is some sources which state the battle as a draw, or implications that it was a draw:

^[1] < This article states that Washington ordered his army to withdraw
^[2] < Same as the above
^[3] < states the battle as a draw
^[4] < states the battle as a draw
^[5] < states the battle as a draw. I think it is time we reached an agreement on this. I think the best course of action we can opt for, is "American withdrawal, British troops hold the ground but suffer heavier casualties, American psychological victory, tactically and strategically indecisive". (Trip Johnson (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

It clearly means that many more people believe it was an American Victory. You seem to be too stubborn to accept that. Yes, I have read your references, and take a look at this

The importance of this action for the Americans was that it was the Virginia militia who had fled the British the day before who fought steadily and effectively alongside the Northern Rangers, going a long way to restoring the confidence of the American army in itself.

It restored great confidence in the American Army. To me, that, with the combination of heavier British losses, makes it an American Victory.

(Red4tribe (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

I don't care what you think. That quote does not warrant a tactical or strategic victory. BOTH SIDES WITHDREW FROM THE FIELD. It was overall a draw, but an American PSYCHOLOGICAL victory. Until we reach an agreement, it STANDS. (Trip Johnson (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Appears someone is losing their temper here....you cannot seem to face the fact that it was an American victory, and you will be to stubborn to ever accept anything else, so I really see no point in any type of agreement with you here. Prehaps this is new to you but you do not have full reign over wikipedia.

Now, for everyone else whos mind is flexible enough to accept changes here is why I believe it is an American victory

1.I have a number of reliable references(if you wish for me to list them just ask)
2.The British suffered heavier losses
3.It was a great moral list, it showed the Americans could fight against the British
4.Every other language here says its an American Victory
5.This battle prevented the British from driving up into the Hudson Valley

Now, other than trip, we all seem to agree it is an american victory, not a decisive victory, or a very important battle, but still an american victory. (Red4tribe (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Judging from your partisan opinions, my guess is you are an ultra-patriotic, hardcore American who believes that every battle in which the British suffered more casualties and because of a few AMERICAN websites calling it an American victory it makes it so. Since neither side held the ground, there is a draw. If the British suffered heavier casualties, that warrants World War 2 an Axis victory, the War of Independence and 1812 a British victory etc. Casualties is not a ground for victory. It was clearly a draw, as neither side held the ground, that just can't seem to go through that thick blinded patriotic naive skull of yours. A psychological victory yes, but not a tactical or strategic one. I have given you that it is a psychological victory, and altered it to be so. Now, are you going to waste your life arguing or are you going to do something amazing and leave this be? (Trip Johnson (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Hmmm maybe I'm wrong but isn't British Battles(and maybe the others, i'll have to look again) a British site? As I have said before,(and you convienently left out) that suffering heavier casulties generally, not always, means a victory. I would be willing to bet that more than half of the time when a side suffers heavier casulties, they lost the battle. And once again, I will have to tell you that I am not a native born American.....yes I do live in America now(I'd also be willing to bet that your not American), but I was not born here nor did I go to school here. If it was "clearly" a draw why do 3 others here seem to agree with me when you seem to be alone in a corner? Look at the other pages in other languages. They claim an American victory. You, as I have said before, are too stubborn to accept anything else and there is no way I will be able to change your mind. I am not the only one you seem to have a problem with, I have looked through your past versions of your talk page and found you have had other disagreements escalate into ridiculous arguments such as this one has. You need to stop your babelling nonsense and go edit something you know about. (Red4tribe (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Have you two considered that if there are conflicting opinions about it (As you get in history) perhaps trying to find clarity in a one line answer in an infobox is a bad idea? It seems that with all the references both sides are gathering, there is potential for a section looking at the different (cited) reasons for the various claimed results. Why would the Americans claim it is a victory? What do sources say was the import of the troops standing? Why would the British be happy to take a few more casualties? Because New York is important? Is there a cite somewhere that says New York was an important British stronghold (Hint: Yes there are plenty)? Providing you can source the reasons (that is very important in these kinds of paragraphs, it has to be others reasons, not your own) it could make for an interesting read on a page about a small skirmish. If that was the case, you could just replace the infobox result with 'Disputed (See this section for details)'. Avoids the argument and gets you two working together towards what could be a very interesting paragraph providing the sources are there, and you two do seem to be proving there are indeed sources that claim victories for various sides for various reasons. Narson (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite my following of the request of listing references, I listed 5 which either implies or clearly states the battle as a draw, they continue to be ignored and the battle result edited, so I clearly think that my sources are being deliberately ignored just to suit an American victory. I have changed the result to "American and British withdrawal" to state that both sides withdrew, and "American Psychological victory" as well as "overall indecisive". This result should be fitting for both sides, including you red, as the result box does not now need to be flooded with thousands of references, all the same references I might add. This should be fitting now, so please, leave it alone and let's end this godforsaken edit war. (Trip Johnson (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

Well, Red, I am glad we have finally reached a consensus here on the Battle of Harlem Heights, but I can foresee future engagements on the result grounds of White Plains, which you keep editing to an American victory, when it was clearly not, as the Americans withdrew, leaving Fort Washington open to an attack, the Battle of Trenton which you keep editing to a Decisive engagement, when it wasn't, it was Resounding at the best, and the Battle of Princeton which you keep editing to a solid American victory. Many, including administrators may consider these edits as vandalism, so we should leave these as the following:
Battle of Harlem Heights: American withdrawal, American psychological victory
Battle of White Plains: British tactical victory, American withdrawal
Battle of Trenton: Resounding American victory
Battle of Princeton: Tactically Indecisive, American strategic victory.
I hope that you can agree, and that these result statements be left alone. (Trip Johnson (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] An American Victory

This was obviously a huge moral victory for the Americans after the collapse at New York, it also stalled the British advance into the Hudson Valley. The British also had more deaths and wounded. (SaudiArabia44 (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

While I am reluctant to wade back into this fray until I am sure Trip Johnson has left the building, and while I appreciate your input into this, Saudi, I think that it should be pointed out that all of our opinions are essentially moot. This entire debate should not be consensus-building of our own personal opinions of the outcome of this battle; the debate should be a building of consensus from references. What is published? What do significant historians say? That is what I pointed out way above, and something valuable I learned from Kevin Myers. You and I aren't here to analyze the data and formulate a conclusion. Tan | 39 19:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm so sorry for disagreeing with your opinions Tan. I didn't realise I had to follow the false information around here. You want to know why I'm difficult to work with? Because I'm not a sheep thats why. I don't follow other opinions, If I don't like them. So, again, sorry for not agreeing with your opinions, but hey, deal with it. I think this could be done to be left as it is. If you don't like to work with me, fine. I aint going to lose sleep over it. That is no justification for talking about me wherever you please and trying to bait me into an argument, to try and get me banned. And for god's sake casualties is NOT a grounds for victory. Saying the Americans won this battle because they suffered less casualties is like saying Germany won both World Wars because they suffered less losses in both wars. (Trip Johnson (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm afraid the usage of websites to resolve this has provided an inaccurate result. An exhaustive query of books available online found 19 in favor of "American Victory", and 2 in favor of "British Victory", discounting a few essays, genealogies, and dictionaries. As these 21 sources each have drawn from 5-8 sources on the New York campaign, it is fairly clear at this point that the idea of a British victory is along the lines of WP:FRINGE. If another editor is able to produce an equal amount of reliable sources (Not "Myrevolutionywar.com" etc.), I would support changing the outcome to draw. Until then, it is unnecessary to mention the victory was psychological in the infobox, that is for the text of the article to accomplish. MrPrada (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Per your latest change, Trip Johnson, can you show where this consensus is? Reading this admittedly exhaustive argument here, it seems that you were the one making the claim of "American withdrawal, American psychological victory" and wouldn't accept any other answer. It appears that all the other editors (including me) basically just gave up arguing with you. Is this the consensus you are claiming? Tan | 39 18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally like to recommend that Trip Johnson VERY CAREFULLY read WP:CIVIL, especially the section on "Engaging in incivility." This recent edit summary is completely inappropriate, and I think an apology to MrPrada is in order. Alphageekpa (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, so if you wish to delete my account, go ahead. I couldn't care less. I would rather spend more time in real life than argue with a bunch of total thickheads who claim to be mature editors. So do it, because to be frank, I don't give a damn. I think what this place needs is a total wash over, because whenever I disagree with an admin's opinions I get reported for vandalism. Its just biased favouritism for wanting to downplay British victories / draws in this war. I provide sources, they get removed, but do the admins do anything about it? No of course they don't because they're too damn lazy to do anything about it. But when its me doing something the admins are gloating their authority around, pretending to sound mature by giving me "formal warnings". And if you people here can't see that, then you're more ignorant than I took you for.(Trip Johnson (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

Coming here for the first time, and reading some of the history of this discussion, I tend to agree that the various significant published viewpoints (the measure in WP:NPOV) characterize this battle as an "american victory". I don't find significant use of the term "american psychological victory" at all, or similar qualified representations. I do see some use of "tactical draw" to qualify the immediate result. I suspect those are viewing the battle independent of the larger situation. In a narrow point of view, the battle surely was a minor victory at best and a stalemate by immediate measures and also a verification that the american army was no match for the british overall. but from the larger perspective, it seems characterized as a victory. Since the infobox "result" entry is merely a place to summarize — and the article is the place to qualify in great detail what the tactical outcome was compared to the strategic — I think the result should be "american victory" in line with the larger context summation in sources. But the article should and does go into the greater detail and the result as per the individual battle and any other views. In terms of additional citations, I find american / u.s. victory used in these papers as well:

• Hood, Clifton. (2004) An Unusable Past: Urban Elites, New York City's Evacuation Day, and the Transformations of Memory Culture Journal of Social History - Volume 37, Number 4, Summer 2004, pp. 883-913
• Keller, Allan (1971) THE BATTLE FOR NEW YORK American History Illustrated 1971 6(4): 4-11, 44-49 14p.

also, I found that US President James Monroe was "appointed a lieutenant in the Third Virginia Regiment and participated in numerous engagements; severely wounded in the Battle of Harlem Heights" from the source: U.S. Congress, Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774–1949 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950), p.1576. Would anyone like to add that notable mention in both this article and his article? - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... can't find any other citations backing up the wounded note, perhaps that directory from 1950 really meant Battle of Trenton when he took a bullet in the shoulder? Not finding second citations to back it up. there do seem to be other citations though implying that harlem heights was monroe's first command and perhaps first major combat action in the third virginia regiment. So there might be something worth mentioning in there with more research. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Monroe (a lieutenant at the time) was wounded in the (first) Battle of Trenton, per David McCullough in 1776. This is sort of confirmed by Middlekauf in Washington's Crossing; he "served with distinction" at the Battle of Harlem Heights and White Plains but was still on active duty in November 1776, etc. In fact, Monroe is one of the prominent figures in Leutze's Crossing the Delaware! I agree this should go in the article, though. As all the recent drama in this arena seems to have died down, I plan to finish my contributions to the Landing at Kip's Bay article soon - and this one was the next (chrono)logical article to work on. If you or some other editor hasn't added Monroe's participation by then, I'll put it in. Tan | 39 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)