Talk:Battle of Longwoods

Victory?
If both withdrew, would it be considered a stalemate?  RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk''' 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The British were forced to retreat, and the Americans still won the battle. After the battle was complete, the Americans decided to withdraw from the area. The Americans did not retreat.99.224.199.14 (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a little odd that when the Americans retreated at the Battle of Lundy's Lane and then the British withdrew, the outcome is described as "indecisive". Silverchemist (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image
Do we want an Image for this? I can provide images of paintings, modern re-enactments, the current battle site or the memorial. 99.249.97.171 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits -- removal of some sourced information
Certain references attributed to "The Defended Border" have been excised -- specifically, reference to the regulars being mounted, being clad in buckskin and armed with rifles, and icing the slope. I have consulted Glenn Stott's book, as well as the author himself, as well as the other major extant materials and no one besides "Border" mentions any of these things. I would request that another, separate, source be presented prior to re-incorporation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgarry90 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is Stott's book a self-published source (as suggested by the publisher's name)? If so, it is not a reliable source, by Wikipedia standards. Please provide edit summaries; removing cited information in particular invites charges of vandalism if no reason is provided. The American raiders being mounted will be restored; although my source is a collection of primary sources, I doubt whether any secondary source could have other information. HLGallon (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also restored information on the raiders' clothing and equipment; if you believe they wore something else, please cite it. Absence of information in other works is not proof that cited information is false. Stott's work is not readily available outside Canada. It is not cited once in the article. You should aim to expand and build an article, not merely remove sections of it, giving "but X has never heard of it" as reason. HLGallon (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Point taken, and while the absence of corroborating information does not automatically prove a source false, it has to force a review of its credibility. This book was published in 1964; there has been additional research done in the ensuing 45 years.  If none of that research makes mention of something your book does, one must consider the fact that this book may be inaccurate.
 * Your recently-included Cruikshank quote has settled the mounted issue (I guess the US commander ought to know if his forces were mounted or not), but I'm still wondering about the uniforms. I suppose if this was some sort of specially-recruited "commando" force, it's not totally implausible for it to have some kind of special equipment. That said, it sounds a little bit too much like your typical Daniel Boone sort of frontier myth.  I would very much like to see an additional source on it before we decide to finally leave it in. Mcgarry90 (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Mcgarry90


 * As I mentioned, the idea is to build articles, not stifle them. If as you say, there has been later research, pray add it to the references, make use of it and cite it. HLGallon (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)