Talk:Battle of Menotomy

This page seems redundant
I have spent several hours on a rewrite of this page article trying to create something worthwhile. I believe there is a reason why this article is a stub: not enough happened in Menotomy to warrant a page. It says: "25 rebels and 40 British troops were killed in this battle. It was here in Menotomy that the first British soldiers surrendered." The first sentence is fine but not especially notable. I think the second sentence is incorrect; it needs verification. The only unique thing about the "Battle of Menotomy" is the Jason Russell house, but there is another article called, unsurprisingly, "Jason Russell House". I think the Battle of Menotomy could be integrated in the article Battles of Lexington and Concord:
 * The page should be re-titled Battles of Lexington, Concord, and Menotomy or, perhaps something along the lines of Battles of the First Day, or First Skirmishes. (I anticipate comments such as "It has always been called Lexington and Concord")
 * There should be a section, and an item in the contents, saying Battle of Menotomy. This is justified by the highest casualties occurring in that village.
 * The contextual information needed for an article about the Battle of Menotomy simply repeats information in Battles of Lexington and Concord. So events in Menotomy will be in the best context as part of the comprehensive article.
 * The Jason Russell House is already mentioned in Battles of Lexington and Concord, though that could be improved.
 * Lexington is mentioned a second time during the retreat, so there is no reason not to highlight Menotomy in the same way.
 * The references need to be assessed. Wikipedia ought to have a higher standard than sources which emphasize the old age of casualties, contain phrases such as "or so the story goes", use the old saw "allegedly killed while surrendering", or are produced with tourism in mind.

So, it's open for comment. Delete or not? I don't think I'm the right person to pilot this. If my proposal is accepted, I think the work should be done by someone who is very familiar with the actions on that day, has a rigourous approach to neutrality, and has the experience to do the manipulations. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

please see my discussion 'This page seems redundant' at Battle of Menetomy. No one has followed up. Is this something you could do?

. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * , if you believe that an article should be deleted, you should go to WP:Articles for deletion. You will follow the directions there to create a thread explaining why you believe that the article should be removed. The community will then vote, and the discussion will be closed once there is consensus. I suggest you read the page and look at some previous nominations to get a sense of how the process works.


 * I am not extremely knowledgeable about the American Revolutionary War. My edits about American history on Wikipedia have focused mainly on the Jacksonian and Civil War eras. But I do know that the fighting at Menotomy is not distinct from the battles of Lexington and Concord. It was simply a phase in that larger fight. With this in mind, and from glancing at this very brief and inadequate article as well as reading your initial post, I do believe that there is a strong case for deleting this article, and I encourage you to nominate it if you are so inclined.


 * As for changing the title of the article "Battles of Lexington and Concord" to "Battles of Lexington, Concord, and Menotomy," that will not work. "Battles of Lexington and Concord" is the generally accepted name for the events of the day, and so under WP:Common name, we'd have to leave the title the way it was. Therefore, the best resolution is simply to delete this.


 * I hope that this helps. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've opened a merge discussion on Talk:Battles of Lexington and Concord in line with WP:MERGE. Feel free to contribute there. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 22:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)