Talk:Battle of Ridgefield

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Ridgefield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060922100129/http://web.cortland.edu/woosterk/locher.html to http://web.cortland.edu/woosterk/locher.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Ridgefield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/newberymedal/newberyhonors/newberymedal.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512223025/http://www.connecticutsar.org/articles/danbury_raid.htm to http://www.connecticutsar.org/articles/danbury_raid.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No mention of Wilton?
Several homes were looted and set on fire in Wilton too, Why is this not mentioned?-Kieran207 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Victory or aftermath
Although Tryon's raid on Danbury and actions in Ridgefield were tactical British successes, the resistance by American forces and a consequent rise in American military enrollments in the area deterred the British from ever again attempting a landing by ship to attack inland colonial strongholds during the war.

Conclusion: 1. British victory. 2. Tactical, since its results were limited to the battle itself. Creuzbourg (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The MOS is very clear that there shouldn't be nuance. Adding "tactical" to the infobox is exactly that. the statement above may be sourced but it's a pretty low quality one that doesn't state anything about tactical success. The above statement is WP:SYNTH and not in the source - of which this is a paraphrase that's very close to WP:COPYVIO  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarletonic (talk • contribs) 11:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All of your statements are based on your interpretation of the rules. Some of them rather far-fetched. I do not know what copyright violation and own reserach has to to with this. The infobox is based on the text in the article. The Brits won. If you do not like tactical victory, then it should be British victory. See the rule book: The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. Creuzbourg (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with British victory since it clearly was. The text of this article was amended to include tactical in this sentence at some point without adding a source. The Ridgefield article is clearly a copy of material from this article in 2010 with edits made for colour - compare the text here https://web.archive.org/web/20100725192648/http://www.ridgefieldct.org/content/42/249/1077.aspx to the version of this article before that page was published https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ridgefield&action=history&dir=prev&offset=20080521031544%7C213867373Tarletonic (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the interim I've updated the infobox to "British Victory" @ You appear to have written most of this article so courtesy ping for any input you may wish to give here.Tarletonic (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * u|Tarletonic If you just had explained that your objection was against tactical instead of giving me a number of unlinked acronyms, we could have avoided all the incrimination. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @. What incrimination? You found the policy I was referring to easily enough, and citing the MOS explains the edit perfectly adequately.Tarletonic (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @ I was referring to myself accusing you of bullying. Creuzbourg (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well that was unnecessary wasn't it. WP:AGF Tarletonic (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It sure was. Creuzbourg (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio or backwards copy ??
Leaning towards cut-and-paste copyvio rather than backwards copy, because in another article around the same era, the same editor clearly was cut-and-pasting: The same editor has multiple large edits that also look to be cut-and-paste, but sources cited can't be found in archive.org Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) May 19, 2008 edit
 * Earliest archive.org version of source cited at GA version
 * 1) May 20, 2008 edit extremely well written, likely also cut-and-paste
 * 2) More on May 21, 2008
 * William Erskine (General) May 20, 2008
 * Source cited January 1, 2007
 * Needs revdel, now a redirect.
 * And cut-and-paste content was merged to new article January 7, 2009


 * Whatever the resolution of this, I just wanted to point out that significant sections (mainly under the Background and Danbury headers) of the version that passed GA contain text that was mostly written by me, which should still be usable. (A cursory examination shows that that version also contains text that is part of the above allegation, including portions of the main battle description, so fixing this would not be entirely trivial.) I do not have the bandwidth to take on fixing this.  Magic ♪piano 14:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with all you've stated, which is why I listed this at the copyvio noticeboard ... I just don't know how to go about fixing this, since that editor popped in a lot of what looks like cut-and-paste. Need advice from copyvio admins, because fixing Erskine is even worse, and a CCI on that editor may be needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've put back much of these sections. One has to be pragmatic about copyright cleanup. I won't revdel in case someone wants to bring back more non-copied content. MER-C 20:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)