Talk:Siege of Yorktown/Archive 1

Silly Vandals
Someone must 've been tampering with this page, as it has been changed totally as an American defeat to the British. Ridiculous.


 * Okay, i ass the joke was actually quite funny, but I was pretty freaked out by the wiki info change. Elefuntboy 04:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha, that last edit made me laugh out loud....an army of 7,000 dwarves? Priceless. Heads up to who caught the error, i missed it. =) Elefuntboy 01:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Um... someone vandalized it again... but I don't want to try and fix it, as computers most definitely do not want me to succeed in this area...


 * That's it. I'm requesting semi-protection. MMetro (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the few minutes it took to set up the protection, two more vandal edits. Going over revision history, several of the dates and numbers were changed. Does anybody know a clean version we can reference for clean-up? MMetro (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

hi


 * I'll add it to my watchlist to see if I can help revert some of the obvious vandalism. FFMG (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

is there a list of all those who served at this battle?
In the HISTORICAL REGISTER OF VIRGINIANS IN THE REVOLUTION 1775-1783 by John H. Gwathmey, page 386 is listed:

Nightever, Jacob, Capt. James Bell's Co., Augusta

A listing of tithable in the RECORDS OF AUGUSTA COUNTY VIRGINIA 1745-1800 (Chalkley) lists a

Jacob Nightover for the year of 1781.

Abstracted from Records in the Virginia State Library, Richmond, Virginia, from AUGUSTA COUNTY COURT MARTIAL RECORDS, 1756-1796, pp. 187, 216, 217:

Jacob Nightever, a Private in Captain James Bell's Company of Augusta County Militia, was acquitted by a court martial held on October 25, 1780, of the charge of failing to appear at a private muster on October 23, 1780. On October 11, 1781, he was acquitted of two charges: being absent from a private muster held on October 9, 1781; "not appearing at the Rendezvous when ordered Under the Command of Lt. Col. William Bowyer for Twenty Days."


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 07:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Reason for move request: The event is more accurately described as a siege rather than a battle, and many (but not all) popular and scholarly works describe it as such. (See, for example, this site.) The Library of Congress Subject Headings calls it "Yorktown (Va.) -- Siege, 1781." We can avoid the "(1781)" disambiguation in the title by using the more accurate name. — Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: -- Tutmosis 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

About Alexander Scammel . . ..
Why is Alexander Scammel listed in the "See Also" links? I see from reading his entry in the Wikipedia that he was killed at the Siege of Yorktown, but he's not mentioned in the main body of the article. Surely he wasn't the only one killed? Perhaps he was the highest ranking officer to die in the battle, since I note that he was the Adjutant General of the American Army? Is it usual to mention the highest ranking officer killed or captured in a battle or siege? tharkun860 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Artilary
Does any one know anything about the artilary used at Yorktown? I have a project to build a model of a cannon used, so it woulk be helpfull if anyone has any info!!! ~Miafan1~

Guns used at the Siege ranged from small Coehorn Mortars to large 3 pounders up to 24 pound guns supplied by the French Navy. You can find pictures of them by searching for them on Google images. Hope this has been helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.237.200 (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Champ?
Is there an edit war over whose flag is on top in the infobox? And here I am worried about the vandalism. Principal combatants first. The French, although numerically superior, were analogous to the German mercenaries-- allied support (and listing allies is optional). Next. Somebody make sure we can trust the actual history? MMetro (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, pages like these have a tendency to sprout silly, prep-school arguments such as, "oh, so-and-so were only allied support, allies are optional" (no rules governing "allied support" exist outside your imagination, by the way). So we like to follow a simple custom: Nationalities appear in order of the number of men in the field. Saves everyone a lot of time better spent, say, writing articles. (Now, considering the French orchestrated the bulk of operations on land and sea, and that Washington's army only existed by virtue of French funds and provisions, it would be much fairer to dismiss the Americans as "allied support" (whatever that means). But again, these questions are neither here nor there&mdash;I'm not convinced anything in your message is in the slightest related to "actual history.") Albrecht (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Forget who comes first, the entire article should be proofread for vandalism to numbers, figures, and dates. When I was sorting through the edit history, I couldn't tell what was what. That's why I had to stop the IP vandalism. Since you seem to be the active expert, have you proofed the current revision, and can you tell us which version you have approved so that the article can be checked against this vandalism that is more subtle and likely to perpetuate? MMetro (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

List of sources
FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here:. Cla68 (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
The French flags have been changed to white. This is not only racist and incorrect but probably makes Wikipedia look a bit ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 09:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind ... turns out that white was in fact one of the ensigns for the French Kingdom's navy. Was it really the French navy in this battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 09:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Small Edit
For whatever reason the French royalist flag wasn't there in this article, so I added it for the French commanders et al in the box, It looks really tiny though in such a small box with all the Fleur de leis scrunched in a small little 22pixel space. Therubicon (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edits
I cleaned up some of the formatting of the articles of the surrender and a couple of minor spelling mistakes in the same section. Nickers (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
I've been checking the British name for this action. The most common seem to be "surrender at Yorktown" followed by "capitulation of Yorktown" (Google [Yorktown site:mod.uk]). The SG History site says "No battle honours have ever been awarded for this civil war" --Philip Baird Shearer 01:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Most uses of those phrases ("surrender at Yorktown" and "capitulation of Yorktown") appear to be descriptions of what happened on the last day of the siege, rather than a name per se of the engagement itself. That is, I don't see any capitalized, formal names like "Capitulation of Yorktown" or "Surrender at Yorktown". Naturally, British historians also describe the action itself as a siege: Christopher Duffy, for example, writes of "the culminating siege of Yorktown" (The Military Experience in the Age of Reason, p. 18). The title "Siege of Yorktown" is often capitalized, and gets 52,800 general google hits; second place seems to belong to "Surrender at Yorktown", though it appears to be used more as a phrase than a formal name,. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, I am currently in the process of updating the page for one Ebenezer Denny, who incidentally is my many times great grand father. His biography is well documented by my family and I have many original texts from the period and well documented histories from which I am compiling a brief synopsis. Denny played an interesting role in Yorktown and I would like some input on how to integrate his history into this page. Of particular interest is his military journal of which I have. It is his original and quite infamous accounts of his military actions, one of which is his role in Yorktown. I think it is a great addition, almost a necessity to this page and will add a first hand account of the actions herein. Please follow the link to his wikipage, Ebenezer Denny to check it out. Comments are welcome here and my user page which I'm just starting so please bear with it. -- Harmar D. Denny V I find it absolutely disgusting that there is no mention in any of the text regarding Yorktown of the thousands of American slaves that flocked to the British in a bid to escape human bondage. This includes slaves owned by both Washington and Jefferson too. This is very well documented in almost all the modern historiography and I believe is almost mentioned in Ebeneezer Denny's diary! If not see Johannes Ewald's diary. Furthermore, there is also no mention of disease that devastated the British troops far more than any battle wounds, such as the smallpox epidemic. This too is very well documented, just see 'Pox Americana' by E. Fenn for the most accurate coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.244.41 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

bizarre
there were more french troops than american isn't it? so why is the us flag listed before the french one? Cliché Online (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Washington held overall command of the Franco-American forces.-Red4tribe (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even more that logical and common sense conclusion, there were more Americans present than French in the combined forces. Virginia militia and Lafayette's Corps of Light Infantry had been in place since June watching Cornwallis, and their totals became part of the besieging force.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because this was an American operation with (significant) French support. As I mentioned, the French insisted this was the case when Gen. O'Hara tried to surrender his sword to Gen. Rochambeau instead of Gen. Washington.  Rochambeau told him to pound sand and deal with the Americans.174.71.95.116 (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Albrecht, this very article states that "Although Rochambeau had almost 40 years of warfare experience, he never challenged Washington's authority, telling Washington that he had come to serve, not to command." All the reputable historical sources state that this was an American operation with French support, not the reverse. Why do you continue to add an odd spin to the historical accuracy of this event?

You stated in your last revision that"Participants are listed by order of numerical strength in the field. Period." (a) where is that written and (b) who made you the authority on that?

Secondly, you stated Regardless, it was very much a _French_ operation, with French siege experts and engineers directing from start to finish.) I'd love to see your sources concurring with the historical accuracy of French siege "experts" and engineers "directing" anything at Yorktown.174.71.95.116 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

what is more bizarre is unsuprisingly, the Americans have failed to mention the slaves that flocked the British in Virginia and suffered an awful fate at Yorktown because they would rather that than work on a tobacco plantation under slavery. also, there is no mention of the disease that did far more damage to British troops than any Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.244.41 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What does any of this anti-American propoganda you're spouting have to do with the Battle of Yorktown? 174.71.95.116 (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You know what?, let's skip the sawdust eRhetoric. I simply try to follow Wikipedia (or more precisely, WikiProject Military History) conventions, and on this point at least I'm doing a far better job than you. As to the respective allies' roles in the siege (assuming it were somehow relevant to the order of the participants in the Infobox, which it's not), your notion of "an American operation with French support" is pure fantasy, and I would advise you to consult any number of scholarly articles or monographs. It's not hard&mdash;you'll see. For instance,


 * - Ferling, p. 531 ::::You know what adelbert, pg 531 doesn't exist at that site.


 * - Scott, p. 69
 * Albrecht (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Americans outnumbered the French on the ground. The Americans fought and and won the battle with their French allies at their side. The British knew the Americans had whipped them. Cornwallis was so humiliated he couldn't bear to face the Americans. The farce with the sword was just the usual insult by British snobs. The never treated American soldiers as equals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.21.8 (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC) ^ Oh jeez whatever with your "quantity" and numbers -comparing apple to orange- the french troops were incredibly better in quality, being professionals, had all these ships with de Grasse who factually annihilated the British navy try to break the siege, paving the way to the surrender, they provided all the artillery, materiel and engineers to make the siege, etc. Stop fooling yourself by patriotically -read ungratefully- decreasing their role in this battle, you would not have won without them while the other way around is far from being that definitive, actually you would never even have reached Yorktown without them -as you put it- at your side and their massive aid. Sensi.fr (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to characterize the Battle of the Chesapeake as "factually annihilating" anyone or anything. The Royal Navy frankly could have made a more concerted effort, and allowed itself to be deterred, moreso than the French navy annihilating anything. This is not to take away from de Grasse's achievement in fighting the British to a stalemate, which of course made possible the victory for his side in the coming land battle. Sailboatd2 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have personally visited both the Yorktown Victory Center and the National Parks - managed Battlefield. It was made very clear at the latter (and tactfully avoided at the former) that the French forces were in the majority (both on the ground, and overall), they were the ones with the big guns, the engineering equipment, and the experience. The siege plan was also driven by the French. You have to remember, that by 1781, though the Americans had exhausted the British, they themselves were exhausted in terms of resources, and the US Govt nearly bankrupt by this time.

In the context of the overall campaign, the NPS website says:

"Did You Know? The 9,000 American forces were in the minority during the Yorktown Campaign. The French army and navy combined for over 25,000 men, while the British army and navy participants numbered over 21,000." (http://www.nps.gov/yonb/index.htm)

Most sources (including the NPWS) agree that the ground forces on the day were: American & French General George Washington Lieutenant General Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau 8,500 Americans, 10,800 French

British Lieutenant General Lord Charles Cornwallis 7,500 men

Having said that, though the French gave a tremendous amount of assistance, they themselves portrayed it as an American victory. There's no need to downplay their role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.68.54 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture
The caption in for the picture in the infobox, a portrait by John Trumbull, suggests that it depicts the surrender of Cornwallis. Howver I thought it was one of the well known facts of the battle that Cornwallis didn't actually surrender, but sent his deputy General O'Hara to do the deed. I can't see anyone who looks particularly like Cornwallis, so I'm changing it to read the British surrendering rather than Cornwallis. It's possible that it was Turnbull who got it wrong (and incorrectly portrayed Lord C), so somebody please change it back if it is the case.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

re-wording of sentence
The following sentence is a bit clumsy, in my opinion; The French were ordered to distract the British with a false attack, but they were told by a French deserter and the British artillery fire turned on the French from the Fusiliers redoubt.[32]. It toook me a couple of re-reads to discover the who that were told were the british? (I'm still not sure)

Why not;

The French were ordered to distract the British with a false attack, but the British were advised by a French deserter and turned their artillery on the French from the Fusiliers redoubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey2027 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed-Kieran4 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Effect of disease (malaria)
I was surprised to see that this battle didn't include any mention of the effect of malaria upon both armies, but especially the British army which was effectively paralyzed towards the end. See for instance ; it's also discussed in the book 1493. Up until the late 19th century, disease struck down far more soldiers than battle, so this should deserve a section of its own by someone more knowledgeable. Seleucus (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I think there is much more specialized work about that than the references you are quoting. (Smallpox and Scurvy are, I think, the best documented in scholarly articles) I cannot for the moment add much more, but I will try my best when I can find some time to do that, if there's no other contribution before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.21.242 (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As a physicist, I haven't really looked up historical scholarly articles in the past, so any contributions you can make would be very welcome. I'd added a small section a while ago, but feel free to revise or otherwise change it. Seleucus (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming
The German wiki mentions another, perhaps colloquial, name for the siege of Yorktown: "German Battle"; due to the huge numbers of Germans involved on all sides: the German Regiments in the British and French Army as well as the many German immigrants that joined the American Forces. I think someone should check out the validity and commonness of this naming and then we might add it to this article, similarly to the way the German wiki did, in the first, introductary phrase. What do you guys think? -Yamok 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamok (talk • contribs)


 * This is an interesting observation. I found a useful German source, that documents the presence of Germans in all three armies.  Magic ♪piano 20:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at the enlistment records for the regiment "Royal Deux-Ponts", which fought under the French flag, you will notice that the vast majority of its soldiers and many of the officers bore German names. The Hessians were not the only Germans "rented out" by their respective princes to fight foreign wars ... 88.68.141.182 (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No. of French regulars
The article sites 7,800 French soldiers at the Siege of Yorktown. The infobox says 11,800. Where did the other 4000men come from and when did they arrive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.108.204.244 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. This article--well, the infobox anyway, the article has correct numbers--has much higher numbers of French troops than I have seen anywhere, not to mentkion lower numbers of U.S. troops. De Grasse's 3,000 men are counted twice here, judging by the edit summary from a previous change. The numbers have been changed to reflect generally accepted numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarechalNey (talk • contribs) 00:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This was probably due to vandalism at some point.  Magic ♪piano 01:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still confusing about the number of French troops. First you say "5,500 French soldiers" landed in North America and then we have "7,800-8,800 French regulars" at Yorktown. No sick, no wounded, no detached, no nothing, between the landing and the battle ? I would expect the 5,500 go down, at least a little bit, and ... no go up to 8,800 ! Would you please enlighten me on this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.13.101 (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * numbers are wrong... correct are 5500 Americans, 3500 Virginia Militia, 7000 French, 36 French ships of war, as you can see HERE The Big Donut (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The numbers on a memorial are not necessarily correct -- they may be based on the best research of the time, but that doesn't mean they are still regarded as accurate. The anon needs to read the article more carefully, because at least some of the difference between the 5,500 and the ~8,000 is explained.  (Rochambeau took 4,000 of the 5,500 to Virginia; de Grasse brought 3,200 (some sources say 3,500) up from the Caribbean.)  Magic ♪piano 20:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Which side are they on?
The biggest problem I had reading this article is it keeps mentioning new names without specifying which side they fought for. First Benedict Arnold sailed from New York -- at different times he was on the American and the British side, so who was he fighting for this time? Then Admiral Destouches arrived in Newport; I suppose we can guess from his name that he was with the French army but it shouldn't be necessary to guess. Then the Marquis de Lafayette was sent south; by whom? And again we have to guess from his name that he was French. Baron von Steuben and Anthony Wayne are first mentioned when Lafayette joined with them; who are they? Just a few words additional words like "French Admiral Destouches or "Baron von Steuben, a Prussian officer commanding American troops" would be immensely helpful. Mnudelman (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Surrender songs
In my history book ({cite book|last=Multiple Authors|title=The American Republic to 1877|year=(c) 2003|publisher=Glencoe|isbn=0-07-826477-4|pages=670|url=http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/ushistory/tar12003/tx/index.php4}}) It says on page 185, that during the american surrender the American band played "Yankee Doodle", and that the British band played "The World Turned Upside Down" --Aidoboy (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops, is tells about the British playing, but not the British in the article, but not the Americans. --Aidoboy (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody knows what song the British band played. (92.7.5.131 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC))


 * Of course, nobody knows what song the British band played (ironically). I see you used sock puppetry. Nice try, but gotta try you're hardest to get past Wikipedia anti-vandalism users(impossible)!Allied Rangoons (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Link of interest
http://rememberyorktown.org/?page_id=549 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.242.65 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Result - infobox
I think the result line in the infobox could do with a little tweaking, as I feel it is slightly misleading. While Yorktown did of course compel the British government to start negotiating an end to the war, the immediate effects of the siege were not the treaty or recognition of independence, in fact, war still continued for another two years after Yorktown before the British finally gave up. Thus, do you all feel it would be more correct to state:

"Decisive Franco-American victory; End of British land operations in North America Beginning of negotiations leading to the Treaty of Paris, and British recognition of American independence"

It's a little point, I concede that, and is more semantic than anything, but I think it is more factually correct. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016
I would like the German name of the battle to be The German Slaughter as that's what the translation also could mean. As the German language don't really differ on these two, using that translation (or at least presenting it to the reader) gives it a bit more of a cynical meaning as they lost quite a lot of countrymen on both sides during that battle. Loggert (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

❌ The article gives the name of the battle in Anglophone sources; it need do no more than that. Your suggested unsourced change would also violate Wikipedia's policies (see WP:NPOV), WP:OR and WP:undue). Haploidavey (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Siege of Yorktown. 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/20091004013208/http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phases1701.html to http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phases1701.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100802121939/http://www.history.army.mil/books/revwar/yorktown/AWC-Ytn-fm.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/Yorktown/AWC-Ytn-fm.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) 18:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What took place on October 19, 1781?
The opening sentence lists alternate names for the battle, then says, “the latter taking place on October 19, 1781”—what is being referred to here? Was the “German Battle” (the final name listed) something that happened on the last day? Can “the latter” even be used with more than two items? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No. "Latter" should only be used of pairs and even then not so much. Saying "the last" is preferable in a list like that. Venqax (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ve edited it to read, “ ending on October 19, 1781.” Unless I have horribly misunderstood, the intention was to note the date on which the British surrendered, ending the battle. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Article 10 Controversy
The last sentence is confusing: Americans on both sides of the Atlantic felt betrayed? What is meant by "on both sides of the Atlantic"? Were there a lot of Americans in Europe, and if so, were they offended by the British request, the British failure to press it, or the American refusal to grant it? What Americans are they talking about and what did they feel betrayed by, exactly? Venqax (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2019
Please add a recent book "L'épopée française de Yorktown-The French Yorktown Epic", Pascal Adjamagbo, Editions universitaires européennes, 2018 (both french and english) (gives more historically acurate figures for the size of the french and american troops" and provide the highmy thanking letter of Gl.Washington 2A01:CB19:439:CC00:AC3D:D01B:9E6F:98A6 (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    13:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Horrid Main Name Not Used By Anyone Connected
I live not far and have visited many times and it is well taught in schools here and today is the first time I ever heard it referred to as a siege rather than a battle and that is pure stupidity. No doubt someone used the term in the past but it is commonly called the BATTLE Of Yorktown and to consider it a siege is plain without any intelligence thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:7f40:0:dd74:89f6:1be9:ba98 (talk) 14:42, May 2, 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Published works disagree with you. This and this show that "siege" is more common with the latter excluding all mentions of the Civil War siege of the same name because it cuts off at 1860. The National Park Service also calls it a siege. Armed Forces Staff College calls it a siege. Interestingly, even the works that call it the Battle of Yorktown are still commonly calling it a siege. What source do you have that says that it isn't?

Page/title move
Should have been discussed here on the talk page first. No discussion that I could easily find. Shearonink (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course...there's the Civil War siege Siege of Yorktown (1862) with the same/similar name... But still...I think the intent to re-name should have been posted here and elsewhere before the change. Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

African Americans
Having been to Yorktown and taken the tour..the tour guide said the last push into the fort...I don`t remember the number of the rampart...was executed by a black unit...that`s what he said....that`s all I know about it 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)2600:1702:2340:9470:5822:4A81:D376:4E59 (talk)

ok

Requested move 16 October 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as per. Sceptre (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

– Siege of Yorktown (1781) was boldly moved from its base name Siege of Yorktown last year (see above section) and the base name presently is a redirect there. However, either the 1781 event is the primary topic and that article should exist at the base name without parenthetical disambiguation per WP:QUALIFIER, or there is no primary topic and a disambiguation page should exist at the base name per WP:NOPRIMARY; either way the base name cannot be a redirect. In addition, the disambiguation page is currently at Battle of Yorktown even though both disambiguated terms are Siege of Yorktown, and finally, there is no hatnote to either Siege of Yorktown (1862) or the dab page, so anyone searching for Siege of Yorktown and seeking the Civil War event has no easy way to get there. I propose that the Revolutionary War event is the primary topic (as it was, albeit without proper hatnotes, for years). Alternatively, if it is deemed there is no primary topic, the dab page at Battle of Yorktown should be moved to Siege of Yorktown. Either way, hatnotes should be updated as needed. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Siege of Yorktown (1781) → Siege of Yorktown
 * Battle of Yorktown → Siege of Yorktown (disambiguation)
 * Oppose not because it wouldn't be the most concise and fine title, but because leaving the year in the title educates the reader and augments their mental map as to the time period of this pivotal event in American history. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 1st. The AWI siege is the very clear primary topic. Redirect Battle of Yorktown to Siege of Yorktown and add a hatnote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move proposal as modified by User:Necrothesp. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

location questions
Where was the surrender document signed....at the Moore House? Also, do we know the exact location of the surrender ceremony? The article only says, quote, "At 2:00 pm the allied army entered the British positions, with the French on the left and the Americans on the right." Elsquared67 (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)