Talk:Battles of Lexington and Concord/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2014

There are comments from as far back as 2008 to rid the article of references to "redcoats," a term which was not used at all during this time period. 76.105.136.241 (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary - see Red coat (British army)#American Revolution. There is evidence of the term being used colloquially during the American Revolution, including a couple of quotes from George Washington. This article referring to the term as a nickname seems just fine to me. --ElHef (Meep?) 15:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Tidds at Lexington

There's a slight mistake in the listing of the number of Tidds who fought among the Minutemen at Lexington. In fact, there were four Tidds (not three). They were: William Tidd (Lieutenant, second in command at Lexington) John Tidd (wounded at Lexington) Benjamin Tidd and Samuel Tidd.

The first three testified at the Second Continental Congress that May. For what ever reason, Samuel did not.

Incidentally, in the nearby town of Westford there was another Tidd among that band of Minutemen: namely Amos Tidd. He also went into "active duty" that day, April 19th. Podkowa (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says this? Magic♪piano 22:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You ask for a reliable source but do you have a reliable source?Allied Rangoons (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Paul Revere's warning

In this article, under 2.1 Lexington, it says that Parker wonders if Paul Revere's warning was true, when in fact it was WILLIAM DAWES JR. who warned them in Lexington. Paul Revere took a different route to Concord and didn't even pass through Lexington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.59.2 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well David Hackett Fischer, to whom the sentence is cited to, isn't normally wrong. According to Fischer, both Revere and Dawes passed through Lexington, with Revere arriving first. If DHF is wrong please find a source that says otherwise. JOJ Hutton 00:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
To answer 74.128.59.2's statement, true, both William Dawes Jr. and Paul Revere went through Lexington to warned Lexington and Concord's militiamen. They warned the "Regular's or the Redcoat's are coming".Allied Rangoons (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Did the American "retreat" end the battle at Lexington?

Is this statement from the article page really correct: "The first shots were fired just as the sun was rising at Lexington. The militia were outnumbered and fell back, and the regulars proceeded on to Concord, where they searched for the supplies."?

According to "Paul Revere's Ride" by David Hackett Fischer, the British ended the fight somewhat prematurely when one of the commanders saw what was happening and realized this wasn't the battle they had come to fight. --JohnJSal (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Captain Parker gave an order to the militia to disperse before there was any gunfire. Those who heard him had begun to do so when the shot was fired (Fischer, 191). One British officer recounted that they fired until no militia were to be seen (Fischer, 195). You'll have to be more specific (page number, which officer, quotes) if you think Fischer thinks otherwise. Magic♪piano 23:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that Smith did try to get the soldiers under control as soon as he realized what was happening, but most of the militia had already scattered. Fischer notes on page 197/198: "Most of the American militiamen did not return fire...Two militiamen (only two) fell dead on the line where they had mustered--Jonas Parker and Robert Munroe. The rest were killed while trying to disperse, as they had been ordered." Would the soldiers have pursued them? Indeed, Fischer goes on to indicate that they did. The militia's retreat along with Smith's drummer's order ended the skirmish on the common. ~Gosox(55)(55) 00:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet, during the Battle of Concord, the Americans beat the British Army at a bridge, but after the retreat Lexington, the British captured the town and burned the whole town.Allied Rangoons (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible dead link

The first link under "Return March" is possibly dead. Should someone remove it? B-) (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the link doesn't have to be removed. It only needs info.Allied Rangoons (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Revise/eliminate discussion about John and Ebenezer Munroe in "First Shot" section

The "First Shot" section contains a discussion about which side, American or British, fired the first shot during the Battle of Lexington. The section, after discussing the initial confrontation between a British officer and Captain Parker, which prompted the latter to order his militia to disperse, goes on to suggest (or imply) that the Americans did not fire first, quoting the account of Corporal John Munroe. However, a close reading of the quote reveals that it says nothing about which side fired the first shot:

"After the first fire of the regulars, I thought, and so stated to Ebenezer Munroe ...who stood next to me on the left, that they had fired nothing but powder; but on the second firing, Munroe stated they had fired something more than powder, for he had received a wound in his arm; and now, said he, to use his own words, 'I'll give them the guts of my gun.' We then both took aim at the main body of British troops the smoke preventing our seeing anything but the heads of some of their horses and discharged our pieces." (article source: http://www.motherbedford.com/Chronology06.htm, as footnote 52).

The current source for the above quote does not contain the full Munroe account, which is available at: http://www.celebrateboston.com/biography/john-monroe.htm . The full account shows that Munroe did make a statement regarding which side fired first: "They continued their march till within about eight rods of us, when an officer on horseback, Lt. Col. Smith, who rode in front of the troops, exclaimed, 'Lay down your arms, and disperse, you rebels!' Finding our company kept their ground, Col. Smith ordered his troops to fire. This order not being obeyed, he then said to them, 'God damn you, fire!' The front platoon then discharged their pieces, and another order being given to fire, there was a general discharge from the front ranks."

However, Munroe's account differs strikingly from the account stated at the beginning of the First Shot section: "A British officer (probably Pitcairn, but accounts are uncertain, as it may also have been Lieutenant William Sutherland) then rode forward, waving his sword, and called out for the assembled throng to disperse, and may also have ordered them to "lay down your arms, you damned rebels!"[50] Captain Parker told his men instead to disperse and go home, but, because of the confusion, the yelling all around, and due to the raspiness of Parker's tubercular voice, some did not hear him, some left very slowly, and none laid down their arms. Both Parker and Pitcairn ordered their men to hold fire, but a shot was fired from an unknown source.[50]"

Munroe's account similarly conflicts with an assertion in the First Shot section that immediately follows the quote from his account: "Some witnesses among the regulars reported the first shot was fired by a colonial onlooker from behind a hedge or around the corner of a tavern. Some observers reported a mounted British officer firing first. Both sides generally agreed that the initial shot did not come from the men on the ground immediately facing each other."

That is, Munroe's account is that the front rank of the British regulars, i.e., "the men on the ground immediately facing each other" fired first.

In addition, the First Shot section also asserts, based on the Munroe account, that a British soldier suffered a slight wound. However, it is apparent from the text currently quoted in the section that it was an American militia member, Ebenezer Munroe, who was injured.

Thus, the discussion based on, and quoting, John Munroe's account should be revised or eliminated. If revised, I think the current quote and its introductory text ("According to one member of Parker's militia none of the Americans had discharged their muskets as they faced the oncoming British troops. The British did suffer one casualty, a slight wound, the particulars of which were corroborated by a deposition made by Corporal John Munroe. Munroe stated that:") should be deleted and replaced with a single sentence in the following paragraph, as follows (new text in bold):

Some witnesses among the regulars reported the first shot was fired by a colonial onlooker from behind a hedge or around the corner of a tavern. Some observers reported a mounted British officer firing first. Both sides generally agreed that the initial shot did not come from the men on the ground immediately facing each other,[53] although at least one American militia member claimed that the "front ranks" of the British regulars fired first. Speculation arose later . . .

The source for the revised sentence should be: http://www.celebrateboston.com/biography/john-monroe.htm .

I think the Munroe account and its introductory text also could be eliminated outright, as it does not add much to the First Shot section and Munroe's account seems to be in conflict with the generally-accepted views of who didn't fire first. In any case, the portion of the Munroe account and the introductory text describing Ebenezer Munroe's injury should be deleted as wholly irrelevant to the question of which side fired first.

Tangleman (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly, the purpose of the Munroe quote is to support the notion that one of the British soldiers was injured. As currently presented, it makes no assertion about who fired first. Magic♪piano 22:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2014

Under Legacy section. With the dawn of the Civil Rights era, contributions of African-Americans to the revolutionary war are more readily acknowledged, therefore this should be added to the legacy section (source; wikipedia Peter Salem) An enslaved African-American, Peter Salem, was given his freedom by Major Lawson Buckminister to join the military and took part in the battle of Concord on April 19, 1775. He appears on the roll of Captain Simon Edgell's company of militia from Framingham 216.82.251.228 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2015

I propose a citation and/or footnote to the term "Bloody Angle," where the current text reads as follows: "The regulars soon reached a point in the road where there was a rise and a curve through a wooded area. At this point, now known as the "Bloody Angle", 200 men, mostly from the towns of Bedford and Lincoln, had positioned themselves behind trees and walls in a rocky, tree-filled pasture for an ambush."

The citation/footnote should read as follows: In its Interim Report to the Congress in June 1958, in support of the establishment of the Minute Man National Historical Park, the Boston National Historic Sites Commission stated that "Fittingly, this curving section of the road was soon to be named ‘The Bloody Angle.’” Contrary to the Commission's assertion, however, this name appears to be entirely modern. There is no evidence that the term was ever used by any of the participants in the battle or by local residents, nor even by historians prior to the mid-20th century. See Interim Report of June 16, 1958, Appendix B "Chronology of Incidents relating to the 19th of April, 1775," page 47.

Dlh232 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Dlh232 Dlh232 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Edited article. Added a different and shorter note. Edited identified by 'Added note describing Bloody Angle's "inaccurate and anachronistic" name' WikiParker (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeat quotation in §Lexington to Menotomy

The second occurrence of the Percy's quote: "The rebels attacked us in a very scattered... Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob, will find himself very much mistaken," in the Lexington to Menotomy section should be deleted, I would do so immediately but I'm not sure if it effects the citation from Tourtellot immediately following. If it seems safe I or someone else should delete. Atani (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a few well-meaning editors have gone more than a little overboard with overly extended quotations in addition to that repeat quotation. I may do a copyedit over the next few weeks. The first instance of Percy's quote will be removed because it's in the "Concord to Lexington" section which describes events before Percy's arrival. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Belligerents: Massachusetts Bay

In the list of Belligerents contained in the infobox, the hyperlink for Massachusetts Bay links to the Wikipedia article for Massachusetts Bay, the body of water. Shouldn't it link instead to the Wikipedia article for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, the colony that fought in the battles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.98.67.23 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. After a lot of tinkering with flag templates, I think I finally figured out how to repair this. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

vandalims - bull

the article has many details that go on and on and miss some of the major points most AMERICAN history lessons teach

The british often used seized boys (ie, drunks, or poor) and fought in lines (ie, between french / english / spanish wars)

The Americans had NO LINE, fought from behind trees, because they were out-numbered and out-gunned (and out-supplied).

The brits complained the americans cheated the rules of war heavily, had fought without honor, and it should not be allowed. (i omitt the usa's reply)

the article as far as i see, though it might have so many (likely wrong - came from nowhere, some scholar trying to insert facts for publicity) "factual detail" of a battle likely no one has allot of good information on ...

i have to assume it is foreigners attacking usa history or overpaid brats on grants in usa (likely damn foreigners)

GOT ME ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.202.186 (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right that this article has too many details that go on and on and sometimes repeat themselves. I'm starting to try to fix that with a copy edit. After getting through the lead and the Background section, I've only managed to cut the entire article down 2-3%, but it's been selective removal with a few additions, and more is to come. The remainder of your comments are wrong. At some moments during the battles, the Americans had lines. At some moments, they didn't. At Lexington they were outnumbered. During the return march, they weren't. Plenty of factual details are useful and available. They just need to be assembled into a more compact and less repetitive story so someone like you might actually be tempted into reading it and learning something. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2015

Add a reference to Col. James Barrett Farm in the introduction, the location of the suspected military supplies. This farm already has a Wikipedia page. Drsbaitso0 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the farm mentioned in the introduction. Where do you mean? Stickee (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Barrett's Farm is already mentioned and linked to in a sub-section. Perhaps it is sufficiently important to also be mentioned in the introduction. Hertz1888 (talk)
Thanks for the request, but this would be a bad idea. Barrett's Farm was only one of the suspected locations of military supplies, not "the location of the suspected military supplies." Many buildings, locations, people, and other things related to the battle have their own Wikipedia pages, but they can't all be crammed into the introduction. Of course, Barrett's Farm is sufficiently important to be discussed in the body of the article. Flying Jazz (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2015

Very truw date not known and a awesome nad most famous battle in massachusetts

that is the colonnial war battles on of concord and battles 2607:FCC8:8001:5700:8D7F:3AB1:350E:13E7 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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. Cannolis (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2015

You guys are missing a period

198.209.187.170 (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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. Where? Cannolis (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015

The last external link, "Teach this article at the Wikischool" appears to be dead, or at least doesn't link to something relevant to the article. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravefoot (talk • contribs) 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hertz1888 (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"other locations" should be changed in the following sentence: Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations.

New version:

Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot colonials had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to four locations in the Town of Leicester, Massachusetts.

This can be substantiated by old books on reserve in the Town of Leicester Public Library.

PaulRavina (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC) PaulRavina 08DEC2015

p.s. I am new here. Let me know what I need to do to substantiate this.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2015

206.15.232.164 (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)jonny was here

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. /wia🎄/tlk 18:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

'Military supplies"

Why is the very specific phrase "military supplies" allowed to stand in this article as the precipitating British objective of the march on Lexington when it was clearly "arms"? "Military supplies" could mean tents, medicines, shovels, etc. I'm curious about an overly neutral -- even anti-Constitutional -- emphasis in the current phraseology. I'm new here, but it doesn't mean I'm stupid. The British didn't come to seize Coleman lanterns, then came to seize muskets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawneefork (talk • contribs) 01:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Gage's orders to Smith can be seen at http://www.patriotresource.com/amerrev/documents/brit0419/gageorder.html and they include seizing or destroying "Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever." WikiParker (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battles of Lexington and Concord. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Illegal" provisional Massachusetts patriot government.

I found in the original text a pajorative discription of the Massachusetts provisional patriot government as "illegal".

I am sure the British parliament held it to be so. It is also true that numerous Colonial American attournies had stated that the Parliament's attempts at taxation without representation were clearly illegal by very long standing British law, and these laws had been cited. Enforcment of an illegal law using troops is arguably illegal.

By that time in this dispute, one side accusing the other of doing something illegal was pointless. Wikipedia articles that pajoratively assert that the actions of one side or another's acts were "illegal", without a clear and convincing explanation is the article showing bias. We are not supposed to be biased. Montestruc (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battles of Lexington and Concord. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battles of Lexington and Concord. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Occupations of Colonials?

This is a wonderful article, thank you! I think that it might be improved by stating the occupations of notable colonials in the text or maybe in a subsection. Some are identifiable as ministers by the title "Rev.," but it seems like most are either identified by a military rank or just as "militiaman."Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

--2602:304:CE58:A10:ECC6:E010:6F2A:FD73 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)-I dont under stand can you guys help

The first shot

many people claim no one knows who fired the "shot heard 'round the world." but evidence would point to the Americans, if not one American, Solomon Brown, of the Lexington Militia. He was a lookout who was captured for spying on advancing British troops. He claimed to a friend that "he had stood outside Buckman's Tavern, taken aim at an enemy officer, and fired. Later that day, he brought his friend to the spot where the officer had been standing. Two pools of blood lay on the ground."[1]

sources: https://www.massmoments.org/moment-details/battle-begins-on-lexington-common.html; http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2011/04/solomon-brown-fired-at-them.html

NOTE: due to the fact that some dispute this i did not add this to the wiki

References

  1. ^ https://www.massmoments.org/moment-details/battle-begins-on-lexington-common.html

Joshnniuq (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Joshnniuq

Signal from the Old North Church

Can we add that the lanterns was hung by Robert Newman to signal the British army's arrival by sea? RandomAxiom (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Correction to date of Paul Revere's "midnight ride"

Paul Revere's ride took place the night of April 18th, into April 19th 1775. The article currently has April 8th in the "American Preparations" section of this article:

Please change: "On April 8, Paul Revere began the "midnight ride"..." to "On April 18, Paul Revere began the "midnight ride"..."

Tophergoods (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Done by WikiParker. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2018

The Van Gorden-Williams Library & Archives at the Scottish Rite Masonic Museum & Library in Lexington, Massachusetts has one of the only known copies of the Lexington alarm letter. It's on their digital collections website. Can someone please add the following to External Links?

Lexington Alarm Letter at Van Gorden-Williams Library & Archives Yankelburpels (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done--B dash (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

repetition

"The rebels attacked us in a very scattered, irregular manner, but with perseverance and resolution, nor did they ever dare to form into any regular body. Indeed, they knew too well what was proper, to do so. Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob, will find himself very much mistaken." - who put this quotation in two different parts of the article? O_o --Muhranoff (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Who fired first at Lexington Green?

"David Hackett Fischer has proposed that there may actually have been multiple near-simultaneous shots." This should say, "speculated" rather than "proposed", as Fischer provides no evidence that it is more than his own speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B03C:3446:D86F:C418:E602:317C (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Redcoats or what?

As a native New Englander and Bay Stater, supposedly the British soldiers were also referred to as "lobsterbacks". I'm not sure of the derivation / first usage of this term. 2601:1C0:8200:2B50:40D4:A5FE:9247:7DE1 (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Correction of town terminology

Another correction requested, April 2019: "Caution prevailed, and Colonel James Barrett withdrew from the town of Concord and led the men across the North Bridge to a hill about a mile north of town, where they could continue to watch the troop movements of the British and the activities in the center of town." (Italics mine). "Town of Concord" has a specific meaning, and the provincial troops remained in the town. Better to say: "Caution prevailed, and Colonel James Barrett withdrew from the center of Concord and led the men across the North Bridge to a hill about a mile north of the center, where they could continue to watch the troop movements of the British and the activities in the center of town. "Center of town" and "Concord Center" both clearly refer to the area from which the provincial forces withdrew, also known then as "Concord Village" or "the village". "Town of Concord" clearly refers to the corporate municipality; the Town of Concord; and when the provinicials withrew to Punkatassett hill, they were still in the Town of Concord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B03C:3446:5867:716B:75C6:555D (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's almost a year later, and the non-factual claim that Barrett and his troops withdrew from the "town of Concord" is still in place. Can it be corrected before another April 19 passes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B070:C50F:7405:CFDA:B7D3:399 (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Part of this was already done but I revised further to clarify. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing the WIA marking from John Pitcarin in the infobox?

I'm not too sure on the conventions regarding the WIA marking on battle or war infoboxes, but other articles seem to often remove these distinctions, but keeping it whenever a death or a capture/execution takes place? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"Strategic" victory?

The term "American" here is an anachronism; it should not be used on articles that pertain to the history of the United States pre July 4 1776. The correct term should be "colonial", or to be technical, "Massachusettsan", as only Massachusetts was involved.
Shouldn't this simply be "Colonial victory" instead of a strategic one? Terming it a strategic victory implies that the British won tactically, which is difficult to argue. The aims of the British were to destroy colonial supplies, which they did in only limited amounts. Most of the supplies they believed they destroyed were later recovered - thus a strategic victory for the colonials. The British suffered far higher casualties than the colonials, and were forced to retreat to Boston, rather than the intended return march to Boston. (81.101.124.6 (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

Response: Colonials considered themselves "American" well before July 4, 1776. The term is NOT restricted to referring to the USA. They also considered themselves English (or Scottish, German, French, etc.). It's not a simple either/or situation. And "Massachusettsan" isn't even a real word. 2600:1000:B070:C50F:7405:CFDA:B7D3:399 (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems harder to me to argue a victory of any sort, and it should simply be labeled as 'indecisive'. The British left, achieved what they'd set out to do, returned; that achievement on the other hand was of negiligible value. Describing this as a victory for the colonial militia is utterly ludicrous if one looks objectively at it. 90.253.221.165 (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord/Archive_2&oldid=1169749466"