Talk:Battles of Lexington and Concord

Terminology for American troops

It's a tricky matter coming up with appropriate terminology for Americans at this particular stage. They were indeed known as "Americans" in period texts although I don't think they really identified as such. The term "Patriots" to describe them as a military body is lately being used on this page and I think that's perhaps even less appropriate than "Americans." I'm not sure it's a good label. It's ambiguous and subjective. The term meant different things to different people. I think we need an objective term that satisfactorily sums up what and who they are. Most commonly, they were known as "provincials." I think this is the most appropriate term. They used it. The British used it. It sums up who and what they are. I think it should be used throughout. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Did “provincials” apply only to the rebels? There were numerous “provincial” regiments wearing red!

The terminology is complicated by what people called themselves at the time, by how 19th-century Americans wanted them to be remembered, and by the neutral viewpoint we should all have today. I think the word American—capitalized— should not be used alone, in terms of the conflict, until after the treaty was ratified. Those who called themselves Whigs and those who called themselves a “King George’s man“ were all lower-case americans, equally. “Rebel“ is an honourable term for someone who resists a situation they can’t accept. “British subject” shouldn’t be sneered at for someone who supports the legitimate authority. All americans. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The term "Patriot" has been in use on this and other ARW pages for a very long time (at least ten years), so "lately" is not a very good descriptor of its usage here. There has been a long-standing consensus that it is an adequate descriptor for active participants of the rebel cause, especially in the pre-independence parts of the conflict and in events not involving regular military formations. When properly linked to Patriot (American Revolution), the use is not really ambiguous, even if it is not equivalent to modern conceptions of Patriotism. Magic♪piano 13:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure the usage of the word "Patriot" is appropriate here even with the disambiguation. This battle is being used as a dog whistle for rallying "Patriots" within the alt-right to "1776 Again." See this video: (Defanged) hxxps://fb[.]watch/mOdfvBZYEX/ Jocephus865 (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe colonist would be a more appropriate term, as the idea of independence was seen more as radical back in 1775. LizardDoggos (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ford and Ramsbotham wreath-laying order inaccuracy

In the article as it stands, we have "President Ford laid a wreath at the base of The Minute Man statue and then respectfully observed as Sir Peter Ramsbotham, the British Ambassador to the United States, laid a wreath at the grave of British soldiers killed in the battle."

However, the cited source actually says "Following the President's remarks, Sir Peter Ramsbotham, British Ambassador to the United States, laid a wreath on the graves of British soldiers buried at Concord. The President then placed a wreath at the base of the Minutemen Statue." which makes no mention of respectful observation, and demonstrates that Ramsbotham laid his wreath first, contrary to the article's assertion. Can someone fix this please? 66.203.189.102 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

edit request

"The Battles of Lexington and Concord was the first..." should be "...and Concord were the first..." - 168.229.254.62 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It seems to me that since the two battles are being treated collectively as a single campaign, the existing singular "was" is correct. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• This is a grammar issue, not a "treatment" issue. "Battles" is in the plural, and under the rules of English grammar, it takes a plural verb. If the battles are to be considered a single event, then treat them as a single event, as a singular noun in the subject; i.e. "The Battle of Lexington and Concord." If the plural "Battles" is used, then they are clearly not being treated as a single campaign. It's is a simple matter of correct grammar: agreement of subject and verb. Not whether the engagements at Lexington and Concord should be considered as one or two events. Either the noun and verb should both be singular, or both should be plural. Either way would be acceptable English grammar. As it stands, it would not pass muster with any copy-editor of any print encyclopedia, and it would be marked as incorrect in an English composition class.

Article quality

Since it has been awhile since the last assessment, I have had another look at the current version and noticed the following:

• The article has uncited statements
• The article is quite long, at over 10,000 words: I think some information can be spun out or removed as being too much detail.
• The article has many block quotes, which are not needed for the reader to understand the context and contributes to its long length.

Should this article be nominated to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Error in John Barker Quote

The Lt. John Barker quote in this article has an error. In the article it reads "they fired on us two shots" while the original text reads "they fired one or two shots". Can someone correct this? Nathantidd (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Battles of Lexington and Concord

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

The article has uncited statements. It is also quite long, at over 10,000 words: I think some information can be spun out or removed because it is too much detail. The article has many block quotes, which are not needed for the reader to understand the context and contributes to its long length. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This is an important subject. I'll at least take a look. Hog Farm _talk 04:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Honestly this article appears quite notable, rated as high importance for US history, in that context I don't think I find its length objectionable or unmanageable.

Some quote could be removed and summarised;

"We ... find that a part of your Majesty' s subjects, in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, have proceeded so far to resist the authority of the supreme Legislature..."

"Whenever the army under command of General Gage, or any part thereof to the number of five hundred..."

--

Where as I would oppose the removal of the quote from participates in the battle that seems more relevant to the article at hand, so without some other reason to suggest they represent a POV that should not be included I think they are fine.

--

I am unable to find any statements in the article that are not cited at least at the paragraph level some uncited paragraphs exist but these appear entirely unobjectionable at least to me and the GA criteria are

> reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

There is some touching-up that could be done here. I'm busy with work but I'll try to make a library run either this weekend or next weekend. Some of the tags confuse me - I don't know what needs further explanation about "Nearly a hundred barrels of flour and salted food were thrown into the millpond". I have doubts about the free license status of the Franklin Mint medal and have nominated it for deletion on Commons. Hog Farm _talk 16:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)