Talk:Battle of Connecticut Farms

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Connecticut Farms article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: British / European / North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

New Jersey Mid‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Revolutionary War / Military history / History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - American Revolutionary War task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Knyphausen's Plan -- "Invasion" ?[edit]

As a resident of Union ("Connecticut Farms") in the 1960's & early 70's and a fan of the local Revolutionary War events, I have some familiarity with the history. I raise a "Neutral Point of View" objection to the word "invasion" in the following sentence: "Knyphausen had also been led to believe that the war-weary people of New Jersey would give little resistance to his invasion." I suggest it be replaced by the phrase "to his troops' advance".

There is a historical plaque in the area commemorating the battle which was placed during the 1976 Bicentennial. It originally used the same phrasing as the article "invading British troops". Shortly afterwards, folks from Britain pointed out the historical inaccuracy: at that time the troops were suppressing a rebellion in there own colonial territories, and thus were not "invaders" (except to the rebels). But while it is true that the Hessian troops were regarded by the local colonists as "foreign invaders", this was of course due to anti-german bigotry ("foreigners"), the troops were considered by Britain as British Army auxiliaries. [Ref: the Wikipedia article for "Hessian_(soldier)".] The commemorative plaque wording was eventually corrected by the local historical society.

I think there might also be an overlooked point not considered by the offending sentence. Sorry I do not have the time to provide a reference, but as I recall from reading the local historical records of the battle, the Brit's somewhat expected to be greeted as a "legitimate authority come to restore order" and protect those loyal to the Crown from the colonial "rebel terrorists". Recall that the Brit troops were making their mainland incursion from State's Island (modern Staten Island), where most colonial loyalists were forced to flee under extreme duress after the revolution began.

NOT trying to start a debate here - I just want to see the article avoid the bias of a pro-American POV.

-- jhayas.biz@gmail.com (aka "ersatz.nobogus")