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)

Proposed merge of Battle of Menotomy into Battles of Lexington and Concord

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This appears to be a military action that is not meaningfully distinguishable from the two battles at the merge target; this is simply the military engagement in which the American patriots ambushed the British during the British retreat; this can be adequately captured within Battles of Lexington and Concord#Return march. Most of the histories that I'm able to find treat this all as one event (Coburn famously labeled this whole event as "The Battle of April 19, 1775").

In any case, I see no need for a WP:CFORK breaking out this particular exchange of fire at this time, and I think the articles should be merged as such. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Support I am in favour of combining the articles. The battle of Menetony isn’t significant enough to stand alone.

  I would gladly support re-titling in the article “ The Battle of April 19, 1775” since there is a precedent for that name being used. It would cover include activities, such as the ambush at Menetony, which didn’t actually take place in Lexington or Concord. More balanced. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Support

I am astonished that this hadn't been thought of merging before, since the article basically a... paragraph.

I'd definitely merge.

BillClinternet (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It is a separate battle, in a different place, with its own not insignifcant casualties. To merge is offensive. It simply needs to be expanded. Period. 2601:196:180:DC0:2DDE:A626:2E4B:2BD3 (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose :I'd also oppose. It is a different battle, and to merge would make things confusing for people trying to find something. 73.11.152.191 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, vigorously. I agree that it is a separate battle and that the article needs to be expanded. The article should NOT be retitled. A User will search for "Battle of Menetony", not "Battle of April 19, 1775". Always keep the needs and convenience of the USER in mind, not the quirks of editors. Vicedomino (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose For the reasons stated above, and primarily because I think merging them under the title "Battle of April 19, 1775" would be a mistake. One author used that term for a book title roughly a century ago but no one knows it as that. It's "Battles of Lexington and Concord" in histories and popular culture alike. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Support merge and re-titling to "The Battle of April 19, 1775" Ascelyn (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

support merge. But I don't get the idea of retitling the article to what is essentially a date--Ioe bidome (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Support merge. The battle is obviously related, and thus I view it as a subset of the better-known battles. I also oppose the suggestion to re-title since this would tend to "bury" all three behind the lesser-known date. Allreet (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose The argument to merge has merit, but I think they should be separate... for now at least. Looking at the edit history, it looks to be a (fairly) young article. It also seems as though it has the makings of an interesting stand alone article of a perhaps glossed over battle (roughly half the days casualties, Samuel Whittemore was named the state hero for his actions there and a few other interesting tidbits I've found while going down this rabbit hole, that aren't mentioned here or on the Lexington & Concord page). The article definitely needs to be fleshed out, if it can. I may even look into trying my hand at giving it some help. So I vote for giving it some time. If we're here again in a year... two years, whatever... then maybe merge it. IrishRhino139 (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the title of the article could be changed to Battles at Lexington, Concord, and Menetony to preserve the traditional names. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

One historian votes SUPPORT

A 2016 article by Harry Schenawolf in the Revolutionary War Journal (General Joseph Warren: Patriot Leader Killed at Bunker Hill) says

“The colonists would suffer the greatest number of casualties that day in what was called the Battle of Menotomy (now merged into the Battle of Lexington and Concord).”

https://revolutionarywarjournal.com/warren/ Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I will not argue if the articles should be merged but I oppose to rename the article to Battle of April 19, 1775 per WP:COMMONNAME, which sources used in the article show that this warlike confrontation is known as Battles of Lexington and Concord. --2x2leax (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment

would this merge lead to the article being WP:TOOBIG? Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support I agree that the Battle of Menotomy should be on the same page as the Battles of Lexington and Concord. There are a few reasons, one being that the Battle of Menotomy is a smaller, less known battle than the Battles of Lexington and Concord and would be fairly difficult to write an entire article on. Not to mention that putting a lesser known battle on the page of a very well known one may bring people to the awareness of this event where they might not be able to find it otherwise. However, I oppose renaming the article to "The Battle of April 19, 1775" for the same reason some people oppose merging the two articles: they are simply not the same battle. The Battle of Menotomy was a colonial attack on the British during their retreat from Concord, it was not an extension of Lexington and Concord. If the decision to merge these articles is reached, which I hpe it is, there need be a few things that happen:

- These two events are NOT part of the same battle
- They DID happen on the same day
- The article SHOULD be renamed to "The Battles of Lexington and Concord and the Battle of Menotomy"
- People NEED to be able to find the Battle of Menotomy when they search it up

I hope you take the idea to merge these articles into serious consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:680:8100:6760:2DD1:9A34:2068:16BA (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I would add that I think Battle of Menotomy should redirect to this article. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no pressing reason why the Battle of Menotomy article be merged to this one. They were two distinctly separate battles. The Battles of Lexington and Concord, iconic battles that marked the beginning of the Revolutionary War, involved a British offensive, while the Battle of Menotomy involved a British retreat in a war that already begun.The Battle of Menotomy is briefly covered in this article, with links, which should suffice in terms of inclusion here. Further, how would we rename this article if a merge were to occur? Battles of Lexington and Concord and Menotomy? Three battles in one title would be very odd, and it seems it would only be a matter of time before others proposed a split. I've never seen an article title that included three battles. Best to leave well enough alone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

I have just added a topic with the above title to the article Battle of Menotomy. It mentions a PBS story which included information I haven’t seen anywhere else. There are no references so that story can’t be treated as reliable. Nevertheless, it may contain some clues which would help track down additional information, if someone is keen to flesh out the Battle of Menotomy. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Occupation of Boston

Has use of the word occupation been discussed before? I can’t find anything in the archive. I think this comes up in the article about the Boston massacre too.

The link in this article tells me the following: Military occupation, also known as belligerent occupation or simply occupation, is the effective military control by a ruling power over a territory that is outside of that power's sovereign territory.

The British don’t seem to have been in control, at least not in the way I think of occupation. Plus the colonies were not outside British sovereign territory.

I expect the word occupation has become part of the canon of the revolution so it is difficult to change even if there was an alternative. A similar issue of perspective comes up when the word invasion is used with respect to the revolution. it all changes after the treaty of Paris, and it can be argued as changing when independence was declared.

Can anyone suggest how this question of perspective is handled in other rebellions? An example not involving the British Army would make it clear. (I’m not suggesting such an example should be in the article.) Perhaps colonies elsewhere in the Americas, Africa, or even the Philippines? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2023 (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)