Battle of Middle Boggy Depot

	Battle of Princeton has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	Battle of Princeton is part of the New York and New Jersey campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 10, 2009 Good article nominee Listed February 3, 2009 Peer review Reviewed April 28, 2010 Good topic candidate Not promoted December 17, 2010 Good topic candidate Promoted May 30, 2020 Good topic removal candidate Kept Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 3, 2010, January 3, 2017, January 3, 2018, and January 3, 2021. Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 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 High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

According to the article, around 500000000000000000000000000000 British soldiers were killed. On the other hand, according to the battlebox, 195 British casualties were incurred. Which piece of information is correct? AndyZ 20:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The 195 is more likely, because battles in the Revolutionary War are not known for the number of men killed. I have no proof by the way. - TopAce 14:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The battle box is way off compared to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.53.16 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington was not 'cornered' at the second battle of Trenton, as the text currently states. See Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer (ISBN 0195170342), page 277: "The Americans expected an attack in great strength by British and Hessian troops. In council they decided to receive it in Trenton on ground of their own choosing." The Americans re-crossed the Delaware to Trenton in expectation of engaging the British and Hessian troops; they were not cornered there. [20:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)] (Signed on 2/28 - forgot to sign this the first time) Valtam 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you say, The 17th, part of the 55th, and the Dragoons broke through, continuing down the road to Trenton, pursued by Washington, who broke off his pursuit when some of Leslie's troops came into sight, I'm a little confused. Weren't the British attacking through the orchard, away from the Princeton-Trenton road? That is, if they 'broke through', wouldn't they be on the wrong road (the eastern road, which Washington used in the march from Trenton to Princeton the night before)? My (limited) understanding was that the British turned and retreated at this point. But, if you could explain it to me, I'd be much obliged. Thanks. Valtam 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eight months later, I've simplified the references by removing the exact names of the smaller British units. Valtam 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Battle is listed as a "Decisive American Victory" when the only decisive thing about the entire battle was that the Americans were left in control of the battlefield. By this measure, Bunker Hill is a "Decisive British Victory," although it is only listed as Phyrric, and Monmouth should be a "Decisive American Victory" although it is only listed as Inconclusive. What you basically have is an American force 1) attacking a British force in a peicemeal fashion, 2) meeting heavy resistance, 3) failing to destroy a numerically inferior enemy, 4) allowing said enemy to escape and fight again, 5) slinking off to lick its wounds before Cornwallis can catch it, and 6) failing to capitalize on any of the real strategic goals open to it. By this measure, the battle of Khe Sahn was an NVA victory. I feel it should be listed as either a Phyrric American Victory, or Inconclusive. Tactical American Victory at the very most.

• Americans over the course of the battle VASTLY outnumbered the British, especially towards the end. However, the battle box misleading claims the British force was 8,000 men. this might be true in the agregate, but at the actual battle, only the rearguard of 1,200 was involved, and the main body too far away to be of assistance had it even known what was going on. Thus according to the battle box, you have the Americans outnumbered by the Brits 2:1, while in actuality the battle started off about even with an eventual 6:1 manpower advantage on the part of the Americans.

• No mention of the loss of General Mercer is made the in the battle box, despite his importance to the Continenal cause.

• No mention is made of the failure of Washington to follow up and take 70,000 pounds in Silver in New Brunswick after the battle, despite the fact that it was virtually undefended and had the Americans captured it, might have caused the British to sue for peace right then and there. I feel this is at least as important as mentioning that NJ then mostly fell to the Continental forces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Btswanfury (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I would be happy calling this a "Tactical American Victory." I'll make the change.

Regarding numbers - the main body of the British force was only a few hours' march away, to the south. Washington carried out an unexpecting, daring move by stealing away in the night and attacking the British from the rear. The audacity of this helps make the victory impressive to many Americans.

I don't know much about the silver - did Washington definitively know it was undefended in New Brunswick? Do you have a source for his knowledge?

I look forward to working with you on the article! Valtam 15:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply regarding the silver.

From: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1290.html

"Washington was faced with a crucial decision. The aggressive side of his character wanted to march directly on the British regional headquarters at New Brunswick, which held ₤70,000 in silver and a huge store of supplies. His more conservative side, however, realized that Cornwallis was in pursuit and that his own army was exhausted. The latter prevailed."

From: http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/american_revolution/3033596.html?page=3&c=y

"'My original plan when I set out from Trenton was to have pushed on to Brunswick,' Washington later explained to Hancock, 'but the harassed state of our own troops (many of them having had no rest for two nights and a day) and the danger of losing the advantage we had gained by aiming at too much, induced me, by the advice of my officers, to relinquish the attempt. But in my judgment, six or eight hundred fresh troops upon a forced march would have destroyed all their stores and magazines, taken (as we have since learned) their military chest containing 70,000 pounds, and put an end to the war.'"

From the Burlington Country Web site:

"The American generals would have liked to continue the chase, following the British regiment from Princeton on the road to New Brunswick, where immense supplies and a British military chest containing 70,000 English pounds were stored under light guard. The rank and file, however, were exhausted, and the American army moved north, into the hills."

I could come up with some hard-paper references for you if you must have them, but I am at the office. Regardless of wether or not Washington knew of the pay chest being at New Brunswick and virtually undefended (wether he knew the chest was there or not remains open to debate), there is no doubt that 1) he knew there were at the very least massive British army stores there for the taking, and 2) that if he had captured the British military pay chest, there is little doubt (even in his mind) that its capture would have led to an almost immediate peace...nearly 6 years before the cessation of hostilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.186.1 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links Btswanfury. (I presume it's you - don't forget to sign your posts with the four tildes.) I'm at the office, too, so I'll try to digest them tonight. Interestingly, the book "Washington's Crossing" doesn't discuss the silver, if I rightly recall. Thanks for the links! Valtam 21:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - Washington's aside, "as we have since learned" makes it uncertain to me whether he knew of the silver on the day of the battle. I want to research this some more. Valtam 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other NJ State parks have their own entry. Why not this one? I don't know much about the history of the park, but presumably there is some, and descriptions of the site are appropriate.--Natcase 17:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be more about the fighting at Nassau Hall and about Princeton University? First, John Witherspoon, the President of Princeton (then College of NJ I think) was part of the Continental Congress, and Nassau Hall had been used to house American troops prior to the British arrival. There is the famous story of Alexander Hamilton firing a cannonball which destroyed a painting of king george, and a cannon ball can still be seen lodged in the building. The surprise at Nassau Hall was very complete (this part of the battle I think is decisive) and the Continental Army was able to stock up on supplies found in the building. --Rendsburg (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are being persisted upon the Battle of Princeton, using an unreliable source. The ridiculous claim that Washington attacked with only 1,400 men, seriously contradicts the numbers that is listed in the article (over 4,000). Also the claim that casualties were 40 killed and 40 wounded heavily contradicts the part in the article that states "and suffered heavier casualties", referring to the American forces. A source had already been listed which states the American losses as 45 killed and 110 wounded, but with total ignorance to that source, it is continually replaced with the unreliable source. I have even found a source here which states the strength: http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/Princeton.html (Trip Johnson (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm but British Battles.com, which is a reliable reference to you, states that there were 40 killed and wounded on the American Side. You have already called British Battles a reliable reference so why are you now changing you view? http://britishbattles.com/

Here is the reference with the strength. http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/770103.htm
(Red4tribe (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm, did you ever think it was a typo, which it is? What about myrevolutionarywar.com, which makes the ridiculous claim that 350 British troops were killed at the Battle of Brandywine? Both pathetic and ridiculous. Casualties on britishbattles are usually a bit 'iffy', but the strength is fairly reliable. And, why do you keep trying to change nearly every battle to an American victory, some when they are indecisive? Is the claim that, because they didn't lose, they must have won? And, where did I say britishbattles was a reliable reference? It's only fairly reliable, no source is completely reliable. Haven't you took tirronan's advice and taken a wiki break? Considering most battles are being changed to an American victory, obviously you haven't. (Trip Johnson (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Nearly all battles to an American Victory? I have changed a whopping 4 battles to an American Victory. I have changed 3 battles to British Victories. About even if you ask me. You have a desire to add on to the end of every American Victory a bunch of uneeded words. Such as "Successful American Withdrawl". I'd love to see how many battles you've changed to British victories. If British Battles is iffy with casualties why are we using it for the British side? Anyways we aren't going to get anywhere arguing with each other, we need other people to get in to talk. (Red4tribe (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

How many battle have I changed to British victories when they have been either American victories or Indecisive. Here's the overwhelmingly massive long list:

Engagements on Lake Ontario

Wow! That's a lot isn't it! The fact is, you keep editing battles to American victories without actually describing what happened in the battle in a nutshell. If you think that it should just be a two word answer, then you really have no business editing wikipedia articles. Look at the Battle of Lexington, that has a very long worded answer, because it describes the actual outcome. The results that you put in are just far too bland. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sure I could go through and find plenty more, such as Germantown being a "total faliure" and Germantown being a "Decisive British victory", the war of 1812 being a British Victory but I'm not going to and I'm done with you here. I will only post back here if someone else comes into the conversation. Goodbye (Red4tribe (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You don't honestly think Germantown was an American victory do you? If you do then, hell, god help us all! (Trip Johnson (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Third Opinion

If anyone has a third opinion, please post what you think here. I would be glad to hear it. From references I have heard British casualties from 40 killed and 58 wounded, up to 86 killed. So clearly there is a big gap there. Here are some references. http://www.britishbattles.com/battle-princeton.htm
http://www.theamericanrevolution.org/battles/bat_prtn.asp
http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/Princeton.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1290.html
http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/770103.htm
It is up to someone else to make the decision. As you can see we aren't getting anywhere.(Red4tribe (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think we should probably leave this decision to an admin, whether to keep the long-standing FACT that Washington had 4,600 men, or a more unreliable number of 1,400. (Trip Johnson (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Admins have no special insight that makes their judgment on content any more valid than anyone else's. Could I suggest, however, that you provide your references that support the figure of 4,600, whether printed or online, so that people looking at this third opinion request can assess the reasons for the discrepancy. CIreland (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting on a 3O

Okay, so.. I'm having a hard time with these sources. There's nothing about http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/battles/770103.htm that makes me accept it as a reliable secondary source. The site doesn't make any claims about its sourcing or anything. doublegv.com seems to be a site for primary sources, and it says "Washington has but 5,200 men, many unreliable militia", which seems far larger than 1400. britishbattles.com says "Size of the armies: 7,000 Americans against 8,000 British and Hessians although only 1,200 British troops were principally engaged." But again, I'm skeptical of these sources.

As to the other issue about how many British casualties there were, well... I don't really know. I'd maybe say to show the numbers in a range (40-86?) but I don't know if that's the right way to go. Either way, I listed this discussion over at WT:MILHIST so hopefully somebody will come by to help settle this debate. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think myrevolutionarywar.com is that reliable a source - it's based on an older edit of the Wikipedia page. I'm pretty sure (but not positive) that I wrote an early draft of the Wikipedia 'Battle of Princeton' page, after reading 'Washington's Crossing.' (Prior to that, the page was just a stub.) It looks like myrevolutionarywar.com just copied the text to their page. Valtam 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, it shouldn't even be considered for use for this page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myrevolutionarywar has come under a lot of critisisim,(and reasonably so) but how do we know that someone was not copying from their site onto wikipedia? (Red4tribe (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That's not really a justification. The website still cites no articles or secondary sources, and makes no claims of how verifiable its information is. It's not a news source and it doesn't seem to be run by anyone who's notable on the subject, so why should it be used? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, for the strength of the Americans we'll use 4,200 or was it 5,200? I cant't remember. AS for the casualties I think 40-86 would look very odd. So we will have to come up for something on that. (Red4tribe (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Please, one of you, look up an actual book on the subject. The standard reference would still be The Battles of Trenton and Princeton by William S. Stryker, which has been reprinted fairly recently and should be widely available. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a copy of the book? What does it say? I'll assume good faith on this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try ILL, but I'll see if I can find it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Google Books? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Stryker (Houghton Mifflin, 1898, p. 292)
  • American: 40 killed and wounded
  • British: 400 killed wounded and prisoners, about a quarter killed; 216 men, 14 officers, and some stragglers taken prisoner. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ibid., p. 308-9.
  • Washington's total forces, 7 brigades, totalling 5500 men; but this excludes losses and desertions at Trenton, and Washington made a detachment to carry captured artillery to Burlington. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Three British regiments were engaged; the 55th was "somewhat more than 300 men". The other two were the 16th and 40th. The main body of Cornwallis' army did arrive before Washington was out of sight, but they were halted by a single shot from his rear guard, and sent out patrols, which held them up for a hour. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, Washington's forces did pursue the 200 British who got away, and took 50 more prisoners. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an impeccable cite John Ferlings Almost a Miracle:The American Victory in the War of Independence is a good place to start, he lays out the actual numbers as agreed with countless other American and British Revolutionary War academics. The British were heavily outnumbered in both men and cannon yet the colonists struggled to overcome their opposite numbers, to claim the battle was 'decisive' is questionable at best and ludicrous at worst, I'll edit to read 'American victory' and add-in the completely over-looked fact that the British were very heavily outnumbered. Twobells (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this article seems to go straight from "background" to "aftermath". General Mercer's 350 Virginians "encounter" 800 British soldiers, and then...what? I'm using (or attempting to use) Wikipedia for actual research, so I'm afraid I can't give details. Help please?--75.105.64.38 (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out, someone must have vandalized it a while back but it was missed, but anywyas, I restored the text.-Kieran4 (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write here

98.234.212.102 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be an issue. Kyle McInnes^{[citation needed]} 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the description of General Mercer's wounding as it seemed emotive and biased. The order of events is skewed. He was not bayoneted and then clubbed which seems intended to suggest overkill- although, this was a melee in a running fight. By his own admission, Mercer brought his death on himself.

He was brought down by a musket butt (not a bayonet, note) and told to surrender. Resenting the 'epithet' of rebel, Mercer decided to go down fighting and attacked the men surrounding him with his sword. He was then bayoneted. Here is the reference:

"The tale which you have heard, George, is untrue. My death is owing to myself. I was on foot, endeavouring to rally my men, who had given way before the superior discipline of the enemy when I was brought to the ground by a blow from a musket. At the same moment, the enemy discovered my rank, exulted in having taken the rebel general, as they termed me, and bid me ask for quarter. I felt that I deserved not so opprobrious an epithet and determined to die as I had lived, an honored soldier in a just and righteous cause, and with out begging my life or making reply, I lunged with my sword at the nearest man. They then bayoneted and left me." (Waterman 159)

With Sword and Lancet, the Life of General Hugh Mercer Joseph MacNaughton WATERMAN pp. xi. 177. Garrett & Massie: Richmond, Va., [1941.] 1941 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been >11 years since I first started editing this article, and it look so much better than it did back then! I'm putting this comment here to note that Mercer died 9 days after being wounded in the battle, so it makes sense that he told someone about the battle, before he died... Just wanted to note that here, to avoid future confusion... (probably coming from me!) Valtam 16:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention is made of the fact that the British were heavily outnumbered which is often mentioned in numerous tomes both American and British, (and I'm not referring to websites rather unchallengeable academic cites) why is that? Also, the battle was talked up as being a great victory yet yet how can a far superior force winning be a 'great victory' ? Twobells (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the lead to read the historical facts including two cites, if anyone wants any more just ask. Twobells (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is simple. With a brilliant nighttime maneuver, the Americans evaded Cornwallis' main army, decimated his rearguard, effectively liberated almost all of New Jersey for the rest of the war, and prevented the destruction of the Continental Army. Numbers of combatants + casualties don't make a "great victory", the results of the battle do. If a simple, bloodless strategic maneuver won a war overnight, would that not be a "great victory"? Think about it. 24.255.189.207 (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Princeton's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nris":

• From Princeton Battlefield: "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. July 9, 2010.
• From Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania: "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. July 9, 2010.
• From Trenton Battle Monument: "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. April 15, 2008.
• From Delaware and Raritan Canal: "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. March 13, 2009.
• From Monmouth Battlefield State Park: "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. January 23, 2007.
• From First Bank of the United States: "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. March 15, 2006.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Princeton. 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/20131019174027/http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=60370 to http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx?id=60370

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 20:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way of knowing Washington's thoughts regarding the British Light Infantry bugle calls at Harlem on September 16th 1776, since they were not recorded. Since it was Adjutant General Joseph Reed who construed the calls as an insult, while others understood them to be intended either to rally the advance troops, or call up support, this observation can only be unfounded supposition on the part of the cited source, Ketchum. I'll excise it. JF42 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Having checked Ketchum, he makes no reference to Harlem Heights. This appears to have been an editor's own conclusion. In addition, the cited text reference ('p.309') is incorrect, and relates to his chapter on the battle of Trenton, rather than Princeton.

JF42 (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Princeton. 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/20141218191827/http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx to http://states.ng.mil/sites/MA/News/Pages/125th%20Quartermaster%20Company%20honored%20for%20storied%20lineage%20and%20service%20at%20Lexington%20and%20Concord.aspx

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) 05:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serious duplication in the middle part of the lede, as though someone had edited a first draft but also left the original copy in place. And what is meant by The battle (while considered minor by British standards)... This is not referenced in the article, and therefore shouldn't be in the lede. Valetude (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]