Talk:Fort William Henry
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Discrepency needs to be resolved edit
These two sections are contradictory.
"The attack on the surrendered troops took place on what is today called Bloody Pond Road, named because the bodies were thrown into a nearby pond, which leads east from the Fort William Henry."
"Bloody Pond got its name from the Battle of Lake George in 1755, not from the massacre at William Henry."
So which is it - the massacre or the Battle of Lake George? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.32.141 (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
- 1755 sounded right to me, quick search revlealed seems my instincts were right. I'll update the article. --Ahc 05:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 edit
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Movie? edit
The 1992 film The Last of the Mohicans has the battle as part of its plot. Would it be acceptable to mention it in the section about the massacre? —98.110.43.168 (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Indians edit
Which tribe/s was/were involved in the massacre?--80.141.247.142 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- There's a long list at Siege of Fort William Henry. Magic♪piano 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Actual Causualites edit
The actual number of casualties after the massacer is unknown, but citing only one scourse makes it "appear" factual, when it is really only a vaugley educated guess. I submit that multiple soucrses should be cited, such as Edward Ramon's estimate that 450 British Soldiers and 200 civilians killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.17.178 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- The source in question (as the article text states) contains a compilation of estimates, as well as its own reconstruction. It is true that estimates of casualties vary widely; Steele even reconstructs the historiography of some of them. The article very clearly does not state his figures as factual -- they are Steele's informed (not "vaguely educated") opinion. Magic♪piano 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)