Talk:Fort William Henry

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Capital District (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Fortifications / British / European / North America / United States

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 met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Discrepency needs to be resolved

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movie?

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)[reply]

Indians

Which tribe/s was/were involved in the massacre?--80.141.247.142 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long list at Siege of Fort William Henry. Magic♪piano 20:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Causualites

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Racism, and living in the past, or current correct terminology

It is widely recognized that there were no "Indians" in North America at that time - but there were a lot of Indigenous peoples, and while we can't change the names of treaties and documents, or even wars without generating confusion to correct deeply racist terminology, we shouldn't be using that in any newly written text, and it is comparable to using the "N" word that isn't being quoted in an article on Black History. There are ZERO excuses for still using it. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]