Talk:Battle of Gettysburg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Other Languages

Just like to point out that every single other language Wikipedia lists this battle as being decisive. Just saying.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My points: (1) None of the foreign-language articles comes close to being as comprehensive as the English one (particularly considering that there are six major sub articles as well as lengthy overview articles about the campaign and the retreat); (2) Your methodology of determining what "every single" article says is pretty lax--the first one I checked, Deutsch, doesn't say decisive. (And I'm surprised you're even able to read "every single" article anyway.) Bluffing doesn't suit you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you only looked at the Deutsch one and made an opinion rather than looking at every single-one before formulating your opinion. Also, insulting the other Wikipedia's doesn't suit your character very well.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

All it takes is one exception to prove that a claim regarding "every single" instance is incorrect--there is no need to check every instance. What's interesting is that I did not have to search long--the very first one I tried showed your claim to be incorrect. And no insult was offered to other Wikipedias--there is no reason to expect that their articles about a US battle would be as comprehensive as the US article. And the truth is easy to find. All of those articles are much shorter and have very small lists of references in comparison to the US version. Open one up and see for yourself. (I think the German version is probably the best, but my German is rusty.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course you'd say that cause it sides with you biased statements.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Note the canvassing here, here, here, here...probably more but no need to keep looking. redacted. A review of his contribs show that he is at best, trifling. His motivations which are completely incorrect can be seen here.

Either get a clue or get out. You are distracting the productive & constructive editors with your trifling. Talk about disruptive....
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. You better take a look at WP:NPA. Remember to comment on content, not contributor. Also taking a look at Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding would help you cooperate better.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Decisive or Not?

Just wondering...a friend of mine asked me to check this out. Should the Battle of Gettysburg be considered decisive?--Edward130603 (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not. Read the article, read the Talk page archives. Hal Jespersen (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It was referred to as the "High Water Mark" of the Confederacy. Mostly it was their big opportunity to try and make a negotiated peace with Washington via force; the plan was to put Lee's army in a position where it could strike Washington, New York, or Philadelphia. An envoy from Richmond would then arrive in Washington with the proposal.

--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.5 (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The high water mark is actually a romantic notion that was promoted after the war, not a term of art in the military historian's toolkit. If you look at the section in the article about decisive victory, you will see there is little consensus among historians that Gettysburg was the decisive point in the American Civil War. Also, you will see a more complete description of Lee's motivations for waging the campaign in Pennsylvania. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous link clipping

Does anyone know why the "Interactive Animation of the Battle of Gettysburg" link keeps getting clipped from the External Links section? I'd say it's pretty pertinent to the wiki entry. There's no history for it so I suspect someone keeps clipping it anonymously. Any was to lock that out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperAnth (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not reading the article history correctly because it is pretty clear that the changes are not made anonymously and that reasons are given. In this case, there are actually two reasons: first, there are already external links to animation sites in the list, so additional animations provide little benefit to the reader; second, WP:LINKSPAM describes the situation where people attempting to promote their websites plaster links on a number of Wikipedia articles, calling attention to the practice and inviting deletion. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the linkspam rule. I built that animation for a class and it contains information that isn't in other animations linked from the article. Also I gain no profit from the link going to that page. Why is it considered linkspam if there are no advertisements? This link only exists here and on the Robert E. Lee article due to it's detailed description of his tactical strategies during the Civil War. SuperAnth (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The linkspam guidelines are not related to profit, they are related to managing information overload. Suppose a dozen students created animations for classes and they all had slightly different content – would you expect us to list them all in all of the battle, campaign, and biography articles related to a subject? Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that would cause chaos. But the point of wikipedia is to contain information. Since there is not large field of animations populating this entry, shall we agree that one single additional animation link won't do any harm? Without conducting this as a New Battle of Gettysburg? :)

--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that up until now I have been arguing simply on the basis of the number of links in the article and did not pay much attention to the contents of the link. I have now reviewed the animation site and agree with the comments in the Joshua Chamberlain talk page. It is a very superficial view of the battle, not only less comprehensive and interesting than http://www.historyanimated.com/GettysburgAnimation.html, but also not particularly accurate. (I do appreciate that you used my map of the battlefield terrain, although it is an older version than we use currently in Wikipedia.) The readers of this article and its sub articles will derive no value from this link. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hal, I can understand you wanting to make changes to the Battle of Gettysburg article, but I can't help but wonder why you're going into other articles and removing my changes there as well. I'm beginning to wonder if I've somehow offended you in some way. I will remove your map if you so request; I was under the impression is was under the Wikicommons Fair Use agreement. But please don't attack my work out of a sense of revenge.

--24.91.154.25 (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting revenge as Hal's motive constitutes a personal attack. Assume good faith. Please make your argument without personalizing the debate. BusterD (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand the direction this discussion is taking. You have done nothing to offend me. You are perfectly free to use my Gettysburg battlefield terrain map because I put the older version you are using into the public domain. (The more recent version that appears in Wikipedia is using the Creative Commons 3.0 license, which requires that you attribute derivative works to me.) However, as I stated above, the animation you have created does not meet the standards of accuracy that would warrant including it in any Wikipedia article. If there are Gettysburg-related articles that would be improved by listing an animation site in their external links, http://www.historyanimated.com/GettysburgAnimation.html would be the superior choice. And there is really no justification for having more than one such site in a list. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

BusterD, I see your point. But I did feel harrassed with Hal going into other Wiki articles and culling my posts there as well. But in general I see the work contributing facts and information that are not available in other animations. Therefore, Hal, even if you believe the page already has an animation and only needs one, the new animation does contribute additional information, which is the purpose of Wikipedia. ASC.

--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk)

If you poke around in most of the Wikipedia background files (policies, manual of style, etc.), you will find that pointing to additional information is not the highest priority for Wikipedia articles. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not a directory of links to other websites. Ideally, the articles that have reached the highest status of development and review will provide full encyclopedic coverage of topics using their own text and media, usually well beyond the scope of printed encyclopedias. One of the stated criteria for rejecting an external link, for instance, is if it contains only information that should have been in the article itself and would have been if it had been fully developed (what we call "featured article" status). If your site is providing "facts and information" not available in the article (and in the sub articles -- the battle of Gettysburg is covered by a whole collection of related articles), please let us know and we will consider including them in the articles. Considering the highly detailed nature of the existing animations in the list, I would also be interested to know what you think you are including that they do not already. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position, however information in the animation is in fact fulfilling the purpose of this article. And I think you might be thinking differently of wikipedia other than it's purpose if you think additional information is not the highest priority for Wikipedia articles.

Additionally, saying please let us know and we will consider including them in the articles purports possession of this article by you and others, which defies the public ownership which is the purpose of all Wikipedia articles. Refer to the CABALS and OWN entries. The first line of the latter reads "Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article". --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

Hello - I'm an uninvolved editor who has arrived here after following the link at WP:3O requesting an additional person's input on this issue. Because BusterD hasn't provided an opinion on the issue at question, I will treat this as if there were only two participants in the discussion. Please be aware that I'm just a regular editor with no special powers or rights and you are entirely free to ignore what I say.

It seems to me that the link in question, although very nicely done, doesn't add much value to the article, because it mostly duplicates the information the article already contains. What's more, there are too many external links right now and I would cheerfully remove half of them.

SuperAnth, I think your animation is a great resource and you should be congratulated for making it available to people - but that doesn't automatically mean that linking to it improves this Wikipedia article. What's more, since it's your own work, you may not be the best judge of that. It's best to defer to the judgement of others when you have a personal connection to something, and I think that's what Hal was getting at above.

I hope this third opinion helped. As I mentioned above, you are free to ignore it completely. If you would like to get more input from other uninvolved editors, you might like to try WP:RFC.

Thparkth (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Thparkth. Your third-party opinion was appreciated. I especially appreciate your pointing out I might have a personal interest in promoting a self-created work. I'll take down the link now and will also abide by your advice on what other external links can also be trimmed. --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuart's orders

I removed the following sentence from a recent edit: "However, his orders included destroying so-called "targets of opportunity", which he did so extensively and therefore contributed to his delay in reporting to Lee." Two problems: His orders from Lee did not use this phrase, saying instead that he was to "collect intelligence, provisions, &c" (etc.). Second, this is the high-level summary article about the battle, and the preceding sentence, "Lee's orders gave Stuart much latitude, and both generals share the blame for the long absence of Stuart's cavalry, as well as for the failure to assign a more active role to the cavalry left with the army." ought to be sufficient to describe Stuart's actions. The article Gettysburg Campaign#Stuart's ride has a lot more detail. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Harvest of Death photo

The "Harvest of Death" photo on this page and others suggests they are Union soldiers. However, the photo page (File:Battle_of_Gettysburg.jpg) suggests they are Confederates and other links I've found suggest the same, such as from Britannica [1]. Futhermore, it makes sense as the photo was taken 2-3 days after the battle and the Union soldiers would have been buried first. Unless someone objects, I'm going to change Union to Confederate on all the linking pages. I'm posting this here as I figured this is the most watched of the linking pages. --Captkrob (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The photo page says "Incidents of the war. A harvest of death, Gettysburg, PA. Dead Federal soldiers on battlefield. ..." This is plate 104b in Frassanito, William A. Early Photography at Gettysburg. Gettysburg, PA: Thomas Publications, 1995. ISBN 1-57747-032-X. On page 318, Frassanito, the undisputed dean of ACW photography analysts, writes about this photograph from the Rose farm, "There can be no question, however, but that all the dead are Union." So please make no changes. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: The file at Commons was changed by an IP ("federal" to "rebel") on Oct 14. It was reverted to the original today.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, good catch. Captkrob (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

75th Anniversary Reunion

What about a link to the wonderful clip (accessible on YouTube) of the Gettysburg 75th Anniversary Reunion (1938), with veterans from either side shaking hands across a brick wall, greeting each other in friendly fashion, and some of the Confederates giving the Rebel Yell? 109.157.234.103 (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Some ideas for edits on “Background and movement to battle” section

collapsed for brevity ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dear Berean-Hunter and others - This is a finely written article, so readable and informative. Here's few observations and suggestions I hope will be useful: On Stuart’s “…failure to assign a more active role to the cavalry left with the army.” If you go to J.E.B. Stuart, the article presents views on the significance - and culpability - of Stuart for these “failures”, but it seems that the primary one was not providing adequate reconnaissance to Lee. I propose changing the sentence to “…failure to assign an adequate reconnaissance role to the cavalry left with the army.” Later in this Gettysburg article, in describing the initial encounters on June 30, Pettigrew’s force was required to provide its own recon, “…to determine the size and strength of the enemy force in his front.” Stuart’s forces properly would have monitored these developments. On Lee’s “decision” to invade Maryland Mcpherson’s essay To Conquer a Peace? Lee's Goals in the Gettysburg Campaign (you can find it as a Google Book online), has a few things to say on this. (In This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War . New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-19531366-6) He asserts that Lee was planning the invasion of Pennsylvania in “early” 1863, directing his cartographer to create maps for south central PA, and that by April Lee was actively preparing to advance into PA. When Hooker took the offensive, Lee had to deal with this matter before proceeding i.e. Chancellorsville. The Wiki article implies that Lee argued that an invasion would “ possibly reduce the pressure on the besieged Confederate garrison at Vicksburg.” Mcpherson reports that concern over Vicksburg was the competing view, from Longstreet and others: that an invasion of PA would abandon Vicksburg to Grant. In addition, Rosecrans was threatening Bragg in TN and could use reinforcement, and Union forces opposed Beauregard in South Carolina. (McPherson p. 82) Lee argued that: 1) it would take too long to transport units to support the western theatre 2) the role of Virginia troops was not well-defined enough 3) heat and disease would decimate his unseasoned VA forces 4) and even if Vicksburg fell, a victory in PA would more than compensate for the that. (McPherson p. 82-83) Lee’s goals, therefore, was not to act as a decoy for Vicksburg; on the contrary, he was committed to crushing Union forces in a free state, and extracting a peace settlement in its aftermath – with independence for the Confederacy. (McPherson p. 83) On the matter of capture or enslavement of fugitive slaves and freemen. The Wiki article states that, “The most controversial of the Confederate actions during the invasion was the seizure of some 40 northern African Americans, a few of whom were escaped fugitive slaves but most freemen.” I assume that the “controversy” refers to Civil War era reaction to these events, not our own. As far as returning escaped slaves to the south, this would only be controversial because it violated the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, in that federal commissioners and US Marshals were required to preside over the transfers. Lincoln championed that law publicly. Northerners may have been outraged, and the matter debated. On the other hand, the enslavement of freemen, either manumitted slaves and those who never been slaves, was an egregious action, not a controversial one. To free slaves as a war necessity, as Lincoln did was one thing; to enslave freemen as part of an occupation is quite another. I’d suggest changing the term, simply to clarify the matter. Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC) It is not usually necessary in Wikipedia to discuss minor changes before you make them yourself--only really controversial or large changes should follow that course. If small changes turn out to be controversial, someone will revert or modify them and direct you to the talk page. In terms of background, please be aware that this section is a smaller version of the one in Gettysburg Campaign, so if there are relatively complex alternative viewpoints, that is the article in which they should be explored. On the slaves, the use of the word "controversy" was meant to apply to the current era and upon further thought, it was not the best choice of words. The intended effect was to imply that current sensibilities are offended by this; the only remaining controversy would be from the viewpoint of someone who thinks slavery is still a valid option. You are welcome to modify this sentence to improve it, although I do not believe it is necessary to go into arguments about the fugitive slave act in this article, or to expand it beyond a sentence or two. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Just to make one thing clear: enslaving a free man (without due process, residing in a free state) is not only regarded as crime to "current sensibilities" today, but was, to most Americans in 1863, a crime, even in the Confederacy. Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I've removed the "controversy" bit and reworded. Concerning McPherson, he is a fine author but it may be a good idea to find more references that back his points so that we may maintain a neutral point of view without giving undue weight to a singular author's point of view. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Dear BH, Douglas S. Freeman, Shelby Foote, Allan Nevins, Bruce Catton: all historians. James M. McPherson is an author. Thank you for clarifying that matter. As usual, Wikipedia is groaning under the burden of award winning Wiki editors who have little to contribute. Their primary function is to give assignments to active contributors. On the subject of Undue Weight: McPherson does not offer a minority view. The example given at the WP:UNDUE is the “Flat Earth concept”, another would be the view that global warming is not caused by human activity. What does McPherson, a mainstream Civil War historian and Princeton professor (emeritus), and his essay on Lee, have to do with "Undue Weight"? If, Berean-Hunter, you have some sources that you with to offer as a rebuttal to McPherson, feel free to list them, as I have done mine. Otherwise, what it amounts to is, "locate a source that satifies me, and I'll gladly refrain from tearing down your post". Unfortunately, this is typical of Wiki, and has nothing to do with establishing a discourse on the topic.Mysweetoldetc. (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC) No need to accommodate a blocked troll... ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edits re: Gen. Hooker/Gen. Meade change of command

Greetings. I notice the way both the intro and main article read, the impression is given that General Hooker was fired ("relieved") a few days previous to the battle - however, as many here know, Hooker actually resigned in a June 27 telegram sent to General-in-Chief Henry Halleck, that Halleck forwarded at once to President Lincoln, who accepted the resignation despite the military crisis of Lee's invasion of the North. (At actual dispute were 10,000 troops stationed at Harper's Ferry that Hooker wanted for his army, and which Halleck insisted remain holding the location.)

This is a glaring error in the article and should be corrected asap, in my view. I will be happy to take a swing at it and would normally just go ahead and do so, but my previous experiences here, while not unpleasant, have given me a healthy respect for those that have had long experience working with this high profile Wikipedia article; hence, this proposal prior to any changes. A few lines at most would give the actual facts, or even just minor modifications to the sentences in question. Thanks. Jusdafax 08:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jusdafax, you are correct that Hooker resigned but Hooker himself did not have the power to effectuate that resignation. It still took the action of his superiors (Lincoln in this case) to actually relieve him. Lincoln did not have to accept the resignation and Hooker would have been compelled to remain in command...he had to follow his orders. The resignation is an action which may precede being relieved of command...it is not an either/or situation but rather one of cause and effect.

History shows that Burnside was relieved but if you look, you will see that he, also, technically resigned prior to being relieved. "On Saturday morning Maj.-Gen. BURNSIDE, at his own request, was relieved of the command of the Army of the Potomac." Likewise, Halleck's downstep from General-in-Chief to Chief of Staff was presented in a similar manner...being relieved at his own request.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the intro and the section on Hooker need to be corrected. Hooker offered his resignation because Halleck would not grant his request to assign the Union troops at Harper's Ferry to Hooker. Hooker was not "relieved", his resignation was accepted and he was replaced. The assertion in the body of the article that he was relieved because of Chancellorsville and his response to the invasion is inadequate and misleading. Hooker certainly did not have the full confidence of his fellow officers and was actively opposed by Halleck but Lincoln chose not to act until Hooker forced his hand. Awotter (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Relief in military parlance does not always have a negative connotation. When a new commander arrives in a unit for whatever reason, it is customary to say "Sir, I relieve you" to the outgoing commander. However, in this case is appropriate for the reader to sense that negative connotation. The fact that Hooker offered his "resignation" in the middle of an active campaign, meant to be a threat with no real expectation that it would be accepted, speaks poorly of him. (Coddington, p. 131: "Whatever his motives, it is questionable whether he expected Lincoln to accept his resignation. Imagine his surprise when he did!") Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

largest battle

I have removed a recent edit to the lead section that said "In terms of number of troops involved and number of casualties, the Battle of Gettysburg was the largest battle ever fought on North American soil." It was footnoted with a Japanese website (puh-leeze) and an offhand reference in a Gettysburg National Military Park document. After long discussions over the years, the article has limited itself to the claim of the largest number of casualties during this particular war. Readers have cited earlier battles involving huge forces in pre-Columbian Mexico, but since these discussions have been archived into oblivion, it is hard for me to find them again. Nevertheless, Mexican soil is in North America, so the rather non-encyclopedic "on North American soil" is not valid. Furthermore, Gettysburg was not the largest battle in terms of troops engaged. The Seven Days Battles featured larger armies on both sides. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The reference was not a Japanese web site - it was a reference to information on the US Embassy in Japan, which is information circulated by the US State Department. If the State Dept. is not a reliable source, please say so politely (I could be wrong, but I don't think "puh-leeze" is a good example of AGF). I am not reverting the edit (unless general consensus goes otherwise), but I would appreciate a little more civility in the future. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the mild, humorous aside. I also misinterpreted the URL as being Japanese, rather than for the Japanese. A State Dept doc is theoretically a reliable source, but we ought to use some judgment here. A website that describes all of American history in a single page is hardly an optimal source for a detailed article such as this, one that is based on dozens of much more specialized sources. Also, the cited website says largest on "American soil" and that is ambiguous and non-encyclopedic. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

Where do you not get the bastardized idea that the South suffered 28,000 casualties? shyjb 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

...so the idea that the South suffered 28,000 casualties is bastardized? If it is, why did you edit the article to reflect the bastardized idea?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Casualties: Implication of Academic Consensus by Editor's Opinion ONLY

[Consensus]

"Any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."

To refer to the 2005 Busey study as 'definitive' implies that academic consensus has been reached. In the 'Casualties' section the only citation given for the authority of Busey is the work itself. Insertion of the adjective "definitive" implies external consensus on a source's authority; use of the adjective without external citation reflects only the personal opinion of a single Wikipedia editor.

Citation [58] actually reflects a preponderance of academic agreement (Sears, McPherson, "NPS") that would indicate consensus with the traditional Fry/Livermore numbers:

Examples of the varying Confederate casualties for July 1–3 are Sears, p. 498 (22,625); Coddington, p. 536 (20,451, "and very likely more"); Trudeau, p. 529 (22,874); Eicher, p. 550 (22,874, "but probably actually totaled 28,000 or more"); McPherson, p. 664 (28,000); Esposito, map 99 ("near 28,000"); Clark, p. 150 (20,448, "but probably closer to 28,000," which he inaccurately cites as a nearly 40% loss); Woodworth, p. 209 ("at least equal to Meade's and possibly as high as 28,000"); NPS (28,000)

Busey is clearly NOT considered 'definitive' to Sears, McPherson, and the National Park Service-the 'names' you would expect to find associated with a true consensus. There is no evidence of a single person (besides the one editor who inserted 'definitive') who actually considers the Busey work 'definitive.'--Donaldecoho (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not so hung up on the word "definitive" if that is causing you heartburn, but your argument citing other authors has a serious flaw. All of their works precede the work in question. Also, note that there are two categories of authors in the list. Those that have written books concentrating on the Battle of Gettysburg mostly agree with the lower estimate, while those that have written more general works cite the higher (and usually are not very rigorous about citing their own sources for these numbers). The academic work that is most closely focused on--dedicated to--Gettysburg casualties, enumerated by unit, perfected by modification in four revisions, is the one likely closest to reality. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a citation, external to your own personal opinion, that Busey's multiple revisions have produced "perfection" or "closeness to reality." Perhaps, the first edition was simply so flawed that it required multiple trauma resuscitations to achieve plausibility.

I did not write citation #58; I'm just observing its contents. In fact, I have NEVER edited "Battle of Gettysburg" (except in an attempt to redress this injustice) ; I'm simply concerned with this article's truthfulness and fidelity to Wikipedia principles.

ACADEMIC CONSENSUS is a slow, painful process and cannot be achieved through rhetorical statements (like yours). Did I mention, I taught at (what now might be referrerd to as) 'Pedophilia State University' for twelve years? I have endured the 'tenure track,' and I know the difference between ACADEMIC CONSENSUS and ACADEMIC INDIFFERENCE.

Academia is indifferent to Busey. If you can provide nothing more than personal perspectives you're proving my point.--Donaldecoho (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'll have to side with User:Donaldecoho that use of the word "definitive" isn't cited in applied sources. (Am I wrong here?) I've taken the liberty of removing it from the section. You know I love your work, Hal, and we rarely disagree, but IMHO the term "definitive" gives a precedence amongst sources not designated by sources and is therefore a subjective evaluation by an editor or group thereof. Donald makes a reasonable case we shouldn't present the Busey and Martin work as authoritative without a better measurement of consensus. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Academia is indifferent to Busey"? Congratulations, Mr. Coho, you have - in one of the least polite and most combative responses I have seen in a very long time - managed to close with one of the most nonsensical statements you possibly could have.

Since your point appears to be that personal opinion should be secondary to academic works, perhaps you should examine why, in the course of this discussion, you have made several personal attacks against other editors (including in edit summaries, which is just petty), deleted unflattering conversations that were still in progress and going against your personal beliefs (even on other user's talk pages), and repeatedly demanded citations but provided none. If academic works are considered superior to personal opinion, why are you so deadset on forcing your personal opinion down the throats of people who have a long history of documented accuracy in their work on this site (specifically Mr. Jespersen) and who are the ones proposing figures from academic works as opposed to the generally less well-researched, more pedestrian, and generally popularized works that you are demanding? Indeed, very few academic works cite the ludicrously-high figures that you are trying to jam down people's throats in your increasingly-hostile tone. Jeffry Wert's 2009 biography of J.E.B. Stuart, Bradley Gottfried's 2007 Gettysburg atlas, Noah Trudeau's 2002 Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage, Carol Reardon's 2005 and Earl Hess' 2001 books on Pickett's charge, Glenn LaFantasie's 2006 biography of William Oates, and Thomas Desjardin's 2003 These Honored Dead all cite the Busey/Martin figures, and that's just the books I have in my personal collection. Indeed, while only the newer works use the Busey/Martin figures (for obvious reasons), I can't find a single academic work in my own rather extensive collection that cites the higher figures.

Incidentally, as long as we're discussing your popularized History Channel-esque hyperbolic figures and their relation to reality, you know what else finds wild disagreement with your numbers? The Official Records. Series I, Volume 27 (Part II), pgs. 338-346 contains a careful unit-by-unit tabulation made some twenty years after the battle that lists the total casualties of the Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of Gettysburg as 20,451. In short, the popularized hyperbole-ridden 28,000 figure has no basis or academic validity, and your insistence on trying to force people with far more experience and who have done far more research in this area than yourself is - by definition - replacement of academic consensus with one editor's opinion, namely your own.

I'm certainly not about to call any work "definitive" in an area with so much room for error, but considering the complete lack of evidence for the 28,000 casualties figure, I think any competent editor would agree that it's inclusion is unwarranted, and certainly no outside observer could possibly agree with the self-centered hostility displayed by Mr. Coho. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I thought I should pass this bit of comedy along for everyone else who knows better; there's a great bit on my talk page where Mr. Coho responded to the above by launching a disjointed personal attack against me in which he said that he wasn't going to respond to my actual statement because he was convinced that the only way I would be defending Mr. Jespersen's position was if I actually am Mr. Jespersen; He then continued to reply after insisting he wouldn't. Thank you, Mr. Coho; you have provided me with excellent laughs for the evening. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I always attempt to remove the personal from our interactions in Wikipedia and I hope the rest of you will do the same. I see that BusterD has removed “definitive” from the article and, as I said previously, that does not give me any heartburn. I was perhaps using the term in a non-academic sense, trying to imply that a book specifically about casualties defined the issue more cleanly than a general work about the war. If I were writing about spark plugs in a 1964 Mustang, I would consider a book about Ford Electrical Systems, 1960-69, to be more definitive than A History of Cars.

Thanks to Icarus for the impromptu research on supporting citations. The generalized figure of 28,000 is one that has dwindling support. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Guesses are actually provided more for the sake of completeness than as definitive answers." Page xi of Forward, "Regimental Strengths and Losses at Gettysburg," John W. Busey and David G. Martin. The authors of the work we're discussing 1) admit guesses and 2) abjure definitivenes. Hmmm, Mr Coho's assertions are nonsensical? It seems to me, attacking the messenger when your case is weak or indefensible is combative. Mr Coho might be a patriot for truth and justice with the abuse he's enduring.--DefinitiveMyEye (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Statistical aberrations

Since this is the first time in a few days that Mr. Coho has actually mentioned anything of substance to the debate rather than a commentary on our personal attributes (and since he's changed his talk page to an amusingly-inaccurate invocation of Godwin's Law that I do not wish to despoil with substance), my response to his latest tirade is below:

I must say, Mr. Coho, your latest deluge truly was a panoply of inaccuracy and self-defeating arguments. First of all, some advice; if you're going to invoke statistics in an attempt to prove your authority, don't do it with a political strategist. Statistical models consume fully half my life. How do you think polling works? (Incidentally, if you'd like to see some truly elegant analyses, look at Nate Silver's work on the built-in house biases of various firms polling models).

One of the most basic principles of statistical analysis is that straight head counts become increasingly inaccurate with the size of the population being counted. This is why there's been an argument for a quarter-century that the Census should be taken by sampling rather than by the more traditional and archaic methods - already-underrepresented populations are being under-counted, and already-overrepresented populations are being over-counted. This is demonstrable in combat casualty statistics throughout history as well; large units after large actions tend to under-count their own casualties and over-count the casualties of their opponents, either out of optimism or by intent.

(This is by no means confined to the Civil War; in Congressional hearings in the early-70's, one Congressman said to General Westmoreland that we should go ahead and declare victory and bring the troops home, because according to the military's own numbers we'd already killed ever man, woman, and child in Vietnam, and the English-language tourist site for North Korea, meanwhile, claims that in the 1950-53 war they succeeded in outright killing two-million American troops.)

This is the first point where invoking statistical sampling destroys your own argument; The Army of Northern Virginia's own casualty figures for the battle tally to barely over 20,000 (indeed, their figures for the entire campaign do not reach 28,000); the Army of the Potomac's figures for Confederate casualties vary somewhat between 24,000-25,000. As with almost every other major battle of the war, it is likely that the admittedly-unknowable truth lies somewhere in between, and not as an outlier. While the possibility exists that the Provost Marshall, Inspector General, and Surgeon General of the Army of the Potomac all under-counted Confederate casualties, this would make Gettysburg the a remarkable statistical aberration entirely on it's own, because it would be the only major battle post-McClellan where that Army didn't over-estimate the number of Confederate casualties. On a similar note, if methodology matters, how do you explain your fidelity to the archaic Weaver model? As previously noted - by both of us - straight headcounts in populations of this size are by their very nature wildly inaccurate. Even in absence of the reality that the 28,000 figure is aberrational when compared to all other figures, Weaver's count would be generally given far less weight by any competent statistician based upon its notoriously-inaccurate methodology. From a strictly-academic standpoint, the Weaver count lacks the necessary validity to be our sole source for these figures, and while it should be noted, it should be very specifically noted as an outlier.

If you truly care about statistics, then you should care about methodology, and here the Busey/Martin figures are among those that are preferable to the Weaver figures; note that I did not write "perfect" or "infallible" - the only person to invoke those words remains you. This brings me to the second point: As I've said before, the English language is far more precise than we as native speakers tend to give it credit for (which, incidentally, is how the other half of my life is consumed; it's a bizarre profession). No one, ever, stated that the Busey/Martin figures were perfect. Indeed, no one so much as implied that, and every person whom you are claiming did at one point or another in this conversation actually said quite the contrary; it has been agreed that such a young work can hardly be "definitive" in this area, but that the Busey/Martin methodology has produced what has become both accepted and indeed preferred figures. No one has argued infallibility, and to insist that we are claiming perfection is to substitute your own reality; you have invented our positions out of whole cloth and argued against those, rather than arguing the points we actually presented.

It is also worth noting that the quote, "Parameters are unknown and unknowable," is yet another thing that you have taken wildly out-of-context; Deming was referring specifically to emergence, which is hardly relevant in the current model. The figures in question do not reach the requisite level of complexity to be subject to emergent phenomena. It is still worth noting that alongside quotation- and phrase-inaccuracy, invocation of a field in which your position would be quickly dismissed because of your poor methodology, bizarre and irrelevant slavery metaphors, invocation of archaic measures of intellectual competence, a demonstration of your poor research skills because you were unable to expend the five seconds necessary to look up the phrase "turning movement", a bizarre (and incorrectly-executed though admittedly novel) utilization of Godwin's Law, and continued attempted redaction of conversations in which you come across as both petty and uninterested in the actual substance of the debate, you seem to be struggling to find the conversation.IcarusPhoenix (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Presented without comment, Mr. Coho's sole response to the above.

Additionally, I've been asked why I haven't reported Mr. Coho for his obvious violations of Etiquette, I can only point out that a) since I've been poking at this particular bear, I'm hardly in a position to personally object to his wide-ranging personal attacks against multiple contributors, his (intentional?) misrepresentation of other people's statements, and the remarkable displays of Middle School vulgarity that he directs at me, and b) I'm perfectly content to watch him continue exposing himself as irrational. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The word definitive was removed three days ago, so I do not understand the continued hysterics. I also do not understand the obsession with my phrase "perfected over four versions," which probably should have been "improved." No one, including me, would ever consider such a work to be "perfect," which is an unachievable absolute. The introduction to the work, which includes admissions of estimates and guesses, actually gives me more confidence of its validity than do works that make no such admissions. Some of the other historians quoted in the citation include terms such as "probably." Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The word 'definitive' has been re-inserted. What is the point of discussing its presence? The 4th AL marker on the Battlefield, established March 1, 1904, during the lifetimes of the Regimental survivors states, "Present officers and men about 275. Killed and wounded 87." The marker is permanently contradicted by Busey and Martin's figures "346 engaged and 38 wounded."
I'd only ask that the Battlefield marker be vandalized to reflect generally accepted figures.--Donaldecoho (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Coho's typically-offensive attitude towards other contributors aside, he is correct that the word "definitive" has reappeared for no apparent reason; my guess is that while Mr. Jespersen and myself were reverting some recent edits done since the completion of this conversation (which added unsourced and popularized assumptions), one of us may have reverted just one edit too far. The correct diff is probably this one by BusterD, but I don't want to change back to it without second opinions. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not bothering with some forensic investigation to determine why the word reappeared, I have deleted it again. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

On Saturday, September 29, 2012, I personally toured the Visitors Center (cornerstone: 2008) at the Gettysburg National Military Park. It includes a film, visit to the Cyclorama, and self-guided tour through the 20,000 square foot museum. On a large video monitor, I cannot help but smile at the casualty figures: 23,000., 28,000. Among the dwindling supporters of the 'generalized figure of 28,000' is apparently... ...the National Park Service.--Donaldecoho (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hooker/Meade edit

Removed sentence which read as though Meade replaced Hooker early in Lee's campaign. The same material is covered just a few paragraphs later. Tapered (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

casualties

Hi,

in the German Wikipedia we have different numbers (incl. sources) to the casualties, here the sources first:

Losses of the "USA" : http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;rgn=full%20text;idno=waro0043;didno=volume;view=image;seq=00207;node=waro0043%3A1

Losses of the confederates: http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;rgn=full%20text;idno=waro0044;didno=volume;view=image;seq=00348;node=waro0044%3A1

As you can see this are copied pages from an book. The casualties are:

USA: 23.049 total dead: 3.155 wounded: 14.529 missed/captured: 5.365

confederate: 20.451 total dead: 2.592 wounded: 12.709 missed/captured: 5.150

What do you say to the source?! Greetings from Berlin :) Kilon22 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear; I do wish you had read previous conversations before providing an avenue for reopening of that particular acrimonious debate, since it led to ridiculously childish personal attacks by one contributor against pretty much everyone else, up to and including borderline-libelous attacks on a completely different website.

The source you're using is the Official Records of the War of Rebellion, compiled from official reports of both armies after the war. As has been pointed out above, those figures were reached by inaccurate on-the-spot methodology that was guaranteed to be of questionable accuracy due to the fog of war. Post-war counts (and this is true in most situations, not just Gettysburg) show that armies tend to over-count casualties (both their own and those of the opposition) in the immediate aftermath of battle. This is the reason that we have chosen a variety of sources with extensive footnotes on the variation of sources, rather than relying on a single source that is pretty much guaranteed to be inaccurate. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

flame

Comment placed incorrectly in the talk page: "The official name for the light at Gettysburg is the Eternal Flame." Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Lt. Frank Haskell

I think a sentence or two about Haskell should be in the Pickett's Charge article. There is no current mention of him so I may add this. He played a significant role and wrote a celebrated first hand account, which in fact is cited in the references. Other details about Haskell, if pertinent and not already covered, could be placed in the article about Frank A. Haskell. I agree that lengthy text about Haskell does not fit in an overview article on the entire three-day battle. Donner60 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That is probably appropriate. My objection to a lengthy passage about him was that it was placed in the battle overview article, Battle of Gettysburg, where there is insufficient space to highlight the contributions of individuals like this. There are dozens of officers on both sides who could be described as having comparable effects on the battle, and the sub-articles and biographies are the appropriate places to mention them. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield

Shouldn't this article be categorized in Category:Gettysburg Battlefield since the battle is 1 of the many events/periods over the 2 centuries on the land area (cf. Nov 1863 Consecration of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, 1913 Gettysburg reunion, 1918 Camp Colt, Pennsylvania, etc.)? 64.134.28.163 (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Reorganizing the Army of Northern Virginia from 2 corps to 3 corps

I have noticed this:

"To attain more efficiency in his command, Lee had reorganized his two large corps into three new corps."

OK, but as this is coming after "Stonewall" Jackson had died, what would Lee have done if Jackson was still capable (i.e., not dead or incapacitated)? I have read over the years that the reorganization was done in the aftermath of Jackson's death, and this notion of greater efficiency in Lee's command is new to me.

Notice also that Longstreet stayed on as a corps commander. I would suggest noting in the text that the other 2 corps commanders (Ewell and A.P. Hill) were newly promoted at that time.

Good point. I have rewritten the paragraph. It is not the place of the article, however, to speculate on what Lee would have done if Jackson had lived. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2013

The phrase " The battle involved the largest number of casualties of the entire war[7] and is often described as the war's turning point.[8]" is erroneous. The Battle of Gettysburg did not have the most casualties out of all the battles fought in the Civil War; it was Antietam that had the most casualties, rather. This is even stated in citation 7 which is supposed to back up the false claim. Because of this, the phrase "involved the largest number of casualties of the entire war[7] and " should be omitted from the aforementioned sentence. Jackysonc (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Antietam had the highest single-day casualties (note 7 is a note that emphasizes this, it is not a reference): Gettysburg had twice as many over a period of four days. Both articles state this accurately. Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Decisive Victory??

Rarely within the Wiki-sphere does an interrogative appear within a Table of Contents--how many question marks have YOU PERSONALLY seen? Even though a key element of American History alone, the Battle of Gettysburg appears in ALL of the foreign language Wikis, AND while most of the foreign language Wikis rely upon direct translations of the English language Wikis, NONE of the foreign language Wikis directly translate this section, entitled 'Decisive Victory.' By inference, none of the foreign-language Wikis question the decisiveness of the Battle of Gettysburg.

Surely, there must be a commonly-threaded interpretation to the behavior of foreign-language Wikipediasts. While bias alone can explain differences among Americans, northern and southern, there is no plausible explanation, based upon bias alone, to explain the RELATIVELY NEUTRAL behavior of foreign language Wikipediasts. Donaldecoho (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you try that again, in plain English this time? Hot Stop 02:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Which sentences or phrases in particular are you having trouble with? This entire section [Decisive Victory _?_] is Clintonian and does not read at the commonly-required fifth-grade level--my critique is written at the same level (Ph.D. in usage and English-as-native language) as the original paragraph [Decisive Victory _?_] itself. Direct quotation of a Ph.D., by nature, is ambiguous.Donaldecoho

SUGGESTION: Let's consult NtheP, the most knowledgeable and neutral English-as-a-second-language editor that I have ever met on Wikipedia--I will defer to his judgment. Might I add, no one whom I am descended from, or related to, was actually killed or wounded at Gettysburg. Closest relationship, William Bailey, of the 148th PA Volunteer Infantry, survived the Wheatfield.Donaldecoho (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)(talk) 02:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What is written on the other wikis is really irrelevant here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The original section title was chosen without considering punctuation issues and has not been questioned in the last five or six years, but I have reworded it to remove the punctuation. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Are we really going to revive this pedantic two year-old argument? We already came to a Consensus - more than once - and just because it doesn't agree with Mr. Coho's original research is no reason for him to launch disjointed personal attacks, insert his opinions into the article, or make demands. I say close the issue (for the third or fourth time now) and move on. --IcarusPhoenix--^{The Labyrinth} 18:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

no wiki link to meade

is there a reason why there is no wiki link to Meade in this article? 69.171.101.3 (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean aside from the one in the sidebar? And the one in the very first paragraph? --IcarusPhoenix--^{The Labyrinth} 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Confederate flags in the field

The Confederate flags shown on the battlefield at the Gettysburg Cyclorama are the Southern (St. Andrew's) Cross and the First National Flag. No white flags appear in the Southern lines of the historic place in the actual time of the battle. The Second National Flag was flown from the Confederate Capitol according to David Sansing, at “Mississippi History Now”, Brief history of Confederate flags online Mississippi Historical Society, its specified length drooped it around the flag pole to show as a flag of surrender.

Ellis Merton Coulter in his The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865, published in LSU’s History of the South series, on page 118 notes that beginning in March 1861, the First National Flag was used “all over the Confederacy”. The First National Flag used in history at the Battle of Gettysburg should be used here in the Infobox for an article of history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

Remove the † after John F. Reynolds† in the sidebar as the † does not reference anything. 75.171.1.53 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a reference, it means that he was killed in the action. It could perhaps be made more clear, though its use is in line with common usage. Acroterion (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It may be in common usage in Civil War Roundtable newsletters. And I can see its utility, and the advantage of conciseness, regardless of faith or denomination of the dead. But it seems a bit esoteric to me, especially for the general international reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly not esoteric; the symbol is common usage in a lot more than just a newsletter. It is, in fact, an internationally recognized symbol in historiography, journalism, statistics, and genealogy, among others; however, as the IP editor did not recognize it, this is perhaps an indication of a lack of recognizability to the public-at-large. Personally, I think this may just be a lack of exposure to the symbol on the IP user's part, but perhaps it would behoove us to contemplate changing such references to "(KIA)". --IcarusPhoenix--^{The Labyrinth} 22:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Or it could be linked to a footnote that mentions that Reynolds was killed in the action. While far from esoteric, our mission is to educate and inform, so we should make it easy from folks to discern the meaning of the symbol if we use it. Acroterion (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

See also links

Hlj supposes that links to American Civil War and Commemoration of the American Civil War are inappropriate links in the 'See also' section. And so he reverted them without discussion. I wonder what the rationale might be? Editors are encouraged to link articles together. The Battle of Gettysburg was a part of the American Civil War and it is commemorated on stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Jespersen appears to suppose nothing; indeed, the only suppositions I see are those in which you suppose he has made such supposition. For starters, he didn't remove the stamp commemoration link, so your complaint there is completely moot. Second, he is correct that American Civil War (the only part of your edit he did remove) is an inappropriate link in the "See Also" section, being as the exact same link already exists in the very first sentence of the article. It was therefore a superfluous addition on your part. --IcarusPhoenix--^{The Labyrinth} 17:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will not rely on the Watchlist alone in the future. The intent on adding ACW in see also was to be informative for those who have been schooled up in naming the conflict simply "Civil War". I have found readers sometimes require more than one instruction in new terminology. In any case, procedurally I jumped to a conclusion, and I stand corrected. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In retrospect, my above tone appears a we bit hostile, so you've my apologies for that; a quick suggestion on watchlisting; first, keep an eye on the character count, and second, use the "diff" link to check between changes. That usually clears things up. It's also really useful when digging out vandalism and unsourced edits, both |]] ^Hutton 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Folks, My apologies for not replying before this. My watchlist is long and I completely overlooked the discussion. My practice is to do somewhat routine maintenance of these articles without a lot of commentary, because I find that most editors upon being reverted don't really care very much and just move on without discussion. I am happy to have the discussion (assuming I notice it!) with those who take objection. Wikipedia articles (at least those about the American Civil War) generally have very restricted See also sections that consist entirely of links that appear nowhere else in the article. In this regard, they are quite different from their namesake section in UNIX manual pages, which typically have dozens of entries. Instead, most Wikipedia articles have elaborate templates at the end that show many related articles in a tabular form. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Gettisburg vs Geteezburg

is the indicated pronunciation based on the way the place is pronounced today, or 150 years ago? because, many words have changed their pronunciation in the past 150 years and it's not particularly "correct" to pronounce them auld style today; interesting, but not more correct. I ask because the notation in the article says "local", while the citation appears to be temporal. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The town is named after James Gettys (pro. Gettis), so it is arguable that the local pronunciation is actually the correct one, whereas the more widespread Geteez is incorrectly assuming that it's named after a Getty, like Getty's Burg. Since this latter pronunciation is enormously more widespread, the article refers to the "correct" pronunciation as local because that is essentially where its use is concentrated. It is conceivable that the correct pronunciation was more widespread outside of the local area in the past, but we have no documentary evidence to verify that. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sort of like "Looosiana" then, or "Missou-rah ' ", let the locals decide. Staunton, Virginia is properly pronounced, "Stanton". Harder decision with "Nawlins" for New Orleans. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that local pronunciations are interesting, and they are in many ways "definitive", but I would also point out that we need to distinguish between accent vs local idiosyncracy, and separately the point I was making above was with regard to general dialect changes over time. For example, the Massachusetts city of Worcester (named after an England county) is pronounced in two syllables as "wuss-ster". So that part of it I would call "local". However, how you pronounce "wuss-ster" is dependent on your accent. Many people in Massachusetts have the "Boston accent" or the "New England" accent (and that accent itself varies regionally but let's pretend there is one). I would pronounce it "wuss-ster" but the local accent would have it as "wuss-stah". However, nobody from "wuss-stah" would correct my pronunciation because they wouldn't correct my pronunciation of car/cah, Harvard/Hahvahd, etc. That's how they pronounce the -er ending and they recognize that I have a different accent, has nothing to do with that particular town. So my original issue is still ambiguous: I don't think the Battle of Gettysburg page needs to point out how the people of Gettysburg pronounce their town, that type of information would be more appropriate in the page for the Town of Gettysburg (which does not list this fact); unless there is some reason historically why we need to know this with respect to the battleground but not the town. The way it reads now is as a bit of trivia, and an ambiguous one at that. Is "gettis-burg" the two syllable part of "wuss-ster" or is it the "wuss-ster/wuss-stah" distinction, or is it a historical artifact true for the battleground but not the town? That's what I meant when I said it's ambiguous, and I realize these things are difficult to describe, for example the two syllable bit for "wuss-ster" is itself an historical artifact from England, but that just makes the point that I don't understand why this tidbit of knowledge was placed in this article, I'm not sure what conclusion I'm supposed to walk away with. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

With the copy edit proposal for Geteez-burg pronunciation in the Battle of Gettysburg article and the pronunciation of Gettis-burg labelled as local to the town, I agree. Examples for showing both: New Orleans (/njuː ˈɔrliənz/ or /ˈnjuː ɔrˈliːnz/, locally /njuː ˈɔrlənz/ or /ˈnɔrlənz/; or at Worcester Worcester (/ˈwʊstər/ wuuss-tər). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I've gone to the trouble to google the topic and to look it up in the dictionary... there is no clear consensus at all that the town is pronounced gettis. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hlj and 69.201.168.196: In the present we have the Battle of Gettysburg as widely known as a turning point of the American Civil War, or as the high-water mark of the Confederacy. It is generally pronounced \ˈge-tēz-ˌbərg\ in American English in the modern era. Since British pronunciation is i/ˈɡɛtɨsbɜrɡ/, with an /s/ sound, see Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, both should be included in the first sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is the British pronunciation useful?? It's an American-only battle. Rjensen (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the pronunciation as it now reads should be changed in the article, Battle of Gettysburg, to read the American English pronunciation, Getteezburg, \ˈge-tēz-ˌbərg\. The British pronunciation is useful only because it is the same as the locals, and Hal Jesperson took an interest in the local dialect. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly a very important issue. I think the suggestion that this topic belongs in the article about the town rather than the battle is a good one, and that is the place that it would be appropriate to point out that the "local dialect," as you are calling it, is based on the pronunciation of the name of the founder of the town (Gettys), rather than the more widespread mispronunciation (Getty's). I would counsel against labeling the Gettys pronunciation as British, even if it is, because I have found that this will open the door to editors who want to include the French pronunciation, Japanese pronunciation, etc. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus copy edit?

So the consensus copy edit would be something like US usage only or US and Brit/local:

US: /ˈɡɛtiːzbɜːrɡ/ , (REF ”Gettysburg”, Merriam-Webster, Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. viewed September 25, 2014.)

or locally /ˈɡɛtɪsbɜːrɡ/ . (REF Robert D. Quigley, Civil War Spoken Here: A Dictionary of Mispronounced People, Places and Things of the 1860's (Collingswood, NJ: C. W. Historicals, 1993), p. 68. ISBN 0-9637745-0-6.)

The proposal still needs an assist with the audio for the U.S. pronunciation, \ˈge-tēz-ˌbərg\, I have not yet found the coding to make it work. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

Didn't the south suffer more than 28,000 casualties at Gettysburg? I must research more concerning the specifics of the total in numbers regarding this matter when it comes to casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In the Aftermath section of the article, there are footnoted references to quite a number of varying casualty figures. We are using the modern Busey and Martin figure, which is getting increasing acceptance by historians as the most definitive currently available. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

AGAIN the south suffered over 28,000 casualties and once more you are undermining the totals with your figures. Article headline will be corrected.

It seems like footnotes are being contradicted to title headlines, if I'm reading this correctly. Are we making sure to cross check multiple sources for accuracy? Also we should remain factual and respectful in our presentation of information that may say something different to that of what someone else posts. Remember, no one is trying to be wrong on wikipedia and everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. It would be tough if we're trying to prove something on something so long ago and we have two so called "experts" saying something against another. There's a lot of nuances in old history and the more data we can use to support, the better.Chewbakadog (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

AGAIN, read my reply to the previous comment. Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources and when those secondary sources disagree, about all we can do is compile those disagreements either in the text or in footnotes, which we have done in this article. However, in selecting a single figure to show in the article's information box and to highlight in the main text, we have chosen to use the most comprehensive recent work on the subject of Gettysburg casualties. If you look at recent scholarship, you will find that quite a few authors have been adopting these figures since they were published, which gives us some degree of confidence we are presenting the most reliable information, while not totally ignoring the older versions. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

The numbers on front page are MISLEADING. The casualties 28,0000 SOUTH. 23,000 NORTH. The approximate numbers calculated, the texts and footnotes, the information boxes and everything else is fine. The Article's front page headline should say south 28,000 casualties.shyjayb 13:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

At this point, you're just spamming the talk page; for the love of all that is holy, read the actual article, because you're wrong. We have footnotes and sources for a reason, and the article quite clearly gives sources showing why the popularized and simplistic 28,000 figure is no longer academically accepted. There is, indeed, an entire section on this. You're actual demanding that debunked information be added to the top of the article, while simultaneously saying that the various pieces of information that debunk that information are themselves "fine". Are you really demanding that we add information that things you say are "fine" contradict? If you have an actual academic source for your claim that makes a reasonable case why all of the other academic sources that show you to be incorrect are themselves inaccurate, please, we'd love to see it. --IcarusPhoenix--^{The Labyrinth} 23:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

So very be it. But I have not just "spammed" this talk page for ANY purposes whatsoever. That was not my intent. I will, however, adhere, to the guidelines while I try and make my case for displaying the proper casualty numbers on the front page of this article.shyjayb 09:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

Occam's Razor

Mine eyes have seen the glory on this page AND now I will combat it for the love of the HOLY with simple nomenclature. Now it should be understood that the casualty numbers have not been just merely "debunked" in simplicity; but what IS simplistic is always the best answer - and is to , and in this case and on THIS page, include all of your very relevant (sections on this) footnotes as well as scores of references - and should be presented for the internet world to see when looking at THIS very article to begin with, and that is the number of casualties on both sides as 28000 South and 23000 North as well as the display of the words "DECISIVE" NORTHERN VICTORY (much much more on that later) in the front page heading too.. Your academic sources and pieces of information (as far as breaking it all down is concerned) might better serve and display as footnotes under the long accepted 28000 casualty number that should be seen on the articles' front page.shyjayb 09:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

Yeah, you're not using the term Occam's Razor correctly at all, and at this point you're frankly just spamming the talk page with inanities. The reason the article is written the way it is is explained in the article, and if you want to rehash old conversations, I strongly suggest scrolling to the top of this page and perusing the Talk page archives. This conversation has been had before, and unlike you, previous proponents of the assumed estimates at least provided sources in place of your righteous indignation. --IcarusPhoenix--^{The Labyrinth} 06:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that consensus here is against any changes to the information as currently presented, and rightly so. Jusdafax 07:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2015

not general custer but pickett 96.232.86.149 (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

In section 9 - In popular culture - one might add: The Battle of Gettysburg is the first known (in-universe) divergence point from 'real history' for the role-playing game Deadlands. All earlier differences from our history are known to very few people, if at all. Roachware-org (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Roachware-org (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done Unnecessary trivia (and for the record, I've been playing Deadlands since 1st edition, and my copy is autographed by Shane and Brom). BusterD (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Confederate Casualty Change

Under the Confederate 'Casualties and Losses' at the top right section, it says '23-28,000'. I believe it should be '23,000 - 28,000'.

Zachw17 (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC) THANK YOU!!! And because of people such as you and myself (whether indirectly or directly) they have made that change on here, to include the 28,000 confederate casualty number right where it should be - in this article's FRONT page (without any linking).shyjayb 03:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2016

The article states that there were over 40,000 casualties but the data on the right side of the page says there were 23,000-28,000 casualties. Please fix this. 71.227.207.170 (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done I don't see the article use the figure 40,000 anywhere. the lead actually states

"Between 46,000 and 51,000 soldiers from both armies were casualties in the three-day battle"

The figure of 23–28,000 is only the Confederate casualties, and is only an estimate, you need to add the 23,049 Unionist casualties to reach 46-51,000 - Arjayay (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Chamberlains Charge

Col. Chamberlain initiated the bayonet charge on Little Round Top. This is well documented on his page and the internet in general. Melcher should be removed from having credit. SC Medic (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact is not generally known, it must be sourced, "the internet" is not a source, Wikipedia articles are not a source. Would you like to choose another, other than Melcher? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What sources would you like? It again, is common knowledge. Regardless to who conceived the idea, which is where the controversy lies, it was enacted by Chamberlain and he deserves credit. SC Medic (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear what your objection to Melcher as the source may be, but some one reliable scholarly source is required for reference to Chamberlain's action. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Gettysburg. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView/civilwar_maps_map34_largerview.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/pa002.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130420231706/http://www.psu.edu/dept/richardscenter/2011/04/gettysburg-casino-plan-defeated.html to http://www.psu.edu/dept/richardscenter/2011/04/gettysburg-casino-plan-defeated.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dean.usma.edu/departments/history/Atlases/AmericanCivilWar/AmericanCivilWar.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304063040/http://www.nps.gov:80/history/history/online_books/gett/gettysburg_seminars/index.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/gett/gettysburg_seminars/index.htm

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

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) 16:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Most costly [battle] in US history"

Except, it wasn't. The Battle of the Bulge, Meuse-Argonne Offensive and Battle of Okinawa all had higher casualties. Is it meant that the battle was the costliest given the short timespan? (Casualties per day?) Italia2006 (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The bloodiest day would be Antietam. Bertdrunk (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017

"Calvary" should be "Cavalry" throughout 104.129.196.54 (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2017

Typo fix. In the 2nd day section it says Lee did not order the attack to begin until 11pm. Should be 11am. 207.131.251.19 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I think you're probably right, but the cited source simply says "eleven o'clock", and it's impossible to tell for sure from the context. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The next line starts with "About Noon" and ends with "Did not get into position until 1pm". It is written chronologically. The following section talks about attacks in the afternoon. Do we really have to cite the fact that an order for an attack needs to precede the attack itself? Moreover this is near the beginning of the 2nd day section, if it was at 11pm the fact that Lee would order an attack on the second day an hour before midnight would be noteworthy and need to be explained. I have no horse in the game here, but as written it is patently incorrect.

 Done - as per the request rationale - correcting obvious errors does not need an RS - Arjayay (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017

I am so confused. The 11 pm to 11 am revision on Lee's order on the second day was undone with no explanation or discussion. The original change was done because it was obvious in context. Isn't this something that should be discussed before a change is undone? 207.131.251.19 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 01:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Also ideally such an edit should be discussed. However the requested edit template is really only supposed to be used when you want (with sources) a specific change be made to the article and not to elicit discussion on whether a previous edit was or wasn't okay under policy. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 01:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I am very new to editing wikipedia articles. I am requesting that the edit make by Arhayay in response to the Semi-Protected edit request on 13 March 2017 and reverted by Doncram be un-reverted. The justification by Arjayay is that correcting obvious errors does not need an RS. The request is that the line in the 2nd day section that states that Lee did not give the order until 11pm should instead read 11am. Apparently the cited work only says "11 o'clock" but in context, and with no explanation on why Lee would give orders for an attack on the second day at the end of the second day, it is clear this is meant to be 11am. Doncram reverted the edit with no explanation and did not write anything here on the talk page. Thank you in advance. --207.131.251.19 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is from the source, p. 365:

“ At the intimation that the battle would be opened on the right by part of the First Corps, Colonel Alexander was asked to act as director of artillery, and sent to view the field in time to assign the batteries as they were up. It was eleven o' clock when General Lee's order was issued, but he had ordered Law's brigade to its division, and a wait of thirty minutes was necessary for it to get up. Law had received his orders at three in the morning, and had marched twenty three miles. The battle ground was still five miles off by the route of march, but Law completed his march of twenty eight miles in eleven hours,--the best marching done in either army to reach the field of Gettysburg. ”

I believe that Doncram may have have thought the 11 pm time was correct. Law had original orders which had been received at 3 am and then he marched 23 miles before resting. After receiving Lee's new orders (made at 11 am), it took half an hour to rouse the troops and then they completed the last 5 miles to their assigned position. That is how I read it. Longstreet bounces around chronologically in his writing frequently and creates such confusion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I recall thinking:

1) it is conceivable that a) Lee came to his decision as to how the day's actions should go at 11 pm the night before, and b) that could have been a very late hour to be making such a decision and it would have been difficult to get everyone informed and organized, and that could explain something not happening until 3 pm the next day. Frankly i feel bad for visitors to the battlefield in the 1970s trying to coordinate any kind of meeting up, without cell phones.

2) it seemed like the editor saw 11pm and assumed that was wrong, applying 21st century sensibilities. Then made a leap that not only was 11pm wrong but the correct answer was 11am, based on nothing but assuming that would have been a plausible typo by someone else. I have seen lots of incorrect edits about coordinates of places in Wikipedia, where one editor correctly observes that a set of coordinates is wrong but then assumes incorrectly what the fix is (e.g. chooses to change it by one full degree of longitude, or changes latitude sign from S to N, when that was not the right guess for the fix, or when the original was correct after all). So while 11 a.m. has more plausibility here, apparently, because of the quote now provided, I am extremely skeptical of "fixes" based on assumptions of mistakes by others.

Here, I am not familiar with the sources and situation so I am not going to make a guess on what is correct based on just the quote provided. It takes a bigger, informed perspective from someone fully involved, and their judgment should not be based at all on what kind of mistake they think another editor might have made. It would be best to get someone completely independent, not aware of any previous interpretation, and point them to the sources, and ask them what date and time did Lee make whatever decision. --doncram 04:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

That was the gist of my thinking when I denied the original edit request, two threads up. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your reasoning makes sense, Doncram. However, leaving what is likely to be incorrect information is just as bad as changing it to something unsubstantiated based on a guess. Therefore, why not amend the text simply to "eleven o'clock," since that's what the source says, rather than keeping "pm," which is just as unsubstantiated as "am" and more likely wrong? (The idea that 11 pm orders cannot be carried out until 16 hours later stretches credulity.) Schoolmann (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit request 8-22-2017

The last sentence of the first paragraph:

"Union Maj. Gen. George Meade's Army of the Potomac defeated attacks by Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, ending Lee's attempt to invade the North."

"... ending Lee's attempt to invade the North." would be more accurate written "... ending Lee's invasion of the North."

Passing through one Union state (Maryland), circumventing DC and working into yet another Union state, 100 miles into Union territory, surely constitutes an invasion not an attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.52.87.29 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I agree to the change, since it's true he did invade the North, so "attempt" is inaccurate. His plans were for a much farther invasion, however, so maybe some indication of his plans being cut short was intended by "attempt". Perhaps there's a better way to word this to capture both points. I'm leaving that for others to consider. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a reasonable request which I might have responded to in the same way, but I wouldn't say that that "attempt" is inaccurate. There are successful attempts as well as unsuccessful attempts, after all. Maybe something like "curtailing Lee's invasion of the North"? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "attempt" is probably only technically inaccurate; that's why I invited more comments. On rewording, "curtailing" is also technically correct, but maybe not strong enough; might it imply that it was otherwise largely successful? I was considering "halting" instead. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably better. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

early exploitation and preservation efforts?

When touring the battlefield a few years ago, the guide I hired talked about how a significant area of the battlefield was actually turned into that era's version of a theme park in the years that followed the battle - with trains, rides, and more - that likely changed the nature of the site to some degree despite the preservation efforts that eventually followed. If anyone has credible information on this, I'd suggest this would be worth adding to the battlefield preservation section. I did find this article to support this story, () so there seems to be some truth to it. Vespid (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)