Talk:Battle of Gettysburg
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Gettysburg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the battle of Gettysburg.
Q1: Are the casualty figures accurate? (Yes.)
A1: As explained in the article subsection named Casualties, we are using a very recent source that has performed exhaustive scholarship on this subject—a lengthy book that is devoted entirely to strength and casualty figures, Busey and Martin's definitive 2005 work, Regimental Strengths and Losses at Gettysburg, 4th edition. We consider that this work supersedes previous works.
Old estimates often had higher numbers, particularly for the Confederates, but they are considered less reliable. Q2: Should the article characterize the battle as a Decisive Union victory? (No.)
A2: The simple answer is that many historians disagree about whether it was decisive. The more complex answer is that attempting to summarize a controversial subject in a single word is difficult and misleading. The summary Union victory is 100% accurate. Attempting to judge decisiveness could only be handled in an accurate, NPOV summary as Decisive/Indecisive Union victory or Arguably decisive Union victory with a very lengthy footnote that lists the opinions of many different authors. Furthermore, since the Wikipedia article on decisive victory actually presents three different definitions for the term (decides the outcome of the war, decides the outcome of the campaign, or simple unambiguous victory), the footnote would have to explain which of the three versions of the term is being used. Trying to handle that all in the summary box is a disservice to the reader. |
![]() | Battle of Gettysburg has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Reassessment
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: I think this is now definitely GA standard, as all issues have been fixed, and the criteria have been met. Massive plaudits go to Donner60, Hog Farm and TwoScars for their work on the article, for which they have received barnstars. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Work is ongoing, and might take some time.
First stage
|
---|
Article requires a bit of work to retain GA status:
Mainly for the benefit of me and anyone who wants to help me out
If we start running into source-text integrity issues, then I'll have to bow out of this. Of the sources listed in the 'references' section, I only have Bearss, Busey & Martin, Catton, Eicher, Foote, Glatthaar, McPherson, all three by Pfanz, Sears, Tagg, and Wert. I also lack the energy to do a top-to-bottom rewrite here. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
For what might be the first time in my editing career, I'm going to invoke WP:BLUE on something. I'm working on fixing one of the better source needed tags, and the source I'm using, Wert's "Gettysburg: Day Three" doesn't use the name "Pickett's Charge" directly at the point I'm using it for. I think " in what is known to history as "Pickett's Charge"" is something so obvious that it doesn't need to be cited, but will hunt down a ref if there's a belief that one is needed for the name Pickett's Charge. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
|
- @AirshipJungleman29: I think it has been improved substantially (mostly by Donner60). Most of the articles I write are too long—yet it appears to me that this article is already too long, but I don't want to be the one who cuts text without the consent of others. That does not mean that it has not been restored to GA. I'll go along with whatever Hog Farm and Donner60 believe should be done or not done. We already agreed that this is a long-term project. TwoScars (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, a prose size of around 9500 words is about what I would expect from an article with this much scholarship about it. If anything, I'm most concerned about the notes, which are quite possibly too detailed (criterion 3b). That said, take as much time as you need: we won't have to start seriously thinking about closing this until late May. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29; @Hog Farm; @TwoScars I usually put only a few brief footnotes, or none at all, into articles. In this case, there is much disagreement among historians about various details of the battle. I think this needs to be noted. A potential problem in this article is that someone can grab on to a particular source and give a detail, often a number, that is inaccurate to the extent that it is not even in the range of possibilities. It has already happened a few times.
- Pickett's charge is an example. Leaving out relatively contemporary estimates that are even higher: 15,000 men in the charge according to a comment by Lee and those that cite this? No, as explained. 13,000 according to Longstreet. (His response to Lee is sometimes cited to support 15,000; it doesn't.) Closer but he was just estimating the number of men he had left. And others in a lower range. As Carol Reardon wrote: nobody really knows the number.
- I can look at what I can do to cut them down. But I see errors creeping in (good faith, but still errors) if there is not some explanation about differences among even reliable historians. I noted above that I think the Culp's Hill second day subsection could be clearer. Also, I think some of the later sections on the effects and contemporary and historical assessments might be trimmed.
- This was a huge and complex battle. I agree that articles can get too long. I think this is one that may need to be on the long side to give a fair summary of who and what were involved, what happened and its importance. But that does not mean some thoughtful changes can reduce the size and keep most of the substance. I know I sometimes can go on at length, e.g. this note. Consensus, of course, should be the bottom line.
- A quick addition since I didn't exactly answer the question. I think that it might well be GA already, but I would like to make some more edits along the line I mentioned. I also think a few references can still be replaced with better ones. With tax returns coming due and some other time constraints over the next few weeks, I am not sure whether I can finish what I have in mind until later next month. Donner60 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Donner60: Is there anywhere that it would be helpful for me to look over and compare all of the Gettysburg sources I have to see if there's consensus on a point? I passed all my CPA exams and have already paper filed my own taxes, so I've got some extra time for now. Hog Farm Talk 23:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Great news on the exam. Congratulations! Are you are asking about any fact or statement about which historians actually disagree but the text is definite and does not suggest that there is disagreement? Or perhaps put a little differently, that a statement is not as definite as the text appears and needs further research? Or are you thinking about trying to get a consensus on a point where some similarity is found in most sources, perhaps disregarding outliers? Or am I missing the point altogether? Donner60 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think I misread your previous comment (not enough sugar in the sweet tea, I guess). Is there anything I can work on or review with the article to make myself useful? Hog Farm Talk 03:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. I'll start with a few of the points that I have thought could be improved. I haven't made a comprehensive list. Also, I have looked at the items that have caught my attention rather generally, not in enough detail to see whether my initial thoughts should lead to much change. Maybe give them a look to see what you think or to improve them if you think along the same lines. The second day at Culp's Hill might be made clearer and more complete even if it takes a few extra sentences. I think the sections on the effect on the Union and Confederacy come completely from McPherson and may need a better and more complete focus, not necessarily expansion. I also think the sections on historical assessment and Lee v. Meade could be better and perhaps shorter. As an aside, I think Lee v. Meade isn't a very good subsection title because other top commanders are also considered. I have been approaching this piecemeal as I consider whether references should be changed or otherwise appear not to support a point and haven't quite finished that review. I mentioned above why I have added long text footnotes. You might want to look at them to see whether you think any could be pared down because they may not be viewed favorably by all, or I might have just been too verbose with some of them. Donner60 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The footnotes are long, but I agree that it is necessary to list additional sources—including those that disagree with the narrative. This should prevent people from making changes to the article because they found a source that differs—or at least one could be justified in reverting those types of edits because the change was already covered in the footnotes. (A few years back, we had problems with West Virginia-related Civil War articles that were getting numbers changed here and there by someone who was using really bad sources.) For the article, I think the First day of battle is a lot of paragraphs under a single subsection. Maybe the eleven paragraphs could be divided into a few more subsections. I also think the lead could be made a little more compact. TwoScars (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. I'll start with a few of the points that I have thought could be improved. I haven't made a comprehensive list. Also, I have looked at the items that have caught my attention rather generally, not in enough detail to see whether my initial thoughts should lead to much change. Maybe give them a look to see what you think or to improve them if you think along the same lines. The second day at Culp's Hill might be made clearer and more complete even if it takes a few extra sentences. I think the sections on the effect on the Union and Confederacy come completely from McPherson and may need a better and more complete focus, not necessarily expansion. I also think the sections on historical assessment and Lee v. Meade could be better and perhaps shorter. As an aside, I think Lee v. Meade isn't a very good subsection title because other top commanders are also considered. I have been approaching this piecemeal as I consider whether references should be changed or otherwise appear not to support a point and haven't quite finished that review. I mentioned above why I have added long text footnotes. You might want to look at them to see whether you think any could be pared down because they may not be viewed favorably by all, or I might have just been too verbose with some of them. Donner60 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think I misread your previous comment (not enough sugar in the sweet tea, I guess). Is there anything I can work on or review with the article to make myself useful? Hog Farm Talk 03:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Great news on the exam. Congratulations! Are you are asking about any fact or statement about which historians actually disagree but the text is definite and does not suggest that there is disagreement? Or perhaps put a little differently, that a statement is not as definite as the text appears and needs further research? Or are you thinking about trying to get a consensus on a point where some similarity is found in most sources, perhaps disregarding outliers? Or am I missing the point altogether? Donner60 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Donner60: Is there anywhere that it would be helpful for me to look over and compare all of the Gettysburg sources I have to see if there's consensus on a point? I passed all my CPA exams and have already paper filed my own taxes, so I've got some extra time for now. Hog Farm Talk 23:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, a prose size of around 9500 words is about what I would expect from an article with this much scholarship about it. If anything, I'm most concerned about the notes, which are quite possibly too detailed (criterion 3b). That said, take as much time as you need: we won't have to start seriously thinking about closing this until late May. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29; @Hog Farm; @TwoScars Although I should be working on real life things, I began to think that there was something not quite right about the explanations of the historians' inconsistencies in numbers of units and men included in Pickett's Charge and the casualty counts. I I am going to review the references again because those units took many casualties despite the fact that the main charge was over before they started and Wilcox, in particular, pulled back promptly. I'll try to get the revisions done quickly, maybe even tonight if I can get through a review the sources on these points. Donner60 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29; @Hog Farm; @Donner60 - Anything for me to do? I just finished Battle of Charleston (1862) and Novelty Glass Company. TwoScars (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'll try to give this a re-review either this afternoon or more likely tomorrow afternoon. Hog Farm Talk 15:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- There appears to be two unreliable sources remaining-a blog and a YouTube link. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29; @Hog Farm; @TwoScars I replaced footnote 151 with a citation to an article by doctors in the HHS National Library of Medicine (actually cited by the blog) and added a citation to Murray. I rearranged and slightly added to the text about the reunions. I added Reardon and another citation. I kept the You Tube link only as a citation to the rare film clip of the 1913 reunion which is what is shown in the You Tube presentation. Both of the film clip links could simply go to external links as well. In fact, the 1938 reunion clip was already in the article, cited from an NPS link, and is already in the external links referenced directly. Donner60 (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Some thoughts of mine:
- We include Imboden, Robertson, and Grumble Jones in the Confederate cavalry orbat. Is it worthwhile to footnote or mention that these commands were not actually present for the fighting at Gettysburg?
- " "The Battle of Gettysburg and the American Civil War – The First Shot Marker". Archived from the original on April 16, 2005." - I don't believe this is RS, and propose deleting the sentence it supports because I don't think we need to mention Jones's 1886 marker in an article covering the entire battle
- "Two of Longstreet's divisions were on the road: Brigadier General George Pickett, had begun the 22-mile (35 km) march from Chambersburg, while Brigadier General Evander M. Law " - I don't like the phrasing on this. Law was just a brigade commander, and if my memory of reading Pfanz's Day Two work a few months back is holding up correctly, was a trailing brigade, but the current phrasing implies Law and commanding an entire trailing division
- "Lee did not issue orders for the attack until 11:00 a.m." - I don't think we should be citing the timing here to Longstreet's memoirs. I believe Pfanz among others discusses the timing of this in detail, although I don't think I'll have time to really dig into sourcing on this for a couple days
- "Colonel Andrew L. Harris of the Union 2nd Brigade, 1st Division, came under a withering attack, " - I think maybe we ought to also include what corps this was (XI)
- "Much has been made over the years of General Longstreet's objections to General Lee's plan" - again, I would personally rather see us cite the consensus of modern historians than just Longstreet's memoirs, which at least in places were not all that objective, here
- "The Union Fishhook Historical Marker". www.hmdb.org. Retrieved December 17, 2022." - this is not a reliable source
@Donner60 and TwoScars: - I think that's my primary concerns. Would personally trim the Grant vs. Lee section, but I think we're fairly close to GA status at this time. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful to mention the Confederate cavalry units that were with Lee's invading force but not present for the fighting if including them in the overall force. A sentence or phrase about why they were absent e.g. screening Lee's force or protecting the route back and/or foraging or whatever would be useful as explanation.
- I agree that it is enough to state that Lt. Jones probably fired the first shot but the sentence about the marker and the picture of it should be removed as superfluous.
- Major General Lafayette McClaws's division of Longstreet's First Corps did not come up to the battlefield until the morning of July 2. Although Law's brigade of Hood's Division was on picket duty at New Guilford and also did not come up until the afternoon of July 2, the "two divisions" in the sentence almost certainly was meant to refer to "McLaw's" Division with Laws brigade of Hood's division also mentioned. Law took temporary command of Hood's division after he was wounded but that occurred on July 2 after they arrived and entered the battle in the afternoon of July 2.
- If I recall correctly, historians don't entirely agree on the time that Lee's attack orders were issued and some may even state it was likely a time later than 11:00 a.m. Sources besides Longstreet should be available for this and could be cited.
- The XI Corps may be implied from the previous sentence but I see no problem in adding "XI Corps" to give a clear full reference to Harris's division in particular since the attack on the XI Corps and the corps's failure to hold its position again is often made.
- Remove "Much has been made..." sentence. The rest of the paragraph is about Longstreet's response, which is appropriate. It seems to be widely accepted and some reference to historians that accept or refer to that account could be included. What has been made about Longstreet's objection is itself perhaps more properly part of the historical assessment.
- I removed the hmdb citation. I had added a footnote citing Sears and Eicher as more reliable sources for the shape of the Union defensive position and intended to remove the hmdb citation. I overlooked removing it so I went ahead and took it out.
- I think revising and trimming the later sections about the assessment, especially "Lee v Meade", would be appropriate but I don't think it should be necessary to do it right away to retain GA status. It could wait for a while until one of us has a little more time to work on it. It could take a little time to write a better, and presumably shorter, version. Donner60 (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's pretty much my thoughts on Grant vs. Lee - we can deal with that later. I've gone ahead and removed the sentence about Jones and the 1886 marker. Hog Farm Talk 12:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've added the XI Corps attribution, removed the non-RS detail about the Jones marker and the image of the Jones marker, and have slung together a multi-source footnote to support the 11 am start time. Will try to dig up a source for Robertson, Jones, and Imboden not being involved in the battle soon. Hog Farm Talk 02:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - I think there's still a few things that would be nice to do - clarify which cavalry units were not present, maybe clarify the Law's division item, work on the Lee vs. Meade section, and tweak the Longstreet's objections paragraph, but I think it's close enough to the GA standard to close now, with the understanding that further work will occur as needed. FWIW, I recently noticed that Battle of Atlanta is in very bad shape, Pickett's Charge needs work, Siege of Vicksburg is in poor shape, but User:Hog Farm/Siege of Vicksburg is a tentative rewrite for half of that, and I'm not particularly happy with the shape that Pat Cleburne's article is in, and my very first GA at Battle of Wilson's Creek is almost pathetic in places, looking back at it. Hog Farm Talk 15:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm; @TwoScars And this misleading sentence needs to be changed: "Meanwhile, the town of Gettysburg, with its population of just 2,400, found itself tasked with taking care of 14,000 wounded Union troops and an additional 8,000 Confederate prisoners." The cited essay published in the New York Times in 2013 doesn't even support this as written since it mentions the doctors that Lettermann left behind. I actually have two books that deal with the subject of the wounded after the Battle of Gettysburg and a biography of Lettermann. Letterman left 106 doctors behind to care for the wounded. This was a very inadequate number but he had to decide how many to take with him in view of the possibility of another battle down the road in Maryland. He left only 30 ambulances and the railroad had been torn up - although it was fixed within about a month by Herman Haupt's men. The lack of transportation meant that the wounded had to be left in the area for the time being and not moved to hospitals in larger cities. They were spread out for at least 8 miles in any direction so they all weren't at Gettysburg. Many relatives and volunteers soon showed up to help but unfathomably the officer left in charge sent a message to Harrisburg to be published in newspapers that even doctors ought not come to help because of overcrowding and transportation problems. Some may have come anyway but it became a scandal. The numbers of wounded are round numbers. Sources differ, of course, but the Confederate number of 8,000 appears to be more than 1,000 too many. Unfortunately, I think this lone sentence is too misleading to leave in place over the long run. Yes, the local population was greatly overburdened and perhaps the sentence gives some indication of the problem of caring for so many wounded after the battle. But no, they were not left to care for the wounded by themselves. I would prefer not to write 8 or 10 sentences and/or a lengthy footnote in the article to explain all this so I will try to find a way to cut it to 2 or 3 sentences and 1 or 2 different citations, which is the reason I haven't just changed it or deleted the phrase about the townspeople being left to care for the wounded already. I thought it best to explain this additional problem now because I might get to it even tonight but it might be several days and the revision should be shorter than this note. Donner60 (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
No mention of Camp Letterman
[edit]From the Camp Letterman page:
"In the aftermath [of Gettysburg], when Union military leaders realized that the farms, private homes, churches, and other buildings in and around the town of Gettysburg which had been pressed into service as makeshift regimental hospitals were so overwhelmed by the numbers of dying and wounded, and that many of the soldiers who had been unable to find shelter were being cared for in gardens and other outdoor spaces, they quickly secured approval from their superiors to create a new general hospital. Built sometime after July 8, 1863, it opened on July 22."
The Battle of Gettysburg page makes no mention of Camp Letterman. 50.221.62.202 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- I will add this in the near future. The text on the aftermath needs to be changed a little more than just adding this. It now gives the impression that the citizens of Gettysburg were left alone to care for all the wounded. Even without Camp Letterman, this was not the situation although the residents of the area within about an 8 mile radius were somewhat overwhelmed. There are a couple of books which cover this in detail. The Camp Letterman article has long quotations that are not in keeping with Wikipedia style guidelines, even though they are apparently from public domain sources. So eventually that article also needs a little work from someone as well. Donner60 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- I can see that there needs to be a brief discussion about taking care of the wounded down in the casualties section. I think Camp Letterman should be mentioned, but it does not require a long discussion. It did not open until July 20 according to the American Battlefield Trust. TwoScars (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
"ending the Confederacy's aspirations to establish an independent nation"
[edit]Hi all, this line seems like a strange statement to make in the opening paragraphs, or at all. The war continues for 2 more years after this battle, if the confederacy no longer aspires to establish an independent nation at this point in the war what are they fighting for?
The reference seems to refer to this quote from the website "The loss there dashed the hopes of the Confederate States of America to become an independent nation."
Hard to know how much more I should say, hopes and aspirations are not necessarily exactly the same. Aspiration as a word, apparently, is related to desire. Where as hope is more contextual, can be related to desire or trust, confidence. Either way I would like to know what aspirations are driving the confederacy after this battle if not to establish an independent nation.
Also further into the article in the effects on the confederacy says "The immediate reaction of the Southern military and public sectors was that Gettysburg was a setback, not a disaster. "
As far a cry from ending all hope or aspirations for an independent nation as you can get I would say. Dont you think this article essentially contradicts itself with these statements?
Great article, sorry for not having a login or knowing how to edit or post to wiki.
Regards 2001:8003:6456:8300:50D3:868C:902E:C115 (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Spencer rifles at Gettysburg
[edit]According to official reports Col. John T Wilders brigade, were outfitted with Spencer rifles in the June 24th battle of Hoovers Gap Tn. So I would argue that it is entirely possible that some cavalry troops could and probably did have Spencer rifles. Fred Railling (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request, 13 February 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the following passage should be restored in the popular culture section:
"The south winning the Battle of Gettysburg is a popular premise for a point of divergence in American Civil War alternate histories. Here are some examples which either depict or make significant reference to an alternate Battle of Gettysburg (sometimes simply inserting fantasy or sci-fi elements in an account of the battle):
Novels: Bring the Jubilee by Ward Moore; If the South Had Won the Civil War by Mackinlay Kantor; Civil War Trilogy (Gettysburg, Grant Comes East, Never Call Retreat) by Newt Gingrich, William R. Forstchen, and Albert S. Hanser; Stonewall Jackson at Gettysburg by Douglas Lee Gibboney; By Force of Arms by Billy Bennett. Also: Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory series has an analogous battle taking place at Camp Hill, another southeast Pennsylvania town. Short fiction: "If Lee Had NOT Won the Battle of Gettysburg" by Winston Churchill in If It Had Happened Otherwise and If, or History Rewritten, "Sidewise in Time" by Murray Leinster in various collections, "A Hard Day for Mother" by William R. Forstchen in Alternate Generals 1, "An Old Man's Summer" by Esther Friesner also in AG 1, "If the Lost Order Hadn't Been Lost" by James M. McPherson in What If? and What Ifs? of American History, "East of Appomattox" by Lee Allred in Alternate Generals"
The Battle of Gettysburg is indeed a popular POD in alternate history, so I do think it should be restored. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:997B:B4C6:8FC:6EC4 (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done: In popular culture sections are intentionally kept short per WP:TRIVIA. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Adding to HansVonStuttgart who responded while I was typing (what are the odds on a month-old request?)
- This text was removed because it did not cite any sources. If there are a couple particularly notable alternate histories it might be appropriate to cover them directly (with sources) rather than a list, but note that WP:MILPOP recommends only including works with a notable impact on popular culture. Jamedeus (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- GA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- GA-Class vital articles in History
- GA-Class Pennsylvania articles
- High-importance Pennsylvania articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class American Civil War articles
- American Civil War task force articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class United States History articles
- High-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles