Talk:Battle of Gettysburg/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

older entries

A previous edit changed a description of Gettysburg as considered the "turning point of the ACW" to "turning point ... in the East." Although GB is in fact in the Eastern Theater, most historians and popular descriptions do not qualify the turning point in this way. In fact, they also use the term "High Water Mark of the Confederacy" to represent the PPT assault, not "High Water Mark of Lee's Army" or something similar. If someone would like to edit in an explanation that some disagree and that Vicksburg was equally important, that's OK, but it hardly rates mentioning in the first paragraph about this battle.

I said that because the Union already had victories in the West, but I agree, it probably doesn't make much difference in an article about a specific battle. ugen64 14:57, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

A few other edits I made:

  • I cleaned up most usages of Corps numbers. I've found that, most commonly, Union Corps are designated with Roman numerals (I, II, X, XI, etc). Confederates, after Jackson's death, were more frequenty referred to as First, Second, etc. Maintaining this differentiation makes the text easier to follow.
  • I added a few more Generals' names, since the trend of other editors seems to be to put more and more detail into the description.

<sarcasm> This article needs more discussion on shoes. </sarcasm> --NoPetrol 06:50, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'Pettigrew was in search of a large supply of shoes in town, but this explanation has been largely discounted by historians'." -- NEVER argue with Shelby Foote!! - A. Lurker 08/24/05

Revert

The page currnetly says "PeNiS! That is what the Battle of Gettysburg is all about." This is in serious need of a revert. Unfortunatley, I do not know how. Can someone please do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.40.64 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Second Day

Just wanted to inform everyone that I made some revisions and additions to the role of Chamberlain's 20th Maine during the fighting. There was some information I added and rewording as well to give it a smoother feel. If anyone has any questions/problems, feel free to let me know! --Martin Osterman 21:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think this level of detail would be more appropriate in Battle of Little Round Top instead? Hal Jespersen 22:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, to be honest (and sounding like a noob), yes, it would... I just didn't realize that a separate subpage had been set up for that! I'll go check it out this evening and see what to move... apologies! --Martin Osterman 23:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lee's plan on the second day of the assault does not appear to be based on faulty intelligence. His plan calls for an assault on the left wing of the Federal army. Indeed, when the plan is actually made, the flank is where Lee believes it to be. In the interim, Sickles moves his corps into the Peach Orchard and is directly in the line of the assault. JEB Stuart's absence has nothing to do with it, nor does faulty intelligence have anything to do with it. Hood attempts to maneuver around Sickle's left despite strict orders from Longstreet to keep the attack where Lee has directed it. How you mention the second day without mentioning Sickles is difficult to imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw1865 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

Although I don't normally pay attention to the battleboxes in these articles, all the recent changes to add "soldiers" to strength and casualty figures isn't helpful. The word soldier is perhaps being added because you want to differentiate from civilians or because you think it would wrong to say "men". But these battles were fought by officers, NCOs, teamsters, cooks, and other categories that don't fit into "soldier". Just leave the numbers and readers will figure it out. Hal Jespersen 14:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Another thing, several of my sources put casualties for both sides higher. Confederate forces at over 28,000 and Union forces at over 23,000. could someone please verify this?
Verified per the reference cited. Busey and Martin represent the most recent, and exhaustive, scholarship on Gettysburg casualties. Hal Jespersen 14:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Largest Battle

Time and again I hear Gettysburg being referred to as the largest battle of the American Civil War and yet every source I've seen gives much larger numbers for Chancellorsville. Sources include other pages on this site, a number of other websites and The Civil War: Day by Day by E.B. Long. Perhaps I'm missing some key detail (the American Civil War isn't an area of history I'm especially interested in - I find other larger, more important Nineteenth Century conflicts such as China's Taiping Rebellion and Europe's Napoleonic Wars more interesting). Anyway... just thought I'd mention that and if someone more knowledgeable in this war agrees with Chancellorsville being larger then change it... otherwise keep it as is.

In terms of number of participants, Gettysburg was not the largest, but it did have the highest casualties, which is where the popular superlative usually applies. Another way to look at it, though, is the significant action by so many troops (about 170,000) over the extended period, including the largest artillery barrage until WWI. Most other battles, such as the Seven Pines, where there were in fact more troops, didn't have such high percentages of units in action.We probably would have been better saying "greatest battle", but I'm sure someone would object to that. Hal Jespersen 14:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
8.000 - 10.000 people died in the Battle of Celaya. So Gettysburg may have been the largest battle of the US Civil war, it was not the largest battle ever in North America. (apart from Celaya it may very well be possible that also more people died in some battles during the Spanish conquest of the Americas) Mixcoatl 16:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You should update the article on Celaya if you have casualty figures beyond the 4,000 mentioned there now. Gettysburg had 51,000 casualties and was a 3-day battle that saw over 170,000 men fighting in huge infantry, cavalry, and artillery engagements. And the Spanish Conquest probably did kill more, but it was hardly a single battle. Hal Jespersen 16:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) BTW, reading the article http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/prm/blbloodandsilverprm4.htm, it says "Celaya was the largest land battle fought in North America since the American Civil War." Hal Jespersen 16:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[1] says 10.000 death. Apparently the exact number is unsure, therefore I'll change it into "The Battle of Gettysburg was possibilly the largest battle ever conducted in North America,". Mixcoatl 17:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) 17:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That sounds a little weak to me--like we're just saying it's a possibility. Certainly, by some criteria, it was easily the largest battle. How about something like "In many ways, it was the largest battle ever conducted in North America..." Then later, we should explain what makes it the largest. Shoaler 17:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
According to the article Siege of Tenochtitlan this battle included at least 230.000 units (150.000+80.000) and possibly up to 500.000 units. Also I count 120.000 deaths. While it is not clear if they were all fighting, in my opinion it gives it more rights to be called 'largest battle of North-America' then the battle of Gettysburg, provided all data is correct. I will not touch the page but in my opinion somebody should change the phrase 'was the largest battle ever fought' to something more specific like 'was one of the largest battles ever fought' and include the siege of Tenochtitlan as a reference somewhere in the article.--Hardscarf 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, OK. I never thought to go back that far. I'll fix it. Hal Jespersen 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The Third Day

I would like to see more of the details of Pickett's charge moved to the Pickett page. Certainly, the reference to the copse of trees and such belong there. Amorrow 20:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The first answer to such requests should always be "You are welcome to edit Wikipedia pages yourself." If you are not in a hurry, I have some general Gettysburg maintenance on my to-do list. In a nutshell, the main Battle of Gettysburg article is both too long and too short. It needs to have rich, expanded details in separate articles (as Pickett's Charge is now, although improvements are needed) and the main article pruned down a bit. Comments on my approach are welcome. Hal Jespersen 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

After spending a lot of time on the new map in Pickett's Charge, I see that the map in this article needs to be corrected. I will do so very soon. Hal Jespersen 14:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Updates done on both these issues. It is really remarkable how different the maps are in history books. I consulted six or seven books in doing this map on Pickett's Charge and they all have substantial differences. Hal Jespersen 19:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization

As I have been editing Gettysburg-related articles, new ones keep popping up. Today, I encountered Devil's Den and Angle (battle) and also put some time into improving Battle of Little Round Top. I have a plan for reorganizing the articles on this lengthy battle and would appreciate comments from those interested. I suggest that the basic Battle of Gettysburg article be shortened slightly and better use can be made of subsidiary articles. Here is what I propose and I plan to work on these as time permits (as you can see some of these have not even been started):

Hal Jespersen 01:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: all pages shown above are complete, except the ECF article was named Battle of Gettysburg, Third Day cavalry battles and includes SCF. Hal Jespersen 15:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Ginnie Wade -- I am at Gettysburg now. Her tombstone, her death site tour, and all the literature here say that Jennie (or "Ginnie") Wade, was 20 at death, not 22. AaronCBurke 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Day 2/Little Round Top/Chamberlain "leading" Charge?

The latest changes made to this article state that Chamberlain led the bayonet charge on LRT. I have issues with this position. (Referenced over at Joshua Chamberlain per Hlj's remarks) What is the community consensus on this issue? (I apologize if I'm taking a small issue and blowing it up, but we're currently lacking agreement between these articles and I can be a bit nitpicky about making sure that continuity is achieved). --Martin Osterman 02:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I missed that one, I guess. See my discussion in Talk:Little Round Top. I think someone has proliferated too many LRT/Chamberlain/20th articles to keep track of this. Hal Jespersen 15:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd seen it and I'd seen your edits over at Joshua Chamberlain, and I didn't want to edit the changes out pre-emptively until I'd heard from you and others what the word was on this. lol --Martin Osterman 18:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:main headers (and other see article links)

These should be formalised to meet the standard format as possible, IMO. I have removed some of the Template:main templates from the subpages because I feel that the parent article qualifier should be part of an assertive definition. Feel free to revert me if anyone disagrees, I won't protest. -- Natalinasmpf 02:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Shoes

I know for a fact that the first sparks that started this battle was because Confederate soldiers ventured up into Union lines to see if they could get some better shoes. I'm not sure where this information could go into the article, but I have you feeling that one of the maintainers could add it in. I don't have a source for this information yet, but I'll look through some websites and books to see if I can find anything. If you need to get in touch with me the quickest way would to be leaving a note on my talk page. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 00:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess you deleted because you found the answer in the article? I personally have severe doubts about the shoe story, but it's an enduring myth. Hal Jespersen 01:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What's with all the EXAMPLE IMAGES down at the bottom? That's really nice to look at.

The line about carbines

I suggest a change in the First Day descriptions to show that Buford's men had Sharps Breechloaders, not carbines. In fact, the carbines weren't a major force in the war until 1864. Buford's men had the advantage of reloading behind cover, whereas Confederate troops had to reload standing up (you can see this in the movie, believe it, or not...Buford's troops are seen, very briefly, packing the loads into the breeches of their Sharps muskets behind the fence on Seminary ridge). The repeating carbines were absent.

TheKurgan 18:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)The Kurgan, 16 April 2006, 14:10

PS. I made the edit myself, but it was changed back for some strange reason.

I have checked a few sources and they carried Sharps M1859 breechloading carbines. This level of detail is more appropriate in the lengthy subarticle Battle of Gettysburg, First Day, which is where I moved it. Hal Jespersen 21:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What's up. This information will really help my history day project research. See Ya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.171.198 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Decisive victory?

I am a little worried about the designation of this battle as a decisive victory. While it was a great Union victory, and one that marked the last Confederate offensive into the North, contemporaries-especially Southerners-assigned more importance to the fall of Vicksburg. Gettysburg was viewed as a defeat, but not a particularly terrible one. It only acquired its legendary status after the Civil War. The relative tactical stalemate bears this out; a battle in the nineteenth century that lasted three days and saw comparable casualties cannot really be thought of as "decisive." I firmly believe it should be changed to simply say "Union victory," and as I recall that's what it used to read earlier.UberCryxic 19:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln certainly was pushing for a truly decisive victory, one that would essentially wreck Lee's army. Meade at least delivered a victory at Gettysburg, something rare for his many predecessors. That being said, a large number of contemporaries (particularly in the North), did see Gettysburg as decisive (often in combination with the fall of Vicksburg), even in the days immediately following the battle. David McConaughy and other local leaders began the almost unheard of task of buying parts of the battlefield to commemorate it for posterity. Scott Mingus 21:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Scott, certainly what you are stating is true, but I suppose our divergence comes in interpretation and how much importance we assign to the facts you have given. Northerners identified Vicksburg as more important than Gettysburg, and Southerners overwhelmingly recognized it as such. I believe this article used to state "Union victory" at one point, but I don't know who changed it, when, or why. On top of perceptions, there are the military aspects to consider. I don't think anyone has much of an argument to label this battle as "decisive." Giving Gettysburg this title is a firm injustice to the likes of Cannae, Austerlitz, or Agincourt.UberCryxic 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the word "decisive." This is one of those cases where casual Wikipedia editors like to change a word or two in an article and it is not worth the time to fight them about it. I believe people here use the term "decisive victory" to mean "clear-cut victory," one in which there is little dispute about the victor. It is not meant to be a synonym for "strategic victory" as far as I can tell. In general, however, I pay little attention to the contents of these battle boxes, other than to correct substantive factual errors when I notice them. Hal Jespersen 00:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be very worried if that's how the term was used. Typically, decisive victories must have some sort of political and military effects. Both would be nice, but they are not required; Blenheim was a striking victory but produced no real political aftershocks. However, a battle that has lacks military superiority (read: tactical superiority) should definitely not be thought of as decisive. The central aspect of any battle is physical contact through a variety of means, and whenever we evaluate battles, that has to be the first thing at the back of our minds. This Union victory does not seem impressive (it is not, in fact) when analyzed from this perspective. How relevant this is depends on whether or not you buy this perspective, but it looks reasonable. Decisive battles should involve a marked level of tactical differences.UberCryxic 05:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, to your point, there are considerable letters written by Rebel soldiers in the days after that battle that still reflect considerable optimism, in fact, even arrogance at times, that Gettysburg had been but a minor setback. Spin, for sure, but there aren't many outside of Pickett's Division and its supports that truly felt whipped. One of the many reasons that the AoP was so cautious in pursuing Lee was that his army was still quite, quite dangerous, despite its heavy losses. I'm OK with removing "decisive." Scott Mingus 12:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok so am I. Let's wait like two days (until May 27) before we remove it though, just to give people who might challenge our thinking enough time. After the 27th, if "decisive" is put back in, it will be reverted and people will be redirected to the talk page.UberCryxic 17:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Could someone put what effects the Battle of Gettysburg had on the rest on the war? 75.17.162.32 01:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)minidude09

the aftermath section [[[Battle_of_Gettysburg#Aftermath]] --Xiahou 01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the word "decisive" from the text box description of the union victory per the discussion above. If the term "turning point" were used at some point in the article I'd buy that, but Gettysburg didn't really decide the war all by itself. Geeman 03:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent change. "Turning point" is probably the single best description of the battle. Couples with the fall of Vicksburg in the West, at almost the same date, was, in all real terms, the sounding of the death knell of the Confederacy. Boomcoach 12:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalingrad in WWII is clearly decisive; really what you are looking for in a decisive victory is a shift in initiative and Gettysburg does produce this; the Confederates would not pose such a serious threat to the North for the rest of the war (notwithstanding Early's raid) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw1865 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Confederates didn't pose a threat to the North after Gettysburg isn't all that relevant. They weren't trying to conquer the North, but to defend their own territory. Lee went north of the Potomac in '62 and '63 only to attempt to destroy the Union army and force a peace settlement. After Gettysburg, Lee got his army back to Virginia in good order; the Union army declined to attack him a number of times along the way despite opportunity, and Lee's army continued to be a formidable foe until the last weeks of the war. It wouldn't actually lose a battle again until 25 March 1865 (Fort Steadman). Gettysburg was a damaging Confederate defeat because Lee couldn't replace his 23,000 losses; it was not, however, a decisive Union victory. Jsc1973 (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

I suggest adding a link to the description of the echelon formation. I sugest going more in-depth for each day drawing for info from the articles for each specific day. Perhaps we should include more info on the aftermath mabey you want to include picture of the generals George Meade and Robert E. Lee.

I added a link for echelon. The detailed battle descriptions in separate articles for each day are kept separate so that the main article can be of reasonable size--see WP:SIZE. The generals' photos are actually in Gettysburg Campaign, the parent of this article. Hal Jespersen 14:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Positions held on second day?

"Across the battlefield, despite significant losses, the Union defenders held their positions." This seems to be a significant gilding of events. Although the Cemetery Ridge line was held, the Union left was forced out of their advanced positions, retiring on the ridge. Perhaps the sentence should be rephrased? --Jumbo 00:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In general, the statement is essentailly true, as the Confederates failed to significantly break the Union lines. The Federal left was indeed forced back from the Peach Orchard, Devil's Den, Stony Hill, Rose Farm, etc., bur reformed new lines roughly parallel to the old one, and mirroring much of Sickles' morning position. A small part of the entrenchments on Culp's Hill were lost as well.Scott Mingus 00:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The Union held their lines, not their positions. I think that the difference is a crucial one, because if Sickles had kept to the positions assigned to him along Cemetery Ridge, I don't believe that the second day would have been quite so exciting as it turned out to be. The Confederate assault would very likely have been repulsed with far less trouble and confusion. The use of the word "positions" implies that fixed positions were held, and this was not the case. --Jumbo 05:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - this is a better word than positions. Scott Mingus 15:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

FLAG

ok retards whoever keeps changing the Stainless banner to the Stars and bars STOP the Stainless banner was the Flag of the Confedracy as of May 1, 1863 - march 4, 1865 so leave it alone Gettysburg was fought during its use —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Griffjam (talk • contribs) .

One, practice civility. Two, the correct flag is the ensign, which was instituted May 26, 1863. It is not the stainless banner. Yanksox 18:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Right on may 26, 1863 which is not the stars and bars (Googleyii 16:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

  • DUH!!!!! Well, actually the battle flag is not the ensign that's just the official flag of the Confederacy. But, I think we want to use an official flag as opposed to a battle one, which is actually the more known about one. Yanksox (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Why are the flags there at all? It's not the norm for battleboxes.
—wwoods 00:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this started at the main American Civil War page. Perhaps the next step is tiny photos of the commanders and pie charts of the casualties. :-) I would be happy to see them deleted if a few other reviewers chime in about it. I hate to get in the middle of Confederate flag issues. Hal Jespersen 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally. I find them annoying in articles on battles—wars and campaigns, fine, but battles no. Scott Mingus 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes and Menu

Three changes today.

  1. I footnoted the article, which was way more work than you'd think it would be. But now that that's done, I would like to ask that all future substantive edits provide citations using this style.
  2. As part of number 1, I rewrote the recent edit about capturing blacks and replaced it with a secondary source, rather than a primary source that I am not able to find anywhere.
  3. I have introduced a menu of navigation across all of the Gettysburg articles. If you have any proposed edits to this template, please read its Talk page before making your changes. Thanks. This is similar in style to {{American Civil War Menu}} and the only reason I did it is because Gettysburg has so many articles associated with it. I do not recommend that this practice be followed for any other Civil War battle.

Hal Jespersen 00:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the major subarticles in this series are now footnoted. Hal Jespersen 22:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest a Good Article Nom

I dropped by this article and I'm very impressed. Aside from an overlong lead WP:LEAD, it is a natural candidate for Good Article status. I think that could be fixed by moving the second paragraph down to the first day section. If someone would like to have me do it, I'll nominate the article. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph is a summary of the background to the battle. If it is not relevant to the intro, it should be removed, not moved. (I would recommend keeping it as is.) Although technically the lead is longer than recommended (5 short paragraphs vs. 3-4), it is because the three-day battle naturally divides itself into three paragraphs. Besides, this is the intro to a suite of subarticles that is over 200K of material, so 15 sentences seems reasonable (to me). Hal Jespersen 17:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that our reviewers are likely to view five as a problem. Since I've weighed in on it, I'm going to have to recuse myself from it. (Probably should anyway; I've researched my wife's ancestors, who lost one son in the Peach Orchard). Anyway, my thought it that the lead in to the battle could go below under the first day. With a little tweaking, there's only four paragraphs, then. Just a thought. --CTSWyneken(talk) 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Decisive?

To those who like to edit the battle box and say this was a decisive victory, please cut it out. I have recorded general guidance on these victory adjectives in User:Hlj/adjectives. Two specific points on this battle:

  1. Although Gettysburg was the decisive point in the Gettysburg Campaign, it is deceptive to the average reader to summarize the battle as "decisive" without further qualification because he or she might assume that it was the decisive point in the war. As demonstrated in the article Turning point of the American Civil War, there is no agreement among historians that that was the case.
  2. To those who believe that item number 1 represents only my personal point of view, that is possibly true. However, labeling the battle as decisive is also POV. Because of Wikipedia's policy (WP:NPOV), we can deal with these disputes on POV in one of two ways: citing both ("Decisive/indecisive Union victory") or citing neither, allowing the text of the article to explain. I recommend the latter.

Hal Jespersen 19:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the others. It is not POV - it is well established historical fact that it was a decisive victory. Claiming this is POV is, in my haughty opinion, Wikilawyering; it would be just as POV to claim it's a victory at all. If you can find a source anywhere that says it's not decisive, I think that would be a good reason to take it out. My source is here (Sometimes about.com is a Wiki mirror, but in this case, it's not; the author is even listed). The quotation probably should stay. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am amused that you can take a subjective opinion and describe it as a "well-established historical fact." Yes, I have certainly heard some historians use that expression, although I have heard others, such as Gary Gallagher and James McPherson, argue that Gettysburg was important, but not the turning point in the war. Regardless of who is correct, this illustrates that including or omitting "decisive" is POV; there are multiple points of view on this issue. Wikipedia rules say that you have to balance opposing POVs. Perhaps you can offer up a definition for "decisive victory" and we can continue this discussion. We are attempting to create an encyclopedia here, therefore have higher standards of definitions and sources than the webpage you are pointing to may have. If you believe that the battle was decisive, exactly what was decided? The war? The campaign? The fate of Lee's Army? It is because none of these questions have easy answers that I resist the use of superficial adjectives in the battle box of this and the other ACW articles. Hal Jespersen 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You know decisive doesn't neccesarily mean the turning point of the war,rather a turining point.And there's nothing in the article for the turning point of the war where it even suggests it's not important.You must be the only person i've ever come across the suggestive that Gettysburg was not a decisive.In one simple box you don't describe how it was decisive you just state that it was and leave to be explained in the article.Battleboxes are just a summary.Nor do i see how it's POV to describe a battle as decisive.Look,this website as describes it as decisive [2]. Dermo69 22:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I looked it up online, and it means something like "turning the war" - something which indeed most historians agree on. I would be happy to say "most historians believe it's decisive." -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Look guys, I am not trying to be really difficult here. My primary motivation is not strictly about this article, because there are frankly not many battles more decisive than Gettysburg. I watch over hundreds of Civil War battle articles on Wikipedia and try to maintain some degree of uniformity. I am concerned that if hundreds of editors get it into their heads to describe their favorite battles in this imprecise way, we will be left with a lower quality product. It is frankly much simpler for me to say that no articles get these adjectives rather than argue about every individual battle and whether it is a "decisive," "major," "lopsided," "strategic" victory or not.

Now in the case of this particular article, I disagree with the statement that "most historians" believe it's decisive. In the first place, we try to avoid general, unquantifiable statements of that type in Wikipedia. It could be reasonable to say that many historians do, as long as specific examples are cited from reputable secondary sources. (I notice that the NPS website that you are pointing me to is a site written for children and its use of the term decisive applies to the results of the first day's battle, which is actually appropriate because it is discussing whether that first day had a decisive effect on the overall battle--it didn't.) When you use the term decisive for the entire battle, you need to describe what was decided. Gettysburg was decisive in that it ended Lee's campaign and certainly everyone agrees to that. However, there is considerably less agreement that the battle decided the war. I have spoken to a number of very well-known historians and they are reluctant to make such a claim. Zama was decisive. Hastings. Waterloo. Mexico City. Yorktown. Gettysburg is much more arguable, for many reasons. That's why the opening text of the article says that it is "frequently cited as a turning point" and not that it was the turning point. And without an explanation of what was decided specifically, you are doing a disservice to the casual reader who may believe that the Civil War was ended because of the battle of Gettysburg if they don't read the text of the article and simply graze in the battle box.

I have a certain degree of pride of authorship in this article because I wrote almost all of it and I did write all of the subsidiary (first day, second day, Culp's Hill, etc.) articles and drew all of the maps. I would appreciate it if you went along with me on this issue. If you insist, however, on including your one-word change and I can't convince you otherwise, I will need to include a footnote that explains the issues of what "decisive" means and what it does not. I would really prefer to avoid such footnotes and explain the importance of the battle in the text of the article. Hal Jespersen 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

It says elsewhere that there were 28,000 casualties on the Confederate side, but here it says 22,000. Inconsistency, anyone?

The article explains that discrepancy. Did you read it or did you simply scan the summary box? Hal Jespersen 20:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Control

This page was briefly locked by an editor to allow edits only from registered users. There was a period of sanity. Then, the lock was lifted. Has anyone counted the 'reverts' from the past week or so? I don't know the policy nor have I seen discussion about errant edits; but, continual fixing like this page needs suggests to me that something in the process needs to change. jmswtlk 14:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; I'm going to go ahead and semi-protect the article again, with the protection expiring in two days. More people watching this would be helpful; also, see WP:RfPP to request page protection. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

First day of battle, figures?

So there is no way of knowing the exact, or even an estimate, of losses on both the Federal and Confederate forces on the first day? --198.254.16.201 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Scanning through the article quickly, I don't think it's mentioned; you may wish to try the reference desk or another source for this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
See Battle of Gettysburg, First Day#Evening, last sentence, for an estimate. Due to the nature of Army records, tallying up casualties at the end of a battle and tracking regiments that fought 1, 2, or 3 days, such figures are quite difficult to determine accurately. Hal Jespersen 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Strength

How certain is it that the strength of both sides in this article is correct? I checked the Dutch Wikipedia and it was different there. I didn't edit that one because I have to make sure the numbers on this one are right. Guus Hoekman 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The numbers are from Busey and Martin, who wrote an entire book on that narrow subject and just did a big update in 2005. This is relatively recent scholarship, so perhaps the Dutch version is based on older sources. Hal Jespersen 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

reversion of April 9

There was an unsigned comment on my user page about why I reverted his/her change. I did explain in the edit summary, but here are more details:

  • The changed strength figures do not match the documented figures later in the article. We have an informal style that does not lather up the lead paragraphs with footnotes, but anything in the lead paragraphs needs to match the footnoted information that follows. You will see that there is ample documentation for the figures cited.
  • The timestamp at the beginning of the article is simply a typo.
  • We do not use ranks in the box summary.
  • The other minor text changes, although not strictly wrong, are unnecessary in this brief summary (and were simpler to merely revert than to fix stylistically).

Hal Jespersen 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

photo

An anonymous user placed the following text into the article, but it has been moved here for discussion (Hal Jespersen 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)):

I believe that the picture in this passage is 2 gorie and should be removed. After sll what are we teaching the children in america if we allow this insanity. I say that we fight for what is right and sue the maker of this horriffic. But only for the good cause of our children who are after all the future of this twisted county!!!!!! Also wh is it moral to show men lying on the ground covered in blood. What would happen if a messed up kid saw that and decided to do that to himself. then who would be to blame ofcouce th picture and the maker of that specific website. Taking into concideration all of this how do you go to sleep at night. Probably on a king size bed in a machine, what a shame.

Okay......maybe you should just stop worrying about other people and get on with your own life. And here I was, thinking that this page was for discussion on the Civil War......according to this, I should try to influence other people's political and moral beliefs while I am at it. Thanks for the revelation, buddy. --Ubernoober 00:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Map

I think the campaign map at the beginning is wrong. It shows Washington, DC extending into Virginia, but the Wiki article on DC says the Virginia part was given back in 1846 as a result of a slavery dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.49.81.33 (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

I have updated the map. Thanks for finding the problem. I'm not sure how long it takes for Commons images to update in the thumbnail view in the article itself. Hal Jespersen 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Section

THe 3rd day section was in the article twice. I removed the second section (they appeared to be identical, although the second had some unneeded dashes. I also reverted some chain vandalism. The bot had just reverted to a previous vandalized version. Boomcoach 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

infobox with flags

Battle of Gettysburg
Part of the American Civil War

The battle of Gettysburg, Pa. July 3d. 1863, by Currier and Ives
Date July 1 – July 3, 1863
Location Adams County, Pennsylvania
Result Union victory
Belligerents
United States of America (Union) Confederate States of America
Commanders
George Gordon Meade Robert Edward Lee
Strength
93,921 71,699
Casualties and losses
23,055 (3,155 killed, 14,531 wounded, 5,369 captured/missing) 23,231 (4,708 killed, 12,693 wounded, 5,830 captured/missing)

Somebody is keep deleting the combatant flag images which is factual and informative to this article. Most good battle articles have flag images (see some examples here). Please write here if you disagree.-- Penubag  03:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


My comments are bolded-- Penubag  03:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who has removed them. As far as I am aware, there are no American Civil War battle (or biography) articles that use these flags and we attempt to make the style of these articles consistent with each other. True- The combatants never change, but its nice to see what flags they used (ex. US flag had only #(cant remember now) amount of stars etc. It also Makes the article more attractive (which isn't our highest priority but...you know that feeling =-D)I can actually see a minor justification for World War II articles to use the flags because there were so many countries involved that it may be difficult to understand who is fighting whom. not really, it says right next to the flag, the name of the combatant In the American Civil War, it is always the same two sides, each of which has its own side of the battle box, so there is no possibility of confusion. Therefore, the flag graphics add to bandwidth from the server, providing no useful information. The bandwith is very very minimal and it is informative(ie number of stars on US flag at the time, or confederate battle flag. Furthermore, due to the controversies regarding the different versions of flags, particularly on the Confederate side -- Beauregard's battle flag, three different versions of national flags, etc. -- we don't need to carry those controversies into these tiny summary boxes. Use the battle conf. battle flag, although you do make a point here, I agree that there are controversies w/ the flag.Hal Jespersen 14:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, two other things. In this particular case, it is impossible to understand why you wanted to include two copies of each flag. And, once you get on the slippery slope of adding these national flags, what are you going to say when people start adding state flags to the Confederate officers, maintaining that "Lee stated he was actually fighting for Virginia, and this this war really was the 'War Between the States'"? It is usually the standard procedure for battle-infoboxes see some examples here). I always choose the opportunity to reduce political and editorial conflict by omitting information that adds no value in the first place. True, this is a big discussion on something pretty minor, lol, but IMO it will still add minute value to this article and other cival war battles. Hal Jespersen 15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As an example of how you can get in trouble by selecting the wrong flag, your sample box above is using the "First National Flag" of the Confederacy, which was discontinued over a month before the Battle of Gettysburg. See Flags of the Confederate States of America. You have selected the correct US flag for the beginning of the Gettysburg Campaign, but on July 4 it changed; a star was added during Lee's retreat. Furthermore, note the guideline in WP:MILHIST#INFOBOX, which says "3. In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended." I think that recommendation is a good one for this war and we have followed it pretty closely. Hal Jespersen 17:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, the flag icons can be fixed...but you have shown me solid evidence for not putting them in this article. Although I would still like flags, as you mentioned in WP:MILHIST#INFOBOX they are not reccommended.-- Penubag  06:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lee retreat?

I don't understand why Lee didn't just retreat and wait for Meade to leave his tactical advantage. If he did that, wouldn't Lee have gained the upperhand and an easier time to overcome Meade? Could someone please help me to understand why this didn't happen? Was it that militia barracaded Lee in or that Lee didn't think about that.

That is a question often asked, although local militia was not a factor. Lee's decisions were colored a belief that his soldiers were almost invincible and he thought a proper set of offensives would carry the field, despite multiple protests from Longstreet. Ewell also kept whining about damaging his men's morale if they had to withdraw from ground they had won on July 1. Unfortunately for historians, Lee never wrote much about the battle or his motivations. If you'd like to read an entertaining alternative version of events that matches your question, I'd recommend Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War. Hal Jespersen 23:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Lee was always loath to give up the initiative when he held it, and when he was forced to the defensive, he always looked for a way to attack. I can't think of a single time in the war when Lee voluntarily sought a defensive battle; even at Fredericksburg, he contemplated an attack until he realized the Union artillery across the Rappahannock was too much to overcome. At North Anna and Cold Harbor he didn't attack only because he lacked confidence in his lieutenants. When he was trapped at Petersburg, he sent Early to open a new front in the Shenandoah. Longstreet did his best fighting from a defensive pose from which he could launch a counterattack, but Lee was decidedly offensive-minded. Jsc1973 (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Where's Hancock?

Hancock isn't mentioned in the article at all. He is only in the navigation table section "Notable USA leaders". For the second half of the 1st day he was in command of USA forces on the field. Next day he had the tactical command of the critical section. That's got to good for a sentence or two. Of course, Hancock's contribution is often romanticized ("Hancock saves the day!"), which would be bad too. Anyways, there's got to be a better middle ground than what we have right now. Flambergius 16:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Hancock is covered in considerable detail in the sub-articles, you raise a good point. If you would like to add a couple of sentences (footnoted, please), go ahead, or I will get around to it this weekend, probably. Hal Jespersen 02:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

edits August 3

I am reverting two changes that occurred over the last few weeks and both require more explanation than the single-line editing summary.

  1. I have seen no evidence that Lincoln, who was speaking during the war in a Union cemetery, referring to men who were battling for a new birth of freedom, had any intention of honoring the Confederate dead. If you can provide a citation from a secondary source for this interpretation, you are welcome to reinsert it.
  2. Although the 8th Illinois Cavalry had the distinction of allegedly firing the first shot against the approaching Confederates, it is incorrect to say that all of the vedettes were from that regiment. There were representatives from at least six cavalry regiments on McPherson's Ridge that morning. The description of Lieutenant Jones's first shot are in the First Day article, where it is more appropriate to go to that level of detail.

Hal Jespersen 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

casualties

Moved from article:

This presentation of Confederate casualties is misleading. The total for killed includes a significant number who subsequently died from their wounds, whereas the Federal total of 3155 killed alludes only to those who were posted as killed outright on the field, and does not allow for over 2000 who subsequently died from their wounds. According to Fox, an authority on Civil War casualties, the true number of Northern dead at Gettysburg was 5291, of whom more than two thousand died from their wounds, three quarters of them within a week of the battle's end. There was little disparity between the two armies in so far as the total fatalities were concerned. The figure 0f 4708 Confederate deaths is based on incomplete reports...if the same method of assessment is applied to the two armies, we can estimate total Confederate killed/died of wounds to be in the range of 5500-6000, which, set against the authentic compilation of 5291 Union dead, demonstrates how closely fought the battle had been.
The casualty figures are from Martin and Busey, a considerably more complete and recent analysis than Fox's. Hal Jespersen 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Utilize

Hi, just curious why you changed use to utilize? Crucially 08:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page. Jmlk17 09:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Second day assaults

[Moved new topic to bottom of page. Hal Jespersen 11:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]

Lee's plan on the second day of the assault does not appear to be based on faulty intelligence. His plan calls for an assault on the left wing of the Federal army. Indeed, when the plan is actually made, the flank is where Lee believes it to be. In the interim, Sickles moves his corps into the Peach Orchard and is directly in the line of the assault. JEB Stuart's absence has nothing to do with it, nor does faulty intelligence have anything to do with it. Hood attempts to maneuver around Sickle's left despite strict orders from Longstreet to keep the attack where Lee has directed it. How you mention the second day without mentioning Sickles is difficult to imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw1865 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly discusses Sickles's movement already. The faulty intelligence refers to the early morning scouting expedition (a detail that is in the longer Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day article). If Longstreet's advance had been properly screened by cavalry, he would have been aware of Sickles's movement much earlier. Your assertion about Hood's attempt is unjustified based on the historical record. Details of why his division strayed farther east than Lee intended are in the Second Day article and Little Round Top. Hal Jespersen 11:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

kudos

This is a very good topic to talk about because this is a great source. Wikipedia is not always factual becuase people change the stuff that is up here but sometimes it can be a great source. thanks for reading(72.10.100.34 14:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)).