Talk:Battle of South Mountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	American Civil War task force

The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

[edit] Names

I changed the 3 gap names to correspond with the USGS GNIS names:

Turners Gap: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:587919 which has several variant names, none of which are Turner's Gap.

Crampton Gap: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:583960 which has the variant name Cramptons Gap (no apostrophe).

Fox Gap: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:588773 which has variant names Foxs Gap and Fox's Gap.

It may be that Civil War era text has them as Turner's, Crampton's, and Fox's, but it still seems better to use the modern standard placenames, no? Pfly 20:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No. The convention we use is to follow the formats in the secondary sources that we cite as References. In some cases, historians use the more modern, unpunctuated, name, such as Battle of Stones River (which was originally Stone's River), but in this case all of the references cited use the historical names. (Another example of using historical names that deviate from current government usage is Battle of Sayler's Creek.) Hal Jespersen 20:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Embedded comment moved from the article itself (by Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)):

“

Lee did not learn that order 191 had been lost or recovered by McClellan until after the war. Lee was merely reacting to McClellan's sudden (and unexpected) aggressive movement toward the passes.

”