Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Gettysburg/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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)

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
DateJuly 1 – July 3 1863
Location
Adams County, Pennsylvania
Result Union victory
Belligerents
United States of America (Union) Confederate States of America
Commanders and leaders
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)

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)).

Historical evaluation of Lee's Leadership

Mentioning the fact that Lee May or May not have been suffering from dysentery during the course of this battle is important. Several historians believe that this significantly impaired his leadership throughout the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.140.104 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This section is terribly biased. Seriously, those are the assessments of some historians, not all. The section seems to say that Lee ordered a frontal charge because he had a naive faith in his men, when Longstreet's assault would have been much different if the bombardment and Ewell's attack had come off as planned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.138.39 (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lee's habit of giving generalized orders

Lee's habit? I would say it was more of a philosophy or at least call it a style, saying habit makes it sound as if Lee was careless when he instructed his subordinate. Ken E. Beck 14:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jmlk17 10:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a philosphy, one embedded in the idea of the "Southern Gentlemen". He wouldn't give someone a direct order, instead masking the order in the guise of a "suggestion." You would think that those under him would have realized this about Lee and taken his advice accordingly..By The People (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. Based on my review, I believe the article should continue to remain a GA. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 07:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

how many peolpe died in this war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.77.5 (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
in the American Civil War? I think it was something like 620,000...Mathwhiz 29 (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

incorrect claim for highest percentage losses

the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Minnesota_Volunteer_Infantry

suffered BOTH the highest % losses in a single engagement in any battle, (a charge on day 2 - 215 out of 262 = 82.06%)

AND the highest aggregate % losses in any battle - they lost another 17 men, for a final tally of 232 lost from 262 starters during the course of the battle = 88.54%)

NOT the 26th North Carolina as claimed in the article - single engagement = 74.73% - aggregate tally = 81.88%


B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.170.140 (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Busey & Martin reference that's in the footnote reports (p. 129) that the 1st Minn had an engaged strength of 330 for the battle, so its overall loss of 224 was 67.9%. The 262 who were in the famous charge on July 2 (p. 39) suffered a higher loss for that portion of the regiment during the 3-day battle, but that's not what the article's sentence about the 26th NC is addressing. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference Hal, I'll have to see if i can find a copy locally (Australia), as an aside the detatched companies suffered 5 additional causalties at Gettysburg, bringing the total to 237, still not as heavy losses as the 26th NC; - fighting on, despite dreadful losses, seems to have been common theme at Gettysburg.

B

Another interesting tidbit from B&M p. 392: When you consider total losses, including captured, the 1st MN comes in 16th on the Union side! The 25th OH, with 83.6%, had the highest % loss. 1 MN was the 7th highest killed by number, 3rd by %, 6th by wounded #, 2nd by wounded %. (p. 398). This is a great book, although dry as dust. I got it direct from the publisher, Longstreet House. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Decisive Victory

Wikipedia's definition of a decisive victory: "A decisive victory is an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict." Given the pivotal nature of this battle in the course of the civil war, this battle should be listed as a decisive Union victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.158 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed this many times. See User:Hlj/Why#Adjectives. It is inappropriate to put arguable claims in the battle box summary. Although some claim that Gettysburg had a decisive influence on the outcome of the war, others--Gary Gallagher is one prominent historian I can think of--claim it did not. Although it would be possible to have a footnote that gave the various views, it would be better to address such differences in the main text of the article and leave the box with an entry everyone agrees on: Union victory. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. "Decisive" would be a crushing defeat, one that permanently destroys one side of the conflict (i.e. Battle of Berlin in World War Two). Don't get me wrong: Gettysburg was a crushing defeat for the Confederacy, as they were never able to attain the same militaristic heights at pre-July 1863, but they were still able to wage a bloody war for another 21 months. Jmlk17 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it took this long to get back to you. I read your entry on why you think Gettysburg was not a decisive victory, but I'm still unconvinced. You mention some battles, like Gettysburg, are considered turning points in the war, but that you consider the use of turning points as decisive victories as POV. The use of turning points as decisive victories, however, is used over and over in Wikipedialand: see the battle of Stalingrad, the battle of the Marne, etc. In both these instances, the war bloodily dragged on for several more years, but ultimate victory eventually occurred. Using your definition, only battles that utterly and unequivocally destroy the one side and his ability to resist (i.e. the aforementioned battle of Berlin) would count as decisive victories. This, I believe, is an inappropriately narrow view in respect to Gettysburg's true significance, and the fact that several historians disagree does not cancel out the overwhelming majority who believe that Gettysburg was a turning point. At the very least, a link should be provided on the main page to the page describing the views of both sides (the page whose link you helpfully provided on your user page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No need for an apology, the page has been like this for years, so I'm not in a hurry. I claim no responsibility for the information boxes in the battle articles for other wars. I do try to maintain some degree of commonality across the major Civil War battle articles. Do not confuse the notion of a turning point with a decisive battle, because they are not always one and the same. If you look at the article Turning point of the American Civil War, you can see that there are a variety of opinions among scholars. However, only a few of these would be considered "decisive" battles. (For instance, the reelection of Lincoln in 1864.) Fortunately, the information box does not have a space with a checkmark for turning point, so we do not have to deal with that controversy in a single phrase. I am perfectly willing to see a paragraph in the text of the article that describes the controversy over decisiveness, although I have never written one myself. To do so, I would need to include something like "Historians A, B, and C have described the battle as decisive [insert reasons], but historians D and E disagree [reasons]." The problem is that I am very familiar with the arguments of D and E, but don't know of any really prominent modern historians who are willing to be in the first category. If you have some citations, pass them along. A problem is that the definition for "decisive" varies and is often used as a synonym for "one-sided" or "impressive." Also, they might make a statement such as "after Gettysburg, Lee never invaded the north again," but I have rarely heard arguments that indicated the result of the battle was a direct influence on that. (Perhaps he would have invaded again if Grant had not been hammering on him in 1864, but then you could argue that the appointment of Grant was decisive, not the battle.) Certainly Gettysburg was the decisive battle in the Gettysburg campaign, but whether it was decisive in the war is quite arguable. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If a article regarding the discussion over whether or not the battle was decisive is added to the main page I will consider this matter closed. I also believe that said article would forestall any more nagging editing page statements (like mine). I believe that you (Hal) would be the best candidate for writing it, given the superior quality of most of your articles, but I will write it myself if you are too busy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Hlj is correct here in his agreeing with most of the historical assessments this battle that have spawned over the years. As the Turning Point page states there is much disagreement here, but it is widely contended that the combination of Gettysburg and Vicksburg changed the war in the east for good. Had Gen. Meade produced a more vigorous pursuit and got at Lee's army with a swollen river behind it (and did great damage to it), then the campaign would easily be classified as "decisive". I think the battle and it's effects are most accurate as described here, however I believe the case for decisive or not should be included, with cites, briefly in the Aftermath section. Perhaps including another link to the the Turning Points page there too, since a lot of ground is covered between the intro and that section. Just my two cents. Kresock (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I implied, I am willing to do the writing if people will give me some citations of historians who make a case for a decisive victory, i.e., a direct effect on the end of the war. Since the historians I can cite on the other side are prominent scholars, please limit your citations to such folks. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll get some sources, but obviously this will take some time. Also, are we restricting our sources to prominent historians, or do papers and documents of record count (for example, the encyclopedia britannica lists Gettysburg as a decisive victory)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have some historians who assert that Gettysburg was a decisive victory: Andre Collins and James Gross (Gettysburg) Lee O'Brien (Don't have his book yet, get back to you). I'll continue finding others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Gallagher himself also helpfully points out some historians who disagree with him: he cites James M. McPherson and Emory Thomas. I think I have 5 historians, is that enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I asked for citations, not names. I haven't heard of 4 of the people you name and I have read quite a lot on Gettysburg. As for McPherson, the record is mixed. He does say in Battle Cry of Freedom that the combination of Vicksburg and Gettysburg was decisive (so how would that go into the infobox? "Half-decisive Union victory"? :-) But in Crossroads of Freedom, he makes a strong case for Antietam as the true turning point of the war. See what I mean about "arguable"? (I'll now type four tildas to sign my name.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem here is that the term "decisive victory" is being used in two senses. The first and most obvious being an overwhelming victory, and the other a pivotal strategic victory. Would it be appropriate to add a new term "pivotal victory" or something to that effect to describe battles that were not overwhelming but were particularly significant? Geeman (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Decisive, huh? What did it decide? If I recall, Lee later sent Early on an invasion that reached the outskirts of Washington. If Wallace hadn't sacrificed his command in a hopeless battle, Early may very well have made it. As to the comment directly above. I'm in agreement with you on the misunderstanding here, but I am loathe to introduce a neologism even for a battle as historic and analyzed as this one was. Mstuczynski (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well, I concede the point: Gettysburg was not a decisive victory. After searching the net and several books (I even went to the library) I am forced to acknowledge historical consensus. I believe, however, that a few sentences could be added to the "Confederate Retreat" section, describing how the battle might have been decisive had Meade aggressively pursued Lee after Gettysburg. Perhaps the historical assessment could also be added to, describing criticism of Meade's actions immediately following Gettysburg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.67.14 (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. The problem with part of your suggestion is that we don't include speculation about what might have happened if history turned out differently. It would certainly have to be in the context of quoting historians (pr participants, I guess) about the speculation. Almost all of the what-ifs commonly discussed about the battle turn out to be Confederate-leaning, actually. What if Jackson were there? What if Lee had listened to Longstreet? What if Longstreet had attacked earlier on July 2 or 3? Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Battle of Gettysburg was a defeat the Confederacy was unable to recover from. Due to the defeat, they lost any hope of support from any European empire, and they would never be able to pull off anything the same again. It is also considered the wars turning point, and therefore I believe it should be labeled as a decisive victory. Compare it to the Battle of Waterloo. That wasn't the last battle of the war, but it was certainly the final straw. (Trip Johnson (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC))
They recovered sufficiently to start an offensive and flank Meade out of his Rapdian line three months later, causing him to retreat to Bristoe Station. This was done, mind you, while Longstreet was away with his corps helping to win the Battle of Chickamauga. A crippling defeat of the Army of the Cumberland, but by no means decisive. There is little evidence, save for speculation, that Great Britain had any intention of ever intervening on the Confederacy's behalf, Russia was clearly on the Union's side, and Napoleon III of France was not going to get involved without Great Britain (that was the main point of his foreign policy). And the Waterloo Campaign was certainly the last campaign of the Napoleonic Wars, what followed was merely the pursuit. Mstuczynski (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the discussion above. The decision about the war's turning point is not agreed by historians--and those who do use the term almost always link it with Vicksburg--and is not directly related to the use of 'decisive' in any event. Please try to get a consensus of secondary sources and Wikipedia editors together before changing the infobox summary. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said the Waterloo Campaign was not the final campaign. If you read carefully, I said that it was not the last BATTLE of the Napoleonic Wars. Compare it to Naseby aswell. By far not the last battle of the English Civil War, but definitely the final straw (Trip Johnson (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
Yes, my point was Gettysburg was not even close to the last campaign. Bristoe, Mine Run, Overland, Petersburg and Appomattox that's five more; very close to two years of further warfare. After Gettysburg both armies returned to almost exactly the same positions they had occupied before the start of the campaign. Something that is decisive decides something. How can you say that that decided anything? After the Waterloo campaign, Wellington and Blucher occupied Paris and Napoleon was on an English ship headed for the South Atlantic. I would call that pretty decisive. Incidentally, Napoleon's restoration lasted "100 days", not even 100 days after Gettysburg Lee was on the offensive again. Mstuczynski (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The setback at Gettysburg did not ensure the destruction of the Confederacy. Rather the South still had a few chances left to reorganize and achieve independence. Following Lee's defeat the army of Northern Virgina retreated back towards the potomac river and was not pursued by Mead's army. This allowed the South time to reorganize their strategy. If the South had avoided major engagements with the Union army and fought small defensive battles, the unpopularity of Lincoln would have reached a critical point in the North. If the South could maintian this strategy of obstruction by withdrawing evertime the Union began an offensive (but retreat slowely, and skirmish with the enemy), Lincoln would have lost the election of 1864. With his electoral defeat, "little Mac" would have made peace with the confederacy. It is important to note that even with the defeats at Vicksburgn and Gettysburg the Confederacy still had strong armies left in the feild. The army of Northern Virgina would rebuild to 64,000 strong by the beginning of the overland campaign. The army of Tenn still held a strength of between 40-50,000. These forces would be enough to delay a Union drive on Atlanta or Richmond before the 1864 election. Assuming President Davis does not interfer with the strategy, Lincolns defeat is very likely, ensuring Confederate survival. The South still had a reservoir of skilled generals and with the exception of Grant or Sherman could outmatch any union general. Any policy of obstruction and a gradual retreat, would inflict huge looses on the north. If the South had begun to conscipt blacks (for service in the army) in 1863 a fresh manpower reserve of over 1 million eligable males could be taped. Such numbers could rebuild the looses at Gettysburg and Vickburg. Also with the increased strength of defensive warfare (use of trenches and forts) the South could hold the Union off. Other measures would still need to be taken. Plantation farms would have to be seize and converted into food production. If the South emplemented this option quickly the burden of the Confederate commissary would be have been relieved. The average Southern soldier would therefor not starve to death and moral would increase

The Confederacy also had a rare oppurtunity at the seige of Chattanooga. If Braxton Bragg had been replaced and General Longsteet promoted to command the army of the Tennessee the disaster at Missionary Ridge could have been prevented. Longstreet would conduct a tightning siege effort, which would force Grant to assault impressively defended positions. The reason why this did not work for Bragg was because he feuded with his generals and got Longstreets troops detached, greatly weakening the army. With Longstreet in command the impregnability of the confederate defenses would be assured and the army of the Cumberland would starve to death. Such a disaster would prevent Shermans march into Georgia, saving Atlanta. The victory would even open up a Confederate route into Kentucky. Despite these final hopes the South ruined any chance of victory. But with a strategy of obstruction, black recruitment, and converted farms and better command the South could have reversed a grim military situation and win politically against Lincoln. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.154.117 (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

And if wishes were fishes....JGC1010 (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reb casualties understated.

The casualty figures for the CSA at the Battle of Gettysburg are understated in this article's box by about 5,000. The more commonly cited rebel casualties at Gettysburg were around 28,000. This article represents a minority viewpoint on the CSA casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)AaronCBurke (talkAaronCBurke (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)• contribs) 21:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is based on the most recent scholarship available:
  • Busey, John W., and Martin, David G., Regimental Strengths and Losses at Gettysburg, 4th Ed., Longstreet House, 2005, ISBN 0-944413-67-6.
as explained in the Casualties section. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Busey and Martin's book may be well-documented, and fairly recent, but does that mean it trumps previous works? AaronCBurke (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [3]. Cla68 (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is rather amazing that they don't include Coddington, probably the most famous of all the command studies. Of the few links in that list, a number are broken. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Omitted General

This is just out of curiosity concerning the Battle of Gettysburg page (I wasn't sure how to put it there); there is emphasis placed on the Potomac Army, but how come the main general, Henry Hallick, gets no mention? He was known for winning Gettysburg; if anything, his overall role in the Union army, be it through his military expertise, or his reluctance to accept Grant's rise, is underrated.

If more emphasis could be placed on Hallick's role in Gettysburg, I think it would help not only to shed light on a historical figure who has been left in the proverbial dust, to put the war in perspective (and mostly to put a stop to the heavily perpetuated myth, once and for all, that Grant was responsible for most of the success at Gettysburg). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.155.64 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

as far as i know, no one gives Grant credit for Gettysburg, as he was busy commanding the siege of vicksburg in mississippi during the campaign. Halleck also had little to do with gettysburg, he was in washington playing politics. although he played a role in the western theater, as COC, he mainly appears to have wasted the country's time and money —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.217.251 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have spent 250 hours developing the animation below which describes the battle based on the best sources (Sears' "Gettysburg" and "The Maps of Gettysburg" are primary).

Could I have permission from the author(s) of the Gettysburg page to add this as an external link?

Thank you,

James Cagney

The animation can be viewed at

http://www.historyanimated.com/GettysburgAnimation.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcagney (talk • contribs) 13:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to give "permission" in Wikipedia because people can always edit away things others find satisfactory. I have no objection to this link (other than that I don't like the word The capitalized). There are people and robots around, however, who object to mass additions of links, so you need to be judicious. For example, adding links to all the generals' bio pages was rather over the top. One link per battle or campaign seems fine to me. But that's just my opinion. By the way, Sears is well regarded for strategic insights, but is not noted by military historians for accuracy at the tactical level. You should consult Harry Pfanz's works over Sears'. Gottfried is pretty solid. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Hal. I did immediately purchase "The Maps of Gettysburg" on your advice (I had emailed you complimenting you on your maps) and I followed it carefully. I stand chastised and will add links most judiciously and not go "over the top". My apologies - sometimes to learn the limits one has to find them JamesJcagney (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The animation is very nice. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on Gettysburg Article in Portuguese

Hal, I just accessed the Gettysburg Battle article in Portuguese WP, and I found there plenty of misinformation. The whole text seems written to support the thesis Gettysburg Battle was, besides a terible carnage, turning point in history of wars, from both technological and strategic point of view. The arguments used include:

- "the large scale use use of Spancer repeating rifles" (a week after Hoover Gap)

- the use of military baloons for observation (at the time Baloon Corps were being disbanded), enabling the artillery to hit targets on distance of "several kilometers" (confederates had Whitworth rifles that could reach 2,5km at Gettysburg, but no baloons to direct them).

- the use of "recently invented fragmentation bombs and granades".

It says at Gettysburg world sow for the first time the industrialized warfare, as if the Civil War started in 1863. The article needs to be completely rewriten, but I don't feel able to do it from scratch by myself. I know this is not within WP Best Practices, but would it be acceptable to translate part of your article and publish it in Portuguese WP? Of course, I would leave the explanation on this on the Talk page. I think the worst option is to leave the article as it is.M.Campos (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The article in portuguese also states that 30% of the confederate army was killed in Gettysburg. The Infobox shown over 50.000 deaths in the battle (all casualties are shown as deaths).M.Campos (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, all of that sounds pretty bogus. I have zero experience in the customs involving articles in other languages; I didn't know there was any problem with direct translations. You do not need permission from me or anyone who contributed to this article to use some or all of the text and images in another Wikipedia article (or any other place, as long as the GFDL license is respected). Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Hall. Although none owns the WP articles, the size and quality of your contribution give you leadership when subject is the Civil War. That is at least what I feel. I already rewrote the article, using your text as base. I know I should anchor the text on external sources (to which I don't have access), but in this case, as I already said, the worst would be to do nothing. Now, you are also a indirect contributor to Portuguese WP.M.Campos (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put that on my résumé. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

what are some good details about the war

I need to know some good details about the gettysburg war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.29.134 (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gettysburg "war" I like that, but it was a three-day battle, not its own war. Exactly what details not already in the article are you asking about? Kresock (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Help. I would like the hyperlink to Gettysburg Photograph.com changed from the index2 page to the main index page. Tom Eishen Gettysburg Photographs.com website owner. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.230.68 (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I did the update, but since this is Wikipedia, it is an edit you could have done yourself (if you register as a user in this case of a semi-protected page). Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Shoe Issue"

In the book Voices of the Civil War, by Richard Wheeler (Meridian, 1990, ISBN 0-452-01066-7) I found the following citation of Fitzhug Lee:

....On the 30th, Pettigrew, commanding a brigade of Heath's divison, Hill's corp, was directed to march to Gettysburg to get shoes for the barefooted man of the division, but returned the same evening without them and reported that Gettysburg was occupied by the Federal cavalry...

An interesting testimony, but since the historians lack agreement about the issue, maybe the best is to leave the article as it is.M.Campos (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement,

"...this explanation may have been devised in retrospect to justify an overly heavy reconnaissance force."

needs clarification. That is, why would there be any need to "justify an overly heavy reconnaissance force"? This seems to suggest that a mistake was made. Also, what does "overly heavy" mean? Doesn't "reconnaissance in force" mean an "overly heavy reconnaissance"? Just asking. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference to reconnaissance in force is in the following paragraph, about the July 1 movement. Sending a full infantry brigade on a 16-mile march during the summer weather of June 30 to look for shoes seems like an "overly heavy" commitment of resources to me, but how would you word it? Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand what a RIF means. I just don't understand the use of the word "overly" in this context. It seems redundant. Be that as it may, there still needs to be a clarification of the above statement (i.e., to jusify a RIF). The confederates didn't know if they were facing militia or regular troops or the size of the Union forces. So, I really don't think that sending in a RIF was in any way unjustified. Since there are at least two people that claimed that shoes were somehow involved, it doesn't make any sense to question that WITHOUT providing a reasonable explanation as to the true motives.
A few motives would be:
1. In order for Heth not to blamed for the ultimate failure at Gettysburg;
2. In order for Hill and Heth not be be seen as failing to obey Lee's order to a avoid general engagement.
3. Heth was looking for some "glory", and had no other military objective.
Although one or more of the above reasons may in fact be true, I would like to see at least some original source that suggests it. In my opinion, shoes were probably just one reason why a RIF was ordered. In response to your question, I would remove that statement and add "although that reason has been questioned by some historians", and then create a link to a "Shoe Controversy" section that explains the question in more detail. Perhaps, even a completely different article on all of the Gettysburg controversies (Shoes, Sickles, Chamberlin, etc.)
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I assumed you knew what a RIF was, but was pointing out that the June 30 action you are discussing (Pettigrew's foraging expedition of 2000 men, an artillery battery, and several wagons) is not described as such in the article--the July 1 action is. Upon further review of the issue, I decided that you are correct and that the negative tone of the final phrase was not warranted, so I have deleted it and beefed up the footnote a bit. As a little background, in the early days of this article there was a lot of sentiment by the Wikipedia editors of the time that Heth's story was a fantasy -- that he knew there were no shoes because Confederate troops had cleaned out the town four days earlier. The now-deleted phrase was an after effect of those discussions. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I really like the new edit, including the footnotes. One MINOR suggestion, however. How about changing the text to read:
...Pettigrew's division commander, claimed that he sent Pettigrew to search for supplies in town — specifically, shoes. However, whatever the true intent of the mission was, it should not overshadow the fact that Gettysburg was a major crossroad and thus was the ideal place to concentrate disparate [or strung out?] Confederate forces.
If someone looks at the positions of the Confederate army before July 1st, I think that the above statement would definitely be accurate, since, according to the map shown in the article, there were around 8+ roads, and a rail line from the East, that led to Gettysburg.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


Sickles Controversy

I don't see any information about Sickles actions on the 2nd day. Did he disobey orders or "interpret" them to mean something the Meade did not intend? More importantly, did the position of the 3rd Corps help or hinder the Union on the 2nd day? I've played some wargames that had Sickles been where he was supposed to be, Longstreet would have been able to take, but not hold, Little Round Top. However, in any wargame, "satellite" intelligence cannot be avoided, and that has a great effect on the outcome of the wargame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: how could have Longstreet and his divisional commanders have completely missed the position of the Union 3rd Corps? Sickles corps had more than 10000 men in it and they were on relatively open ground. I can understand the Battle of the Wilderness and Chancelorsville, but the southern portion of the Battle of Gettysburg? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sickles is covered by a paragraph in this overview article and by more detail in the subarticle Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Remember that Lee and Longstreet were relying on intelligence gathered in the early morning and Sickles moved to his more exposed position while the Second Corps was marching and countermarching deliberately out of sight of the Union troops. (Perhaps if Jeb Stuart had been there the second day might have occurred differently, although we generally avoid 'what-if' scenarios like that.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand how Longstreet could have missed the position of over 10k men. Couldn't SOMEBODY had sent out a few scouts? Anyway, I'd really like to know what others think about Sickles' move; i.e., did it help or hurt the Union on the 2nd day? Also, Lee's plan of attack, had Sickles been where he was supposed to be, doesn't make any sense to me unless he thought that the left flank of the Union 2nd Corps WAS the extreme left flank. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia Talk pages are not discussion forums to ask opinion questions like this. Check out http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/forums/ or http://www.gdg.org/ as alternatives. And please sign your posts with 4 tildes. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
"And please sign your posts with 4 tildes". Oops! Sorry. It's fixed. Oh, and thanks for the links (although only the second one worked). Nevertheless, there really needs to be more information on the Sickles Controversy in Wikipedia. I'd write one myself, but I'm still not comfortable with the idea of me being an "editor". Also, I'm asking "opinion" questions in order to solicit ideas, and links to original sources, for the time that I can make a confident and positive addition to this article.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Expand Historical Assessment

I'd like to suggest adding a section for the historical assessment of all four of Lee's corps commanders (Hill, Ewell, Longstreet, and Stuart), followed by a section for the historical assessment of Meade and his corps commanders (6.2, 6.3, and 6.4). Just assessing Lee's performance seems to leave out a whole lot of perspective. Anyway, that's my $0.02.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This section evolved over time to explain why Lee, who almost always won battles, lost this one. It is the unusual circumstance of his loss that makes that discussion notable. As the commanding general of the army, he bears ultimate responsibility, regardless of his subordinates. I would rather see this section deleted than expanding it to include opinions about 13 more generals. Such opinions are better catalogued in their biography articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You said that "This section evolved over time to explain why Lee...lost this one." Ok, that's fine. However, I think that it should be mentioned that all four of Lee's corps commanders failed, in one way or another. Although Lee bears ultimate responsibility, as you rightly said, I don't think the statement "...it proved inadequate [giving generalized orders] when dealing with corps commanders unused to Lee's style of command" can be sustained, except in the case of Ewell.
1. Hill - he was sick, and thus ineffectual (suffering from some kind of VD?).
2. Ewell - he was not aggressive; he failed to take Culp's Hill.
3. Longstreet - failed to make an attack on the morning of 7/2, as Lee expected.
4. Stuart - oh where oh where is my JEB? (as Sweet Polly Purebred may have sung of Underdog). His was the most accute error, since it caused Lee to act blindly.
I don't recommend that you remove this section (actually, I don't see how one of the most important battles in the history of the country, and perhaps the world) would NOT have some kind of an "assessment"), but I think it should be cleaned up. For example, the reasons Lee lost can be summarized as follows:
1. The failures of ALL FOUR of his corp commanders.
2. Lee thought his troops were invincible.
3. Lee wanted this battle to be decisive.
4. Lee went from "from defender to invader" (i.e., lost homefield advantage, so to speak).
Also, it would be more accurate to say that Lee lost the battle, for the reasons given above, rather than that Meade was in any way a "dangerous opponent". The most that can be said of Meade during this battle was that he was not grossly incompetent.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The statement about orders can be applied to Hill (who started the battle without Lee's assent), Ewell, and Stuart. Perhaps not Longstreet, but 75% is worth noting. All of the significant failures of the corps commanders are already mentioned in the article, in the context of time they happened, but your summary (first numbered list) consists entirely of arguable assertions. No historian argues that Lee lost because Hill was sick (and it was most likely the gonorrhea he acquired at West Point). (A few have argued that Lee himself was sick with angina.) Ewell might have been more aggressive if Lee's order had been more specific. The Longstreet morning attack is Lost Cause propaganda; see his bio article for details. Stuart's failure is described richly in the Gettysburg Campaign article, but it is quite arguable whether he was entirely to blame. Lee could have overcome all of these problems if he had commanded his army differently.
Your second list's #2 and #4 are already in the section we're discussing. #1 is the addressed above. #3 is true, although overlapping #2. But it doesn't directly address why he lost, unless you mean "he wanted to win and wouldn't give up until he lost."
Lee himself remarked that Meade was a different kind of opponent than his predecessors; perhaps 'formidable' would be a better choice than 'dangerous'. Arguing that Meade didn't do very well at Gettysburg is quite POV, one that few historians share. Meade certainly could have lost the battle if he had made different choices at key points. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Lee lost soley because Hill was sick. From what I understand, however, Hill's sickness meant that he didn't perform as well as he could have and it is thus "a" reason for Lee's loss (not "the" reason). Also, you said,
All of the significant failures of the corps commanders are already mentioned in the article...
Yeah, that's fine, but a summary wouldn't hurt.  :)
The Longstreet morning attack is Lost Cause propaganda....
Longstreet's wiki bio seems to support my contention that Lee expected Longstreet to attack in the morning. Also, I found an article in Battles and Leaders (vol 3, pp 355-56) by William Allan, Colonel, C.S.A., who said:
General Longstreet would have us infer that he was not ordered by General Lee to attack early on the second day; but that his memory is at fault on this point has been shown by Generals Fitz Lee, Pendleton, Early, Wilcox, and many others.
He then goes on to quote Lee's military secretary A. L. Long that Lee's intention was to attack in the morning and Longstreet (and Hill) knew it. Even the wiki bio of Longstreet seems to suggest the same thing (without reference to a "Lost Cause" agenda).
Regarding Meade...I have no problem with the word "dangerous" if it can be shown that that is what Lee considered him. I'm not crazy about "formidable" either, since it implies "dangerous". However, since I can't at the moment think of a better word that I can back up with facts, I'll leave that alone for now.
Arguing that Meade didn't do very well at Gettysburg is quite POV, one that few historians share.
I think Meade did "do well" during the battle (although certainly not in the pursuit afterwards)...but only in the sense that he made no major mistakes or lost his nerve, as previous commanders had done. Also, J.M. McPherson states, "Meade's lack of agressiveness was caused by his respect for the enemy" (Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 663). That's not what I would call a ringing endorsement of his generalship nor that he did "very well". The best that can be said about Meade's performance would be that he did "well enough", but even that may be generous when compared to other commanders (e.g. Sherman).
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote the article on James Longstreet and took extra care to show a balanced view of his performance, which was reluctant and unprofessional in some regards, although the analysis starts with an admission that Lee agreed to delay the morning attack until Law's brigade came up and he did not issue the order to attack until 11 AM. The quote you offer merely cites the opinions of known Lost Causers. At the time of Battles and Leaders, Longstreet was at the nadir of his reputation because of the active public relations campaigning of guys like that.
As for Meade, Stephen Sears wrote (Gettysburg, page 506), "Lee demonstrated weakness in managing his generals in this battle, while that skill proved to be Meade's especial strength. ... George G. Meade, unexpectedly and against the odds, thoroughly outgeneraled Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg." I could find other quotations that paint Meade in a positive light, but as I said earlier, I think it is more appropriate to give historical analyses of individual performances in their biography articles. Gettysburg is a difficult battle because it has so many fruitless "what-if" scenarios (like what if Longstreet had attacked earlier and what if Sickles had not moved his position and what if Stonewall Jackson had lived at Chancellorsville and what if Ewell had attacked Culp's Hill and what if Stuart had been there, etc.) and postbellum axe grinding. A thorough historical analysis of the battle would be consumed by dueling POV quotes from advocates of both sides and would not end up very encyclopedic in nature. I do admit that limiting the historical assessment to that of only Robert E. Lee is not completely balanced and I will put it on my to do list to fix that in a relatively modest way. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
My main point regarding Longstreet is that he didn't begin the attack on the 2nd as soon as Lee expected him to. And you seem to agree: "...James Longstreet...was reluctant and unprofessional in some regards....". So here is my new list of corp commanders failures:
1. Hill - he was sick, and thus ineffectual.
2. Ewell - he was not aggressive; he failed to take Culp's Hill.
3. Longstreet - failed to make an attack on 7/2 as early as Lee expected.
4. Stuart - stayed out of touch with Lee, causing Lee much needed recon.
Regarding Meade. I'm not saying that Meade was a bad general. He was competent, no more, no less during this battle. However, I don't understand the context of Sears' quote. I've been meaning to read his book but I haven't gotten around to it yet. That is,
Lee demonstrated weakness in managing his generals in this battle, while that skill proved to be Meade's especial strength.
No problem with that. That is fairly obvious (except for "managing" Sickles).
George G. Meade, unexpectedly and against the odds, thoroughly outgeneraled Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg.
I don't see how Sears' can maintain this. What evidence does he give? (Yes, yes, I'll pick up his book as soon as possilbe. :) ) Because Meade won the battle? You can win a battle but still not have "outgeneraled" your opponent. Case in point: The Battle of Antitam.
Also, Meade had distinct advantages in that he was the defender, with more men than Lee, on an excellent defensive position, and with interior lines. And only an incompetent general could manage to lose such a battle. However, if Sears' is saying that that was the impression of Meade's contemporaries, then please ignore the immediately preceding rant.  :)
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As to your numbered list:

1. Ineffectual is an overstatement that you would be hard-pressed to find a citation to back up or to link to any specific outcome of the battle.
2. Ewell was plenty aggressive for most of the Gettysburg Campaign and performed very well on July 1 before about 4 p.m. His assaults on July 2 and 3 were certainly aggressive.
3. Longstreet was not as aggressive as Lee hoped, but Lee did agree to the delay in starting off. It is entirely speculative to imagine how the battle might have been different if Longstreet had been faster. His attack didn't fail because of lack of daylight.
4. True, although some modern historians assign blame to both Lee and Stuart for this situation.

If Lee had spent more effort supervising his generals or issuing clearer orders, all of these problems could have been minimized. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


My main point is that Lee's corps commanders all failed to some exent. I'm not trying to minimize what you said in your last sentence above. Let me assure you that I agree completely that Lee was the one with the greatest blame (I would guess at least 75%). I'm simply trying to point out that Lee, or any army commander for that matter, rarely is 100% to blame for losing a battle (although the results of July 3rd are entirely Lee's fault).
We can argue about word usage, in an effort to be precise, but the bottom line is that Lee's corp commanders made mistakes or, "missed opportunities" and that that should be mentioned, in summary, in the assessment section.
So, in the assessment section, I would suggest the following four-point summary:
1. The various missed opportunities [or failures], of his corp commanders.
2. Lee thought his troops were invincible.
3. Lee wanted this battle to be decisive.
4. Lee went from strategic defense to strategic offense [with it's accompanying problems].
That's my $0.02, at any rate.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment of Lee's leadership style Section

This section needs to be broken up into two or more paragraphs. It'll make it easier to read.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm breaking up this paragraph. Let me know if it looks better.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How does this look?

Throughout the campaign, General Lee seemed to have entertained the belief that his men were invincible; most of Lee's experiences with the army had convinced him of this, including the great victory at Chancellorsville in early May and the rout of the Union troops at Gettysburg on July 1.[1] Although high morale plays an important role in military victory when other factors are equal, Lee could not refuse his army's desire to fight.

To the detrimental effects of their collective blind faith was added the fact that the Army of Northern Virginia had many new and inexperienced commanders (Neither Hill nor Ewell, for instance, though capable division commanders, had commanded a corps before). It had recently lost Stonewall Jackson, one of its most competent offensive generals. Also, Lee's method of giving generalized orders and leaving it up to his lieutenants to work out the details contributed to his defeat. Although this method may have worked with Jackson, it proved inadequate when dealing with corps commanders unused to Lee's style of command.

Lee faced dramatic differences in going from defender to invader—long supply lines, a hostile local population, and an imperative to force the enemy from its position. Lastly, after July 1, the Confederates were simply not able to coordinate their attacks. Lee faced a new and very dangerous opponent in George Meade, and the Army of the Potomac stood to the task and fought well on its home territory.[2]

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. This section has lacked good citations for quite a while and you could take a crack at it or I could do it when time permits. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be glad to modify the section, but I don't know if I have permission to do so. The article says it is semi-protected, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. If this is your "baby", I thought it best to ask you first. I'll go ahead and modify it in the next few hours. However, someone just added a bunch of text with no references, so I'll break up those statements also.
Note, I'm not adverse to the extra comments in this section. (In fact, each major ACW battle needs an "assessment" section.) But they need to be referenced to some published work.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing this section, now that it has other material added to it, I can't say I'm too happy with it. It's all opinion and none of the opinions are cited. (This is not to say that the previous version wasn't weak, too.) I've added a few citation-needed flags, but really every paragraph needs one or more. I don't know what the [1] and [2] were supposed to mean and took them out. It's also deviated from its original title of "leadership style" to include medical speculation. I'm busy with some other tasks currently and can't bring this section up to snuff, but perhaps others can lend a hand. I disagree that most battles need a separate Assessment section. This sort of thing is usually covered in a few sentences in the Aftermath section because most such judgments simply aren't as controversial as Lee at Gettysburg. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


You said, "It's all opinion and none of the opinions are cited." Don't look at me, I didn't add it.  :) I say give it some time (a week?) and then, if there aren't any citations, delete it.
Although I've read about some of it in the past (I can't remember where), still...
It has also been argued that Lee may have felt that Gettysburg represented a last hope for Confederate independence, and he, thus, had little choice but to take the kind of grave risks that he would never have considered before or after.
Although I've read about the above claim in the past (I can't remember where), I seriously doubt the "grave risks" part can be maintained since most of Lee's battles required such risks. However, I'm open to the evidence. Still, the above sentence seems to say the same thing as the last sentence in the section. So, not only should the editor provide a citation, he should also combine the two sentences.
The heart disease of Lee can probably be cited. I'll see if I can find anything in the next week, I'll add it myself (although the person who added the text really should be the one to do it). But the last part...
[Lee] may have also been feeling his own mortality in the aftermath of the Battle of Chancellorsville.
If this can be cited, I can just about guarantee the citation will not be from a historian, but rather a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst. I mean, there must be as much evidence of this as there is for Lee liking to wear women's underwear.  :)
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


I've changed the sentence,

Lee faced dramatic differences in going from defender to invader—long supply lines, a hostile local population, and an imperative to force the enemy from its position.

to

Lee faced dramatic differences in going from the strategic defense to the strategic offense—long supply lines, a hostile local population, and an imperative to force the enemy from its position.

I think that that is more precise.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Demonstrations"?

In the fourth paragraph we have this "On the Union right, demonstrations escalated into full-scale assaults ..." What, in this context, does "demonstrations" mean? As a speaker of BrE I must say it has no meaning for me that seems to work here; I wondered if in AmE it did have a useful meaning, or perhaps it is a specific piece of military terminology? Either way, I think it may need clarification. Can anyone help please, at the very least by explaining here exactly what is meant, or, preferably, by editing the article to explain the meaning more fully? Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can find definitions of military terms in the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Joint Pub 1-02), which is online at https://secure.wikileaks.org/w/images/Jp1_02.pdf. (I would be very surprised if the British Armed Forces did not use this term as well.) "1. An attack or show of force on a front where a decision is not sought, made with the aim of deceiving the enemy." Since you're the second person to ask about this word in the last two weeks (the other for the First Battle of Bull Run), I will create an article that describes it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Perfect. Thank you so much for sorting that out. For a non-specialised reader (me!) that's a huge help. Wikipedia at its best! Thanks again, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Decisive Union Victory

If you look up the term "decisive victory" on Wikipedia itself, then you will see that the definition is a victory that has an affect on the outcome of the larger conflict. The Battle of Gettysburg has been considered the turning point of the war and thus that would make it a decisive victory--Red Slayer 18:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

The previous consensus was to leave out the word "decisive". Please see the Talk:Battle_of_Gettysburg/FAQ.--Writelabor (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Gettysburg was not a decisive victory in its own right. Whereas a comparative battle, such as Waterloo was decisive, as that ENDED the war, Gettysburg did not end the war, it simply turned the war into the favour of the Union. Gettysburg was to the American Civil War what Stalingrad, Normandy etc etc was to World War 2, a turning point. (Trip Johnson (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC))
I have to agree with Red Slayer. Gettysburg was indeed a decisive victory, for the reasons he mentioned. Personally, I prefer vicoroties be difined as:
1. Tactical
2. Decisive
3. Strategic
4. Inconclusive (draw)
However, I DO understand the reasons for simply labeling victory summaries as Union/Confederate vicotories. I just wish it was applied to all Civil War battles evenly (i.e., with no exceptions). Consequences of a particular battle, in "decisive", "strategic", and "inconclusive" terms, should be regulated to the "Aftermath" sections. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The decisive aspect of the 'Gettysburg Campaign' (not this battle itself) has always been coupled with the loss of Vicksburg on July 4, 1863, as well as the overall situation. In the published works I've read, this combination was been described as "the turning point of the war" and "...the point when the South could no longer win independence through a victory of arms." or "...the stage was reached when outside intervention was no longer possible, the South's resources had been stretched to the limit, and desertions rose to the point of hampering offensive operations." These things I could label as decisive aspects, but not as a direct result of this three day fight. That comes form the battle & Vicksburg & the rest of the Confederate situation taken as a whole.
If I had my way, those infoboxes would not give a result, leaving such discussion to the lead & main body of the article. There they could be hashed out to almost anyone's satisfaction with reliable cites, instead of a few words that never convey the actual state of affairs. The boxes I suppose were intended for summaries only, as well as consistency among the ACW pages. I used to love adding them and filling them out, but now I minimize what they contain and kinda wish we never used them in the first place. Without them, I don't think the problem under scrutiny here would have occured. I also can't seem to find them in the encyclopedias at the library. Kresock (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with your sentiment about phrase-level summaries of complex topics in information boxes. I have been fighting this literally for years. The problem with this particular phrase is that people use it in different contexts and do not attempt to explain which context they are using. In one case, they are describing the nature of the victory within that battle itself -- everyone agrees without ambiguity that Lee lost the battle. However, the phrase "decisive victory" is also used to mean that the result of the battle had a decisive effect on the outcome of the war (or in some cases the outcome of a campaign or theater of the war). Gettysburg is a prime example of a battle in which this latter case is very ambiguous and widely argued by historians, so it is particularly damaging to use the phrase in the summary box without a lengthy explanation. It was obviously the decisive end of the Gettysburg Campaign, but many argue that, with two years left to go in the war, it was hardly the decisive event in the war as a whole -- even when it is coupled with Vicksburg on the following day. Gettysburg was like a significant hill halfway through a marathon race. Although the Union Army decisively beat Lee to the top of the hill, that was insufficient assurance that they would be able to beat him to the finish line. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Until a better argument comes along I remain convinced by the previous discussions as summarized in the FAQ. Or, as you say, we shouldn't use these tiny summaries to try to capture massively complex stories. Infoboxitis is all very well but it works a lot better for something reasonably fixed like a DoB or a number of trains! :) DBaK (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hal said,
It was obviously the decisive end of the Gettysburg Campaign, but many argue that, with two years left to go in the war, it was hardly the decisive event in the war as a whole -- even when it is coupled with Vicksburg on the following day.
How much longer a war went on after a particular battle is irrelevant. The Battle of Miday was "decisive", yet WW 2 in the Pacific lasted another 3 years. And no one is arguing that the BOG was the ONLY decisive battle of the ACW, but there IS a reason for labeling the BOG (or, more precisely, Pickett's Charge) as the high tide of the Confederacy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
In military history, the Battle of Midway is more appropriately known as a "turning point" of the war. As to whether it meets the definition of decisive, I would say that it probably does. The vast majority of historians believe that the significant loss of Japanese naval power at that battle had a significant, direct influence on the end of the war. There is not such a vast majority of historians who would say the same thing about Gettysburg, although a number do say that it was a turning point. And the high tide (or high-water mark) expression is simply a romantic nickname, not a term of military art. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "turning point"? There are many wars with many turning points, if by that phrase a person means that a strategic advantage was gained, even if only temporarily or was unknown at the time (e.g., the Doolittle Raid). However, you are missing my larger point--these phrases (turning point, decisive, strategic, etc.) are NOT well-defined. Therefore, until they ARE well-defined, no battle in the ACW should be summarized as anything other than a simple Union/Conf victory or Inconclusive/Draw. Right now, that is not the case. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "turning point" is not well-defined, which has certainly not suppressed its use by historians and others over the years. My personal definition is that it is the point, visible only in retrospect, after which the results of the war were a foregone conclusion. "It's all downhill from here." The Battle of Saratoga is a widely accepted example that meets this definition. This definition is not universally accepted and some historians, such as James A. Rawley (Turning Points of the Civil War, University of Nebraska Press, 1966, ISBN 0-8032-8935-9), use a more expansive definition that essentially says "at this point the war changed course" and there can obviously be a number of those in a particular war. So I would personally refer to the turning point and Rawley and others would say a turning point. As with "decisive victory," it is not a good idea to use a poorly defined term in Wikipedia, particularly in information boxes.
If your larger point is that you want to go back to the simple three choices for the information boxes (Union victory, Confederate victory, Inconclusive), it has completely escaped me by the way you present the long categorized list of alternative choices. But putting that aside, I think we have done the responsible thing by using your proposal for 98% of all the articles and deviating only under very tightly controlled conditions, which I described in this talk page a few days ago. I would propose to you that rather than attempting to achieve a Nirvana of consistency, you should identify those specific articles in which you object to the information box entry -- there are really only a few -- and insist that there be a footnote with adequate documentation for the deviation from the simple three-choice entry. I would be personally very comfortable providing backup documentation for any of those deviations. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What is "Decisive" or "Strategic"?

It looks like Valkyrie Red has changed the summary to read that the BOG was a decisive victory. Although I agree with him (or her), and I think this will be reverted soon, this issue is coming to a head. Exactly what is a "DECISIVE" or "STRATEGIC" victory? Either we agree to label ALL victories as win/loss/draw or we don't. And if we want to label some as "decisive" and/or strategic, then there MUST be some definition that we can agree on.

Personally, I prefer the win/loss/draw summary terms, but if there are a few battles that avoid this terminology, then all battles are subject to the same criteria. So, what are these criteria (or is that "criterion"?). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Bill, a Decisive victory in a battle is one that helps decide the outcome of the war, which I believe BOG to be. A strategic victory in a battle is a victory that forces your opponent out of your territory. Example: The Battle of Antietam was a strategic victory for the Union, as it prevented the Confederates from invading the North.
Now while the BOG falls under strategic victory as well, I do consider it more of a decisive victory, because, as it even says on the page itself, the Battle has been considered the turning point of the war.--Red Slayer 23:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)
If you look at the Wikipedia article about decisive victory you will see that there are actually three meanings that can be applied to the term. The one Bill is referring to is "determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict" (not "helps to decide"-- a wishy-washy expression that would apply to virtually any large battle of the Civil War). This meaning for Gettysburg is widely argued among historians. Although some say it was the turning point of the war -- which is a different concept than a decisive victory -- most say that only in conjunction with Vicksburg the following day, not Gettysburg alone. Others argue that Gettysburg did not in fact significantly influence the outcome of the war and that the Confederates did not even consider it a serious defeat at the time, merely a setback in Lee's ambitious second invasion of the North. The second definition relates to the decisive outcome of a campaign, which Gettysburg certainly was -- it ended Lee's Gettysburg Campaign. The third definition is a battle in which there is an undisputed winner, which Gettysburg certainly is as well. Since there are three definitions from which the average user could choose, and since we have ample evidence in Wikipedia discussions that different users choose to believe different definitions, it does no good to include this short phrase without further explanation in the information box. (There is certainly room for a discussion of the opposing points of view in the Aftermath section of the article.)
Let me give you an analogy that I just made up. Suppose a married couple had an argument and the wife won; the husband apologized. Two years go by and they have had more arguments, many of which are won by the wife, and they eventually get a divorce. It is probably correct to say that the wife won the first argument decisively -- it was an undisputed, decisive victory in the argument. However, it is probably incorrect to say that that first argument was the decisive reason that the marriage ended. When examined in the context of the entire history of the relationship, that might not have been a decisive victory. And (as with the Civil War) perhaps none of the arguments can be considered solely decisive in the outcome of the marriage.
By the way, I do not believe you would be able to find a credible military authority who would describe strategic victory as a "victory that forces your opponent out of your territory." Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


You know, about half of your response actually supported me in this little discussion.

For one thing you said a couple of phrases that helped my side of the argument. I have collected them here: "Although some say it was the turning point of the war." "The third definition is a battle in which there is an undisputed winner, which Gettysburg certainly is as well"

Next, you said stuff that was particularly unfair. For example, "...and since we have ample evidence in Wikipedia discussions that different users choose to believe different definitions, it does no good to include this short phrase without further explanation in the information box" -well then how does it do any good to those "different users" that choose to side with me? What your pretty much saying is like two people voting on a decision and even though the tally is equal (1 to 1) the other person (your side) wins just because he voted first.

Lastly your analogy isn't very similar to the Civil War in terms of being metaphorical. (Before I continue with this, this sentence didn't make sense to what argument are you referring to?"It is probably correct to say that the wife won the first argument decisively -- it was an undisputed, decisive victory in the argument.")

Your comparing the first argument that the wife had with the husband to the Battle of Gettysburg, however, was the first battle Gettysburg? No, it was the First Battle of Bull Run. Using the divorce as Gettysburg makes more sense in context as the Wife (Confederacy) continued to win most of the arguments (The Civil War) until the husband (Union) at last struck back with a file for divorce (Gettysburg) thus making all of the arguments that the wife won, pointless. In other words, a decisive victory.

And as for the strategic victory thing, I didn't know how to put the definition into a sentence, so I came up with that (sorry). I know it's the wrong definition.

BTW- Some historians claim that Lee "never full recovered from Gettysburg" which would make this battle more significant than any other of Lee's losses.--Red Slayer 00:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Mr. Red Slayer, from what you said above, I would label this battle as a tactical and strategic Union vicotory. However, for whatever reason, we seem to be in the minority. The way battles are summarized for the American Civil War are inconsistant, and there is no hard and fast rule on how battles are to be summarized. That is why I suggested that tactical, decisive, and strategic victories be rigorously defined somewhere in Wikipedia.
Finally, for every other major war convered on Wikipedia (that I'm aware of), such as WW 1, WW2, Napoleonic Wars, etc., there is no compunction about using terms such as decisive and strategic. Why this is not the case in the ACW, I have no idea. But like I said before, battles for the ACW should be defined in one of two ways.
1) Use only Union/Confederate victory or indecisived/draw, or;
2) Use tactical, decisive, strategic, and indecisive/draw terminolgy
I don't particularly care which method is used as long as it is consistent and well defined. Anyway, that's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I rather like Bill's Option 1 - have a very very simple output there, and let the article speak for itself. Otherwise we'll keep going with these arguments for ever. Trouble is, this would be quite a big thing, and I guess would need to be agreed at a project level rather than just locally here. And that's my £0.02 too! :) DBaK (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I often end up kicking myself when I attempt to use an analogy to explain something because there is always someone who does not understand what the heck I am talking about. (I thought my simple analogy of an argument in a marriage as a substitute for the Battle of Gettysburg was perfectly logical, but let's forget about that.) The problem in a nutshell is the lack of precision of the term "decisive victory." So here is my final attempt at an analogy. Suppose there is a term, furble. You go to the Wikipedia article that defines furble and the consensus is that it represents three different meanings in different contexts. It usually means a blue-gray color, but it is sometimes used to represent blue and other times to represent gray. Everyone in the world has heard the term but they do not all agree on what it means in all contexts. Therefore, imagine if our biography of Robert E. Lee had a section of the information box that said "Color of Uniform" and we put "furble" without any further explanation. That information is completely useless because it does not specify which of the variations of colors is actually being referred to. The subset of people who believe that it always means gray will end up being inadvertently happy, but the rest will be confused or annoyed.

This made-up analogy is entirely consistent with the use of the term decisive victory without explaining what it means--without specifying which of the three definitions in the Wikipedia article decisive victory is intended. And two of those definitions have significantly different meanings. You may argue that other military history articles on Wikipedia do not take a precise stand on this issue, but a consensus has pretty much solidified for those of us who edit the American Civil War articles. (Or at least people have generally quit arguing with me about it. :-))

Part of the problem we have here is that periodically people read one or two articles or books about Gettysburg or take a tour around the battlefield and they assume that a single opinion about the nature of the victory (or loss) is the final word. But there are myriad opinions on the significance of Gettysburg and I can assure you there is no consensus that (1) Gettysburg was the (sole) turning point of the war; (2) Meade's victory was the decisive factor in ending the war; (3) Lee's Army was rendered completely ineffective by Gettysburg; (4) Lee was demoralized by his loss; (5) Confederate soldiers were demoralized by the loss; (6) Confederate civilians were demoralized by the lost and convinced that their cause was hopeless. You may wish to argue for any of these points and I am 100% certain you can find a historian who agrees with some or all, but I can 100% guarantee you I can find equally reliable sources that refute each of these claims. None of this is a problem for Wikipedia because the policies on neutral point of view ensure that multiple viewpoints are heard. However, by attempting to distill the consensus of history into a single two-word phrase -- a phrase that unfortunately has multiple meanings -- you make it almost impossible to support the NPOV policy.

By the way, one of the reasons Gettysburg is so confusing about the nature of its result is because of the what-if scenario. After the war, the Lost Cause movement elevated Gettysburg to be the focus of criticism against subordinates of Robert E. Lee, claiming that actions by Stuart, Longstreet, and Ewell betrayed Lee, causing an otherwise victorious and valiant general to lose. They argue not so much that Gettysburg was a terrible loss, but that it was a terrible missed opportunity that, had Lee won, could have ended the war in their favor. Of course, there is no evidence for this and we do not write history articles for Wikipedia or any serious publication that are based on such speculation. Yes, if Lee had won the battle, destroyed the Army of the Potomac, and marched on Washington DC, it might very well have ended the war and would be rightfully considered a decisive victory (in all three meanings of the term). However, the reverse of that speculation is not proven by that thought experiment of the Lost Cause movement.

As to the general question of the consistency of the information boxes across the 400+ battle articles, I would say they are probably 98% "consistent." They all started with text from the National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program, in which the battles summary almost invariably says Union victory, Confederate victory, or Inconclusive. There are only a very few in which the consensus of the Wikipedia editors over the last five years decided to expand on the summary, usually in two categories: (1) a battle that is tactically inconclusive (Antietam or Perryville, for instance), but had wider strategic implications (with great consensus among historians) that would be lost to the reader when the only word available is "inconclusive", or (2) a battle that is a tactical victory for one side, but that had wider strategic implications for the other (the Wilderness, for example). However, when the tactical outcome matches the strategic outcome for one side, we have not seen any need to embellish the word victory with POV adjectives such as decisive, Pyrrhic, major, overwhelming, crushing, lop-sided, strategic, etc. All of that embellishment can be handled neatly enough in the Aftermath section of the article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Responding to Bill the Cat and Dbak- Listen guys, I don't know who came up with the idea of using the terms strategic, tactical, and decisive, but I like using them. Don't get me wrong, it would be a whole lot simpler to just use the terms Union/Confederate victory, but as Dbak said, we would probably have to move it to project level, rather than just here.

Responding to Hal Jespersen- Mr. Jespersen, I must say that arguing/discussing with you has been quite an honor for me. It's fun to express our own opinions on the same discussion.

However, I do not like that the fact that you called me stupid. I often end up kicking myself when I attempt to use an analogy to explain something because there is always someone who does not understand what the heck I am talking about. (I thought my simple analogy of an argument in a marriage as a substitute for the Battle of Gettysburg was perfectly logical, but let's forget about that.) Please do refine from this in the future.

Now, continuing on this discussion, I re-read the Wikipedia article on decisive victory and I found that a majority of the definitions once again support the reason why Gettysburg should be labeled as such. In order to save time, I have brought out the definitions I am talking about.

1)Significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict- This one is quite important as you seem to always think I am referring to this definition: determines ultimate result of a conflict, when whenever I am arguing, I am referring to the first one I said.

2)A victory which decides the outcome of a campaign, though not necessarily to the war as a whole- I am pretty sure that this battle significantly influenced the Gettysburg Campaign, and it would help you as you say that it didn't influence the outcome of the war.

3)The term has also been used to describe victories in which the prevailing side utterly overwhelmed the losing side- though I would define this as a tactical victory rather than decisive I will use it to help support me. You see, many historians claim that the Confederacy suffered between 25,000-28,000 casualties. Now normally I wouldn't consider 2,000-5,000 more men "utterly overwhelming" but seeing as how the casualties ended up being in the 20,000's, I will.

So you see, 3 of the like 4 terms support Gettysburg being a decisive victory. I even recall coming across a Wikipedia article that said "After the decisive Battle of Gettysburg". I guess that would mean you are arguing against Mother Wikipedia lol. I will try to find that article again, but still, those 3 terms count, a lot! Red Slayer 16:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

In the past, I have suggested using the following "template" for battlefield results. Perhaps a new article can be created based on this template.
I. Simple Results (most battles in the ACW would be of this type)
a. Union victory (e.g., Battle of Malvern Hill)
b. Union decisive victory
c. Union strategic victory
d. Confederate victory (e.g., First Battle of Bull Run)
e. Confederate decisive victory
f. Confederate strategic victory
II. Mixed Results (only a few battle in the ACW would be of this type)
a. Tactical Union victory; Confederate strategic victory
b. Tactical Confederate victory; Union strategic victory
c. Tactically inconclusive; Union strategic victory (e.g., The Battle of the Wilderness)
d. Tactically inconclusive; Confederate strategic victory
e. Pyrrhic victory
This is in no way "set in stone". I'm just trying to explain what I mean by "well-defined battlefield results". Also, I'm not sure if all these levels of victory occurred in the ACW; I just include it for the sake of completeness. Finally, the levels of victory should take into account not only casualties suffered by each side, and political consequences, but also the effect the victory had on the morale of either side (both military and civilian). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I recall we have discussed your template before. Since most of the entries require POV conclusions, they are not a useful starting point for use in the information boxes. I believe that the consensus that we have achieved over the last five years -- using the National Park Service results with only minimal modifications that are justified in the text for a handful of unusual articles -- is the appropriate way to continue to operate. By the way, considering the definition of decisive victory that we are discussing here, there were no battles in category Ie. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hal, you said,
Since most of the entries require POV conclusions....
I disagree, IF levels of victories are well-defined. And that is why I support using simple Union/Confederate victory or Inconclusive/draw in ALL articles right now, but when levels of victory are well defined, there will be no POV, and therefore would be preferable to simple levels of victory.
For example, the Battle of Antietam, is definitely a "Strategic" Union victory, IMHO, but until such a victory is clearly defined on Wikipedia, no battle should be an exception because, as you said, it is POV. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
In conjunction with the response I made above in this same edit, I would have no problem with a footnote explaining what we mean by strategic victory in this particular context. (I do not believe there is a problem using a word with multiple definitions, or one that is poorly understood, as long as you are willing to expand upon its use to explain exactly what you meant.) In fact, Antietam was the first article in which I included text describing what that result meant, although it is in the Aftermath section and is not directly footnoted in the information box. I will go and fix that now. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

revising Aftermath

In light of the previous lengthy discussion about decisive victory, I reevaluated the Aftermath section and found it rather inadequate. I have started upgrading it with more of a view toward how historians assess the battle versus what the people at the time thought. I intend to work on the section regarding Lee's performance (and probably a new section on Meade) in the very near future, so please watch this space... Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Jespersen, you think that you have pleased us with your newly revised Historical assessment article. I can't talk for the others who sided with me, but for me, you haven't. Your new section is full of your opinions and personal bias. All you have done is create a section that expresses what you have expressed here.
Let me put my argument into numbers. According to your article, you say that "However, when the more common definition of "decisive victory" is intended—an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict—historians are divided." So you're pretty much saying that historians are divided 50/50?
Let me ask you this; when you decided that the word decisive wasn't needed in this article did you ever think about the 50% that wanted the word decisive in the article, or were you thinking only about the 50% that agreed with you.Red Slayer 20:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

If I had wanted to imply 50/50, I would have said "equally divided." (After all, when Lincoln said that a house divided against itself cannot stand, he was not saying that the country was divided 50/50.) I have no idea what the percentage would be, but do know that there are enough divergent opinions that you cannot present a single conclusion under Wikipedia's policy requiring neutral point of view. Therefore, one cannot say there is agreement that it was either decisive or not decisive--you have to present both sides. That is what I have done, regardless of my personal opinion in the matter. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have finished expanding the assessment section. I'm sure no one will find this the least bit controversial. :-) What I would ask of those who would like to jump in and start making modifications to this is to resist the temptation to list every minor factor you can think of in conjunction with the four major themes I have summarized. Yes, I know that Confederate artillery shells were not so reliable, that William Dorsey Pender was killed prematurely, that John B. Hood was wounded, that it was very hot during Pickett's Charge, etc. I am trying to summarize the big themes that are cited by secondary sources for the reasons Lee lost, not present an exhaustive list. As usual with Wikipedia, your modifications are welcome if you stick with the overall style of the article and its citations. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the expanded Historical Assessment and I think it makes things even more convoluted then they alreaday were. I'm presently in the midst of a major life change, so I won't be able to comment on it for the next two or three weeks. But let me say this: there is no "controversy" on the results of this battle. There are minority opinions to be sure, but the way this article now reads, it seems as there is significant doubts about the meaning of the battle. That is simply not the case, and citing one or two references does not make it so. Also, the article that you reference, "Turning Points" is weakly written, in that it points to only one conclusion, as well as that it shows a misunderstanding of a "turning pint". When I get the chance, I will explain in further detail. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that there is no controversy about who won the battle, but the issue is whether the battle proved to be the decisive action that caused or significantly influenced the South to lose the war. You may have your own opinions about the subject and emphasize them typographically to make them more intellectually persuasive, but I have offered quotations from four prominent historians that demonstrate the subject is controversial. And it took me only a few minutes to find them, so they are not obscure references stored away in fringe websites. In my experience, you sometimes do see authors use the adjective "decisive" but they rarely explain what they mean by the term and I have seen no author who explicitly links Lee's loss to the eventual collapse of the Confederacy. None of them say "The more than 20,000 Confederate casualties at Gettysburg was the reason Lee could not stop Grant in the Wilderness Campaign" or "If Lee had not invaded Pennsylvania, the Confederacy would probably have won" or "Both sides recognized that Lee's serious defeat meant that the end of the war was only a matter of time." So although you are welcome to amplify the discussion in the section about decisive victory, you need to recognize that historians disagree and that WP:NPOV applies.

The turning point article was actually my first from-scratch article for Wikipedia, long before the requirement to use citations became common. It has devolved over time with additional contributions and I have not done anything with it for years. It probably should be deleted, but I do not feel like going to the trouble and controversy of proposing that. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we should only use adjectives in any infobox in a very limited and narrow way. I've seen quite enough of these "indecisive" and unproductive discussions. I'm encouraging a change in the Infobox Military Conflict template usage instructions in order to halt this sort of unhelpful disagreement. BusterD (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, such discussions have happened before and no consensus has been reached, other than "let editors do what they want." So good luck with that. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Who Cares Enough to Argue (Discuss?) the BOG Level of Victory?

I'm still in the process of moving halfway across the country, so I won't be able to research and discuss this topic for another couple of weeks. However, I was just curious who really cared about it. I mean, Hal, Valkyrie Red, and I are the only ones, it seems, that care enough to even comment, let alone discuss this issue in depth. Here is where we currently stand, as far as I know:

1. Hal - tactical (simple) Union victory.
2. Valkyrie Red - decisive Union victory.
3. Bill the Cat 7 - strategic Union victory.

Note: because of the imprecise nature of levels of victory (as Hal has said before), I've changed my position from "decisive" to "strategic". And I'm pretty sure that that position can be sustained. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We have no standard for deciding what is a strategic victory or is not and usually use the term only to contrast it against a different tactical result. For instance, Perryville and Antietam were tactically inconclusive but arguably strategic Union victories, so it is worthwhile making both statements so that confusion does not result. I actually do not object to "strategic" nearly as much as "decisive" but I think using such adjectives is pretty sloppy for a one phrase description of the results. The National Park Service does not feel the necessity of using it, for instance, and that is the standard we usually choose for these articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
If there should be a contrast between a tactical result and a strategic result, let that be explained in the body of the article. And if the NPS does not feel it is necessary to use such adjectives, then I think we should follow their lead. And I agree that using such adjectives is sloppy; therefore, let's not use them.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
There's at least one more (somewhat) interested party! I agree, the adjectives are misleading and unhelpful: leave them out, call it a victory, let the reader understand the context from the article. If people are in such a hurry that they only want to read the infobox and not the text, then frankly the encyclopaedia is failing. You can't summarize such a complex topic into a few lines in a dinky box and I sometimes worry that the attempts - generally across the wiki - to do this lead to misleading situations and edit wars. DBaK (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for mostly agreeing with me. I would actually consider a strategic compromise in this space and say that we should change every article infobox to literally match the result shown in the ABPP/CWSAC files. However, there are two problems with this: (1) future editors would probably ignore any agreement we made and start deviating again, and; (2) There is still the problem of the Battle of Antietam, in which a result of Inconclusive is so grossly misleading that even I would feel bad about saying only that in the infobox. So I admit that I am inconsistent at least on that single case. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Decisive victory?" section seems POV to me.

This section needs to be rewritten because it is slanted to a particular POV (i.e., that the BOG was not a decisive or strategic victory). I'll assume that the historian(s) being cited is taken out of context, but I've found at least one blatant untruth and at least one non-sequiter. I think that rewriting this section will have to wait until I can gather the evidence pointing to a strategic Union victory. I just simply wanted to state that this section is definitely POV "for the record". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The section is written to present both sides of the argument without pronouncing judgment about which side is correct. I start with historians who conclude (or in some cases imply) that it was a decisive victory, and follow it with historians who do not think that. If you find that one of these opinions is presented incorrectly (i.e., I have made a mistake in transcribing the opinion of the author or have not provided the appropriate context that the author provided), point out the specifics and we can correct it. (Remember, however, that if you disagree with the opinion of a quoted historian, it does not mean that an untruth is being written. It merely means that your opinion disagrees with his opinion.) Also, if you feel that I have omitted the opinion of some other well-known historian, you can add it, assuming you have the proper citation. But the bottom line here is that I have demonstrated ample disagreement among prominent historians to prevent anyone from saying that one conclusion or the other is inarguable. And unless something is inarguable, it is not going into the information box. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, Mr. Jespersen, I have looked at quite a lot of websites that indicate that the victory was decisive. In fact, an article on Wikipedia states that it was a decisive victory in the first sentence. So unless you want to argue against Wikipedia itself, I'd suggest that you, me and dupree, lol jk. You me and Mr. Cat settle on an agreement.

As far as I'm concerned, more historians say that Gettysburg was a decisive victory than those that say it wasn't, but this is just my POV, not to be used as fact.

Oh and Bill, exactly whose side of the argument are you siding with, cause you seem to be leaning towards my side, but at the same time, you're creating another argument that the BOG should be ranked a strategic victory. May I ask what side you stand for?

Oh, one more thing Mr. Jespersen. If what Mr. Cat is saying is true, that you support the idea of this being ranked a tactical victory, if you look at the casualties of both sides on this article, they are relatively the same, so I assume it is safe enough to say that a tactical victory doesn't support this article.--Red Wiki 23:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources and there are many websites that do not meet that criteria. They often have no identifiable author and rarely include citations, making them unreliable secondary sources. If you have some websites that you think meet the criteria, point them out, but the references to this article are based (almost) entirely on published secondary sources, usually from university presses and other well-known publishers. The fact that someone wrote a movie review in a Wikipedia article is hardly a normative reference. When you consider the Wikipedia requirements for neutral point of view, you will see that opinions from reputable sources have to be included, even if they do not form the literal majority. If there were one or two voices crying out in the wilderness, arguing against something that had a vast majority of opinion, there would be a case that consensus had been achieved, even though the minority opinions would still need to be listed in the text or a footnote. However, the counterarguments that I have presented come from very prominent historians with expertise in the Gettysburg campaign or in military history in general. Given that body of opinion, the best you could hope for would be "arguably decisive" and that hardly would be suitable for the information box.
There is virtual unanimity among historians that Gettysburg was a tactical victory for the Union. Very few historians would ever rate a battle strictly on the number of casualties--there are many other factors that have to be considered. Sometimes historians will comment on the wisdom of a victory that comes at high cost of casualties--for example, Lee's proportion of casualties at Chancellorsville was higher than Hooker's--but they rarely assign victory strictly by the number of casualties. Gettysburg was a tactical victory for Meade because he successfully withstood attacks and his enemy withdrew without achieving their objectives. (Like Fredericksburg in reverse.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Jespersen, what makes you say that a historian is any more reliable than a self-published website? What you're saying is that if someone who has been studying the battle/war for a long time all of a sudden says something, it automatically becomes fact. No wait, my apologies. In the context that you're speaking of, if someone who has been studying the battle/war for a long time all of a sudden publishes a book that states they're opinions, they're opinions automatically become fact. Who's to say that they didn't get their research from these self-published sites.

What you're saying is that I can go and write a book stating my opinions and arguments, then publish it and use it as a reliable source.--Red Wiki 00:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

(You can call me Hal, BTW.) I suggest that you read some of the links I have given you about reliable sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:PSTS). Wikipedia has evolved its standards over time to improve its verifiability and there is quite a bit of documentation available to explain them. Yes, if you wrote a book including opinions you would be eligible for a citation in the Wikipedia article. If that book were published by a reputable publisher or University press, it would get a lot more attention than a self published work that is not reviewed by editors and peers in the military history community. Note WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable."
But once again let me emphasize that the opinions cited here are all from well-known historians, not some fringy people that I dragged from my dusty library or found on the web somewhere. (If you look at the articles I have written that are fully cited--and some of my older ones are not--you'll see that I almost never include websites as sources if there are books available on the subject, with the notable exception of websites published by the National Park Service, which we know were written by professional historians.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hal, you make some valid points. I freely admit that I'm only a amateur civil war historian; however, there is something that I have encountered in the scholarly community (in various fields) that I find disturbing. An average scholar will make a claim that is sometimes not supported by the evidence nor by scholarly consensus only in order to get noticed. Once they do that, they will get cited by other scholars because these scholars want to be complete and they can't be complete unless they cite dissenting opinions.
I think what RW is trying to say is this: don't urinate on my foot and tell me it's raining and then tell me my opinion has less weight because I'm not a weatherman (meteorologist). For example, I briefly took a look at a book by the historian Gallagher and his reason for the BOG not being decisive appeared to me to be a non-sequiter. Furthermore, he doesn't even seem to address the possibility that the BOG was a strategic victory. Since I read the section in his book quickly, I could be misinterpreting what he was trying to say, which is why I said previously that I need to do some more research.
Finally, as I've said before, I have no problem with dissenting opinions, no matter how unlikely they are, as long as they are not just downright crazy (e.g., McClellan was a hostile space alien who was trying to subvert truth, justice, and the American way). My problem is when such opinions are presented in such a way as to make them appear as if they are reasonable given all of the known facts. And that is exactly how the "Decisive victory?" section appears to me.
Was the BOG a decisive victory like the Battle of Nashville? No, of course not. But for some people, a "decisive victory" is the same as a "strategic victory", and vice versa. Without clear definitions for levels of victory, it's all a matter of POV. And that is why I support simple levels of victory with NO EXCEPTIONS. Once you have an exception, such as the Battle of Antietam, then a very good case can be made to have other battles listed as "decisive" and "strategic".
And since it appears that only you, me, and one or two other people even care to comment on this topic, discussing whether a particular battle was decisive or strategic is a waste of time - I mean, you and I enjoy discussing the ACW but unless there are a whole bunch of other people chiming in, the ACW wiki articles will only represent the opinions of a few people. And this can be avoided by using simple levels of victory.
P.S. You're an old guy, so the young people should address you as "Mr. Jespersen". Since I'm nearly your age, I think there's an unwritten rule that says I'm allowed to refer to you by your first name.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I was pretty careful to not use Gary Gallagher as an indication of whether the victory was decisive or not. His work is strongly focused on Confederate reactions to the battle during the war and to the Lost Cause movement afterward--which I do cite in Effects on the Confederacy--and while this is very interesting material, it does not offer a judgment about the actual effects of the victory. (I happen to know Gary personally and I know what his opinions are about the subject, but he has not written them in a way that we can cite here.)
I am familiar with the phenomenon of authors who wish to obtain publicity by espousing novel or counterintuitive views. I think it is pretty easy to identify them – book reviews and peer reviews are good ways of rooting them out and they also write in a particular style that makes it apparent they are advocating a particular point of view – and the people active in the Civil War community don't pay much attention to them. (I could cite some very specific examples, but don't want to embarrass anyone in this forum.) Although it may seem as if only a handful of people are participating in this argument, you can rest assured that in the 5+ years I have been writing these articles for Wikipedia, a much, much larger audience has argued these points over time and a consensus has pretty much been achieved on most issues. (We even have a brief FAQ section in this Talk page.) If I were to introduce fringe opinions into these articles and give them any prominence, there would definitely be pushback. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


Once again Bill, I fail to see which side you stand for. In your earlier arguments you seemed to support my idea of labeling this battle a Decisive Victory, but nowadays I see you standing for the idea of not labeling this article anything. A counter-argument so to speak. I hope it wouldn't be too much to ask you what your stand is on this conflict.

P.S. It's not very nice to call other users old lol.

Hal, I went onto the National Park Service website and found this quote on the first page of the Gettysburg section: "The Battle of Gettysburg was a turning point in the Civil War"

I believe that the definition of Decisive Victory fits this quote very well. Note this, many other websites and books state this quote as well, but since you seem to only trust the National Park Service website, I'll only post that one.

What do you have to say to that?--Red Wiki 01:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Negative. It certainly wasn't considered a decisive victory in its day and the war and its outcome were far from certain. Only the hindsight of armchair generals and romantics wearing rose-colored glasses give it that distinction. Hal is right on this...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you can't say that it "wasn't considered a decisive victory in its day" until the term "decisive victory" is well-defined. I mean, the Battle of Chancellorsville was considered a great victory in its time. It gave the Confederates the strategic initiative, to be sure, but in hindsight, it was merely a Pyrrhic victory whose effects lastly only about two months and had no effect on the outcome of the war. In fact, with the loss of Jackson, it is reasonable to assert that it contributed to some significant degre to the eventual defeat of the Confederacy. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I can and did. The problem with semantics isn't mine; I've done enough research reading through contemporary writings to feel confident in my statement about the contemporary mindset of both Northerners & Southerners. More clearly, I would challenge you to find a higher level officer's writings during the war from either side of the conflict that relates that battle as being definitively decisive relative to the outcome of the war.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course, you can make any statement you want; I'm simply saying that you are demonstratively wrong. Why? Because the term "decisive" is not clearly defined, so your use of the term is literally meaningless in wiki terms. Also, you might want to read section 5.3 of the BOG article - it is one of the pieces of evidence that I will use to prove that the BOG was a strategic victory (note: I did not use the term "decisive").
And I don't accept your challenge because I don't maintain that the BOG was decisive (whatever that term means to you).
Hello Red Wiki. Let me try to explain my position. I don't support ANY kind of summary result terminology other than "simple" terminology results for ALL battles in wiki articles. That is, Union/Conf victory and draw/inconclusive, and that includes the Battle of Antietam (although Hal has a problem with that battle).
However, if even one battle has a "decisive" or "strategic" level of victory attached to it, then that means that every battle is subject to those labels (which, in turn, will cause a lot of discussion which, in my opinion, is a complete waste of time). The BOG was not "decisive" in the sense that the Battle of Nashville was "decisive". It was certainly (in my mind) a "strategic" victory. But that just begs the question: what is a "decisive" victory and what is a "strategic" victory? These terms are not well defined, and until they are (don't hold your breath :) ), we should not use them in the summary result section.
Does that mean that the BOG and the BOA were more than simple, tactical victories? Yes, of course they were. But those kind of details need to be explained in the body of the article and not in the summary section. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
So, a consensus seems to have formed to NOT change the way the current wording schema in the infoboxes. Good, we agree on that.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Erm - the "current wording schema" is defined how exactly, and indeed where? I know there's been attempts to discuss this elsewhere but I am not sure that they have borne fruit. Or born fruit. (I get confused.) It would be great to see what is set out (in stone?) at some Project level or something ... However, if the "current wording schema" is what it says, a few lines up, "Union/Conf victory and draw/inconclusive" then I'd say yes please, sounds like a good idea. The number of words expended here on the one word "decisive" seem ample proof of that. And I could not agree more with the sentiment "those kind of details need to be explained in the body of the article and not in the summary section." - that is, that's surely what the article is for!? Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
As used in my sentence, it means the status quo but wasn't pointing out a specific written guideline. Yes, we seem to agree. Concerning the infobox, less is more. Allow the reader to draw conclusions from elsewhere within the article. If not, then editors would likely have to expend serious time & efforts arguing it out on an article-to-article basis. The gist of this is written here & the official statement here...:
"result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, the preferred method is to enter a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section")."
More clearly, see this section of HALMOS which is not an authoritative source but sums it up pretty well. Note that it was written before the more recent threads on this page were. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was a lot of activity in the debating society overnight. I think that most of the points raised were adequately answered or countered, so I will address only the question regarding Gettysburg National Military Park. First, the concept of a turning point, which is not a well-defined term, is only peripherally related to a decisive battle. A decisive battle certainly is a turning point, but there are often multiple turning points in a war, where the war changed direction in some fundamental way. There is an excellent short book on turning points (Rawley, James A., Turning Points of the Civil War, University of Nebraska Press, 1966, ISBN 0-8032-8935-9) that describes seven such occasions, starting with the Confederate occupation of Kentucky in 1861. I have attended a great seminar through the University of Virginia that described additional ones, including, perhaps surprisingly, the minor Battle of Ball's Bluff. There is widespread historical agreement, in my experience, that early July 1863 was a turning point in the war: Lee's defeat at Gettysburg, Grant's capture of Vicksburg, and (sometimes cited) Rosecrans's almost bloodless victory in the Tullahoma Campaign (which maneuvered Bragg out of Middle Tennessee). If there were a single turning point in the war, you could probably make a case that that event was decisive, but I know of no serious historian who would make that case. James M. McPherson, for instance, argues that Antietam was the most important turning point of the war. Gary Gallagher argues that almost none of these events were considered to be turning points or decisive at the time by the participants. (By the way, to address the comment above, Lee was in fact very disappointed by the results of Chancellorsville, even though modern historians consider it one of his greatest battles.)

Although I am a great fan of the national military parks and visit them whenever I can, I take their spin on battles with a grain of salt. Each is trying to provide a memorable experience to visitors and their signage and some of their battlefield guides can use hyperbole in a manner that is not suitable for citation in these articles. While I frequently refer to the National Park Service, it is done in the context of the American Battlefield Protection Program and its Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, which takes a more neutral view of all the battles in the war and does not attempt to promote one over the other. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, like you said Hal, a lot happened overnight. Sorry I wasn't able to participate you guys, I had to go somewhere and didn't come back till 12:30 last night. Anyway, I welcome fellow editors Berean Hunter and Dbak (though I'm pretty sure Dbak has been here b4). Welcome to our own Battle of Gettysburg lol.

So Bill, I see that you're stand is for having no extra terms to extend the victories. I understand that, but as Mr. Berean has stated, "result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive", and due to the fact that I do support the use of these terms, I'm afraid that I am no opposing you in the matters of this argument.

All right, now, since no one seems to think that the term Decisive Victory has been fully formed yet, I have gathered a series of definitions from the Wikipedia article that states the supposed definition for this term.


Definition A. A decisive victory is an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict.- This is the one that we seem to be disputing about as of now.

Definition B. a victory which decides the outcome of a campaign, though not necessarily to the war as a whole- I am 100% sure that the Battle of Gettysburg had an extremely strong influence over the outcome of the Gettysburg Campaign. This is the definition that I am strongly pushing towards.

Definition C. The term has also been used to describe victories in which the prevailing side utterly overwhelmed the losing side- I consider this definition to fit more towards a tactical victory rather than decisive. Also, since Confederate casualties were never recorded properly, I doubt I could make this definition work for my argument.

I have also gathered a definition of the term "Decisive" from Dictionary.com: having the power or quality of deciding; putting an end to controversy; crucial or most important: Your argument was the decisive one.

This is my argument. Debate it however you want--Red Wiki 15:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

I have no problem with the use of the term "decisive" per se. I just don't want to use them until a clear definition of all of these terms are agreed upon. And in that regard, I like definition B above. However, here's a potential problem. Let's say we agreed with saying the BOG was a decisive victory (while using definition B above). In terms of the war as a whole, rather than just a campaign, it can be shown that the BOG was a strategic victory, just as the battle of Antietam was. How are these two different levels of victory reconciled within a battle summary box? Do we assume that a strategic victory implies and includes a decisive victory? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Cat you may never see a nailed-down definition of decisive any time soon. That likelihood alone makes it just impossible to make the classifications/changes under discussion. Here's where I think things stand, based on the cited works and my own personal insanity:
  • The BOG was a victory for the Union— lots to back that up.
  • The BOG was a tactical victory for the Union— first day no, second day probably, third day yes
  • The BOG was a strategic/decisive victory for the Union— arguable; strategy requires intent, since this was a meeting engagement on the first day, and Meade chose to stand and defend on the other days, he had little goals to achieve aside from taking the hits and covering Baltimore & Washington and occupying Lee's army. (Not sure occupying is the best term but there you go) What was decided?
  • The BOG was a defeat for the CSA— you betcha
  • The BOG was a tactical defeat for the CSA— first day no, second day touch-and-go but probably, third day yes
  • The BOG was a strategic/decisive defeat for the CSA— arguable; the overall campaign (coupled with Vicksburg most of the time) has been described this way but to no clear consensus, either here or in the literary world. As for the battle itself, did Lee meet his goals? On the first day not possible just reacted to events as they came. The second day no in the sense that he didn't get & hold either elevation nor turn either flank, but he did maintain the initiative. The third day certainly not with the famous charge or the cavalry battle, but again maintained the initiative, especially in holding his position on the fourth day and allowing the wounded & trains to gain a head start. And again, what was decided?
Unlike BOA, where the fact that Lee's invasion had been stopped and the Union army wasn't defeated per se and the first EP was released, the BOG simply did not inspire a conflict-altering outcome, political or otherwise. I can argue with myself here by stating CSA desertions increased, Southern morale took a hit, may have killed off any remaining foreign intervention, ect. But that is exactly the point. It can be argued. And that's just between me and myself. Look at my ramblings: easy to assign won or lost, a bit harder when "tactical" is introduced, and paragraphs when "strategic/decisive" some into play. With this much to say by an amateur like me, what hope is there of cramming extra words into the infobox-result space and not inherently do a huge disservice to our readers! Kresock (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


I welcome you to the argument Mr. Kresock. Very nice speech by the way. It had some supporting and nonsupporting points in it. The only thing I really have to debate from that are these statements:

1. Unlike BOA, where the fact that Lee's invasion had been stopped and the Union army wasn't defeated per se

2. the BOG simply did not inspire a conflict-altering outcome, political or otherwise

Response to number one- I am once again 100% sure that Lee's second invasion of the North was stopped, and 100% sure that the Union Army wasn't defeated.

Response to number two- We are debating whether or not it inspired a conflict-altering outcome, however, as stated in the article itself, (The Confederates had lost politically as well as militarily.) (Furthermore, when the news reached London, any lingering hopes of European recognition of the Confederacy were finally abandoned.) ("The disasters of the rebels are unredeemed by even any hope of success. It is now conceded that all idea of intervention is at an end."), Gettysburg was a political success for the Union, whether you want to admit it or not.

I am sorry my new fellow debater, but your argument was short-lived.--Red Wiki 01:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW- what did you mean by "the first EP was released", like what does EP stand for in that statement?--Red Wiki 01:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

...it was released after the 45 singles but before the LP. ;)
...try checking out the DVD.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


As much as I enjoy this type of discussion (I really do!), let's not forget what we are trying to resolve. And that is this: what should we put in the battle summary box (note the emphasis on the word summary) and how do we define the levels of victory? The longer this debate goes on, the more I'm convinced that we must use simple levels of victory for all battles with no exceptions.

If we do that, then we can concentrate on explaining every little detail and ramification of a battle in the the body of the article. But as long as there is even one exception to the level of victory in the battle summary box, then that leaves the door open for every other battle.

Finally, a few more points directed at specific editors:

1. Hal, we all know that the BOG and the BOA were more than simple Union victories, but we really don't need to try explain that in the battle summary box. I suggest that the BOA summary box be relabeled as a simple Union victory and leave the BOG as the same. Also, the "Decisive Victory" section in the BOG should then be merged into the rest of the article. Right now, it simply appears as a justification for NOT labeling the BOG summary box as anything other than a simple Union victory.
2. Kresock, thank you for your comments. I somewhat disagree with your assessment of the BOG, but I fully concur with your conclusion that many points "can be argued". And for that reason, I think that using simple levels of victories, with ramifications and details listed in the body of the article, is the wisest course to take.
3. Red Wiki, I'm sympathetic to your point of view but we don't need to argue what we put in a battle summary box. The Union "decisive" (your term) or the Union "strategic" (my term) victory level tells us next to nothing about the reality of the BOG, or any other civil war battle. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


Bill, why don't you take a look at who's been debating over the last couple of days. It's primarily been just me and you. Hal has left, cause he knows he's run out of ideas and can't defend his POV anymore. Berean Hunter has been contributing close to nothing and everyone else that joined are just rookies who are going to reuse the arguments that Hal used already.

Let's face it Bill, unless Hal has something new to contribute to his argument, I've won.

Now, responding to your "points"

1. Let's move onto Antietam later. Right now, I just want to solve Gettysburg. And as I've said before I don't want Gettysburg to be labeled as simply a Union Victory, cause everyone knows that Gettysburg was a historic battle that changed the course of the war.

2. Doesn't have anything to do with me.

3. Tell that first sentence to Hal or any other new editor that supports his ideas. And if the term tells next to nothing about the reality of the BOG, then what would be the problem with just leaving it as Decisive/strategic?--Red Wiki 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

There are a number of things in this that I found objectionable or uncivil at worst, and a pretty poor choice of phrasing at best. However, I find this sufficiently unpleasant and timewasting that I don't want to be involved further, so I'm unwatching this page. By the way, did you see the nice, friendly and helpful note I put on your Talk page about signing your edits? Hmm, thought not. Good luck to all of you. DBaK (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is amusing. Because I have not commented for over a day on the weekend you think that means that I have abandoned my arguments. What I have done is watched this discussion, seen it joined by additional people who agree that "decisive" is inappropriate for the information box, and witnessed the counter arguments expressed again without additional intellectual content. I do not feel a need to comment on every point, particularly those raised more than once before. The Aftermath section of this article currently demonstrates that there is no historical agreement on how this battle should be characterized in a single phrase beyond "victory." Whether you agree with one side or the other is immaterial. There are sufficient arguments on each side to nullify any attempt to say that one side or the other is the consensus of historians. And only a consensus should be included in the information box. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So how do you feel about "strategic" Union victory? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Red Wiki, one of my points in bringing up the Battle of Antietam is that if that battle is deserving of a label other than a simple Union victory, then the BOG certainly deserves the same. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, the only time we have used the adjective Strategic is when we want to contrast that result with an inconclusive battle or a tactical victory for the other side, such as Antietam or Perryville. (And I am not certain we are 100% consistent, but we generally use the term Tactical only in these cases of contrasting tactical and strategic issues.) In other words, if the battle is both a tactical and an arguably strategic victory for one side, it is not necessary to use an adjective on "victory." Victory tells the story and additional ramifications of that victory can be described in the Aftermath section. The problem with the unadorned use of strategic is that because of its relatively loose definition, there are quite a number of battles that might be called that, inherently diluting the value of a word some people might consider super important. For example, the American Battlefield Protection Program CWSAC lists 45 battles as "class A," which they define as "having a decisive influence on a campaign and a direct impact on the course of the war." One could argue reasonably that this description is a possible equivalent to Strategic Victory, although they include some inconclusive battles in that category. Their "class B" -- "having a direct and decisive influence on their campaign" -- adds 104 battles. Together, they say that the 149 battles in classes A and B "represent the principal strategic operations of the war." And I don't think that labeling 149 battles as Strategic does much good for anyone. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hal said:
the only time we have used the adjective Strategic is when we want to contrast that result with an inconclusive battle or a tactical victory for the other side, such as Antietam or Perryville
The BOA was a tactical Union victory straight up. It was also a strategic Union victory, for reasons stated in the article. Since a strategic victory is generally a "higher" level of victory, then it is right that the BOA is listed as a plain strategic victory. There is no logical reason for labeling the BOA the way that it is currently labeled and yet not label the BOG similarly. Also, I have no idea that you mean by the word "we" in the above quote. Who is "we"?
In other words, if the battle is both a tactical and an arguably strategic victory for one side, it is not necessary to use an adjective on "victory."
Then please remove such labeling from the BOA.  :)
Victory tells the story and additional ramifications of that victory can be described in the Aftermath section.
I agree, but if you make an exception for the BOA, then I am 100% positive that I can do the same for the BOG. I'm in the process of collecting a whole bunch of quotes from various historians that point to the indisputable fact that the BOG hurt the Confederacy mortally, unlike any other single battle.
The problem with the unadorned use of strategic is that because of its relatively loose definition, there are quite a number of battles that might be called that, inherently diluting the value of a word some people might consider super important.
Like I said before, I think that all battles should be described in the summary box using simple victory levels, and any "decisive" or "strategic" elements be relegated to the body of the article. But if you insist on making exceptions, then I too will insist on making exceptions (and I mean that respectfully).
Furthermore, if there are a large number of battles that can be called "strategic" (which I don't agree with, although I go with it for the sake of argument), then why leave out the one battle (i.e., the BOG) that was the "most" strategic? I mean, the BOA was surely a strategic victory, but its ramifications were significantly less than the BOG.
At any rate, it doesn't seem like I'm going to convince anyone that the BOG was a strategic victory. I'll just collect the facts, write them up in the "aftermath" section, change the summary result box, and then we can go from there. I'll also modify the "Decisive victory?" section to include more pros and cons, since as it stands, that section favors the con POV. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


I apologize Mr. Dbak if my post appeared rude to you, and I bid you farewell from this discussion.

Hal! It's so nice of you to come back, along with all your sarcasm lol.

Anyways, looking at what you brought with you after your time of solitude, I see you've brought information from the American Battlefield Protection Program. Very informative. And you say that it says that a total 149 battles represent the strategic operations of the war, with 45 of them being major ones.

However, you still fail to answer the real question. What is it that makes the Battle of Gettysburg stand out among all the other battles? I have answered this already.

Gettysburg stands out because it was the bloodiest-battle of the Civil War. Happened to occur in the middle of the war. Happened to end before the fourth of July. And happened to have a significant negative hit on the Confederacy.

That's why I'm debating Gettysburg. Not Fredericksburg, or Antietam, or Chancellorsville, or Perryville, or both Bull Runs.

Bill, I agree to your proposition of marking Gettysburg as a strategic victory as it ended Lee's second invasion of the North. However, I'll only debate it when my decisive victory argument fails, lol.--24.40.134.221 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

The only reason I don't support the BOG being "decisive" is because it was more than simple "decisive" victory in terms of the Gettysburg Campaign. I mean, yes, for the campaign, it certainly can be accurately described that way, but a "strategic" victory is generally a "higher" level of victory. The more information I gather about the BOG, the more bizarre it appears that we are even having this discussion. The BOA was a strategic Union victory, to be sure, but no other single battle of the civil war had multiple, simultaneous ramifications for both sides. Frankly, I'm stunned that I even have to make this case. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
With regard to my above comment, the one battle that did not have more multiple, simultaneous ramifications for both sides was the BOG. Just FYI.
Ball's Bluff had serious and far reaching consequences for the Union war effort, not only sealing away one useful general officer, but also leading to the creation the powerful Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, which was the devil to many a Yankee general. Would that make it a "strategic" Confederate victory? Like every thing we're discussing, it depends on how you look at it, and how we define these "levels" of victory. Kresock (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again, we can all point to various battles that had significant implications for the Union and Confederate war effort. But NONE had as many consequences as the BOG. And it's truly bizarre that other battles are labeled as "strategic" victories, but not the BOG. I still think we should use simple levels of victory, but if even one other battle is given the label of "strategic", then the BOG also deserves that label. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this!

Valkyrie Red you are a disruptive editor and failing to recognize consensus. Your edit summary here illustrates that you do not know how things work in Wikipedia as it indicates that you are not editing in good faith but rather that you are here to try drive your point regardless. This can be confirmed by checking the edit history of this article and the fact that you are failing to recognize the current discussion and obstinately pressing your edits anyway. Your comment above, "However, I'll only debate it when my decisive victory argument fails, lol." illustrates this. Your recent blocks for being disruptive and the counseling you have received on your talk page from admins seems to have fallen on deaf ears (particularly this one where your edits have been considered "low-quality" and I agree with that summation). Amazingly, after being blocked, you thought that somehow that this trollish edit was the way to redeem yourself. I'm going to suggest that Wikipedia isn't for you.

If you persist, I will be raising the issue at WP:ANI and see what we might do about that. At any rate, you are finished here at this article and at best will be ignored. Press and things will get worse for you...

I would suggest to Bil to refrain at the present and if you feel the thread is that important to continue it at another time elsewhere. Enough time & energy has gone into this horse which has been beaten, beaten, and beaten again. Time to cease.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what a consensus is, but I'm not sure what you mean by "consensus" as it relates to this article. Now, there may have been a consensus among a very few people in the past, but a consensus is not a static thing. It changes with time and evidence. So, far, I count only around five people who cared enough to comment (although I don't blame them; it's not like any one of us is getting payed for this), and if there are that few people, I don't put much value in such a consensus.
At any rate, it's time "fish or cut bait", and as I've said above:
I'll just collect the facts, write them up in the "aftermath" section, change the summary result box, and then we can go from there.
This will not happen overnight; it'll probably take a few weeks, so we'll all have time to ponder what has been discussed here, as well as to cool down.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


Mr. Hunter, if you do not wish to argue here anymore, then please, do leave this discussion as Mr. Dbak as done. Do not try and convince other editors to follow your morales just because you don't agree with their ideas.

So Bill, your just going to give up? Put your argument in the little aftermath section that nobody reads? You sure you don't want to continue anymore?--Red Wiki 23:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Giving up? I'm not giving up at all. I'm simply going to gather the references that point to the fact that the BOG was a strategic Union victory, and then we can continue. Trying to argue on this discussion page with those who are dead set in their opinions is a waste of everyone's time. It's time I put up or shut up. And I'm not content with shutting up.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There are way too many points for me to attempt to type responses to all of them, so let me cherry pick a couple of interest: Bill, you may be the only person in the world who thinks that Antietam was a tactical victory for the Union. Certainly there are no historians, living or dead, who agree with that. (Lee fought a masterful defensive battle against an army twice his size, then remained on the battlefield to see whether the battle would resume on September 18, but when McClellan choked, Lee decided to withdraw.) That's the reason there is a contrast between "tactically inconclusive" and "strategic Union victory." By the way, my memory has been faulty -- the CWSAC battle summary for Antietam says "Inconclusive (Union strategic victory)" so the Wikipedia article is in alignment with the National Park Service after all.

You are welcome to add material to the Aftermath section, as long as it is appropriately reliable and cited, but do not think that adding three or four or ten additional comments will change the result. The point I have demonstrated is that there is substantial opposition from prominent historians to the point of view that it should be labeled decisive. We are not listing the results of an election here, where a modest or even a substantial majority can suppress the alternative viewpoint. (There are certainly instances in Wikipedia where fringe theories can be suppressed or denigrated, but this alternative viewpoint is held by too many relevant, prominent historians to fit into that category.) I will oppose any attempt to use the information box to present a single POV that has not achieved overwhelming consensus. The information box is too prominent and too space constrained to do that. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hal, not sure where to start.... Hal said:
Bill, you may be the only person in the world who thinks that Antietam was a tactical victory for the Union.
Really? That's funny. Can you please define what a "tactical" victory is? I thought it was the "last guy standing", generally speaking.
Lee fought a masterful defensive battle against an army twice his size, then remained on the battlefield to see whether the battle would resume on September 18, but when McClellan choked, Lee decided to withdraw.
Lee DID conduct himself in a "masterful" way. Did you think I would say otherwise? However, to say that Lee simply "decided to withdraw" implies that Lee had something better else to do in Virginia. On the contrary, the ANV was essentially wrecked (27% casualty rate vs the Union 16% casualty rate) and staying around any longer would force even a poor battlefield commander like GBM to attack. Lee obviously knew this, or he wouldn't have turned tail and "ran for the hills". And let me remind you that the first side to retreat from the battlefield and fall back to his support base is considered the loser.
...so the Wikipedia article is in alignment with the National Park Service after all.
What the NPS says means very little to me, if it's just a summary. Now, if they provide a detailed discussion on the reasons for that summary, which they don't, I would be willing to listen.
You are welcome to add material to the Aftermath section, as long as it is appropriately reliable and cited, but do not think that adding three or four or ten additional comments will change the result.
Then we are headed for an edit war. If you insist on labeling the BOA in more than simple terms, I'm very confident I can do the same with the BOG. It's unfortunate that it has to come down to this, since if we used simple victory levels for ALL battles, I wouldn't have to spend so much time in making my case.
The point I have demonstrated is that there is substantial opposition from prominent historians to the point of view that it should be labeled decisive.
Hal, one more time, I'm NOT suggesting that the BOG should be labeled as "decisive". I'm going to show that it was a "strategic" victory.
I will oppose any attempt to use the information box to present a single POV that has not achieved overwhelming consensus.
You are free to oppose anything you like, but as I've said before, consensus is a fluid concept, especially since there are very few of us who actually care enough to comment.
The information box is too prominent and too space constrained to do that. [i.e., to present a single POV]
I agree. Yet you are willing to make exceptions when it supports your POV? Interesting. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the Antietam article matches the NPS conclusion, which makes my initial argument consistent--that we should use the NPS conclusions as demonstrating the consensus of historians in a non-controversial way. If we used their summary on 100% of the articles, I would be satisfied. When I wrote the Antietam article, I received some pushback from reviewers about the conclusion summary. However, they objected not to the "[tactically] inconclusive," but to the "Union strategic victory" that the NPS also listed. I had to use the Aftermath section to explain what that actually meant, which quieted the objections. (This is an anecdotal indication of the problems associated with using a vague term like "strategic victory," by the way. To understand such a concept, you have to understand what the strategies of the opposing parties were at the time, and that is not always obvious. For example, Lincoln's strategy in the eastern theater in 1863 was to destroy Lee's army. So he would certainly not consider Gettysburg a strategic victory. However, Lee's strategy in the Gettysburg campaign was to influence Northern opinion for political purposes, to keep the Army of the Potomac from tearing up Virginia for another summer, and to feed his army from Northern farms. He succeeded in 2 out of 3 of these. So how can the simplistic phrase "strategic victory" possibly be useful to the reader?)

I am not going to argue about the results of Antietam (particularly in this talk page) based on your analysis of the data. In Wikipedia we cite secondary sources for all such opinions and avoid original research. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hal said:
So how can the simplistic phrase "strategic victory" possibly be useful to the reader?
That is exactly the reason why only simple levels of victory should be used for all battles (Union/Conf victory, or inconclusive). The battle summary box is just that...a summary. Adding additional adjectives just muddies the waters and ends up saying very little and causes a lot of wasted time.
I am not going to argue about the results of Antietam (particularly in this talk page) based on your analysis of the data.
Yeah, well, it seems logical to move this particular discussion to the appropriate talk page. And since my comments on the BOG derive, in part, from the BOA, I'll have to tackle that before coming back to the BOG. I'll start a new section there today or tomorrow and then we can continue this fist fight.  :) However, I'm not conducting any original research. In fact, I was just skimming Sears' book on the BOA and he seems to think that the ANV was seriously wounded in both "body and spirit" as a result of this battle...[see BOA discussion page] Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Well, it seems as though this day of Gettysburg has ended, and Hal my friend, it appears that you have won today. Guess we're moving over to Antietam sometime later. However Hal, I'll actually be supporting you when that argument starts as I agree with you that Antietam was a strategic Union victory, no offence Bill.

Don't think this decisive victory argument has ended. It is merely paused at the moment. I will relaunch it sometime soon (most likely when Antietam gets cleared up). See you at Antietam!--Red Wiki 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And Hal, you didn't write the BOA article, so please don't take credit for other people's work.--Red Wiki 22:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

The BOG debate is not over, I assure you. I just need to deal with the BOA first in order to lay some groundwork. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, unless you would like to wade through the version control system and try to find other significant contributors, perhaps you should take my word for it. Other than a few photographs and historic images, some external links, and an occasional sentence rewording here and there, I provided all of the content: text, order of battle, structure of the article and its companion campaign article, maps, references, and footnotes. I have also reviewed any modifications on a daily basis for the last 5.5 years, so I am reasonably familiar with the contributions that others have made.
I do not think that Bill disagrees that Antietam was a strategic victory--he is arguing that since we are using that adjective on that article, he should have free reign to add adjectives to any other articles he feels like. My position is that the National Park Service has explicitly categorized it that way and I know of no historiographical reason to change it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Hal is correct. The BOA was a strategic Union victory and should be labeled as such (i.e., without "tactically inconclusive"). I still support labeling it as as simple "Union Victory" with the strategic ramifications explained in the body of the article. But Hal supports some exceptions here and there, and my point is that if you allow any exceptions, then that opens the door to other legitimate exceptions. It does NOT mean that I think that I should have "free reign" to add adjectives to any other article that strikes my fancy - although that may be Hal's honest impression, I assure you Hal, it's not.
Rather, I truly believe that the evidence shows that the BOG was a strategic union victory and I will provide the evidence BEFORE I make any changes to the article itself and give everyone a chance to express their opinions.
Hal said:
My position is that the National Park Service has explicitly categorized it that way....
Ok, I admit that I may be missing something here, but why is the NPS the final authority on what a battle summary should be? I think the various historians mentioned in the article are more authoritative. I mean, why would I want to yield to Ranger Smith ("Hey Boo Boo!")?  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have traditionally used the term "National Park Service" as a convenient shorthand for its operation called the American Battlefield Protection Program, which it launched in the early 1990s to identify battlefields needing protection. The NPS created the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, which was a group of distinguished historians and staff members, not simply park rangers as you imply. The people who originally started the Wikipedia articles on the Civil War began with the work of this commission to create the stub articles and they have been a remarkably reliable source for consistent views of all of the important battles of the war. Two excellent reference works are based on this classification and we use them very frequently in providing citations for Wikipedia articles:
  • Kennedy, Frances H., ed., The Civil War Battlefield Guide, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998, ISBN 0-395-74012-6 (which includes a number of expanded articles by those same historians who participated in the commission).
  • Salmon, John S., The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide, Stackpole Books, 2001, ISBN 0-8117-2868-4.
We have used citations to the online version of their classification in many of the information boxes and deviate from their conclusions only in rare circumstances. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Look guys, I know that you're in a heated discussion right now and I don't wanna have to ruin it, but you've got to stop spamming this discussion page. Argue your personal problems on your own talk pages, not here. And Bill, if you want to prove you Antietam point, i'd suggest you go to the Antietam discussion page to argue your points. This page is for discussing items related to the BOG. You are discussing the civil war, but nothing in particular to the BOG.

And Bill, I know that the BOG debate is not over. In fact, it's far from over. But unfortunately, Hal has won this round (no offense Hal) and is right. I was merely sending out blind arguments in this discussion. I need to go and regather my resources and attack this discussion one more time, sometime in the future. Until then, I'll help you with Antietam if you choose to pursue that argument.

And one more thing Bill, I honestly need you in order to achieve the BOG victory rights. When you started to move more towards Antietam rather than Gettysburg, my argument started to loose it's structure. I know it's not even close to being your fault, but you did in someway, contribute to my defeat this time (although a majority of it was because of my failed arguments). Hope we can tag team once again and take on and beat Hal, sometime in the future!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

intro too long?

Someone has placed a warning box at the top of the article indicating that the intro is too long. According to WP:LS, an article of this length should have a lead section of three or four paragraphs. This one has five, although I could easily make it four by combining the first two paragraphs, but I doubt that would make any improvement to the material. The lead section is a summary of the article and therefore is structured as an intro/overview, a brief background, and one paragraph per day of battle. Unless someone has an actual suggestion for a reasonable condensation of this material, I intend to remove the warning box in 10 days. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that the BOG was the largest battle of the Civil War, I think that not one thing should be removed from the intro. It is excellent the way it is and it's a great summary. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Decisive Victory

Not only me, but many historians have claimed that the Battle of Gettysburg was a decisive victory for the Union as The Army of Northern Virginia never fully recovered from the traumatizing battle. No offense Hal, but it's only you that appears to disagree with that. Even Bill's idea of the BOG being labeled as a strategic victory you don't want to accept (which I am fine with, but I prefer decisive victory).

Historians claim that the BOG was a turning point in the Civil War; even my social studies teacher said that. However, that's not the reason I'm saying that it should be labeled decisive victory. I'm saying it should be labeled that because of it greatly influenced the outcome of the campaign, which is a definition of the term itself. That, you can look up.--Red Wiki 23:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

So, as a starter, how about some quotes (author, work, page number) that support the claim that " the Battle of Gettysburg was a decisive victory for the Union as The Army of Northern Virginia never fully recovered from the traumatizing battle."
BTW, it seems like you are on some sort of crusade against signing your posts. Since it only takes four keystrokes, how about doing that in the future as an indication of your sincere committment to comply with wikipedia procedures? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Although I am certain he can find a few historians, websites, TV shows, and battlefield guides who use the term "decisive," documenting some of them will not solve his problem. The problem is that there is a substantial body of secondary sources that dispute the decisive nature of the battle as it relates to the conclusion of the war. That body of sources prevents the declaration of consensus for one point of view over the other. Therefore, it is inappropriate to put a supposed conclusion of that type into the information box. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like for him to find the quotes from those "few historians" so that we could discuss them in their proper context. Declaring Gettysburg as "decisive" is, at best, an oversimplification, but the starting point is determining who declares it as such. With the wealth of preferred sources (i.e. books), I can't imagine why " websites, TV shows, and battlefield guides" have any place in these discussions. I followed the earlier discussions although I didn't contribute -- rather than more of the same it seems like the editor wishing to change the article needs to get back to wikipedia basics (i.e. what do the reliable sources say). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Finally, another supporter. I was beginning to think that Hal was alone. Well, for starters here's the source quote-The Confederate army never fully recovered from the substantial losses incurred during the three-day battle in southern Pennsylvania.- From the Wikipedian article itself Robert E. Lee

Secondly, my computer is screwed up and doesn't allow me to sign my posts.Red Wiki 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding? An unsourced quote from a Wikipedia article as a reliable source? I'm looking more for something like "Coddington on page X declares, "Gettysburg was a decisive Union victory because ... ." The preface of his "The Gettysburg Campaign" offers a good reason why we shouldn't resort to oversimplification -- does he say something else that suggests that "decisive" is appropriate? If he doesn't, who does? After we get a sampling of those who say "decisive" and those who don't, then we have a basis for discussing whether a consensus exists. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, really not bad. You're better than Hal, who creates arguments to counter other arguments.

Anyway, here's a link to a short novel written by Major Thomas Goss of the United States Army. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/goss.pdf

If that's not enough for you, here's a link to the Gettysburg Stone Sentinels website that states that Gettysburg was indeed a decisive victory. http://www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/Individuals/Hancock.php Red Wiki 23:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Goss article asks whether or not Gettysburg should be considered a decisive battle -- it answers the question in the article's final sentence which states, " For all that was decided and accomplished, the Battle of Gettysburg fails to earn the label 'decisive battle.'”
The other link quotes an 1866 Congressional resolution -- not my idea (or wikipedia's) of a reliable source. Can I assume that you are not going to produce any info. from the preferred sources described at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Sorry. Here's a link to military history online.com that states the same http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/prelude.aspx Red Wiki 01:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you provide a link to a source that falls short of the reliable source standards for Wikipedia. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


How so? It appears to match all the required criteria.Red Wiki 02:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The website is owned by an individual who openly solicits articles from his readers. While the owner probably exercises editorial control over what gets added, this is a far cry from academic peer review. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Valkyrie, I do not normally use these pages for idle conversation, but I wanted to thank you for pointing out that article (what you describe as a novel) by Major Goss in the Military Review journal. It makes two points that I have espoused for years: Gettysburg cannot be considered a decisive battle and that many historians are using the term imprecisely because it has multiple meanings. This is one of the best discussions of decisive victories that I have ever read. Thanks again for sharing this and for corroborating my arguments. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I liked it so much that I've added the reference and final sentence quoted to summarize the section. Thanks Valkyrie Red! BusterD (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


Wow, you guys are jerks. I'm sorry, but I have to say that because you guys are turning my failure into your success, lol.

I've realized that this argument has been unfair on my part. Your side has been forcing me to find references to support my cause, while you guys, or girls, sit back and make up counter-arguments. Here's what i'm asking, why don't you find me a reference to support your cause. And to make it fair, you can't use the one I gave you. Capeesh?Red Wiki 02:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The arguments are clearly stated in the article and have been discussed at length in this talk page. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, your too lazy to argue, or you don't have an argument. Therefore, I have won, unless of course you do have something you wish to say. In that case, I'm all ears--75.177.176.20 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am too lazy to re-type all of the arguments that are already written down. And, frankly, I have many more productive things to do with the time I have available for Wikipedia. You will need to provide new arguments, backed up by an appropriate volume of reliable secondary sources, to hope to change the consensus on this article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm tired of finding and creating new arguments just so that you can end up spitting on me again. This time it's your turn to come up with something new.Red Wiki 23:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

None of your arguments have achieved a consensus to change the article, so it stands as is. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

But that's what I'm arguing here. Why did we decide that it shouldn't be labeled as Decisive Victory in the first place? Was it first come, first serve?Red Wiki 02:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Six-plus years ago we chose the NPS summary for the info box when the article was created. During the intervening years, a handful of people have attempted to add adjectives to the Union victory and all such attempts have been reversed with the consensus of the editor community. You are certainly the most persistent of all the advocates for this position, but no more persuasive than any of your predecessors. In fact, your persistence has prompted me to include a lengthy description in the article itself about how there is not a consensus on this point among historians, something that was merely implied previously by analysis of talk page discussions (or knowledge of history). Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Things change Hal, and so does the result info. I may be the most persistent (and I intend to stay so until a reasonable consensus has been achieved), but look at yourself. Only you and that annoying Sswonk have been defending this article for, as you put it, 6+ years. Even you have to give in sometime eventually.

Oh, and that little "Decisive Victory?" section you created is too biased to solve anything. It leans too much towards your answer rather than trying to be equal with both our answers, especially with the inclusion of that last quote (which I am still quite upset about you using). A consensus can be reached if you rewrite that section and make it appear a lot more fair between our sides rather than just your side.Red Wiki 19:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

The results of the Battle of Gettysburg have not changed in 146 years. It is really getting very frustrating arguing with someone who does not listen to arguments. The point of the section in the article is not to count votes for decisive versus not decisive. It is to illustrate that a substantial number of professional historians do not call it decisive. If you were somehow able to come up with two dozen reliable secondary sources that call it decisive -- and I do not believe you have come up with any so far -- that would not change the fact that there is documented, substantial disagreement among historians about that result. Given that disagreement, the information box will not contain any disputed adjectives. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


What I see in that section is merely four sources that support the indecisive claim, and about 2 that support my claim. Once again this leads me to believe that you are being unfair and not listing enough sources for the decisive claim as a result of being lazy, or your doing it on purpose to prove a point.

And I see that you want me to come up with two dozen sources. I'll do that only if you come up with two dozen sources as well.

Lastly, if this info box won't contain any adjectives, than what happened over there in Antietam and the Third Battle of Petersburg. Seems to me that whenever you see it fit that an adjective needs to be put in the info box, then it should go there.Red Wiki 02:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Sorry for jumping into this one late, but it has been my educated view, that a decisive victory in any war would mean the complete destruction or capture of the opponent's army. This was obviously not done, since that same army continued fighting for another two years while still winning victories. This is not to say that the battle did not contribute to the overall war effort. It most certainly did. In fact, if the battle had gonr the other way, there is no doubt in my mind that the south may have won the war, or at least fought to a stalemate. That being said, the loss of such a large portion of the Lee's army hurt morale in the south, but the army lived to fight another day. On a more technical note, this article is about the Battle of Gettysburg only, and not a larger picture of the war. Do I think that the aoutcome of the battle contributed to the outcome of the war? Well of course it did, but lets stick to the facts of the battle and not dwell too much on what happened in the end.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Well Mr. Jojhutton, you're right about one thing.....you jumped into this one late. Lol, jk.

However, you are arguing on a point that I'm not arguing about. You're saying that the Battle of Gettysburg didn't have any significant impact on the war itself. However, the definition I'm arguing for is significantly influences the result of a campaign.

Try responding again now that the blindfold's been removed.Red Wiki 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk

Nice twisting of words my friend, but where did I say that the battle had no impact on the war itself? I specifically said...Do I think that the outcome of the battle contributed to the outcome of the war? Well of course it did.... All of the battles lead to the end of the war, but you are arguing that the battle was decisive. I would like to know what your definition of decisive is, as stated in the context that you have previously presented.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


As said in the book Defining and Achieving Decisive Victory, Gray (2002, p. 11) a decisive victory is "a victory which decides the outcome to a campaign, though not necessarily to the war as a whole"Red Wiki 03:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Does anyone else notice that the font size got smaller? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 03:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Confederate Casualties in Summary Box

I believe the Confederate casualties for this battle was around 28k, not 23k. Somebody please fix. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

James McPherson has the confederate losses at 28,000. Battle Cry of Freedom pg. 664. If there is another source that says differantly please let us know.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The West Point Atlas of American Wars also puts the losses at 28,000, so a change may be in order.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Please read the Casualties sub-section of the Aftermath section. Also the FAQ at the top of this page. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
By that reasoning though, what will happen when a more recent book comes out refuting the single source that is being relied on for the article?--Jojhutton (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Although I know of the book Hal refers to, I would feel more comfortable if there was more than once source. Does anyone know of any other source that states similar casualties? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
For my part, I'm inclined to accept as superior the source listed in the FAQ as the most recent authoritative work, dedicated to reviewing this specific subject, incorporating and discussing the opinions of previous scholarship, plus multi-edition to boot. I concur with User:Bill the Cat 7 it would be good if we could find other recent sources which seemed to agree as well as the much earlier scholarship on the subject. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Where'd Hal Go?

This is what happens every time I start to win a discussion/argument. He just retreats to his little place and doesn't come out for a while. Looks like I've won Hal and guess what, I'm changing it to a decisive victory.Red Wiki 14:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not go anywhere. I monitor Wikipedia more frequently than you do, I would wager. The argument was at a lull because you offered no new arguments to support your proposed change, so the status quo remained. I do not feel the need to re-answer every one of your repeated comments when you visit on your irregular schedule. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought this was settled when User:Valkyrie Red provided a source which said the word decisive wasn't applicable to Gettysburg. Any insertion of the word decisive will be reverted by me (and likely others). No consensus has been reached for such a change. In addition, this continued assertion of "winning" a discussion is antithetical to why wikipedians are here. Valkyrie Red, I feel forced to caution you against continuing to personalize this debate. BusterD (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


My bad Buster sir. Won't happen again, but just to make point out one last thing, I personally think that Hal hates me. Just saying.......

That's it I'm done. Hal's one once again through his cheap, cheating ways. I'm leaving this decisive crap, but don't worry, I'll be bringing up a new point that Hal won't be able to defend against.

Cheers fellow editors! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs) 02:58, November 26, 2009


Decisive Victory Section

I'm now fine with accepting the term Decisive Victory not in the result box, but Hlj, that Decisive Victory section you wrote I find a bit biased in your favor of your opinion of the battle. Do you mind rewriting it so that it balances whether the battle was decisive or not evenly?

Thanks!Red Wiki 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons I am confident in my position that decisive is not an appropriate adjective is that I am not familiar with many influential secondary sources that use that term in a context that allows you to determine unambiguously what the author means by it. (Note that neither of the two historians I cited actually do use that word explicitly.) Therefore, I would ask you to provide the research to support the position you are requesting. The section is currently structured so that the pro-decisive viewpoint is listed first, which should imply to readers that it is the more conventional viewpoint. And the pro-decisive/turning-point portion of the section is 1585 words, whereas the second half that provides counter arguments is virtually identical at 1619 words. (Ironically, the counter arguments were shorter until you provided a prime counter argument yourself and another editor threw it in.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you end it with an anti-decisive sentence which marks it to be biased. Hal, if you don't want to I'd be more than happy to rewrite it.Valkyrie Red 00:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

I don't follow your argument. Are you saying that the last sentence of a section is considered more important than the others? I do not understand your contention that identifying opinions from clearly identified, explicitly relevant secondary sources represents "bias." Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Oh, one additional point. Since you have been away from the argument for quite a while, perhaps you have forgotten the premise of this section. It is not here to say that "Having surveyed all available historical references, since three say it's decisive and six don't, therefore it is not decisive." The point is to acknowledge that it is a widely held notion, but that there is a substantial body of alternative opinion, so that it cannot be said that "decisive" is a clear consensus. And it is a clear consensus that is necessary to use such an adjective in the information box. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, people use the last sentence to sum up their discussion. Also, I don't think people, when reading this article, care to check the references of the information presented, unless I'm wrong. And when you say that "The point is to acknowledge that it is a widely held notion, but that there is a substantial body of alternative opinion, so that it cannot be said that "decisive" is a clear consensus" that still doesn't explain why decisive can't be in the result box. You say that there's no consensus, but if that's true, than why isn't decisive in the box?

Oh, and I haven't been away from the argument. I'm just doing your strategy and watching how this whole thing unfolds without me there--Valkyrie Red 02:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether people check the references or not is really immaterial to this discussion. The section lists all the opinion-holders by name. 'Decisive' isn't in the box because there is no consensus it should be there, as demonstrated by this section. And my remark about your lack of participation over a long period was an ironic aside--you were the one who attempted to declare arguments "won" by a lack of comment over a little more than 24 hours. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


1. I don't think that you can get every opinion-holders name in there, unless I'm mistaken.

2. Haha, yeah I know, but after you got me banned for the third time I decided to change my ways. "If you can't beat 'em, join them."

3. Couldn't we just put in the result box something like this: Decisive Union Victory? see below?--Valkyrie Red 14:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No. We couldn't. This subject has been discussed and page consensus has gone against user's position. I don't think this discussion is helping this pagespace at all, and I see very little changing of ways here. I'm running out of AGF in this case. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
There already is a footnote there that leads the reader to a discussion of the issues. And to be clear, I have never had anyone banned from Wikipedia since I started contributing in early 2004. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Okay look at this, if you look at the definition of a Decisive Victory, it says a Battle that strongly influences the outcome of a campaign. Well, did not the Battle of Gettysburg strongly influence the outcome of the Gettysburg Campaign?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We have had this discussion many times over a number of months. The problem with using the term decisive victory without explanation is that it is ambiguous about which of the three definitions of decisive victory is being used. Using ambiguous terms in the information box is a disservice to the reader. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Okay, question then. Can we label this victory as a strategic victory? It is very similar to the Battle of Antietam as it stopped Lee's invasion of the North.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No. As we have discussed previously, the only time we use the adjective is when we are trying to differentiate the strategic results from the tactical results. Since Antietam was inconclusive tactically, the NPS summary used the phrase strategic victory to indicate that the tactical results were not the final story on the battle. The NPS summary for Gettysburg is "Union victory" and that covers any of the adjectives you can possibly imagine without requiring further explanation. If we chose to highlight Gettysburg as a strategic victory, I could name a dozen other battles that were just as strategic (assuming that we could agree on the meaning of strategic, which I suspect we cannot), so the adjective loses a lot of its meaning.

If you look at the article, it states that this battle is often considered the turning point of the war. I could find a good number of reliable sources to support this claim. Since this battle is considered the turning point of the war, does not that make it a decisive victory?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No. The terms are not synonyms. (Actually, both terms are defined ambiguously.) In any event, virtually every one who calls Gettysburg the turning point does so in combination with Vicksburg, so the best you could say for Gettysburg is that it was "half-decisive." :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

I am again reverting the substitution of casualty figures. The casualties for the battle are documented in the Aftermath section, with the explanation that older estimates -- all of which differ somewhat on the Confederate side -- are yielding to more modern, rigorous scholarship. The Busey and Martin reference, a book in its fourth edition that is exclusively devoted to cataloguing the casualties at Gettysburg, is a reliable source using the Wikipedia definition. A website such as Military History Online, which represents itself as "a webzine of community-submitted articles," is not a reliable source, or at least certainly less reliable. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, hello there. My name is Abl3igail (call me Abigail) and I am a fan of US History, but the Civil War isn't a big thing that I know about. However, I've read a lot of books that state the Confederate casualties to be about 28,000. What's your opinion on all this Mr. Hlj?--Abl3igail (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that the FAQ for this article (see top of this Talk page) and the Aftermath/Casualties section in the article itself are appropriate. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude or anything to you Mr. Hlj, but it seems that that both those FAQ's were written by you, and you using them to support your argument would fall under WP:Bias--Abl3igail (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah-ha. So my views on reliable sources (from the Bias article you cite) "grows from [my] demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject, thereby discriminating against the less represented demographic groups." You're right. I have been discriminating against those groups without access to a full library of modern reliable sources. Or those who have browsers incapable of reading past the summary box. Perhaps I need to sign up for sensitivity training. The lead section states that the casualties overall were 46,000 to 51,000. The Aftermath/Casualties section clearly indicates that estimates of Confederate casualties differ--an indisputable statement--and that they are often listed as about 28,000. The citations one could provide for 28,000 are for the most part from works that preceded the more precise scholarship cited by name in the article. I expect that as new scholarly works on Gettysburg emerge during the sesquicentennial, you'll see other authors citing Busey and Martin as well. The summary box could be rewritten as "Confederate: 23,000 - 28,000" but without selecting one particular source, we can't show the K/W/M breakdown without gyrations. That's one of the many deficiencies of these boxes. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, might I suggest seeing WP:FUCK and WP:EXPLODE as you seemed a bit emotional in those first few sentences. Also this line here, "you'll see other authors citing Busey and Martin as well" is once again bias, which Wikipedia is trying to avoid.--Abl3igail (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In case you wait a few hours and post a "Where is Hal?" entry, the answer is doing something productive, ignoring your provocations. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that anything like Where's Waldo?.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, why would I post something like that? Anyway, I'm guessing that you aren't acknowledging your mistake and you won't be for some time. Am I not correct?--Abl3igail (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


NPS

Ummm, Mr. Hlj, I would also like to point out that the National Park Service also lists the casualties for the Confederacy to be 28,000.--Abl3igail (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. The CWSAC report of 1993 is quite a bit older than the cited reference in the summary box. Hal Jespersen (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

There is a word "torturous", but it is not the one intended in the phrase "torturous retreat". Please replace it with "tortuous", which means "twisting", and has nothing to do with "torture".

86.171.53.75 (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This word was selected deliberately. The retreat was not really characterized as "Having or marked by repeated turns or bends; winding or twisting," which is a common definition of tortuous. The routes taken by the Confederate army were relatively straightforward. That adjective would be a good one to use for the Union supply line through treacherous mountain passes into Chattanooga, for instance. The retreat was one in which the wounded men suffered agonizing treatment as the wagons carrying them traversed over rough roads and they were attacked by Federal cavalry. If you think this distinction is too confusing, please propose a more general rewording. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

'Newly-promoted 23 year old' Brig. Gen. not relevant to article on Gettysburg? Strongly disagree.

I'm undoing Hij's revert of my addition that George Armstrong Custer, who as many here well know and the article with my addition now states, was a "newly-promoted 23 year old" Brig. General. Hij writes in his edit summary that he believes it is policy here to not include such information unless it is "particularly relevant", and that if people are interested that they can find out more details on the Custer page.

With all due respect to someone who the record shows is a regular editor here, I strongly disagree with his view. I think the fact that a major leader of the Union forces - who led and repelled a threatening flanking attack at Gettysburg with extreme personal bravery - was a green, first time, and extremely young (no doubt younger than virtually every contributor to this article) general is highly relevant to the article, and adds to it in terms of overview and general interest. I call on the community here to support this edit in the spirit of fairness and the interests of building an article that is complete. With best wishes, Jusdafax 16:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

His prior history might be relevant if there were a description of his actions that caused the reader to say, "Wow, he did that at such a young age," but since he is mentioned once in a context that says nothing about his personal contribution, it's perhaps interesting, but not very relevant. What I'm trying to do is avoid the tendency to make these articles like history books, where the author has to stop along the way and give mini-bios of the participants. We don't do that in Wikipedia. Some background details ARE relevant, such as Meade being a Pennsylvanian, or Ewell and Hill being new to corps command, but it's pretty clear from the article why those details are included. (In contrast, the interesting personal details of Ewell being one-legged and Hill having contracted gonorrhea at West Point are not included.) Furthermore, this is only a summary article, and Custer is mentioned in greater detail in Battle of Gettysburg, Third Day cavalry battles, where I wouldn't object to some expansions. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I've moved 'newly-promoted 23 year old Brig. Gen.' to Day Two where Custer is first mentioned and simplified his inital description, including removal of redundant wiki-link markup, in the Day Three section. Jusdafax 05:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Added mention of Brig. General Henry Jackson Hunt was in command of the Union artilley

I've taken the liberty, if I may, of adding a mention that Brig. Gen. Henry Jackson Hunt was the commander of the Union artillery forces. I was surprised not to see him named in any way in this article, when in fact he personally played such a large part in stopping Pickett's Charge.

Indeed, I would propose to include a few additional sentences on his role in the battle for this article; Gen. Hunt's brilliant decisions arguably tipped the scales in climax of Day Three. Historian and author Jeffry D. Wert notes, in his book 'Gettysburg: Day Three', that Hunt had put together a large 'off-the-books' ammuntion wagon train that he had on hand at Gettysburg, which became a crucial factor in the sustained and withering barrage of shot and cannister that greeted the advancing Confederate infantry. Jusdafax 19:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this is a summary article and the entire topic of the artillery bombardment is covered in three sentences, so adding a few additional sentences about Hunt would not balance well. I don't object to naming Hunt in the summary, but the text expounding on his contribution in detail is in Pickett's Charge (but perhaps could be expanded there). Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Very well. Will defer further mention of Gen. Hunt in this article, and will look at your suggestion. Jusdafax 05:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

July 4th

Didn't this battle technically end July 4th (the same day as Vicksburg) because there was still some skirmishing going on that day and Lee didn't start retreating till the evening of it--Valkyrie Red (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

We are using the dates used by 100% of historians, as well as our old familiar National Park Service sources. Many ACW battles had skirmishing before or after the accepted dates. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So you're telling me that you use the NPS whenever it supports you and you don't use it whenever it doesn't help you. Way to remain unbiased--Valkyrie Red (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. Reread the first sentence of my reply. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Then provide a list of the 100%--Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, pal, you're wasting my time. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I guess that proves that you're presenting lies and bias in this article.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Or it demonstrates you're still making unsupported judgmental statements and trying to provoke controversy, as opposed to making meaningful contributions. BusterD (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Or it shows that this article is full of bias contributed by both you and Hlj.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Not Decisive?

Instead of providing an unreliable source stating why this victory was Decisive, I have to ask one thing: why don't you think that it was decisive. Lee suffering an irreplaceable loss of 23,000 casualties plus his second invasion of the North being thwarted seems to be decisive in terms.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this subject has been talked to death. My personal thoughts on the matter are irrelevant anyway. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

I have restored the cited casualties. There is no justification for replacing a reliable source that is a scholarly study specifically focused on Gettysburg casualties with a webpage by an unknown author that says "Many different estimates exist on the number of casualties inflicted during the battle of Gettysburg, but one common estimate is as follows." Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to make it seem as though I'm reflexively siding with Hal, but User:Valkyrie Red has been unsuccessfully making this case for some time. I'm ready to request comment, perhaps on user behavior. BusterD (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Where can I find that this source actually exists? I searched Google for "Busey and Martin" and got no useful results. Spitfire19 (Talk) 14:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As with most References in Wikipedia, you can click on the ISBN number to find exhaustive information about copies available in libraries and for sale. I will be the first to admit that this is not a mass-market book. It is a scholarly study of interest only to Civil War historians. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you're referring to? http://isbndb.com/d/book/regimental_strengths_and_losses_at_gettysburg.htmlSpitfire19 (Talk) 15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks like an earlier, much less comprehensive edition. You want the 4th edition, 2005. Click on this ISBN 0-944413-67-6. One of the first choices there takes you to http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=0944413676 but there are numerous other choices to get you there. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC) By the way, if you would like me to scan a couple of pages and e-mail them to you, let me know. Go to my user talk page to send an e-mail. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out to Buster that it wasn't I that changed the casualties. So, once you're done attacking me, I'd like an apology.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks reliable enough. Well I would recommend putting the ISBN# in the reference so this doesn't happen again.Spitfire19 (Talk) 13:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is already in the References section. The style we use for most of the large ACW articles is to include complete information about the book in References and to have footnotes that are abbreviated with the name of the author and page numbers. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Still, one question comes to mind. Exactly how do you get newer research on casualties? The earlier estimates were based on Confederate records. All this "source" as you proclaim is nothing more than another estimate just published later than the previous source.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You get newer research on casualties in the same way that you get newer research on any aspect of the war. There has been a remarkable increase in the amount of information available to historians in the last 50 years -- soldier diaries and letters that have been hidden away in family storage or obscure libraries, local newspapers, government reports that were misfiled or hidden, etc., and other materials that are now available electronically. If you look at books written around the Centennial, many of them will seem almost primitive in comparison to modern histories, based heavily on the ORs and memoirs written by the participants, which are characterized by faulty memories, reputations to protect, and political axes to grind. Furthermore, modern authors are much more willing to write very focused studies than were their predecessors. A case in point is this 678-page book tabulating strengths and losses down to the regimental level, all extensively footnoted. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Still, this is only 1 source that states this. There are multiple sources that state 28,000.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and I have just updated the article to clean up the footnotes regarding casualties and now list a number of those alternative estimates. It is quite clear from my review that few of these authors admit to providing any more than guesses. One of the most recent, Sears's one-volume history of the campaign, actually provides a specific figure even lower than Busey and Martin's. Coddington, which is considered the current definitive analysis of the campaign, simply states that it is "likely more" than 20,000. But as I have argued before, B&M is the most recent, most detailed, most scholarly analysis of this issue. That is why I chose to use those numbers in the infobox, along with footnotes pointing to the alternatives from older sources. The only conceivable alternative entry for the infobox would be "20–28,000" (and no K/W/C breakdown) with a comparable footnote, and that does not seem to be a superior choice, IMHO. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Trudeau, p. 530.
  2. ^ Tucker, pp. 389-94.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Gettysburg/Archive_1&oldid=1154981138"