Talk:Battle of Gettysburg/Archive 3

Unverifiability of content: paragraph 2, line 3; and same, line 1.
In the passage, "Lee led his army through the Shenandoah Valley to begin his second invasion of the North—the Gettysburg Campaign," there is no record or evidence (any more or less than with Meade) that Lee had embarked into Maryland or Pennsylvania on a "campaign" with Gettysburg as his end objective. While it is true that an en-route confederate incursion for purpose of pilfering supplies (more particularly...shoes) was aimed at Gettysburg town, it was, in fact, little more than coincidental that the opposing forces would chance by accident upon Gettysburg (while Lee was likely intent upon heading farther abroad, perhaps to Harrisburg, the state capital) as the scene of a general engagement. Therefore recommend to strike the characters, "—the Gettysburg Campaign". Also, but less critically, Lee was not in the vanguard of the elements first arriving/clashing at Gettysburg, so the word, "led," could be more precisely replaced by the word, "commanded." Finally, having spent 10 years living nearby to Gettysburg in Maryland, I was impressed by Marylander consternation at the state's having historically been referred to as the South, albeit that Maryland was south of the Mason-Dixie line, a slave state within Dixie, but occupied as Federal sequestered territory. Accordingly, may I suggest that "the North" as used in the subject paragraph is overly "loose" and imprecise and should be replaced by the words, "Federal territory".172.56.39.66 (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

flag
the confederate flag should be changed because it is too small — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.66.54 (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2018
98.115.93.81 (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamietw (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2018
98.115.93.81 (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamietw (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2018
Remove X-Men Origins: Wolverine as hypothesizing what would happen if the South won Gettysberg. There is no citation backing it up and I have found no evidence indicating such a hypothesization took place. The movie contains about five seconds of coverage of the civil war, with Wolverine and Sabertooth fighting an unnamed battle. 63.241.40.124 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I have added the tag to the section. Hopefully someone with knowledge of the subject will take care of it.  &mdash;  LeoFrank   Talk 12:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest adding clarification following the sixth paragraph
At end of sixth paragraph, following "Between 46,000 and 51,000 soldiers from both armies were casualties in the three-day battle, the most costly in US history."

Add: "Note that the Meuse-Argonne Offensive by the U.S. First Army of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) in World War I was the largest and costliest campaign in American history. Spanning 47 days from September 26 through November 11, 1918, and ultimately drawing in over a million American soldiers, it took the lives of over 26,000 of them who were killed in action with more than 95,000 wounded, resulting in over 120,000 total casualties."

Background: The overall objective of the offensive was to cut the Sedan-Mezieres rail line which supplied all of the German armies to the west. U.S. First Army attacked German positions with 16 divisions along a 25-mile front on September 26, 1918, with 9 divisions in reserve.

Johnsonb52 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Johnsonb52

Battle of Gettysburg
While this article includes casualty data, it does not mention the "hospital" that treated injured and dying soldiers. St. Francis Xavier Church in Gettysburg became a hospital to serve casualties from the Battle of Gettysburg. Nuns and other volunteers cared for all injured and dying soldiers. This church was the hospital during this horrible time. This historical fact should be included as a crucial part of the aftermath of this pivotal battle. 65 Telemachus (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:65 Telemachus and welcome! Do you have handy any reliable sources which might support such addition? I could help you with the entry. BusterD (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Gettysburg and St. Francis Xavier
Thank you. Alas, I no longer have my copy of this commemorative magazine-style book. I do regret having lost it and may well reach out to either this church, where I spent 15 years, or to the Diocese in Harrisburg, PA. I miss this book tremendously. These photos may well be at large; it is possible that some of them belonged to the church itself. I do not know who took these photos, at such a new time for such doings. It has warmed my heart to hear from you! Thank you, kind person. 65 Telemachus (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020
Change "and especially Longstreet, for failing to attack on July 2 as early and as forcefully as Lee had originally intended." To "and especially Longstreet, for not attacking early or with more force." or alternatively add an addendum that the claims of Lee original intend are at least debated. The claim is that Lee wanted a dawn attack, while we know that Lees orders were not given until well into the day, I believe 11 is the consensus time. I find in its current form the sentence above replicates this false narrative. TenakaKhan17 (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The requirement of information being verifiable means you should cite a source which puts this claim into dispute. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Which claim am I making you want to have cited? My argument is that this text does not reflect the intent clearly and my change tries to negate this one point. If you want sources for the 11 am time, you can take source 58 and 59 which make the claim in this very article.TenakaKhan17 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~ Amkgp  💬  16:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Changes you would like to make can be sourced with CNN or MSNBC citations. Hey, it's a Wiki. As long as it has a "Reliable Source..."

blacks in the war
they were black so they fought good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoomaraid (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Let us not espouse racist comments. Sources already shown in this article refute your statement as unique to any skin tone, race or nationality of people of the 19th Century. Do your best not to get carried away with current events. This is history backed by substantiated sources. 170.253.176.153 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021
Request following edit under Second Day Section, Attacks on the Union right flank, paragraph two:

Maj. Gen. Edward "Allegheny" Johnson's Division "had not been pushed close to [Culp's Hill] in preparation for an assault, although one had been contemplated all day. It now had a full mile (1,600 m) to advance and Rock Creek had to be crossed. This could only be done at few places and involved much delay. Only three of Johnson's four brigades moved to the attack."[70] Johnson's last brigade, the Stonewall Brigade under James A. Walker, was occupied east of Rock Creek fighting Union cavalry under Brig. Gen. David M. Gregg for control of Brinkerhoff's Ridge. Most of the hill's defenders, the Union XII Corps, had been sent to the left to defend against Longstreet's attacks, leaving only a brigade of New Yorkers under Brig. Gen. George S. Greene behind strong, newly constructed defensive works. With reinforcements from the I and XI Corps, Greene's men held off the Confederate attackers, though giving up some of the lower earthworks on the lower part of Culp's Hill.[71] APC1919 (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

this lead section appears to be a little too long for the body of the article. Some parts fit better in the body of the article and therefore have been moved there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikits (talk • contribs) 01:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 01Gettysburg-National-Military-Park-Quarter-Design-300x300.jpg

Lee vs. Meade
"the rout of the Union troops at Gettysburg on July 1"

The Union troops were not routed (they did not flee the battlefield in panic; they withdrew in good order from Seminary Ridge to Cemetary Ridge). In fact most of the Union army hadn't even appeared on the battlefield by the end of July 1. The troops that withdrew were lightly-armed dismounted cavalry, along with a few other advance units.

MrDemeanour (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021
I want to edit the troops and casualties because they are wrong 70.75.48.17 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Confederate casualties and losses
28,063 total (3,903 killed; 18,735 wounded; 5,425 captured/missing) 86.143.101.46 (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2022
change "In a brief letter to Major Generak Henry W. Halleck written on July 7" to "In a brief letter to Major General Henry W. Halleck written on July 7" Sonofafitz (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, good catch. By the way, you can edit semi-protected articles yourself as a registered user. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft Riots Effect on Union Pursuit Dubious; Propose Deletion
The article contains this sentence: "Furthermore, Meade was forced to detach 4,000 troops north to suppress the New York City Draft Riots, further reducing the effectiveness of his pursuit. Citing https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/draft-riots." The battle ended July 3. Lee crossed the Potomac River after the battle on July 14. The draft took place on July 11. The riots started July 13. The cited article only states: "On July 15, the third day of the protests, rioting spread to Brooklyn and Staten Island. The following day, the first of more than 4,000 federal troops arrived, from New York regiments who had been fighting in the Battle of Gettysburg." This detachment could not have affected the effectiveness of Meade's pursuit in Maryland. It wasn't made until Lee was back in Virginia. Wittenberg et al. state on p. 347 "By July 16th several thousand Federal troops occupied New York City, meaning that these men were not available to join the pursuit of Lee's Army." Given the dates, that could only refer to the pursuit after Lee was back in Virginia and would not support the cited sentence. I found no other source, including Eicher, McPherson, Coddington, Guelzo, Trudeau, Hoptak, Brown and others, that mention the effect of the detachment of men, which included federalize New York militia, for duty suppressing the draft riots as affecting Meade's pursuit. In the context of the article, the pursuit is about the immediate aftermath of the battle on July 4-14. The sentence as written is unsupported by the cited source or many reliable sources that can be consulted. I propose to delete it in the near future unless someone comes forward with sources that indicate the detachment had any effect on the Union pursuit in the 10 days after the battle, the actual subject of the section. There were enough other reasons for the Union Army's slow (but certainly attempted) pursuit or Meade's reluctance to attack Lee at Williamsport. Brief mention of those, which are supportable, is all that can be justified. Donner60 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Alteration of the main picture
The main editors of the article should consider changing the main picture of this article to Timothy H. O'Sullivan's 1863 picture of the aftermath of the battle. It is more realistic, cruder and conveys an immediate aspect of the battleground. The current image, a painting by de Thulstrup, was made twenty years later (1887) and is less objective than the one I am proposing.

I believe it is a matter of style, but not presenting a photograph of an event from the 19th century (when photographic professionals were widely available), and instead a painting in a journalistic style, seems anachronistic.

--Ugaplanet (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this. Comment: A good idea, perhaps, but that particular photo is used in the casualty section where it is also quite appropriate. Perhaps an appropriate photograph can be found, possibly in Commons, to substitute here. Donner60 (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally don't mind the Thulstrup image - I've found Thulstrup's work to be much more accurate than, say, the Kurz and Allison lithographs, which show such things as Stonewall being shot in broad daylight or Pike's troops directly charging Union lines at Pea Ridge. Even the contemporary ones weren't much better - Edwin Forbes was at Gettysburg but painted Big Round Top with two peaks, and one of Forbes' oil paintings ommitted fleeing Union troops and casualties.  Even O'Sullivan wasn't above fudging things for dramatic effect - the famous "Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter" is now almost universally considered to have been staged.  IMO with this sort of battle, it's best to use some sort of image that'll be representative of the battle and recognizable to the reader.  For Gettysburg, that's probably the Thulstrup image, part of the Gettysburg Cyclorama, O'Sullivan's "Harvest of Death" image (which is what the OP is referring to), or the "Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter".  "Harvest of Death" is probably better placed in the casualties section, and I'd advise against "Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter as a lead image because it's widely recognized to have been staged. Hog Farm Talk 15:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Time that Pickett's Charge began
- I'm sure this can be easily resolved, but I don't have the time to hunt through all my sources right now. Our article currently states that Pickett's Charge began at 3:00 pm, but the source (Wert's "Gettysburg: Day Three") I'm using to replace a bad source in that section has About two o'clock, "Forward" echoed along the lines of slightly more than thirteen thousand officers and men. The footnote Donner added covers the disputed strength, but I the time needs a direct citation since I can't support 3:00 pm with the source I'm reworking that paragraph with. Hog Farm Talk 03:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I added the citation: "Coddington, 402; McPherson, 662; Eicher, 546, Trudeau, 484, Walsh 281." Details: Stewart, 178 “The time was about ten minutes past three. Now the lines had been dressed and the speeches made. The command rang out. Forward! Guide center! March!”; Coddington, 502 “At 3:00 P.M. officers and men of Hancock's Second Corps looking west saw a long gray line suddenly emerge into the bright sunlight from the dark fringe of timber on Seminary Ridge....”; McPherson, 662. “Finally, about 3:00 p.m., Longstreet reluctantly ordered the attack.”; Eicher, 546. “'Up, men, and to your posts! Don't forget today that you are from old Virginia,' Pickett screamed at about 3 P.M. As his men formed and began to march.”; Trudeau, 484, at the start of a chapter labelled (2:55 P.M.-3:15 P.M.) “As Pettigrew's and Pickett's battle lines cleared the crests in their front....” Before this, at 481 in the previous chapter, “Most of Gettysburg's residents could not comprehed why the awful cannon firing seemed just to end at around 3:00 P.M.”; Walsh, 281 “Closing with the enemy about 3, p.m....” I suppose I could have added Sears: Hess as well as Wert, more or less says 2:00 but as he goes on, it appears to be he is not certain about it. Some other sources vaguely state that the charge follows after Alexander's last note to Longstreet, which could be implied as around 2:00 but none of them appear to me to state with certainty that it was about that time. Donner60 (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My typical way of handling sources that differ is to pick the time that has the most support (either by the most historians or a recent historian with better info) and cite with one source. Then add a footnote that lists the "backers" of the difference chosen for the narrative. Then, in the same footnote, list the alternatives and their supporters. TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing I do different from you and HogFarm: I like to put citations and footnotes at the end of a sentence instead of part of the way through a sentence. Just my preference (not mandatory), and I think it makes it easier on the reader. Also, the few books that I have, when using citations, have them at the end of sentences. See McPherson, Starr, and Sears. My non-Gettysburg books by Rhea, Gallagher, and Chernow also put their citations at the end of the sentence. TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Jeff Shaara's "Civil War Battlefields", on page 99, mentions the Confederate artillery opening fire "at approximately one p.m.", and the "barrage lasted for nearly two hours". That would correspond with 3:00pm-ish for Pickett's Charge. I just checked Eicher and McPearson, and they say 3:00pm on the pages cited. (I just got the Sears book, but have not yet received the Coddington book—you have more sources.) My preference would be to say "About 3:00pm" or "Around 3:00pm". We would not be using "weasel words", since the sources do not say exactly 3:00pm, and some sources use the word "About" or "Around". We currently have "Around 3 p.m." The MOS says we need a non-breaking space. Not certain about the ":00" part, although I usually use it. TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with the "about" or "around" wording. "Around" has been in the article for several days, at least. I am not sure that I would always go along with the most recent historian as a main citation in some cases. I think Guelzo, who may be the most recent, is inexact in wording at some points, and is in disagreement with other sources. He uses the 13,000 figure which is out of Longstreet's quote, unadjusted for overshoot casualties at least.
 * I sometimes cite in the middle of a sentence when I think that is the point of possible contention. It may be the most precise point. Also, It might not even directly support the rest of the sentence which might need a different citation, or none at all. I found that to be the case once or twice in this article.
 * I think I almost never put multiple citations in the same footnote, maybe never in articles which I have started or substantially added to. The exception would be an explanatory text footnote supporting a somewhat complicated point, or possible contentious points, or to point out where reliable sources support the same point or perhaps differ slightly. I used the multiple cites in a footnote a few times in this article in part because it was done already, no doubt by Hlj. That was his style to use one footnote to support the entire paragraph. In a few instances, multiple footnotes may be needed to fend off someone who wants to add a different citation, such as the misuderstood 15,000 attackers point but the explanatory footnote might be enough to take care of that. Or due to the time of night, my still blurry eyesight and general state of confusion, I might not have understood part of what you wrote above. Donner60 (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I should add that I am not opposed to putting all footnotes at the end of sentences, especially if the full sentence is supported by the footnote. It usually is. My view is with respect to somewhat rare situations, I think. I also think we need not worry about being uniform about placement of footnotes, or even form - in this article - unless, of course, GA assessment would be affected. Thanks for all the work you have done in the article and in what you are doing. I may or may not have much time over the next few weeks. I've stretched my time online a bit, but after a few days it becomes harder to sit around and stare into space most of the time when the eye doesn't hurt and is gradually improving. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Cavalry numbers?
The summary box on the right side has different mesurments for cavalry units/numbers of both sides. The number for Union's side cavalry is given in "regiments" while the Confederate's side seem to be in individuals. This make comparison a little bit difficult. ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * - Thank you for reading Battle of Gettysburg and good catch! Part of the problem is that the Confederate cavalry consisted of regiments, battalions, legions, and even a partisan ranger company—while the Union cavalry was organized as regiments (even though some regiments were missing some companies). I will see if I can find more comparable numbers sometime this week, and I am pinging someone who has a really good personal Civil War library in case he has access to something that I do not. Thanks in advance for your patience. TwoScars (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am looking into this. As with the total number of troops for both armies and other such numbers (e.g. casualties) at Gettysburg, sources differ. First of all, 9,500 for the Confederates which is in the infobox was about the size of the Confederate force under Stuart at Brandy Station. His force was probably reduced by casualties at various other actions before his detachment of some of his brigades for his raid started. He had about 6,000 for that adventure, no doubt with somewhat fewer reaching Gettysburg. However, Lee picked up Imboden's force of 2,000 "partisan" cavalrymen on the march. Stuart did not take all of his brigades on the "ride around" raid. They were left with the main Confederate army (Jones, Robertson) or were raiding toward Chambersburg several days ahead of the main force (Jenkins).
 * So far, sources give a range for the Union force but a number somewhere in the vicinity of 12,300 may turn out to be the best figure that can be discerned from the sources. I am working on one or two other projects with deadlines so it may take several days at least for me to gather up all the estimates from primary sources and modern historians and come to what I think will be the best way to describe this in the infobox and possible footnote. I don't want to say that looking at these one or two sources support a number without looking at most or all of the ones I have or can easily find - since I am already sure they will differ. I also may not be able to do all the research for a week or so.
 * There are a few sources that I don't have or to which I don't have access. With only an exception or two that I would like to have, I should have enough to come to a good number or reasonable range. We may need another footnote about how sources differ for this number also. Of course, if someone else can come up with a good figure from a reliable source or two before I finish, all the better. Donner60 (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)