Talk:Battle of Seven Pines

The Battle of Fair Oaks/Seven Pines
Most books refer to the battle as what is written above, because the battle was really two, one at Fair oaks, the other at seven pines. Also each side gave it a different name so it is a compromise.
 * Hm. The Library of Congress subject heading "Seven Pines, Battle of, Va., 1862" redirects to "Fair Oaks, Battle of, Va., 1862." so shouldn't the title of this article be "Battle of Fair Oaks" ?


 * The Library of Congress generally deals with names of books and images and does not play any definitive role in establishing how things are named. We are using the name acknowledged by the [| American Battlefield Protection Program], the effort by the National Park Service to classify battles and battlefields. To address the first question in this section, which I think is about five years old, yes, there were combat activities taking place in two separate locations, about a mile apart, but they are not considered two separate battles, any more than parts of the battle of Gettysburg are considered separate. The reason the two names are being bandied about here is that the Federal and Confederate soldiers tended to refer to the part of the battle they liked best. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition to the justification listed in the previous paragraph, note that in Wikipedia I do not believe there is any example of a Civil War battle that includes all of the multiple name choices in the title of the article. According to the NPS, the primary name for this battle is Seven Pines, but it is also known as Fair Oaks and Fair Oaks Station. We only acknowledge the first in the title. People referring to this article are free to use a link such as "Battle of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks)" if they want to use both names. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the outcome, these multiple attempts to move away from the name Battle of Seven Pines demonstrate the move to be controversial. Controversial moves should be listed at Requested moves for further discussion. BusterD (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Swap of images
I moved the Currier and Ives lithograph out of the infobox and replaced with the Waud engraving, which seems more authentic to me, especially since Waud was an eyewitness.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for McClellan malaria
Today a new editor twice blanked the sentence about McClellan being down with malaria during the event. The sentence was cited with Eicher, normally regarded as an authoritative source meeting RS standards for citation. If User:Wesn54 wants to make a case for "Bailey's history book" as an alternative or minority source this is the place to discuss it. On the merits, I have no opinion. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)