Talk:First Battle of Bull Run/Archive 1

Dates?
Yes, it's the 21st. The 16-22 range includes the pre- and post-maneuvering, which a longer article would presumably explain. Stan 07:50 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

don't move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 10:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming Convention

 * First Battle of Bull Run → First Battle of Manassas = Rationale: Southern naming conventions for battles. Because Manassas is in Southern territory and a Southern victory, it should be formally refered to by its local name. - Please share your opinion at Talk:First Battle of Bull Run Maior 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although we usually adopt the NPS battlefield names, there are exceptions. In this case, we have selected the name that has the widest popular usage, which is generally more important to Wikipedia readers than strict adherence to a rule of thumb. Hal Jespersen 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As long as the article explains that battles were named in different ways by the Union and by the Confederacy, I see no need to change it. Besides, I assume there are some people who know the battle as Bull Run, so if you were to change the title of the article to Manassas, those people might see a problem with the name of the article then, like you did now. Also, I agree with Hlj above. J. Finkelstein 01:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, "Bull Run" is much more common.
 * Oppose, that would be preferential to the losing nation. 132.205.45.148 17:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most common name. Septentrionalis 05:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- keep the common name. Thumbelina 23:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - most common--Aldux 16:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that the naming convention for battles was the opposite of the convention described in this article, i.e. that the Confederacy named battles after natural features and bodies of water, while the Union named battles after towns and cities. However, finding a good answer to this question on the Web is harder than it should be.


 * No. In general, where there are alternate names for battles, the Confederacy tended to use the name of the nearest town, and the Federals tended to use natural features such as streams.  Thus, the two battles near Manassas Junction were known by the name of Manassas in the South and by Bull Run in the North.  Another prominent example is the Battle of Antietam, which is so named in the North, but in the South was known by the name Sharpsburg.  The National Park Service, which administers numerous Civil War battle sites, typically follows the convention of naming the battlefield parks it operates by the name that the victorious side in a battle used.  (E.g., Manassas National Battlefield Park is the site of two Southern victories, the First and Second Battles of Manassas.)RBrown 00:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

If the convention is to name a battle the way the victor made it why has the artical called this first battle of Bull Run

Bold textI don't know how to add a separate comment, but the formatting on this page needs to be changed. Instead of the handy war chart, only the encoding shows up.

Speculation
Although the Confederates would probably have won the war had they marched on Washington during the rout, they were too exhausted to follow through with a pursuit of the enemy.

Pure speculation with no historical basis, not encyclopedic material. Removed it.


 * Actually ... The Confederates did, Longstreet moves across Blackburn's Ford on July 21, but find the Union had massed at Centreville so broke off the engagement [per text of interpretive marker at Blackburn's Ford]. I do not care about the opinions of others on the civil war--i am a 14 year old girl attending jcms a middle school i am currently studing this war, i find this war to have been unnessassary and unreasonable...there seem to have been to many lives lost for a rediculas reason i do beleive the cause was good but it should have been handled in a different way

Question, please
Wasn't the flight of Union soldiers and spectators referred to as "The Great Skedaddle"? I have searched the Internet for corroboration or at least info elsewhere with no success. Or am I confusing it with something else. (If so, please feel free to [SNIP] this comment.) 85.97.177.67 14:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

''   Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I'm new to this. I happen to know for a fact that "The Great Skedaddle" occured during World War II. That was when the entire Russian government fled Moscow to go beyond the boyars (swamps east of Moscow). It's even rumored that Stalin himself fled, but had all those with knowledge of the incident shot.''


 * There were a number of events in the Civil War nicknamed the Great Skedaddle, most notably Banks' rout in the Shenandoah Valley in May 1862. Several northern newspapers first used this term for McDowell's army's hasty retirement from Bull Run. The term also appears in some regimental histories (for example, 7th Virginia). Scott Mingus 17:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I grew up in northern Virginia along Rte. 29 (Lee Highway--it runs right through Manassas and was the route the spectators took when they fled) and have heard the Great Skedaddle mentioned many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.110.85 (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Photos
Does anyone know where Cub Run stream was photographed?

Also, I live 5 minutes away, and would be happy to take some photos of Bull Run Battlefield for the article.

Zidel333 02:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know and the Library of Congress entry doesn't say more than "Cub Run, Va." Photos of the modern battlefield would be appreciated in the Manassas National Battlefield Park article. Hal Jespersen 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I will take some hopefully in the next couple of weeks. All depends on weather, and time. :)


 * Zidel333 02:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look on the 2nd map, Cub run is just a little south from henry house hill, in between the the creek that splits out like a sideways Y, the photo was taken there, I would know because I have been there before, and the photo was very similar to what I saw there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.105.211 (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Stonewall Jackson
''"The Enemy are beating us back," Bee is reported to have told Jackson, who replied, "Then Sir, we shall give them the bayonet!" Inspired by the cool-headed Jackson, Bee returned to his men and shouted, "There stands Jackson like a stone wall! Rally behind the Virginians! " The immortal "Stonewall" Jackson had been born.''

Jackson's name in a college text I studied for my major stated that his name derived from General Benard Bee from S. Carolina shouting to Thomas Jackson for assistance from Jackson and his troops during the battle. Jackson either did not hear or choose not to respond to Bee, which caused the frustrated Bee to shout out "There stands Jackson-- Like a damned stone wall!".

I edited the previous version out and inserted mine, citing a source... If the original author can provide a source for his version of the legend that'd be great, I'd be interested to know if there is a definite origin. Bob the Joker 06:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The history textbook you refer to is espousing a point of view that is definitely in the minority of civil war historians. I have updated this article and the Jackson biography article with citations from more secondary sources that are focused on the Civil War. (I could find quite a number of others, but these should suffice.) You may find it difficult to get a hold of the Freeman reference in its original three volume version, but it should be available in a good library. I do not happen to have a copy of the abridged, one volume version, to know whether this appendix appears. I would tend to doubt it. Hal Jespersen 02:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the article to what it is now cause of vandalism. I really wish I know how to ban the IP of these guys. ParallelPain 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Background
This doesn't seem like the right way to write a Wikipedia article - " "Attack!" A battle cry arose from the depths of the forest and Brianville troops came sprinting through the woods. Large bursts of cannon fire swept through the battlefield and Brianville troops owned every enemy. That is all you need to know!" Should these sentences get deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.139.137 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 21 May 2007

Page protection
This article is vandalised several times a day. Has anyone considered page protection for this article? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I requested page protection since no one responded. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. This article seems to be vandalized every few days. For the time being, semi-protection (so that only logged in users can edit the content) is probably a good idea for it. --Ladislaus (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to page protection this article hasn't been vandalised in over a week. Thanks! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but that prevents good information from non-users, such as I, from adding to the article. I would like to add a picture of the actual railroad that they fought over (from my vacation listed above) but cannot add it because I do not have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.105.211 (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to create an account. Unfortunetly this article was being vandalised several times a day. It had to stop and so this page was protected. I apoligize for the inconvenience as I would really be interested in seeing the picture. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

7 November 2008
I moved this from the page to here:


 * Japanese Involvement


 * Although still widely debated, many historians agree that Japan sent troops to aide the Confederate Army during the First Battle of Bull Run. It was said that the Emperor of Japan and Confederate President Jefferson Davis both had a great dislike for African-Americans and the continuation of slavery in the south profited not only the Gross Domestic Product of the South, but also influenced shipping imports, especially in Kyoto. Emperor Kōmei sent his 55th regiment, also referred to as the カタ片仮カナ名, which is Japanese for "Clan Impossible." Historian James McPherson wrote the book: Sushi & the Slaves about this event. Of the 320 troops sent over, 45 were killed and 120 wounded.

Well written but as far as I can make out rubbish. Thoughts? Kresock (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this is a hoax. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 12:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Maps
Does anyone have a better map, I am trying to find where cub run creek is on the map, and it is not labled, if you can, get a better, more detailed map.

Try my Website: [http://www.aj00200.htmlplanet.com/civilwar/bullrun1.htm Bull Run Map

--AJ00200 (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)]

Misattributed quote in wikipedia article
In the wikipedia article appears the following:

McDowell, however, was concerned about the untried nature of his army. He was reassured by Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott, general-in-chief of the U.S. Army, "You are green, it is true, but they are green also; you are all green alike."

The source for this is listed as:

Davis, William C., and the Editors of Time-Life Books, First Blood: Fort Sumter to Bull Run, Time-Life Books, 1983, ISBN 0-8094-4704-5, pg. 10.

It is my understanding, however, that the quote in question is in reality Lincoln's.

My source:

Williams, T. Harry, Lincoln and his Generals, Gramercy, 1952, ISBN 0-5171-6237-7, pg. 21.

Jflan17 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe Jflan17 is correct. Checking four sources at hand, three attribute the quote to Lincoln. Three cites for:

http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/lincoln/section9.rhtml

McPherson, James M., Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, 1988, pg. 336. http://books.google.com/books?id=a3nX48n4oeIC&pg=PA348-IA4&lpg=PA348-IA4&dq=You+are+green,+it+is+true,+but+they+are+green+also%3B+you+are+all+green+alike&source=bl&ots=LxEH8Quue0&sig=Fr-W1oQzGTw20o88isIYUPC3R_8&hl=en&ei=uESnSbjdOIyPnge4p6jaDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA348-IA3,M1

Eicher, David J., The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War, 2001, pg. 79. http://books.google.com/books?id=1p94XzYASDAC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=You+are+green,+it+is+true,+but+they+are+green+also%3B+you+are+all+green+alike&source=bl&ots=_jeHARZRke&sig=HnI9m_AbHNaCtLWMHUrIlom5nUI&hl=en&ei=uESnSbjdOIyPnge4p6jaDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA78,M1

A 1904 publication attributes the quote to the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. http://books.google.com/books?id=qRePJCsdciAC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=You+are+green,+it+is+true,+but+they+are+green+also%3B+you+are+all+green+alike&source=bl&ots=ucw2FQniz5&sig=iv8R2qAor-zhC1sSc5CjqNYXjO0&hl=en&ei=uESnSbjdOIyPnge4p6jaDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA244,M1

I believe a preponderance of the evidence points to Lincoln making the statement and will change the article to reflect that fact without objection.

Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo
"near Manassas Junction. McDowell's ambitious plan for a surprise flank attack against the Confederate left was not well executed by his E. Johnston]]" Typo or vandalism - either way the sentence makes no sense. 66.234.33.7 (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The latter. Fixed. Thanks for finding. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Demonstration attacks"
"He ordered demonstration attacks north..." What is a demonstration attack? 66.234.33.7 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 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. "1. An attack or show of force on a front where a decision is not sought, made with the aim of deceiving the enemy." Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A more direct link: https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Demonstration_(military) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

File:First Manassas map2.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:First Manassas map2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 21, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-07-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Judith Henry House
I altered the caption on the Judith Henry House photo, the house in the park is not actually a restoration of her house, but a different post war construction on the same site. The Park Service signage at the house is very clear on this point.Nfgusedautoparts (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the 11th picture in this set on the civil war trust site is a well known sketch what the Henry House looked like after the battle; it is clearly different from the building on that site today: |First Manassas Photos Nfgusedautoparts (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Title
[moving new comments to the bottom of the page, per custom]

Battle of Manassas is a more common name than Bull Run I believe the title should be switched accordingly.

Government website is in agreement: http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/va005.htm

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.243.200 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a Texan, so I tend to favor Manassas, but I do believe that Bull Run is more common - also, victors get to write the history, and Bull Run is the Union name for the battle. I'll still call it Manassas myself, but I think it is propert to keep the Wikipedia article name as Bull Run. 69.15.156.226 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This subject has been discussed many times in the last seven years and the consensus has been that the general reader will be more familiar with the name Bull Run than Manassas. (I am a Civil War buff myself and am perfectly comfortable saying First Manassas with my roundtable buddies, but I am not exactly the target audience for this article.) I recently noticed that James McPherson, in his Battle Cry of Freedom, gets around this naming dichotomy by using both names interchangeably. He notes that there are some prominent battles (Shiloh and Antietam, for instance) in which one side's name is used overwhelmingly today, but that both Bull Run and Manassas are equally valid. For the title of the article, of course, we could not play that same trick. However, we do give prominent notice to the alternative name in the introductory sentence and in the information box. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

SOme Comment Hello, my wife and I have been visiting in Manassas on vacation this weekend to see all the activities for the sesquicentennial remembrance of the war. There is nothing around here at all that says anything about the battle of "Bull Run". And when I went to read up on this battle here on wiki, I did not realize at first that the page was misnamed because it went right to the page at first. I don't know what mafia is forcing this page to retain the incorrect name, but I hope you all see fit to quit your bad business. I've seen this same thing on a few other pages on the Civil War, where there is incorrect information, and you can tell that people are hovering over the pages and forcing their edits into the pages. That is such a bad problem with Wiki. This page, and its title of Bull Run is poster child for everything that is bad about Wikipedia. I hope you all are satisfied. Jay M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.161.18 (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, we use the most common name. In the corpus of english language publications, the most common name is Battle of Bull Run. Please see the comparisons. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  18:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * please see http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=First+Bull+Run%2CFirst+Manassas%2C1st+Bull+Run%2C1st+Manassas%2CBattle+of+First+Manassas%2CBattle+of+First+Bull+Run&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3&share= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywebster (talk • contribs) 09:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The information by Berean Hunter is irrelevant. Wikipedia is striving to be more respected in academic circles. It doesn't really matter what most frequently appears in this book or that book; the relevant question is what Civil War Academic Historians call the battles and what "rule" is used to determine the correct nomenclature. These battles are "First Manassas" and "Second Manassas" because of a neutral objective process determined many decades ago by academia. To continue calling this "Bull Run" in the title of the article makes Wikipedia laughable, and make it appear that the article is being controlled by those with an agenda. 76.25.0.95 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but WP:COMMONNAME is our policy and it isn't negotiable. You have also offered no proof to back up your assertions. ⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  15:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would refer the commenter to five paragraphs earlier in this discussion, where I identify Prof. James McPherson (winner of the Pulitzer Prize for history with his Battle Cry of Freedom) as using Bull Run and Manassas interchangeably because he says that one is not superior to the other. Dr. McPherson is a gold standard academic and I can provide other academic references that use the more popular name. If we were having this discussion in the 1930s, you could cite Douglas Southall Freeman as the predominant academic historian, and we would probably have named the article differently back then. But times change. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I am more familiar with other pages where such a change to match standards is accepted.  It appears that you guys who have obtained control of the page have an agenda/bias behind your desire to name the battles as you do.  I am not sure if it is even woth the effort to have you follow correct nomenclature standards, but let me try to provide some support from academic sources.  I would like to appeal to your sense of trying to be accurate and follow academic standards rather than your own bias.  The National Park Service uses the name Manassas (http://www.nps.gov/mana/index.htm).  The American Battlefields Protection Program (ABPP) which is a government program calls in Manassas  (http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/va005.htm).  Shelby Foote, in his massive multi volume history, uses Manassas as its primary name both in the title of one of the volumes (http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Narrative-Manassas-Perryville/dp/0307290255) and in the text (can be found in the text of the same book).  Foote also referred to it as Manassas in his interviews in Burns five-part PBS mini-series.   James McPherson (one of two historians accepted as the leading historian) primarily calls it Manassas in the Pulitzer Prize winning "The Battle Cry of Freedom". (James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, 1988).  The other historian often called the "leading civil war historians", Bruce Catton, uses Manassas as the primary name (although he tries to go back and forth based on the context of the content) of the battle in his massive three volume history. (Catton, Bill Catton's Civil War, 1951-1953).  Ken Burns uses "Manassas" as the primary name in the Five Part miniseries (PBS, The Civil War, 1990).  He uses Manasas as the title for the Chapter/Segment about the battle.  the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (charged with protecting battlefields) uses Manassas as the primary name (http://www.manassasbullrun.com/index.cfm).  Prince William County refers to it as Manassas (http://www.manassasbullrun.com/index.cfm) for popular usage for visitors.  The convention of having the "winner" name the battle is not new to the Civil War.  This is the convention used in all military history.  (As a convention, it has some exceptions such as Gettysburg).  I feel compelled to say this because so many people think it is some sort of "south will rise again" sentiment behind trying to get the names correct.  One example from history is The Battle of Waterloo.  It is known as such because this is the name used by the victors (Seventh Coalition).  The French had a different name.  Historians and Heritage Preservationists have spent decades on this topic in order to help resolve the difficulties in trying to teach Civil War history.  The people running this page seem to have their own agenda or a bias toward what they heard the battle called when they first learned about Civil War history. and don't care about all of that past work and the problems that that work solved. (Tneely) I hope my sinature shows up. Tim Neely 20:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tneely (talk • contribs)

You are incorrect about James McPherson (winner of the Pulitzer Prize for history with his Battle Cry of Freedom). Although McPherson uses "Bull Run" as the Title on his "Disposition of Forces" diagram, the text reads to me that Manassas is the correct name. Why has Wikipedia given control of this document to someone who wants to throw out the agreement on nomenclature that has been hammered out over decades. I hate to use a "loaded phrase", but you appear to be enforcing a politically correct attempt to make sure that everything "southern" is removed from Civil War history. Another reason for the naming convention is that it helps to teach the history. With the exception of Gettysburg (where everyone knows the winner, the naming convention makes it easy to immediately know who the winner was (because the north tended to use geoography and the south cities or towns. This was part of the reason for the acceptance of the convention. Why are you being so stubborn on using the correct name? It really makes you look agenda-driven. And by the way I live in Colorado - not the south  Tim Neely 20:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tneely (talk • contribs)


 * For McPherson's view on battle naming, see Battle Cry of Freedom, page 346, footnote 7, in which he states "neither name has any intrinsic superiority over the other, so the names are used interchangeably." Otherwise, you are not offering us any new information. We know what the National Park Service and some Virginia politicians and tourist organizations call the battle. Bruce Catton wrote over 50 years ago, so is not an example of modern usage. (His very popular book for American Heritage uses the name Bull Run, by the way.) Shelby Foote, hardly an academic writer (which I mention because you claim we should try to comply with academic standards), widely acknowledged his sympathy for the southern view of the war. If you look at the References/Further reading sections for this article, you will see that Ted Ballard, William C. Davis, Bradley M. Gottfried, David Detzer, and Alan Hankinson wrote book-length studies of the battle and all use Bull Run in their titles. Ethan Rafuse's article in the Encyclopedia of the American Civil Waris named First Battle of Bull Run. The only holdout in this list of titles is by James Longstreet. In the External links, the Civil War Trust, the Animated History guys, and even P.G.T. Beauregard call it Bull Run. So Wikipedia is not some rogue outlier on this issue. The notion that the victors of an individual battle get to name it seems rather anecdotal rather than prescriptive. It is usually more common for the victors of the war to do so. The (multiple) people replying to your complaint do not "own" the article, but we have been around a long time and have witnessed numerous conversations on this issue. The consensus remains that, given Wikipedia's policy on using the common name for a subject, Bull Run is the most common name in current usage for the general public. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I should not have wasted my time. Clearly you have a bias (no place in history) where you do not want to use the correct primary name.  If you want to use "popular usage" as the primary guide, then let's look at the PBS Series which is where most of the modern "general" population gained interest and knowledge of the Civil War.  Manassas is the name used as the primary name.  In Jeff Sharra's works (another "general" example), he correctly has each speaker use the name according to who they are, but uses "manassas" when referring to it generically.  I am sure you will have some argument using new and different reasoning order to make sure your bias away from the practice of using the name used by the winner of the battle. I am shocked that you would somehow denegrate Shelby Foote's opinion.  He talked about a "supposed" bias because he had some ancestors in the war.  He never said that any of his history contained any slant.  His writings are one of many excellent sources.  Civil War history is incredibly important - bias should be left out.  It is a shame that Wikipedia's page is being controlled by those with an agenda other than merely presenting the history.  Tim Neely 18:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tneely (talk • contribs)

There is no "consensus" that "Bull Run" should be used. You are merely using strong arm tactics to keep the title as it is. Wikipedia guidelins tell users to be bold and make edits. That is all I was doing when I changed the Title to its correct Name "First Manassas". I will contiune to do so as you do not own the page. Tim Neely 17:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * i was browsing when i stumbled across the first manassas page and fixed it and the second manassas page (i did not bother looking at :the talk page because i thought it was a small mistake
 * yet within a hour it was changed back by a man citing incorrect sources so i correct the page again and provided him with more accurate sources
 * about 6 hours latter my corrections had been reverted and i was threatened with a ban

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't supply sources here. You are being instructed to stop reverting and to discuss otherwise you could be blocked for edit-warring. So what are your sources for this article?


 * i have already supplied sources but i will do it again http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Second+Bull+Run%2CSecond+Manassas%2C2nd+Bull+Run%2C2nd+Manassas%2CBattle+of+Second+Manassas%2CBattle+of+Second+Bull+Run%2CSecond+Battle+of+Manassas%2CSecond+Battle+of+Bull+Run&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3&share=


 * http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=First+Bull+Run%2CFirst+Manassas%2C1st+Bull+Run%2C1st+Manassas%2CBattle+of+First+Manassas%2CBattle+of+First+Bull+Run%2CFirst+Battle+of+Manassas%2CFirst+Battle+of+Bull+Run&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3&share=


 * just because you think consensus has been reach does not mean it has
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
 * please change the name to battle of manassas because that is its common name
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names
 * Georgeapg (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

When you consider the universe of newspapers, magazines, TV, movies, educational materials, web pages, and books, I don't think a search through Google Books can be considered a definitive look at how popular culture refers to something. There is quite a lot of discussion in this Talk page that addresses the issue. Please read it. This article has been named this way over ten years, I think, and no one has offered a compelling reason to change it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * first i only used Google Books because Berean Hunter's only source of proof is from google books research
 * second the almost unanimous consensus is that the name should be manassas
 * third compelling proof has been offered time and time again. all this proof has been ignored
 * forth to name that the govorment useis is manassas
 * all momorials use manassaa
 * most civil war experts use manassas
 * and as i have shown the common name known to the masses is manassas

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on First Battle of Bull Run. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160309192511/http://deadconfederates.com/tag/black-confederates/ to http://deadconfederates.com/tag/black-confederates/
 * Added tag to http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/american_civil_war/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on First Battle of Bull Run. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509094034/http://www.rugreview.com/cw/cwcu.htm to http://www.rugreview.com/cw/cwcu.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829111849/http://www.rugreview.com/cw/cwcc.htm to http://www.rugreview.com/cw/cwcc.htm
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20110505035551/http://www.manassascivilwar.org/home.aspx to http://www.manassascivilwar.org/home.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214152758/http://www.history.army.mil/StaffRide/1st%20Bull%20Run/Contents.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/StaffRide/1st%20Bull%20Run/Contents.htm
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20110505035551/http://www.manassascivilwar.org/home.aspx to http://www.manassascivilwar.org/home.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox removal
I don't need consensus a priori, all I need is WP:BOLD. To further define "unnecessary", it was removed for being a duplicate of the Manassas National Battlefield Park infobox; the article is already linked prominently in the same section. --Izno (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I owe an apology: I reverted because of a lack of attention to detail as to which infobox was being removed. I caught the mistake earlier and intended to self-revert, but a private life emergency intervened. I have now restored your change--sorry for the mix-up. I hope the context of the error explains why I was speaking about a need for consensus; I thought it was a much more significant change than it in fact was. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 07:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Works for me! --Izno (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a very disturbing trend now to remove info boxes from articles across many articles on Wikipedia. I probably would have made the same mistake if I saw the original edit.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  15:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That was indeed where my mind went first: the infamous "infobox battles" that were the subject of an ArbCom case years back and which have never really gone away entirely. There are some editors (small in number but vocal in their belief) who feel that all infoboxes are an aesthetic detriment to any article (regardless of community consensus about their utility), and have set about removing them wherever they can (from articles relating to history in particular), often lead infoboxes and generally without prior discussion. That said, my revert in this case was still hasty and sloppy--I should have reviewed the removed content in greater detail--so I appreciate Izno's understanding about the matter. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 02:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well you're not the first person who has ever made an inadvertent revert and you won't be the last. Error on the side of caution is what I always say. No major harm came of it and in fact the BRD process worked perfectly well in this case. It's good to see that I'm not the only one who has noticed the infobox removal trend.-- JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  14:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not one of those few removing infoboxes and generally oppose those actions where I am inclined to participate. The clique which removes them is pretty toxic on the point (and at least one editor is toxic in general) and the last ARBCOM request on the matter really should have gone to a full case and subsequent sanctions rather than the "not ripe" decline, given that it would have been the second case. --Izno (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Questions
These battle articles are always LONG on tactical detail & short on logistics. I have some questions:


 * Is there a good source for where prisoners from both sides were sent after this [& other] battles?
 * How were soldiers organized in the confusion after major battles like this one? Some units must have been combined when leaders or large numbers of soldiers were killed? Were records kept for individual [live] soldiers or just units?
 * Where did the surviving units go after the battle? Were they split up & sent separate ways, or kept together as an army?
 * Presumably, clean-up crews gathered identifiers from the bodies [dog-tags?] to report fatalities?
 * At what point were the bounty jumpers leaving their units, & how did they manage to escape? Since there was initially no conscription, how were these deserters identified & captured, as they often were?

Maybe a separate article on "Civil War Battle Logistics" would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeliff (talk • contribs) 08:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (On Wikipedia talk pages, new comments typically go at the bottom of the page.) Your comment about battle articles being short on logistics is a correct observation, but the articles are based on secondary sources that generally have the same characteristic. (They sometimes talk about the logistical difficulties of bringing an army to the battlefield, but rarely about the aftermath, with the exception of Retreat from Gettysburg.) I have my doubts about whether a generic battle logistics article would be useful, but you are welcome to start one. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * re dogtags -- dog tags didn't exist in their modern form in the civil war. individual soldiers might purchase medallions that served the same purpose from vendors in the camps, but there was no organized identification system. as far as organization goes, new recruits went to new units, old units dwindled in size, and might become quite small before they eventually would be consolidated with other veteran units. Nfgusedautoparts (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no way to write a good article on this topic, because the vast majority of the content would be battle specific or horrifically generic (and therefore inaccurate). The answer to every question you pose is different for every battle. Although for Bull Run specifically


 * Union prisoners (captured by the South) were mostly sent to prisons and prison camps in and around Richmond, CSA prisoners to Washington (Washington at the time being much smaller and "further" from the battlefield than it is now
 * This depended on the battle, unit, casualties, and stage of the war. Early in the war the battalions were relatively large and most would simply be reinforced with new recruits. By the end of the war, some units were combined or broken up and used to reinforce other units. The Confederacy, however, would often just keep smaller units (and, indeed, didn't tend to fuss about regiment size even at the start of the war). In the immediate aftermath, and during the battle itself, units would sometimes be more ad-hoc temporarily, but after the battle would re-group in their brigades
 * After this battle, and most others, the bulk of each army stayed together unless separated or truly routed (rare)
 * Dog Tags weren't officially used until the First World War, and weren't truly widespread until the Second World War. In the Civil War, some soldiers would write their name/next of kin/hometown on paper or etch it into their belt buckle in the hopes of being sent home - but for the most part the bodies were collected and buried in war graves. Casualty counts were produced from the muster lists of the regiments involved.
 * Usually during or just after training, but there's no "rule" for this, they would leave when convenient. For some that meant slipping away almost as soon as they received the bounty, others waited for the cover of battle where they would not be noticed or would be counted among the dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audigex (talk • contribs) 11:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Not "decisive"
We'd need rather significant sourcing for this outcome to be listed as "decisive". Per WP:BURDEN the editor who keeps inserting the adjective must demonstrate that a preponderance of reliable sources agree that the outcome of this early fracas was decisive, that is, determined a final outcome. BusterD (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no strict academic definition of what a "decisive" battle is. But even if we ignore the fact Union casualties were significantly higher, the Confederate army being in control of the field after the battle, and the fact the Union Telegram stated McDowell was retreating, while the South's telegram to the capital was a clear one of victory, then the idea that the largest, most conclusive battle of a campaign which turned back an invasion of a country wasn't "decisive" seems to be one of those situations where the events speak for themselves. The South achieved their tactical and strategic objective, the Union absolutely failed to achieve theirs Audigex (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath conflict on facts
I'm currently reading a book, "The Civil War: A Narrative, Volume 1, Fort Sumter to Perryville". After this battle, the book says that many in the South believed that the war would soon be over, since they won this battle.

However, this wiki article says that "Both armies were sobered by the fierce fighting and many casualties, and realized the war was going to be much longer and bloodier than either had anticipated."

That is in conflict with what this book says. Any interest in adding to the page, stating that some in the South felt that with this victory, the war would soon be over? We can site the book I linked to for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdruid (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please be prepared to provide a page citation and perhaps a snippet of the text that Foote uses to express this opinion. I just reviewed the few pages about the aftermath of the battle and couldn't find it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Fact they won battle and lost the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Failure to Capture Washington
Would this be an appropriate place to discuss the Confederate's failure to capture Washington? The article notes that many in Washington feared a Confederate advance but says nothing more. The Ken Burns series quoted Lincoln as stating that he was puzzled that the Confederates did not take Washington. Purportedly Stonewall Jackson told Jefferson Davis, "Give me 5,000 men and I'll be in Washington tomorrow." I'm re-reading Davis' The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government now and in one chapter Davis defends himself by stating that many of the troops were exhausted for want of supplies, that his generals all told him that Washington was much better fortified than it actually was, and that it was not until after the war that he learned how defenseless the city really was. Emperor001 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sketch of slaves manning gun
The account of John Parker about being forced to fire an artillery piece at First Manassas cannot be verified as far as I am aware. Which Confederate artillery unit was this? Are there witness accounts which corroborate Parker’s account? Parker’s other claims about the battle are inaccurate; coupled with the fact that the Confederates did not need slaves as gunners here, this account is questionable enough that it does not warrant inclusion in this article. Spooky1864 (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Union Numbers Don't add up
The numbers given for the Army of NE Virginia in the Opposing Forces section do not add up. All the numbers for the other forces (Patterson's Command and the Confederates) do add up. I would think that either the numbers need to be corrected, or some explanation as to why they do not add up needs to be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5440:D60:719F:96E9:E6B5:F8DE (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

On this day
This article was excluded from an On This Day mention because of the Unreferenced tag on In popular culture. I hope someone can fix those for 21 July 2023! Sparafucil (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * shame :( 2001:8003:309A:7201:1136:CAE:9AF2:FD10 (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Map Legends
I'm not sure how to fix it, but I think that a few of the maps on this page mistakenly say "1000km" in the scale bar, when they should likely say either "1000m" or "1km". That's about the extent of my ability to help here. 70.55.17.197 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * seeing this on File:First Bull Run (Manassas) July 21 1300.png and File:First Bull Run (Manassas) July 21 1600.png. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency regarding the participation of the Army of the Shenandoah
In the "Opposing Forces" section, we are told: "Johnston's army arrived too late to participate in the battle, and did not see any major action."

That seems inconsistent with many other claims in the article, such as this from the Aftermath: Brief observations section: "Johnston's decision to transport his infantry to the battlefield by rail played a major role in the Confederate victory. Although the trains were slow and a lack of sufficient cars did not allow the transport of large numbers of troops at one time, almost all of his army arrived in time to participate in the battle."

JBritnell (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch, the sentence had been inserted without any sourcing or support within the article, as it is obviously incorrect. Have accordingly removed it. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)