Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Fort Walker


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Walker

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article appears to be a hoax. Neither I nor anyone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History can find evidence that the engagement as described in the article took place. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Although there are 23,500 Google hits for it... Dybeck (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I went through the first few pages of the Google hits. They are either wikipedia mirrors or refer to a different Fort Walker -- see Battle of Port Royal.  The article in question refers to a battle in Virginia and claims the battle was called The Battle of Fort Walker.  Since no secondary source (or primary source for that matter) has been shown to contain this name, then the article should be deleted unless such information is produced.
 * I have invited the originator of the article to participate in this discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * PS The sole footnote in the article is for this source . It notes that, "The closest fighting to this part of the Confederate line [referring to the Virginia Fort Walker] occurred on June 22 (Battle of Jerusalem Plank Road) and August 19, 1864 (Battle of Weldon Railroad)." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's not a hoax, then the talk page of the article would suggest that it's a violation of WP:ORIGINAL. The author (or someone else) should try to provide secondary sources. If this can't be done, then it's probably OK to delete. Dybeck (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this:
 * Delete - I've spent quite a few hours research the material on this. As noted above the historical marker states the fighting never came to it. Though I'll rehash the notes as follows. The letter comes from Captain A. R. Arter of the 143rd Ohio, Company C. From my exhaustive search. So the individual is real. The Letter
 * Is from June 19th.
 * States Fort Walker by name.
 * Accounts losses and attributes to unnamed USCT
 * Also mentions 'Fort Stephens' closest I found was Battle of Fort Stephens
 * 1) Battery 35 became Fort Walker when the Army of Northern Virginia arrived no earlier than June 18th. Text from Historical Marker.  Lee and the army arrived on the 18th.  Meaning Battery 35 would have to be named 'Fort Walker' prior to the battle. Fort Walker was a confederate name, and Arter was from the 143rd Ohio, not sure how likely a name change would go over so quick on a 'fallen' fort.
 * 2) The capture of 'Battery 35/Fort Walker' is historically absent and thus disputed by records from the historical marker which states, "The batteries faced south toward a U.S. Army position two miles away, out of effective artillery range. The closest fighting to this part of the Confederate line occurred on June 22 (Battle of Jerusalem Plank Road) and August 19, 1864 (Battle of Weldon Railroad)."
 * Capture Battery 8 and Battery 9 here on June 15th 1864, but no Battery 35 or Fort Walker.
 * No mention in this Google Ebook (public domain)
 * Or here From Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Volume IV, 1888.
 * And yet another" In the Trenches at Petersburg:Field Fortifications & Confederate Defeat

Basically the accounts are Battery 8 and 9 fell to the colored troops, but Battery 35 (later named Fort Walker after the Army of Northern Virginia arrived) did not fall to USCT on June 15th 1864. Which gives question to the second fort mentioned in the letter, "Fort Stephens the inside fort was taking the next evening. the gun boats and heavy seize guns plaid on it all day keeping up one continual volley along in the afternoon. The fort was silenced at which time the negros went over and took possession as they did the other which they now hold. " Either way, the description doesn't match the records. Also according to the map and information contained within here,, the USCT were miles away from Wilcox lake and Battery 35 and would be many miles opposite of where Arter and the USCT rallied on the southern side of Petersburg.

Next I'll get into the accounts of the death. The two letters in the article state 'hundreds' of confederate troops being slaughtered. If this was true then surely Fort Walker or Battery 35 would be recorded. Battery 8 and Battery 9 are recorded. And a virtual tour relates the situation. Referring to the 1st, 4th and 22nd USCT taking the battery in action against Battery 8-11 For the opposing forces in Battery 35 if it were true the forces would have been wiped out, but a letter from Battery 35 exists and is referenced here. The letter suggests the situation... quite simply that this (the real Battery 35/Fort Walker) was not taken on June 15th and refers to Battery 35 as it is, before Lee's showed up. Which essentially disproves Arter's 'Fort Walker' because men inside the battery would refer to it by name (such as a Fort) rather then 'Battery 35' and all historical records state the name was AFTER Lee showed up. Arter's places the name 'Fort Walker' before or a day after Lee showed up. IF... if Battery 35 was to have been taken then it would be as Roundshot mentions on the forum. Basically is doesn't add up even if we try hard to infer it.

The second letter 'I.P Farmer' seems to be Isaac P. Farmer of Company K. (Arter is listed as Captain of Company C in that resource as well) Seems to account for the events of Battery 8-9 with, "Men who were in the fight told me that they charged several times to the mouths of the cannon in a Rebel fort and had to fall back. At the fifth charge they carried the works. The fort was in plain view of where I stood and I watched the volumes of white smoke it belched forth all day. The last charge was made after dark and during the time the sides of the fort seemed to be a sheet of flame. In five minutes all was dark and silent." So this is probably not which was referred as the other accounts clearly put this as normal for the Dimmock line and not where the Battery 35 was.

Other records like this. From June 1864 tell the same story, attacks on the east, not the south. Though if this Battery 35/Fort Walker was taken it would account for 10%-25% of all causalities throughout the battle and according to official records taken. Also, the most damning piece of evidence is the official account from Colonel Joseph B. Kiddoo, Twenty-second U. S. Colored Troops, Second Brigade, of operations June 15. 

So to summarize, the letter from Arter is either gravely wrong about its assertions or he was attributing 'Fort Walker' to Battery 7-11. Also not so sure about Fort Stephens or the issue of gunboats. The piles of evidence simply show that what was attributed to Fort Walker/Battery 35 did not occur and that the only letter we have is either a fake, gravely misinformed or using a naming scheme unfamiliar and not carried by official reports from officers in the field. The other letter is primary source referring to the events of the day and does not refer to the fort or battery by name, so I am removing it. I have plenty more information, but I think I'm done beating the dead horse now. Arter's letter if true, is simply misinformed. This Battle of Fort Walker (as was the initial name of 'Retaliatory massacre' which I removed earlier'. Have never found a source for that, and which is why I believe it was probably a hoax contrived with either that letter or entirely a fake. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally and to clarify. Arter's company nor anyone from the 143rd ever incurred any combat deaths, they did not fight this battle, the account of the letter was purely second-hand from discussions with USCT troops post-battle, which leads even more to the issue of how false statements (names, death count) were reflected in said letter. The letter itself is not even a primary source, its a second-hand account of what Arter was told, and is contrary to official reports, records, information, battle lines, maps and troop movements from the day in question. The matter of Fort Stephens and gunboats as well... remain largely questionable which would have occurred June 16th 1864. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found no reference to this apparently significant battle in several major American Civil War sources. It needs proper sourcing before being allowed. Bermicourt (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not seem to exist in any major sources about the ACW (and one would reasonably expect that it would appear given the event). It would have to be totally reworked and properly documented if it were to remain. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – I don't think it's an outright hoax. However, I'd echo ChrisGualtieri that "the letter from Arter is either gravely wrong about its assertions or he was attributing 'Fort Walker' to Battery 7-11". I would say Battery 9 or 10 most likely. It appears the author of the Wikipedia article conflated the "Fort Walker" mentioned in the letter with Battery 35/Fort Walker several miles to the southwest. So, while I don't think it's a hoax, the article has erroneous information about the "wrong" Fort Walker and is lacking in detail about the actual location. Unless there's something more tangible to support the initial assertion (since removed) that it was known as the "Fort Pillow Retaliation Massacre", I don't think it's notable enough to keep. Mojoworker (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Other problems with that letter exist, namely the fact I cannot find the USCT making another 'fort' capture this one named 'Fort Stephens' on June 16th 1864 as the letter suggests. While I am not 100% certain of the letter's authenticity, I still think these are highly unusual errors for a captain to make as neither the account nor the specifics aline for numerous details. Though if was those batteries mentioned, his view would have also been obstructed. Though I have a letter from August 1864 which states the name of the battery as Battery 35 rather then Fort Walker. The only matter of 'Fort Walker' would be if a more recent individual forged the letter as the 'Fort Walker' name was not used until long after the date listed on the letter. Unless some pre-battle Union scheme attributed 'forts' those battery positions (without buildings no less), then I believe this is a concocted hoax. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ovious hoax. We do not want people to believe this junk. Flygon's friend- Smarter than the average bear! 00:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.