Valkyrie Red (talk | contribs) |
Berean Hunter (talk | contribs) →Other Languages: go away kid...you're bothering folks |
||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
Of course you'd say that cause it sides with you [[WP:Bias|biased]] statements.--[[User:Valkyrie Red|Valkyrie Red]] ([[User talk:Valkyrie Red|talk]]) 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC) |
Of course you'd say that cause it sides with you [[WP:Bias|biased]] statements.--[[User:Valkyrie Red|Valkyrie Red]] ([[User talk:Valkyrie Red|talk]]) 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Note the canvassing [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edward130603&diff=prev&oldid=361024514 here], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallie&diff=prev&oldid=360587810 here], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leobold1&diff=prev&oldid=360149773 here], [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Historical_Perspective&diff=prev&oldid=360149494 here]...probably more but no need to keep looking. I can't believe this pissant is still bothering the adults. A review of his contribs show that he is at best, trifling. His motivations which are completely incorrect can be seen [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktr101&diff=prev&oldid=360587582 here]. |
|||
:Either get a clue or get out. You are distracting the productive & constructive editors with your trifling. Talk about disruptive....<br>[[User:Berean Hunter|<font face="High Tower Text" size="2px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b></font>]] ([[User talk:Berean Hunter|<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>]]) 20:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:34, 9 May 2010
![]() | Battle of Gettysburg has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
'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 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)
Other Languages
Just like to point out that every single other language Wikipedia lists this battle as being decisive. Just saying.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- My points: (1) None of the foreign-language articles comes close to being as comprehensive as the English one (particularly considering that there are six major sub articles as well as lengthy overview articles about the campaign and the retreat); (2) Your methodology of determining what "every single" article says is pretty lax--the first one I checked, Deutsch, doesn't say decisive. (And I'm surprised you're even able to read "every single" article anyway.) Bluffing doesn't suit you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that you only looked at the Deutsch one and made an opinion rather than looking at every single-one before formulating your opinion. Also, insulting the other Wikipedia's doesn't suit your character very well.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- All it takes is one exception to prove that a claim regarding "every single" instance is incorrect--there is no need to check every instance. What's interesting is that I did not have to search long--the very first one I tried showed your claim to be incorrect. And no insult was offered to other Wikipedias--there is no reason to expect that their articles about a US battle would be as comprehensive as the US article. And the truth is easy to find. All of those articles are much shorter and have very small lists of references in comparison to the US version. Open one up and see for yourself. (I think the German version is probably the best, but my German is rusty.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course you'd say that cause it sides with you biased statements.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note the canvassing here, here, here, here...probably more but no need to keep looking. I can't believe this pissant is still bothering the adults. A review of his contribs show that he is at best, trifling. His motivations which are completely incorrect can be seen here.
- Either get a clue or get out. You are distracting the productive & constructive editors with your trifling. Talk about disruptive....
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)