This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Gettysburg, second day article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Anderson's assault was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 January 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Battle of Gettysburg, second day. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | Crawford's charge was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 January 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Battle of Gettysburg, second day. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | McLaws' Assault was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 January 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Battle of Gettysburg, second day. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
|
-- 198.254.16.201 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the October 26 edits to this section. There is an entire article on Little Round Top and this section is deliberately short in deference to that. The place for speculation on the historic importance of the Union position needs to be discussed there, merged appropriately with military historians' views that do not comport with Oakes' self-interested judgments. (In my experience, very few serious military types believe that the loss of LRT would have been for long, and even if it had, the Army of the Potomac had a number of alternative defensive options they could have exercised.) Hal Jespersen 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have made some modifications to the casualty section in response to a recent edit. It is not possible to say in a Wikipedia article "some estimates are as high as..." We need to have those estimates cited. I do not happen to have references that show casualties as high as 20,000 in July 2. Part of the problem with the way this article was originally written was that it limited itself to actions on the Confederate right, so the figures from Pfanz addressed only those casualties. I added a reference from Trudeau for the entire day, but it is still only 16,800, not 20,000. Sears does not provide a full day's estimate. (These numbers are difficult because actions on Culp's Hill in particular occurred on both July 2 and July 3, and there are not reliable figures for the casualty breakdown in the units over those two days.) If someone has better references, let me know, but note that I am trying to use all published material for references, not random websites. I would also be interested to hear opinions about whether the comparison to Antietam makes a lot of sense considering that the second day casualty figures here are not dramatically larger than the first day's. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
According to the Chicago Manual of Style, both styles of possessive forms are correct..but more sources pontificate for leaving the s off. See this for reference. Is there something else in Wikipedia that serves as a precedent? Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I raise a question about the casualty figures given in the article for the 1st Minnesota during its charge. The article states that "based on new research" it has been determined that the regiment suffered "only" 67.9% casualties, rather than the 82% ususally reported. From the context, however, the 67.9% casualty figure seems to be the percentage for the regiment during the entire battle, not just for its charge on day two. The 1st Minnesota did not charge with all of its companies - some companies (which would later be present during Pickett's charge) were detached from the regiment at the time of its charge. I wonder, therefore, if the 67.9% figure is incorrect for the charge alone. In other words, I question whether the 67.9% figure represents the casualties the unit suffered from the charge, or from the entire battle. I also wonder if the claim that 330 Minnesotans charged, rather than the "262 effectives" usually reported, is incorrect, and is simply the total number of men the 1st Minnesota had at the battle, including the detached companies. Perhaps someone could shed some light on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundsquirrel13 ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
These may have to be reexamined. The article notes that there were approx 6,800 2nd day casualties and 6,000 1st day casualties among the confederates. This makes 12,800 which means to reach the 23,200 casualties for the total battle Pickett's Charge would have had to have suffered nearly 85% casualties which we know isn't accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.15.217 ( talk) 15:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
On the map titled "Confederates sieze the wheatfield" a regiment in Sweitzer's brigade is mislabeled: 32PA should be 32MA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.137.165 ( talk) 00:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
First day has a link to the second day, but second day doesn't have a link to third day.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Gettysburg, second day article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Anderson's assault was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 January 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Battle of Gettysburg, second day. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | Crawford's charge was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 January 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Battle of Gettysburg, second day. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | McLaws' Assault was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 January 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Battle of Gettysburg, second day. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
|
-- 198.254.16.201 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the October 26 edits to this section. There is an entire article on Little Round Top and this section is deliberately short in deference to that. The place for speculation on the historic importance of the Union position needs to be discussed there, merged appropriately with military historians' views that do not comport with Oakes' self-interested judgments. (In my experience, very few serious military types believe that the loss of LRT would have been for long, and even if it had, the Army of the Potomac had a number of alternative defensive options they could have exercised.) Hal Jespersen 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have made some modifications to the casualty section in response to a recent edit. It is not possible to say in a Wikipedia article "some estimates are as high as..." We need to have those estimates cited. I do not happen to have references that show casualties as high as 20,000 in July 2. Part of the problem with the way this article was originally written was that it limited itself to actions on the Confederate right, so the figures from Pfanz addressed only those casualties. I added a reference from Trudeau for the entire day, but it is still only 16,800, not 20,000. Sears does not provide a full day's estimate. (These numbers are difficult because actions on Culp's Hill in particular occurred on both July 2 and July 3, and there are not reliable figures for the casualty breakdown in the units over those two days.) If someone has better references, let me know, but note that I am trying to use all published material for references, not random websites. I would also be interested to hear opinions about whether the comparison to Antietam makes a lot of sense considering that the second day casualty figures here are not dramatically larger than the first day's. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
According to the Chicago Manual of Style, both styles of possessive forms are correct..but more sources pontificate for leaving the s off. See this for reference. Is there something else in Wikipedia that serves as a precedent? Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I raise a question about the casualty figures given in the article for the 1st Minnesota during its charge. The article states that "based on new research" it has been determined that the regiment suffered "only" 67.9% casualties, rather than the 82% ususally reported. From the context, however, the 67.9% casualty figure seems to be the percentage for the regiment during the entire battle, not just for its charge on day two. The 1st Minnesota did not charge with all of its companies - some companies (which would later be present during Pickett's charge) were detached from the regiment at the time of its charge. I wonder, therefore, if the 67.9% figure is incorrect for the charge alone. In other words, I question whether the 67.9% figure represents the casualties the unit suffered from the charge, or from the entire battle. I also wonder if the claim that 330 Minnesotans charged, rather than the "262 effectives" usually reported, is incorrect, and is simply the total number of men the 1st Minnesota had at the battle, including the detached companies. Perhaps someone could shed some light on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundsquirrel13 ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
These may have to be reexamined. The article notes that there were approx 6,800 2nd day casualties and 6,000 1st day casualties among the confederates. This makes 12,800 which means to reach the 23,200 casualties for the total battle Pickett's Charge would have had to have suffered nearly 85% casualties which we know isn't accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.15.217 ( talk) 15:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
On the map titled "Confederates sieze the wheatfield" a regiment in Sweitzer's brigade is mislabeled: 32PA should be 32MA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.137.165 ( talk) 00:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
First day has a link to the second day, but second day doesn't have a link to third day.