Talk:Army of the Potomac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Army of the Potomac article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Grant

Hello, and thanks for the interest in the infobox. I want to get some discussion going as to whether we should put Grant in the infobox as a "notable commander". The reason I originally included him was because he was de facto commander in 1864-1865, whether or not Meade still held the formal title. It seems like splitting hairs to exclude him on a technicality, and it reduces the utility of this encyclopedia. Maybe we could include him with an asterisk? Haber 14:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Although some people inaccurately credit Grant with command of the army, there is no reason for an encyclopedia to cater to this misinformation. Grant's relationship to Meade is covered in the text of the article and would require a footnote or some explanation in the infobox if his name were included, which I do not recommend. Hal Jespersen 14:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. My concern is that people who don't know a lot about the subject, and just read this article, might walk away with the impression that Meade was calling the shots in 1864-65. I also just made a change to the body of the article to include this information. The article is quite short anyway, and I think the whole Meade/Grant issue is probably one of the most interesting things about the Army of the Potomac. We have a good opportunity here to clear up any confusion caused by Lincoln's unusual promotion system. Haber 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons I don't use these info boxes (but insist that they are correct when they are used) is that they cater to people who are too lazy to read an article. Grant was never a commander of the Army of the Potomac. Period. The Army has no concept of a "de facto commander" and introducing that concept is confusing and inconsistent. Should we list Abraham Lincoln as a de facto commander when he ordered McClellan to launch his Peninsula campaign? Should we list Grant as "de facto commander" of the Army of the James? There are many cases in military history when a senior commander provides detailed supervision of a subordinate, but that senior commander is never listed as the "commander" of that unit. Hal Jespersen 15:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I like your most recent edit. Done. Haber 15:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

"The Army of the Potomac was created in 1861, but was only the size of a corps (relatively speaking)." Relative to what? Other Union armies? Contemporary European armies? A modern USA corps? --VAcharon 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)