Talk:Battle of Gettysburg, Third Day cavalry battles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pennsylvania Portal
Battle of Gettysburg, Third Day cavalry battles is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

[edit] October 26 edits

I have reverted the 15 edits of October 26 for a few reasons:

  1. This material is obviously based on a brief book review, not the actual reference in question. That is an inappropriate way to cite material.
  2. The author's claims that there is very little written about the cavalry battles is ludicrous. Just look at the references to this article, for instance.
  3. The alternate reality claims of this book are by no means mainstream and we generally tend to filter out such works from the fringe. I am unfamiliar with this particular book -- something that gives me pause because I track most new Civil War books -- but a brief stop at Amazon.com indicates that the reviewers thought it was very poorly done. I am familiar with another book that promotes the same conclusion, Carhart's Lee's Real Plan, and it was widely criticized as almost a work of fiction because there is simply no historical basis for the claims of Lee's motives.

It could be appropriate to include some material on alternative interpretations of the battle, but they need to be balanced by the work of mainstream historians and not simply expressed as "new historical findings." Hal Jespersen 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

hi. ok, but these do appear to be genuine legitimate published works. I will admit there is not a sufficient basis to claim that they undermine all previous scholarship on the battle. However, it does seem excessive to claim they are merely fringe theories. these are clearly part of an ongoing and significant discussion of this battle. so it seems worthwhile to include these at least in some form. --Steve, Sm8900 17:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that they are published works, but they appear to be in the category of authors attempting to wedge into the enormous CW marketplace with unusual claims, like Lincoln was gay, or McClellan and Bragg were great generals, or slavery was not a significant cause of the war. Merely adding another instance of such a claim does not improve the article, nor does citing book reviews instead of the books themselves. (When a Wikipedia editor cites a book, you can possibly assume that he has examined the credibility of the material and citations in that book. Citing a book review does not give that level of confidence, so we avoid them.) Wikipedia articles need to provide balanced points of view. If a controversial claim is included, it needs to be balanced by counterclaims or criticisms. In this case, the claims being presented don't even rise to the level in which formal responses from mainstream CW authors are on record, to my knowledge. I have talked to some of them informally, and they discount the scenario as unwarranted by historical evidence. Hal Jespersen 18:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I support Hal's conclusions. I have heavily researched the various Gettysburg cavalry battles for a wargaming book I wrote in 2001, and there is no contemporay military evidence to support these new theories that are arising about the link with Pickett's Charge. Don't forget that Pickett's Charge was to begin well, well before it did, long before Stuart would have been in position to attack the Union rear in coincidence with the infantry. The original attack plans were spoiled by the premature Union XII Corps attack on Culp's Hill ,which threw off the entire timing of the day. Scott Mingus 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and will respect your concerns. However, a brief mention that this issue exists would not be out-of-place, sionce these are published works. I will reduce my previous text, since i agree that there is no need to replicate the whole debate in detail, so I will remove most of the text, and simply put ina biref mention. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article name

This article is not named Battle of Gettysburg, Third Day because it covers only a small part of the action on July 3, 1863, and the article covers only cavalry battles. The action in Pickett's Charge is historically much more significant. It might be argued that this places the article name slightly out of alignment with the articles about the second day. (The first day is simple because it is all in one article.) A more logical name for Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day would actually be Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day Infantry Assaults on the Union Left Flank, but since that is so unwieldy we went with the easier name. Third day cavalry battles is not unwieldy. Also, the actions on the left flank are arguably the largest and most interesting aspects of the second day at Gettysburg. (Actions on the right flank are divided between two articles, Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill, each of which has a geographic name because actions occurred over multiple days.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)