Talk:Battle of Shiloh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Battle of Shiloh is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
April 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
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. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.


Tennessee
Portal
Battle of Shiloh is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Watch Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Template Usage]
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
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.

An event in this article is a April 7 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Contents

[edit] Inaccuracy

I removed the sentences about "Tennessee Two-Step" and "The Evacuation of Corinth" because they were inaccurate (as those names referred to the disease dysentery, not the camps) and they appear to be lifted from "The Civil War" by Geoffery Ward.


Cancel that, I'm not sure what I was thinking. 12.220.47.145 21:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

Yikes, I wish I could edit change notes. I should have said "etymological" instead of "entymological" (if indeed it should have been noted as such at all.) As I can't edit that note in the article history, I had to mention somewhere that I know better than that! -- Kbh3rd 18:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Clem

I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention Johnny Clem - or rather, that Wikipedia doesn't mention it at all. Johnny Clem was the 12-year-old drummer boy in this war, but his drum was destroyed in battle. He picked up a gun and started shooting, and was promoted to sergeant and decorated for his bravery.

Source: School textbook.

--Ian Weller (t) (c) @ 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Modern scholarship indicates that it is highly unlikely that John Clem was present at the battle of Shiloh, and his exploits at Chickamauga are also likely exaggerated. The strongest scholarship indicates that Clem served with the 22nd Michigan Regiment, which had not yet been raised at the time of the Battle of Shiloh. He did not appear on the rolls of said regiment until May of 1863, over a year after the battle. The claims of his participation at Shiloh were made by Clem himself, years after the war, and detail a period before he was specifically famous. The story of the drummer boy had several claimants, none of whom have been convincingly proven. -- Iol 03:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I agree, Johnny Clem's story goes amaizingly further than that. He made it through the war coming out with 2 purple hearts. After the war he applied to West Point but was rejected. President Grant heard about this and gave him a comission in the United States Army anyways and he served until right before the first World War and retired as either Brig. Gen. or Maj. Gen. (forget which the speaker said). He retired in 1916. Source: Civil War Era class lecture: Radford University 2007, May 29.

[edit] Grants orders to Wallace

It needs to be noted that the confusion on part of orders to advance via Grant was delivered by an aide who had written them down as Grant spoke, this could have easily added to the confusion by mentioning Where Wallace was to deploy and engage the Confederates.

Simply put the aide didn't have a copy of Grant's orders merely his own written one.

[edit] NPOV + Unencyclopedic dispute

  • "his most consequential lack of such concern"
  • ""Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though.""

I do think that such sentences do not belong, and they are only examples of others. The first seems to voice opinion and the second reads like some sort of war storys. Useful citations notwithstanding, I don't think that this helps the article in any way. If nobody minds, I'll try to correct that in a week.

Martin

Well, I have no idea what your problem with the first phrase is. He displayed a lack of concern about security issues and it was the most consequential example of such. Edit it if you like. As to the second, I suppose it could be removed, but it is a very famous anecdote about Grant that demonstrates his attitude about setbacks and his focus on offense, so removing it would not "help the article in any way." As to the other unnamed examples, I have no opinion. Perhaps others can weigh in. As a general rule, however, it would have been polite of you to raise your concerns on this page prior to plastering the pejorative warning box on the article page and then saying you want a week to work on your proposed improvements. Hal Jespersen 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm ... historical figures are permitted to have biases and points of view, and it is very encyclopedic indeed to quote historical figures. This is a very contrived "dispute". --Kbh3rdtalk 04:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I just have taken out the "Unencyclopedic" notice and agree that that might have been impolite. Nevertheless I don't think that my points raised are "contrived". At least the anecdote/quote should be marked as such, if it really needs to stay (what I oppose). Martin

[You can sign your comments by typing four ~s, BTW.] Thanks for your cooperation on the warning box. I have updated the article to indicate it's a historic anecdote and provided a citation. (I could represent the entire sequence as a quoted passage from any number of books, but question the necessity of that.) If you have other stylistic grievances, I invite you to describe them here and I'll address them. Hal Jespersen 15:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hal, since you seem to be the article owner I suggest that that the phrase "most consequential lack of concern" be changed and amended with a footnote stating a paragraph from Grant's memoirs, because I see this more as a matter of decision than as of disinterestedness:

"The criticism has often been made that the Union troops should have been intrenched at Shiloh. Up to that time the pick and spade had been but little resorted to at the West. I had, however, taken this subject under consideration soon after re-assuming command in the field, and, as already stated, my only military engineer reported unfavorably. Besides this, the troops with me, officers and men, needed discipline and drill more than they did experience with the pick, shovel and axe. Reinforcements were arriving almost daily, composed of troops that had been hastily thrown together into companies and regiments — fragments of incomplete organizations, the men and officers strangers to each other. Under all these circumstances I concluded that drill and discipline were worth more to our men than fortifications."

(but I don't know if it's too much text) MFacherzwirg 06:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

First, no one "owns" Wikipedia articles. My name is in the box on top of this page because I watch over it closely and am available for people who have inquiries about citations, etc. Others can add their names to that list, BTW. The quote you offer is not too long, but I'd like to hear what the problem is with the original sentence before correcting anything. The point of the sentence was to address Grant's almost chronic disinterest in security concerns for his own force, concentrating wholly on his plans for offensive action, as also happened at Belmont and Ft Donelson. And that this battle represented the most serious consequence of that attitude. Hal Jespersen 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The only point of interest here is that Grant and Sherman had no idea that there was a CSA force anywhere in the area. Sherman should have known better as there were some reports as to movement and one patrol was in contact. Entrenching would not have been common at that point anywhere to my knowledge, though it might have been common practice the 1st I read of trenching was the muleshoe on the eastern front I think in the Cold Harbor battle but I might be mistaken. However that no patrols were sent out was a fair breach of security anyway that you cut it. Scouts and patrols of the entire area should have been conducted throughout the time the army was encamped at Shiloh. Grant in my opinion is open to critism on that point as a breach of good military protocol in time of war. He didn't maintain operational awareness. Tirronan 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle April 7

I've been reading this and it still isn't making sense to me. Can someone explain it to me?

Lew Wallace's division was the first to see action, at the extreme right of the Union line, crossing Tilghman Branch around 7 a.m. and driving back to brigade of Col. Preston Pond.

You found a typo. Thanks, I fixed it. "to brigade" --> "the brigade". Hal Jespersen 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Well then it makes sense now! Thank you so much! Tirronan 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotect

I got sick of the non-stop IP vandals and requested protection we have semiprotect and hopefully this will be enough. Tirronan 04:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC outcome

We got more agreement than I thought for a 1st pass.

  • I've got to read and source/cite a book on this subject and will do so.
  • There has been a wish to see the photo galleries go perhaps a list of the relevent commanders at the bottom of the article?
  • Some clean up and explaination of terms like rollup ect.

I think we are in pretty good shape but I want imput before I touch anything. Tirronan 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for replacing a gallery with an equivalent list of names. The names are already in the article. Every Civil War battle book published since 1970 has had collections of pictures of the generals. I chose the gallery format rather than individual thumbnails spread around the article because Wikipedia's image placement mechanisms are pretty crude and they get messed up conflicting with maps, battle boxes, etc. Hal Jespersen 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Its your call Hal, I won't do it if you disagree. Tirronan 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not my call, it's my opinion. Others may disagree, and if a consensus forms that I am wrong, we'll go with that consensus. However, the opinion of one featured article reviewer does not mean that a consensus has been reached. Hal Jespersen 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fac

I've nominated this article for FAC status. I think it is among the very best out here. Tirronan 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date formats

I just reverted a change by mistake by pushing the wrong button -- I meant to revert it with a clarifying edit summary. The dates in those headers are not wiki links per se, they are date formats that allow users to specify the method by which dates are displayed in their browser. Some people prefer, for example, to see dates such as 7 April, others as April 7 (and there are other variations). Hal Jespersen 00:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA status

You may have noticed this article made FA status. I believe that a round of applause to Hal Jespersen is due. I wanted to congratulate all the editors. Tirronan 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good article and deserves its status. However, I don't think find it particularly constructive that Hal auto-reverted my recent removal of the galleries. It was specifically requested as a condition for the only two supports in the FAC. The galleries add absolutely nothing to the understanding of the battle. Mind the ownership.
Peter Isotalo 22:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No one own's an article here, I would hope that everyone understands that. That being said most of the article is Hal's work and good work should be applauded. Tirronan 23:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask for the article to be nominated (and in fact I asked for it not to be). Therefore, I don't consider that someone's "vote" gives them any greater control over the contents than I have or any other random reader has. If someone had deleted the galleries a week before this FA discussion took place, I would have reverted it in the same way (which was not an "auto" revert if I recall, although perhaps my finger slipped). Your personal opinion is that they add nothing, but mine is that they do. Virtually every modern book and magazine article about Civil War battles include pictures of the significant commanders, so most authors and readers think they add value, too. If you could demonstrate that the images detracted from the article, you'd have a better case for proposing that they be deleted. And if you feel that certain images do not "add ... to the understanding of the battle," you should probably find the dozens of photos that are of irrelevant things like battlefield monuments and remove them, too. But I would oppose that POV as well. Perhaps you object to the gallery layout, but I use that only because Wikipedia image placement is rather primitive and juggling a number of individual photos around the text, battle boxes, maps, and headings is very awkward. Hal Jespersen 02:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am currently working through my second history on the Battle of Shiloh, what is becoming apparent to me is how much the leadership of both armies affected the battle. Although you can say that where any battle is concerned this one is a highlight of such effects. To the point that the CSA was in a win or starve position due to lack of logistical planning. Further to the point, the complete lack of attention given to one hell of a lot of clues that there was an army to the US Army front and nearby. The subsequent actions again show the highs and lows of the various commanders in the field. As such is the case I would sumbit that the gallerys provide context and quick reference to each of the major commanders to the battle. I do believe that it gives context to the battle. As to the FA status, I was the guilty party that submitted this article to the process. I asked that the article be withdrawn after consulting with Hal. It was decided to award FA status to the article anyway. Without the galleries the pictures would be strung out on the sides of the article and would not be as appealing. Tirronan 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What constitutes an FA article is decided by the community (through interpretation by Raul), not by the article author(s). You're welcome to complain about the attention, but I don't see how that makes it a better article. And I do think the galleries and just about all the portraits detract from the article or I wouldn't have objected to them in the FAC. Claiming that my standpoint is just opinion while hailing your own analysis as neutral isn't exactly a convincing argument.
Peter Isotalo 09:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I specifically stated that both views are personal opinions, although I cited some implicit corroborating opinions from historians and readers that mine is more mainstream. Perhaps you can cite a recent professional work on the Civil War in which photos of the major participants were removed by the editor to "improve understanding." If you would like to withdraw your conditional approval for the article or call for a re-review on this basis, go ahead. I did not really participate in the review, so did not present arguments that were evaluated by any other voters. There were only two, anyway, right? Seems like an odd process all around. Hal Jespersen 13:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
My opinion may not carry much weight, as I'm not a contributor to the article, but I felt I should at least offer the opinion that I think the commander galleries are a good touch to the article. They are illustrative of the commanders, they are free use and thus pose no copyright issues, and nicely group and wikilink together commanders from the same sides. I would toss it back at those that want them removed, and ask how, precisely, do they detract from the article? The flow of text is not damaged in any way, no formatting is disrupted, they aren't flashy or distracting. In the FAC, the only arguments raised were basically "Just click the link" and "They detract". These arguments are terribly vague. Take this as you will, but from my perspective, they do nothing but add to the value of the article, just as the battlefield maps do. -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comment about sunken road

Moved from article: "(it has been debated if the road was 'sunken' or not, that is, the road is of lower elevation than surrounding ground, but having seen the site on 3-24-07 I can say the road is the same elevation as the rest of the ground; ruts in the road caused by wagons give the appearance of it being 'sunken' into the ground)." Hal Jespersen 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protect

I've asked for and received a indefinate semi-protect on this page due to the amount of IP vandalism. Tirronan 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Johnston & Forrest's escape

All I know about Shiloh (before reading this page) was Shelby Foote's account, & he has it that the wounded soldiers to whom Johnston sent his surgeon were Union casualties.

If true, the fact seems worth reporting; but I am suspicious of anything that bolsters Johnston's reputation for chivalry. Anyone able to confirm or deny that account?

Similarly, Foote reports that Forrest actually scooped up a Federal soldier and held him as a human shield to facilitate his escape. Any truth to that, you Forrest experts? --Andersonblog 13:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The wounded soldiers were from both sides, so it doesn't seem worth mentioning, at least in an encyclopedia article. The Forrest story was once in the article, but it was removed because it is likely apocryphal. In the Cunningham reference, footnote p. 375, the editors refer to that claim as a "propounded popular myth." Hal Jespersen 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Concur, Cunningham and McDougal both reported this as a myth, urban legends existed even in the Civil War. Tirronan 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.69.103 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruggles' Batteries

I could be mistaken, but just having been down to Shiloh (again) a few weeks ago, I have this number in my head for the number of cannon in Ruggles' batteries (those brought up to oppose the Hornets' Nest) as ~66. Admittedly, this IS >50, and trying to get that specific may be too nitpicky... but I was wondering if anyone else had seen/knew of this number, and if so, whether it would be at least slightly more accurate to change the sentence to say "more than 60 cannon". --Umrguy42 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is covered by footnote #30, isn't it? If you have other secondary sources for higher numbers, they can be included in the note, but the higher numbers seem to reflect older scholarship. Hal Jespersen (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)