Talk:Pickett's Charge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pickett's Charge article.
Article policies
Good article Pickett's Charge has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with 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.

The term Pickett's Charge is used as a metaphor quite often. In fact, today, this would probably be the most common usage. However, I fail to grasp the meaning of the metaphor from this article. Does it mean attacking the center, or what?

I didn't get it either. The article could also benefit from being broken into sections.--

reply: I always assumed it referred to any endeavour that is doomed from the outset.


Contents

[edit] June 15 edits

I reverted both paragraphs of the edits today. The first is misplaced as a primary cause, presented so early in the argument. Although all agree that McGilvery's guns were a surprise to the Confederates, the edits make it seem like it was some sort of plot -- "luring" them into defeat. And there were plenty of other guns the Rebels knew about before stepping off. The second new paragraph is so poorly worded and punctuated that I really have no idea what the point is supposed to be. Maybe you can try again. Hal Jespersen 02:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longstreet's Assault

The term "Longstreet's Assault" is much more commonly used for the Confederate attacks on July 2 on the southern end of the battlefield. It is quite rare to see it used to describe Pickett's Charge, although admittedly, it has been used a couple of times as such. Scott Mingus 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] footnotes

I added footnotes today, but as I go through the article again, I see that I have not provided sufficient detail about the assault itself. I will add an expansion to my to-do list. Hal Jespersen 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] January 16, 2007 edits

In cleaning up the edits applied today, I took the opportunity to re-read the initial paragraph and pruned out a good deal of the hyperbole and POV: "by far the most bloody single military attack in American history", "cut down the flower of the Confederacy's officer corps in the most important theater of battle in the War."

The reason I deleted the new paragraph regarding the Battle of the Crater is that the lead paragraphs of the Wikipedia article is supposed to summarize the remainder of the article, not introduce new material, relevant or not. (A much more apt comparison to Pickett's Charge, by the way, is the Battle of Franklin II.) Hal Jespersen 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

I've passed this for Good article status. It is obviously well sourced and seems to cover the subject fully. My only complaints would be the skimpy popular media and battlefield today sections just seem awkward, but there may not really anything else that can be put there. I would find a way to expand those somehow in the future. The image of Cemetary Ridge is strangely sized to me, I would have it either cleaned up to remove the border or made large enough to read the caption at the bottom. Good job, though, kept very NPOV in my opinion. -KingPenguin 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The popular media section is only there because someone put it in and I saw no compelling justification for removing it. If I had my druthers, none of these Civil War articles would spend time talking about movies, alternate history novels, mentions on The Simpsons or South Park, etc. But some people insist that trivia be included.
I am a little surprised that this article was nominated and judged to be "good" because it is still quite skimpy in the description of the assault itself. It is one of the articles on my to-do list. Hal Jespersen 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Error

"On the night of July 2, General Hancock correctly predicted at a council of war that Lee would try an attack on his lines in the center the following morning."

I'm not going to change it because I'm not positive. However, I recall that it was Meade that predicted the assault in the war council and that he told Hancock to expect to be attacked. Can anyone else confirm or deny this? I recall this from McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Duck 12:53, 25 June 2007

You are correct. Meade was the one who told Gibbon about a possible attack in the center. Thanks for catching. Hal Jespersen 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I made a few minor corrections, but there were no major problems with the article. These included moving a quote from the aftermath section into the intro (if you think it should be elsewhere, feel free to move it, but standing by itself it didn't work well where it was at) and removing the popular media section. The section can be readded if more information about the battle in the film can be presented. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 06:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

I have tagged this as trivia. It strikes me that the naming and objective of the action would be better off integrated into the article itself. The location of Pickett is irrelevent as neither Lee or Longstreet were at the front either.

I also think it has been well established that Longstreet favored a move around the Union left and made an effort to delay in hopes of changing Lee's mind (Foote:The Civil War a Narrative, Vol. 2; Stackpole:They Met at Gettysbug). As to simutaneous action on Culp's Hill, Slocum had initiated the conflict there and had already disrupted any possibility of coordination. Mstuczynski (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)