Talk:List of American Civil War battles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of ?[edit]

Shouldn't this article be called "List of American Civil War Battles"? or "List of..." something, anyway. Gwimpey 23:30, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Sure. jengod 01:15, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I see it used to be called that, and has been moved to this name. Since there is a redirect, doesn't seem like a big deal.Gwimpey 10:12, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

New Battle Pages[edit]

Battle of Decatur has been completed. Will add a map later today. 578 18:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Athens has been completed. 578 19:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Chalk Bluff has been completed. bakuzjw (aka 578) 16:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Devil's Backbone has been completed. bakuzjw (aka 578) 16:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Elkin's Ferry has been completed. bakuzjw (aka 578) 17:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Campaigns completed[edit]

These campaigns have been completed using public domain text copied from the CWSAC website. The text still needs to be wikified. --brian0918™ 03:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

s of the civil war. where did you guys find all these? Which historian? Bonus Onus 04:51, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

The historian that is the National Park Service. Even this list isn't complete, there were sub-battles within battles, and some battles were missed. -- BRIAN0918  05:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Battles are included here which were fought against the Indians, for instance those in North Dakota. Why are these classified as Civil War battles? Jpbrody 21:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ask the National Park Service. --brian0918™ 21:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

The article Troop engagements of the American Civil War, divided into by-year articles, is substantially overlapping with this article. I can see it having a slightly different purpose (chronological vs. geographical, detailed listing of even minor skirmishes, etc.) but among other faults, that listing is incomplete -- only 1861, 62, and 63 were ever entered. Either that article should be beefed up and made useful in its own right, or the information should be merged here or into a supporting article from the Category. --Dhartung | Talk 18:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa[edit]

This picture of the US is really awesome, it almost knocked me over. Who made it?

Flameviper12 15:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged[edit]

I have followed a suggestion by BusterD to merge in the date-sorted list from his former List of battles of the American Civil War article. I recommend that battle-article authors check this list because it misses some recently written articles. (If someone who likes to tinker wants to get involved, this portion would look pretty cool as a table with columns Battle, Dates, Description, Outcome.) Hal Jespersen 16:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism- what should it be replaced with?[edit]

Battle of Philippi Races June 3 - Union of gay rebels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.10 (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Idaho to Washington Territory[edit]

In an effort to Be Bold, I've changed the heading for Idaho to Washington Territory. Idaho didn't even exist in the early part of 1863 when the Bear River Massacre took place, although it should be noted that this region of the western USA was in tremendous political flux in terms of how it was administered throughout the whole period of the U.S. Civil War, having been previously a part of Oregon and then later move to the newly formed Idaho Territory later on in 1863. By the end of the Civil War, several states were created in this region, and territorial boundaries were established that are more or less what the current state boundaries are for the western USA.

In writing the heading, I followed the pattern used for the Indian Territory. If there is any objection/concern about what I did here, I hope this can be a place to discuss this change. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

raids[edit]

I'd like to add raids listed in the book by Colonel Robert W. Black because there is no list of raids for American Civil War if that's ok.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Greencastle[edit]

General Longstreet had 500,000 men and they were all slautered in 12 minutes by 10 Union soldiers and then America won the civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.2.51 (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request consensus for delinking dates on this article[edit]

There is currently an ArbCom injunction against mass date delinking by single editors while this case is being heard. That said, I'm requesting consensus from other editors to allow me to delink the dates and possibly other script-assisted cleanup edits on this specific article.

Minnesota[edit]

According to the map, there were battles fought in two counties in Minnesota, but no battles in Minnesota appear on the list of battles by state. 76.197.234.170 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added battles from the Dakota War of 1862, which are included in the Official Records of the American Civil War. Mojoworker (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kentuck?[edit]

This is obviously fake. "Gen. Claypool" doesn't exist, and McClellan was on the Peninsula on June 6th, 1862, just having fought Fair Oaks/Seven Pines five days earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.171.15 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing North Dakota to Dakota Territory[edit]

Using the same rationale as the previous change of Idaho to Washington Territory to be consistent with Indian Territory and New Mexico Territory. Mojoworker (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

major changes to page[edit]

  • I noticed many redundant entires between the "by date" and "by state" sections, so I consolidated them: combined five tables, added and populated a "state" field, and removed all redundant entries in the "states" list. The combined table is now sortable on all fields except Outcome. Currently, sorting by Outcome would be meaningless, because the data isn't systematically formatted. If anyone wants to prepend (by hand!) "Union victory, Confederate victory, inconclusive" to every single one of those entries, then making that field sortable would make sense... I don't know if it's worth the trouble... The "by States" list now should contain only entries that are not in the table above, but I would bet a dollar that there are a few dupes to to redirects.. such as "Foo Battle I" as opposed to "First Battle of Foo"... • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone could check about 8 or so "New Mexico Territory and Arizona" in the table. I gotta run. • Ling.Nut (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's room for some confusion since Arizona Territory (USA) was split from New Mexico Territory on February 24, 1863 along with the existence of the geographically different Arizona Territory (CSA), known as Confederate Arizona, which was officially declared on August 1, 1861. Going with the existing classification scheme of listing based on the situation at the time of the occurance, I think they're OK now. And thanks for creating the sortable table -- it's is a nice improvement. Mojoworker (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I standardized the Outcome field and made it sortable. Cheers. • Ling.Nut (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make three tables: CWSAC, Minor/Skirmish, Indian wars[edit]

  • I'm working on bringing the main table into conformance with the list of battles ranked by CWSAC. When that's done, I'd like to move all battles not ranked by CWSAC into one of two new tables: one for Indian wars, and one for minor battles/skirmishes.
  • I know there are multiple Indian wars during this time period, and i believe that some of them are technically considered to be part of the US Civil war, but making a separate table for them would put them in a place where someone who knows more about that particular field can find them easily... it also would make the first table a pure CWSAC table.
  • Is this OK? Your input solicited. • Ling.Nut (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I understand, but can you clarify: Where would CWSAC battles such as Sand Creek (co001), Bear River (id001), Fort Ridgely (mn001), and Dead Buffalo Lake (nd002) be categorized -- in the CWSAC table or the Indian Wars table? Mojoworker (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I only noticed that later... there are some Indian wars battles in the CWSAC. So those – I suggest – should be kept in the CWSAC, which would make the other two table "Other Battles and Skirmishes" and "Other Indian Wars battles". Or something like that... I think all CWSAC battles should be in a CWSAC table... what do you think? • Ling.Nut (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That makes sense. I'd suggest you be bold and do it. I don't see how anyone could think it does anything other than increase the article quality. Mojoworker (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, that's what I thought. But I am new to Civil war topics, so no one knows me, so I didn't want to step on anyone's toes. :-) • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had really enjoyed following the battles by date. Rearranging them in this way just makes that harder, while I don't see any specific benefit. This article is now much more confusing and frustrating. wigren (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I can see that if your interest is in the chronological order, having the 3 tables is less than ideal. And now that Ling.Nut has added the CWSAC column, it would be easy enough to sort by that to get the CWSAC list at the top if we combined them all back into one. The only difficulty with that is the loss of the ability to see just CWSAC battles by date. I don't know if there's a way to automatically make a fourth table by combining the existing three tables and not have to make edits in both any time there needs to be a change -- although this data shouldn't change very much unless someone adds a minor skirmish. I'll look into it. If that's not possible, which would you think is preferrable -- combining the three tables back into one, or having a fourth table that needs to be edited separate from the other three? Mojoworker (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that more than a few of the minor battles in the minor battle table are really, really, really minor. I mean really. Trivial. As in "let's play Trivial Pursuit" trivial. I even went so far as to delete two: one in which two guys were killed, and another in which no one was killed and nothing meaningful was accomplished. I do sympathize with the one editor who dislikes the current arrangement, but in truth, the current arrangement makes more sense than any other. The CWSAC battles (except for the one that is missing; ten points to anyone who can spot it) are pretty much a solid list of all battles that have anything even vaguely resembling historical significance in the context of the CSA/USA Civil War. In my humble opinion, the Indian wars battles deserve far better than to be ignominiously lumped in with the minor battles: that's the same as saying they were all minor, which is not the case, and which denigrates their importance. And as for the minor battles... they all deserve to be called minor. Let's call a spade a spade, a CWSAC battle a CWSAC battle, an Indian wars battle.. you get the picture. [The sort option is accumulative, by the way – if you sort by date, and then by CWSAC rating, you get the results sorted by date and CWSAC rating etc]... As for the lone complaining editor... I am sorry, but it makes no sense whatsoever to have a *huge* duplication of all the information on this page in one huge table, so that one editor can enjoy it.  – Ling.Nut 14:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hello Ling, I hope everything is going well with you off Wiki. Thanks for the tip about the sort order -- I never noticed that the sort criteria accumulated when sorting on subsequent columns. I don't relish the thought of duplicating the information in a combined table either, and I don't really have time to do now it anyway. I do have one idea, but I plan to try and finish the few battles that are missing data before I do anything else. As for the missing CWSAC battle -- you piqued my interest and I spent a little time looking -- is it Third Dalton (GA024)? If that's the one you're thinking of, it doesn't look like it's on Wikipedia either. I should see if I can create it when I get a chance. If that's not the one you think is missing, the only other thing I can think is that it's one such as MD005, TX004, WV011, VA060, VA061 or VA112 (the last of which may be a duplicate of VA066) which, I think, were all dropped from the final report for one reason or another. Perhaps GA024 was dropped too... Mojoworker (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Give a prize to the winner. See User:Ling.Nut/Sandbox2, but be warned, there may be copyvio in that sandbox, plus stuff from unreliable web pages, so use with extreme caution and double-check everything... if you wanna work on articles, there's tons of good stuff in the external links of Official Records of the American Civil War. And there are several folks around who have been working on Civil War things for long while.... Later! (maybe in a few months I'll be genuinely back in action)  – Ling.Nut 00:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks like a good start on the Dalton article. If I get motivated, I'll see about working on it there in your sandbox if that's OK with you, but you might get to it before I do. I have a couple of volumes of the OR and the whole thing on CD, as well as a reprint of the OR maps book, which all come in handy. I'll have to take a look at those other links -- especially Excerpts from the Southern Historical Society Papers. Mojoworker (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Present-day States[edit]

I've been spending some time editing the list since the very nice major rework by Ling.Nut. I've come to the conclusion that because of the idiosyncrasies with things like Arizona/New Mexico and Virginia/West Virginia having status that changed during the war, we should be using the present-day states for locations of the battles -- which is probably what most people are interested in anyway. So, where it currently has "Washington Territory (present-day Idaho)", it would become "Idaho (then Washington Territory)" or "Idaho (Washington Territory at the time)". I already discussed it a bit with Ling.Nut, so I am planning to be bold and do it. Mojoworker (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Needs more citations, a lot more. I need citations for the theaters, what made you guys come up with them and why those definitions, along with citations from where all the battles to know that they were not all made up. Although unlikely, its still required. ThisguyYEAH (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not go overboard on citations for an article that is mostly lists and summaries of Wikipedia articles. However, the theater and campaign definitions are based on the NPS CWSAC report. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Costliest battles, a cutoff of some sort[edit]

  • I think the "costliest battles" section should have some sort of not-quite-arbitrary cutoff: either Top 10 or Top 20, or perhaps all with over 10,000 casualties. Thoughts? Arguments? I sorta think Top 20 is a little too big, but all over 10k casualties already comes near that number of sub-list items... • Serviceable†Villain 08:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that information really belongs in this article at all. I'm thinking it should be split into its own article. Mojoworker (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. You and Fat 'n Happy can discuss that. I'm just saying, if it stays, it needs some logic. • Serviceable†Villain 10:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno (either); I sort of liked the older version with the ten most costly listed at the beginning, which seemed to serve as a secondary introduction and included the ones most familiar to much of the (American) population. and "Top Ten" has become something of a standard for notability lists. I don't really see the point of the rather arbitrary expanded list we have now. As to a separate article, I'd need more explanation of the proposed content; if it was a straight move of the current list, it would still lack clarity as to the inclusion criteria. IMO, the best alternative might be to add a sortable "casualties" column to the existing primary table, but that would take a lot more work and expertise than I'm prepared to supply. My second choice, as implied above, is a return to the format used back in October, before the expansion and move.
And Serviceable, thanks for the deference, but I don't consider myself anything close to either a guru or a primary contributor on this article. Mostly I've just adjusted vandalism or questionable edits like the recent unexplained removal of one item from the list. There are several other editors who have put in a lot of work here and need to be heard from. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a casualties column might be a good option, but as you say, a lot of work. And I'm not sure we could find casualty information, even for just the CWSAC battles... Seems like it might become a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH magnet with "helpful" editors filling in the missing data. But, I could probably be convinced to assist with it if that's the consensus. However, I agree it shouldn't stay as it is – at least not here. It's ludicrous, for example, that Battle of Champion Hill is in the casualties list while Siege of Vicksburg is omitted because of a high number of surrenders – I'm pretty darn sure there were more killed and wounded at Vicksburg than at Champion Hill...
I did a fair amount of work on the list a couple of years back, collaborating with Ling.Nut, and I see we are contributors #1 and #2, with you Fat&Happy at #3 – so don't be too modest, you've done much to keep this article from decaying and it is appreciated. And ServiceableVillain, thanks for raising the issue – please stick around and help us reach consensus. I don't think Ling.Nut is active right now – he tends to take long Wiki–breaks, so I don't think we'll get his input...
My reasoning for moving the casualty info to its own list is that we would be preserving the work that's been put into it so far and it could be expanded there to the point of absurdity if anyone cared to. But I'd be OK with trimming it back to 10 here – or even doing both a split and retaining a top–ten here with a "Main Article" link to the new list (which might be the most benefit for the least amount of work). We just need to get some kind of consensus – so far it looks like consensus for a change, the question is which option? Mojoworker (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you two think a new column is the best option, some day or other I could use Python (programming language), maybe one hour of work, if the data is readily available somewhere... if not readily available, then I could probably export all the links on this page to an .xml file, and then it would become available.. But not this week.. but you two should decide if that's really and truly and logically the best option... • Serviceable†Villain 06:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be the most consistent and visually pleasing option, but I'm worried about the integrity of the data. There's a lot of nuance and exception in how the casualty information is presented in the battle articles. See Battle of Namozine Church for example – USA: 95 killed and wounded vs. CSA: 15 wounded and 350 captured. Does that mean that USA had no captured, or that the data point is missing? Many of them also use ranges such as in Battle of Boonville – USA: 5 killed or died of wounds and 7 wounded vs. Missouri State Guards: 5 killed or died of wounds, 10 wounded, and 60-80 captured and paroled (and this latter set isn't technically CSA, and would, at the least, require an explanatory note). In essence, I think there's just too much inconsistency in the data – and that could torpedo any future Featured List attempt for the article...
I dunno, the more I think about it the more I'm becoming convinced that splitting out the casualty list into a new article and retaining a top–ten list here with a "Main Article" link to the new list would be my first choice. But I could easily be convinced to just cut back to a top–ten list and leave it at that (but the editor that expanded that list might not be happy about it – and it looks like he put a fair amount of work into it). Mojoworker (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you've become familiar with more of the individual battle articles than I have, but even in the ones I recall, I agree the casualty figures are less than straightforward and definitive, making them difficult to put in a table (especially as a sortable column). Unless there's a sudden swarm of dissenters, it looks like we have a consensus to drop the table back to the top ten. As mentioned, I believe the shortened version would be better restored to its original location following the lead. (Whether the Seven Days Battles should be included, as it had been previously, is a separate related issue).
Whether or not to create a new list article after the material is deleted here isn't really a concern on this talk page. I still have doubts about the value of such a list, but I appreciate your preservation concerns, so there's certainly nothing to prevent you from creating such a list, and I see no point in starting an AfD if you did so. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not heavily involved in the circles of people who discuss and decide this sort of thing. I have no idea whether conventions exist. I have only five thoughts: First, the casualty dropoff from #10 to #11 is only 500, which is a relatively modest number. OTOH if we go with "more than 10K casualties", we still have a manageably-sized list (17 items), while the casualty dropoff from 17 to 18 is 2,000 (a more significant number). Second, however, (risking WP:BEANS, if we go with "more than 10K", some well-meaning eejit would come along and say we should change the subheading to the much-clumsier "Battles with more than 10,000 casualties". What an offensive eyesore! I reserve the right to WP:TROUT whoever would suggest such a thing. Third, maybe we should just pick one and go with it, then consult MILHIST people about their list preferences, with an eye toward FLIST. Fourth – you know, I hear what you're saying about the subjective and unreliable nature of casualty counts. OTOH, such a list, if prominently peppered with caveats, might provide a useful function to the public. But if a list were made, I would still suggest keeping the top 10 or > 10K here. Finally, I would be willing to do a bit of programming for THIS list, but far less willing to do so to create a new list. Sorry. Purely selfish reasons involving my lack of spare time, and lack of strong motivation to create a new list... So if a new, complete list is made, and if you are not a programmer, you have a huge task ahead of you... That's all. You two decide. I have no brain cells to spare. • Serviceable†Villain 09:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply – things have been really busy the past few days... I agree that adding a casualties column would likely be the most user friendly. And with the appropriate caveats and explanatory notes, I think would likely be OK. If you're inclined to get it started, go for it. I probably can't help out much for the next month, but I'll pitch in if/when I can. If you want to delay getting started, pending feedback on your other Featured List nomination (or if you think we should get a B–List assessment from WP:MILHIST), that's OK too. Mojoworker (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If FLIST wants everything verified, then adding the column may cause additional headaches, UNLESS there is ONE RELIABLE SOURCE where i can get the info.... (?)• Serviceable†Villain 07:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the one that expanded the table to the size that it stands now. The purpose of the expansion was to inform people of large battles that they may have never heard of. What's the point of having a top 10 list if most people already know the top 10 battles? Also, the cutoff is not arbitrary. I deliberately cut the list off at the 1st Battle of Bull Run as a way of showing the growth in the level of violence from the beginning of the war. As for including Vicksburg, Fort Donelson, etc., I'm all in favor of that. KevinLuna (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Phisterer, Frederick. The Army in the Civil War. Volume 13. "Statistical Record of the Armies of the United States." New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1882, 1885, 1886. OCLC 457678347. p. 213f for casualties in engagements with losses of 500 or more. (I have seen at least one comment on Phisterer having figures that are a little low, at least overall, but can't cite anything specific from memory. I assume his work has figures that are close to the slightly later works often cited, as follows.) See also Dyer, Frederick H. A compendium of the War of the Rebellion. Des Moines, IA: The Dyer Publishing Company, 1908. OCLC 181358316. See e.g. p. 583ff. Livermore, Thomas L. Numbers and losses in the Civil war in America, 1861-1865. Second edition. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1902. OCLC 561315402. Fox, William F. Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1861-1865. Albany, NY: Albany Publishing Co., 1889. OCLC 315246478. Reprinted Dayton, OH: Morningside Press, 1993. ISBN 0-685-72194-9. I think Francis Heitman's works are only on the Union Army, but I did not check. The Official Records may be the source for most of the information in these works but they may not always exactly agree with the OR or with each other. They should be close and reasonably authoritative. I do not know of any more recent sources that claim to be more authoritative or that do not state their conclusions are based on these sources, and maybe a few others, or the better of them or some sort of compilation. I do think that the cited sources would give authoritative casualty figures for all battles (or at least those with casualties of 500 men or more) from public domain sources. Donner60 (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phisterer's list is for (149) engagements where the Union casualties were more than 500. He gives these as killed, wounded, and missing. For Confederate casualties, he only gives a total figure. At least one of the other sources may have the Confederate casualties broken into killed, wounded and missing or prisoners. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left out what may be the most straightfoward source of them all, at least the easiest to follow. Cooper, Charles R. Chronological and Alphabetical Record of the Engagements of the Great Civil War with the Casualties on Both Sides. Milwaukee: The Caxton Press, 1904. OCLC 1829061. On the other hand, it may not have Confederate casualties for some actions whereas some of the other sources may have a figure of some sort for the Confederates. That may be the reason why it does not seem to be cited as often. It does state that the Official Records was a source. Donner60 (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for those sources. Questions remain, unfortunately. If the sources disagree to any meaningful amount (as I suspect they might), then which do we follow? Is one considered significantly more reliable than others?... If we add a "casualties", then the "costliest battles" table really does become redundant/unnecessary. • Serviceable†Villain 11:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to comment in this space, which I was reluctant to do because I have not made a lot of contributions to Wikipedia recently. However, I wanted to express my belief that you should not be looking for an overall single source of citations for casualties. The way the list article is written now is correct—it says in essence that we have copied the casualty figures and, implicitly, the citations from the respective Wikipedia battle articles. Most of the battle articles have done a pretty good job in combing through many secondary sources and identifying the deviations between casualty estimates that have come up over the years. Replacing these efforts with different figures from some century-old compendium will only result in confusing readers with inconsistencies between articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Hal, I appreciate that you've chosen to join in – whether or not you choose to participate further. I think there are many of us who contribute less than we used to. The point at which it ceases to be enjoyable has diminished for me as well. Editor retention is becoming an issue here at Wikipedia... You bring up a good point about the reliability of the casualty data. Compounding that further is recent research indicating that the Civil War death toll has been underestimated (See: [1] and [2]). By comparing data from the 1860 census with the 1870 census the researcher estimated that instead of the commonly cited figure of 620,000 deaths, the reality is 20 percent higher at 750,000. Mojoworker (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'm moving toward accepting Mojo's suggestion that we move the high casualty table off this page. • Serviceable†Villain 17:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Finally got some time and ambition to do it (and remembered it needed to be done while I had the time and ambition). As far as restoring the short version, I'll try to do it sometime soon if nobody else does it first. Mojoworker (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battles "aftermath" do not answer the criteria[edit]

There were 4 criteria classes: A, B, C, D. After each battle, the author should explain why the class selection was selected. In most cases, this was not done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.121.84 (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not our criteria. The classes were defined in the referenced report from the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission. I don't believe they've given detail as to why each site was classified as it is. Anything we add would be prohibited from inclusion as original research. Mojoworker (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lookout Mountain[edit]

This article is missing the Battle of Lookout Mountain. Please add it. It occurred in November of 1863. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The listed article Chattanooga Campaign includes the battles of Brown's Ferry, Wauhatchie, Missionary Ridge and Lookout Mountain. I'll confess that the entry of this campaign is unique on this list (in place of the battles of the campaign I mean). To give examples, on this list, the Chattanooga campaign is treated quite a bit differently from the Vicksburg campaign and the Atlanta campaign, both of which do list their major battles here. Perhaps the four Chattanooga battles should be applied to the list for consistency. Is there any input from page watchers? BusterD (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a little complicated. The Wikipedia Civil War articles were generally created roughly following from the US National Park Service Civil War Battle Summaries. There, the Battle of Lookout Mountain and the Battle of Missionary Ridge are combined as Chattanooga (sometimes referred as the third battle of Chattanooga or Chattanooga III as at the NPS Search For Battles page). I suppose we could/should combine the two articles to follow suit, but for now and for the sake of expediency, I added both battles to the list in place of the current campaign. Mojoworker (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see your datestamp here. I was looking at this a bit more deeply, and am starting to think we have a slightly larger problem. We seem to missing an article on Third Battle of Chattanooga (TN024). Look at the disambiguation page for Battle of Chattanooga. The battles for Chattanooga occurring November 23-25 1863 should include the advances on Tunnel Hill and Orchard Knob, then the battles of Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge. The campaign should start at Brown's Ferry (no CWSAC number), Wauhatchie (TN021), then III Chattanooga (TN024), Lookout Mountain (no number), Missionary Ridge (no number) and conclude at Ringgold Gap (GA005). I'm looking at page histories. I see User:Hlj was trying to cut this Gordian knot in January 2009. Here's the version of Third Battle of Chattanooga Hal redirected when he completed his reorganization. Here are his articles on Battle of Missionary Ridge and Battle of Lookout Mountain. Back in the day, Hal created almost all the maps we use on ACW articles. This work likely informed his choices here. BusterD (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it gets confusing. {{Campaignbox Chattanooga-Ringgold Campaign}} lists Battle of Lookout Mountain, Battle of Missionary Ridge, and Ringgold Gap. {{Campaignbox Reopening the Tennessee River}} has Brown's Ferry and Wauhatchie. I think those are still the same as the campaigns defined by the National Park Service. I know Hal retired from Wikipedia, but I believe he said he would be available to answer questions – it would be interesting to know why he changed things up from Third Battle of Chattanooga. This resource could also be relevant: Update to the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report on the Nation’s Civil War Battlefields, State of Tennessee. Things have deviated from the NPS/ABPP/CWSAC categorization, but maybe it's not too far off. For this List article, we could maybe revert Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge back out and add Third Battle of Chattanooga linking to the existing campaign article. Thoughts? Mojoworker (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that for parallel structure we should have articles on each of the battles to which CWSAC assigned numbers. There are several actions or sub-actions which have no numbers but should still get articles. So I agree we should think about "recreating" the third battle article (using the redirect will keep full attribution) and focusing the campaign article to better summarize the entire two month process. There's no rush here, but it's a somewhat startling discovery. I'm sure Hal would be happy to weigh in. When a new editor had an issue with a map Hal had created long ago he was willing to perform small changes to improve it. BusterD (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strength / Casualties and losses citations[edit]

I'll preface this by saying that my concern is not with this page specifically, it's with the battle pages this page links to. Each has specific information regarding troop strength on both sides and casualties, but most seem to be missing citations. Where are these numbers originating from? Should figures be included if we cannot validate the numbers? I'm researching these for a paper and was hoping to drive back to the original source, but that's not possible with the current state of these pages. This is also a concern because casualty numbers frequently vary from source to source and without the citations a researcher cannot validate if these numbers are accurate.

Missing West Virginia Battles[edit]

The Battle of Lewisburg (May 23, 1862, 300+ casualties) and the Battle of Charleston (September 13, 1862, 600+ casualties) are not in the list and don't get much recognition from the National Park Service. Perhaps they got lost in the Virginia to West Virginia transition. I think they should be added. They had some "big name" players: George Crook, Henry Heth, William Wing Loring, Albert G. Jenkins, Joseph Andrew Jackson Lightburn, Gabriel C. Wharton, and the less famous William H. Powell. The Battle of Charleston (1862) will be upgraded by the end of the summer 2022. TwoScars (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_American_Civil_War_battles&oldid=1198873752"