Talk:Battle of Gettysburg, third day cavalry battles/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

edits of January 18, 2014

I have reverted the edits of January 18 for a few reasons. Although these seem to have been created in good faith (and the user name of the editor implies expertise in the matter), they played havoc with the citations of the existing material and added a number of opinions that were not cited. If there are claims of facts and opinions in the article that are backed up by citations to reliable secondary sources, you cannot simply rewrite those paragraphs with different claims. If the citations are not changed, that leaves the impression with the reader that the new material is being verified by the previous citations. If an editor believes that the cited material is incorrect, he or she has the option of providing additional citations to accommodate and document alternative views, and should not simply rewrite or remove the cited material. I have some advice about how to manage existing footnotes and alternative viewpoints in User:Hlj/CWediting#EFP. I am also available to assist in improving the article using the appropriate verifiability if you contact me directly. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - I will edit with the proper citations. This article unfortunately perpetuates the myth of East Cavalry Field being coordinated with Pickett's Charge (probably 95% of serious Gettysburg/cavalry historians are aware that it was not coordinated). It is also wrong when it states that Stuart didn't understand Lee's orders for his ride to Pennsylvania; nothing is further from the truth, in fact Stuart followed them to the letter (you may be aware I wrote the book on the subject in 2008). There's a great deal to fix in this article so it'll take me a bit of time, and thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.217.212.131 (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think this may be a first: someone thanking me for reverting their edits. :-) I would be happy to assist you in making appropriate changes. I also understand your reluctance to allow the influence of a certain recent author to take center stage. However, I do not want the reader to believe there was NO connection between the cavalry actions and Pickett's charge. For example, both Coddington (p. 520) and Sears (p. 391) establish connections, and these are very respected secondary sources whose opinions need to be included, even if alternative opinions are added to balance them out. And the use of the term "myth" is a pejorative that does not fit well with the tone of a Wikipedia article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand about Coddington and Sears, but I can only respectfully say they're wrong :) It's simply a misreading of the evidence (or lack thereof) that has taken place nearly since the battle itself. For decades, even the Union troopers wrote that they turned back "one part of the thrust" of Pickett's Charge. After all, it's much more romantic and dramatic to have made such an important contribution, rather than simply blunting an independent foray by Stuart.

Stuart left his camps on the morning of July 3 before daylight, several hours before Lee had even formulated or ordered what we now know to be Pickett's Charge. There isn't a shred of evidence by anyone - Blackford, McClellan, Garnett, Marshall, etc. etc. that anyone from Lee's HQ communicated with Stuart at any point throughout July 3 until the day was over. McClellan later stated that Stuart only went to the Rummel Farm to find and engage the Federal cavalry he knew what there. Period. And Lee's and Stuart's ORs both only state that Stuart was there to protect the left flank. Period. End of Story.

I'm not concerned about a certain recent author's perpetuation of the myth of "coordination" - serious Gettysburg students consider his book to be fiction. Where he has no evidence, he literally makes it up. Seriously. The book is full of "must have" and the like, and fellow historian Eric Wittenberg and I take his argument to task piece by piece in the newly revised edition of Eric's "Protecting the Flank."

I also understand about the term "myth." But that's what it is. Just like the Confederates going to Gettysburg only looking for shoes. It's cute, it's folksy, it's romantic. But it's hogwash. Just like Stuart acting in concert with Pickett's Charge. The first that Stuart ever heard about any infantry attack on July 3 was late that night when he got back to the main Confederate line and was told of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdpetruzzi (talk • contribs) 03:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(I have indented your comments to differentiate them, as is our practice in talk pages.) Wikipedia is an unusual place because it is an unsigned tertiary source: we gather the opinions of secondary sources and do not attempt to use primary sources as a way of establishing opinions or endorsing/rejecting the opinions of those secondary sources. The use of primary sources to do this is called here original research and it is not allowed by Wikipedia rules. Therefore, when there is a disagreement between secondary sources, we say something of the nature of "historians A and B state X, but recent work by historian C has stated Y." Depending on how differently the opinions range, we could include the arguments that C made, or we could include a quotation from his/her published work that addresses this controversy. In some cases, the opinions of C would be sufficiently out of the mainstream that we would include his arguments only in the footnote, not in the main text. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Because of the persistent myth of Stuart's movement being coordinated with Pickett's Charge, I think it would be a good idea to differentiate between the two. A lot of folks look for information on East Cavalry Field and specifically whether there was any coordination. And I guess I'm a bit confused about the use of primary sources - in this particular case, all primary source supports the fact that Stuart was not coordinated with Pickett's Charge. The idea of coordination was later fabricated as part of the post-war romantic idealism so prevalent then. A few historians and some very bad coffee-table books since then picked up on the silliness, and have perpetuated the myth. Without at least referencing the primary sources in the text (which might be the way to do it properly) there's simply no point to it all. Otherwise the page just becomes a tedious, pointless exercise in showing how some folks misread primary source to further an agenda. As I said earlier, no serious Gettysburg/CW historian believes the myth today. It causes this particular page to stick out like a sore thumb and in CW circles this page is roundly criticized and in fact ridiculed - the comments of which brought me to it to take a look for myself a couple weeks ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdpetruzzi (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You may find this essay on identifying and using primary and secondary sources helpful. Primary isn't always bad and can be used in the text.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, my point about the primary sources is that you cannot do the following: "Historian A claims X, but analysis of the following primary sources disputes his claim." Even worse, "... but there are no primary sources to back up his claim." Both of those are original research. You need to balance secondary sources against each other. I am certain you can find secondary sources that have analyzed all of the available primary sources and came to a different conclusion than Historian X. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)