Talk:Battle of Glendale

Minor inconsistence

The introduction reads that Glendale was the "fifth of the Seven Days Battles". However, according to the infobox and Seven Days Battles, it was the seventh battle. I do not know which is correct, so someone else needs to make the correction/add explanation. Qblik talk 03:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing rated as a battle on the 4th day. White Oak Swamp is rated as a "battle" & this started before Glendale - this logic would make Glendale the 6th battle. It would be more useful to say it was the 6th day of the 7 days' battles. GC

edits of December 16

I have limited time this week to do some repairs on the edits of this morning, but in the meantime I will give you a few notes about the general problems to be corrected (particularly if the editor intends to work on other articles in a similar way):

• The lead section (the few paragraphs that precede the table of contents) is supposed to be a summary of the following article, so it cannot include material that is not duplicated in more detail later on and we customarily do not use footnotes in the lead. The statements about generals disputing the account of another general is not the kind of detail that would typically be in an article summary.
• The Official Records are primary sources and therefore we use them sparingly in these articles because the Wikipedia policy on sources is to use secondary sources.
• (minor) In the formal writing we use in Wikipedia, the ampersand (&) is not used in place of the word "and", other than occasionally in trademarks or railroad names.

As promised earlier, I have found the time to work on the edits of December 16. Here are some comments on the changes I made:

• I restored the lead section, which is sourced from the National Park Service as a summary. The changes I removed were claims from primary sources, which do not meet our requirements for selection of sources.
• I removed the citation of an unsigned blog about the Signal Corps. This is not a reliable source under Wikipedia rules. The report from Albert Myer did not support the contention of the blog that McClellan was in command during the battle. To address the contention that McClellan was not present at the battle, I beefed up the Aftermath section with historical criticism of his conduct. Although some may claim that Stephen Sears treats McClellan unfairly, I have confirmed his viewpoint with that of Ethan Rafuse, who is a rather prominent McClellan apologist.
• I have replaced footnotes to battle reports (other than Lee's, which was simply a quotation) with secondary sources. I left the online links to the ORs, but improved the formatting. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The NPS is a follower, not a leader. Giving its summary full weight is not a good idea.

Riddell's Shop

The name "Riddell's Shop" is associated with an action in 1864, not the battle in 1862. If anyone has a credible reference (not the anonymous un-referenced NPS blurb) to this being a contemporary name for the 1862 battle please post it.

I have deleted Riddell's Shop from the list of names of this battle.

Graeme Cook (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Graeme Cook (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I found two references to the place and battle of 1862 named Riddell's Shop in D.S. Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants from the 1940's found on pages 246 and 252. I was hoping for something newer but there it is. Will that do? If no-one objects I'll reapply the name to the article in a day or so.

The National Park Service summaries by the way are extensively used here on Wikipedia, and NPS is sort of short hand for the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) of the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP). Information on them and how they came up with those "blurb" summaries can be found on this site. Use of these summaries is the last thing editors of ACW pages did agree upon, and despite many revisits to this very subject over the years that consensus still remains. Hope this addresses all of your concerns. Kresock (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Kresock's explanation of the CWSAC usage in Wikipedia is correct. Riddell's Shop was located only a couple of hundred feet from the Glendale crossroads. According to Welcher (Welcher, Frank J., The Union Army, 1861–1865 Organization and Operations, Volume I: The Eastern Theater, Indiana University Press, 1989, ISBN 0-253-36453-1, p. 825), "There was no settlement at the Glendale Cross Roads, but the place was sometimes called Riddell's Shop, because of a blacksmith shop located there." Welcher does not list this as an explicit alternative name for the battle, but since the NPS does and since it is a legitimate place name, I do not see a justification for removing it. Also see a historical marker. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kresock,

What is Freeman's source?

Neither of the paragraphs are directly cited in Freeman's book. That chapter is cited heavily from the OR's and its 15 footnote (appearing on page 828) states "For the battle of June 30, variously known as Glendale, Frayser's Farm, and Riddell's Shop, see Freeman, R.E. Lee, 2, 184ff." I don't own that work, but here again he states Riddell's Shop as a variant naming of this engagement. I think it should be restored as it was. Kresock (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hal,

That it is a legitimate place name adds little to the argument. If any battle could be referred to by any legitimate place at the battle there would be dozens or hundreds of candidates. You will note that the Riddell's Shop marker does not claim itself as a name for the battle, but this is of little consequence.

Justification must be made for inclusion not exclusion. There is legitimate concern that the confusion between 1862 & 1864 actions has merged the name of Riddell's Shop with the Battle of Glendale (including by the NPS).

Graeme Cook (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I frankly don't think that the alternative names Nelson's Farm, Charles City Crossroads, or New Market Road add anything either, but we have established a precedent of using the CWSAC summaries for a wide variety of information in Wikipedia articles -- battle names, dates, results, casualties etc. -- unless we find compelling reasons to deviate. Having a commission of Civil War historians classifying 384 Civil War battles in one place is a useful means of providing consistency to our articles. I see no compelling reason to deviate from their description. By the way, the 1864 engagement you are referring to is presumably the one on June 13 at the end of the Overland Campaign. This is one minor enough to get no mention in the CWSAC classification, or even Salmon's book (Salmon, John S., The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide, Stackpole Books, 2001, ISBN 0-8117-2868-4). Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of Apostrophies in ownership

A 2nd 's' is not added to a name ending in an 's' when an apostrophy is added to show ownership, even when the reader is used to pronouncing a second 's' in speech.

Graeme Cook (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Ed., 7.17, the general rule is the possessive for a singular noun or proper noun is formed with apostrophe and S. In 7.18 they give examples of "Kansas's legislature," "Strauss's Vienna," "Burns's poems." They list a few alternative rules in 7.19-22, but I chose not to use those alternatives in this article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Holmes made a feeble attempt to turn the Union left flank"

Holmes gathered together a battery of rifled guns to bombard retreating Federals near Malvern Hill. He took other troops as a supporting force for the guns. He did not "attempt to turn the Union left flank".

This "attempt to turn the Union left flank" is not mentioned in the main body of the article so should not be in the introductory summary text.

Graeme Cook (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A look at the map will reveal that Holmes's action was against the Union left. Sears, p. 291, describes how Lee wanted to attack both ends of the Union line--Holmes and Magruder on the head/left at Malvern Hill, the rest on the tail/right. I have updated the main text to clarify that Malvern Hill was the left flank, so that the cited sentence in the article summary remains correct. However, you are right that he did not technically attempt to "turn" the flank, so I have changed that to "attack." Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

When you write "cited sentence" are you actually quoting a sentence? Graeme Cook (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC).

Cited means there is a footnote at the end of the paragraph or sentence. In this case, the public-domain text of the NPS/CWSAC battle summary is being used. That's a situation that is no longer preferred in Wikipedia, because although it's legal, it's considered plagiaristic. If you would like to do something useful, you could rewrite the lead section. However, what we have been discussing here is whether the CWSAC summary incorrectly reflects the main body of the article and what Holmes's role was--whether Lee wanted him to conduct a useful attack on the left flank or merely pester the Union with ineffective artillery fire. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Glendale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221103824/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/hps/abpp/battles/va020b.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/va020b.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221103824/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/hps/abpp/battles/va020b.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/va020b.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/american_civil_war/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221103824/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/hps/abpp/battles/va020b.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/va020b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Glendale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708161510/http://www.civilwar.com/?option=com_officialrecord&series=Series%20I&volume=Volume%20XI&part=Part%20II&page=107 to http://www.civilwar.com/?option=com_officialrecord&series=Series%20I&volume=Volume%20XI&part=Part%20II&page=107
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708161700/http://www.civilwar.com/?option=com_officialrecord&series=Series%20I&volume=Volume%20XI&part=Part%20II&page=383 to http://www.civilwar.com/?option=com_officialrecord&series=Series%20I&volume=Volume%20XI&part=Part%20II&page=383
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708161717/http://www.civilwar.com/?option=com_officialrecord&series=Series%20I&volume=Volume%20XI&part=Part%20II&page=397 to http://www.civilwar.com/?option=com_officialrecord&series=Series%20I&volume=Volume%20XI&part=Part%20II&page=397
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708161709/http://www.civilwar.com/?option=com_officialrecord&series=Series%20I&volume=Volume%20XI&part=Part%20II&page=905 to http://www.civilwar.com/?option=com_officialrecord&series=Series%20I&volume=Volume%20XI&part=Part%20II&page=905

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

McClellan shouldn’t be listed as the commander.

McClellan was nowhere near the battle, so his key subordinates should be listed under “commanders and leaders”, i.e. Sumner, Heintzelman, and McCall. KevinLuna83 (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Page revisions

Greetings. I have made what I hope are constructive changes to this article based on my interest and extensive research about the subject. In addition to updated links to OR reports and primary documentation, I have linked an article written on the subject of Randol's Battery E & G, 1st US at Glendale. I would not link it if I were not confident in the source material, which is linked in the bibliography page. Kindest regards. Radar488 (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)