Talk:Francis C. Barlow

Tagg not entirely scholarly

Using Tagg as a source for this article is not altogether reliable. The citation of "flanel lumberjack shirts" is absolutely preposterous. Checked prints were very popular in the 19th century. Tagg has looked at photographs of Barlow and concluded that his shirts are flanel lumberjack without doing any research in clothing of the period. A "lumberjack shirt" is a modern appellation. Second, how can Tagg discern the material of Barlow's shirts from a photograph? The shirt was most likely cotton. It's safe to say that Barlow preferred "common men's" shirts over the more prevalent "fancy" white shirts usually worn by officers. At any rate, this is a trivial discussion, but one that should be brought forward as an example to always question sources cited in Wikipedia. --Spacini (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of sources is something for the readers to decide. (If I had to guess, I'd say the majority of Wikipedia sources--websites and news reports abound--are non scholarly.) In this case, Tagg is also available online for readers' inspection. Although 'lumberjack' may be a more modern expression, since it is quoted, no confusion will result. Another ref--which I do not possess but found excerpted on Google Books--The Boy General: The Life and Careers of Francis Channing Barlow by Richard F. Welch, Kent State Univ. Press, 2005, refers to Barlow's "flannel checked shirt" on p. 128, quoting an aide of Meade's. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Brady photo

There is a lovely Matthew Brady photo http://www.nybooks.com/multimedia/view-photo/2561 that not only shows his checked shirt, heat and the way it lies suggests cotton, but also his compatriots. Perhaps it is worthy of inclusion. PietrH (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Added. Thank you for the suggestion. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Chronology of wounds

Was he wounded gravely twice? Perhaps somebody more involved might make this clearer. PietrH (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Barlow Knoll/Steven's Knoll

The photograph depicted as "Barlow Knoll July 1 1863" is in fact Steven's Knoll which is between Cemetery and Culp's Hills. Neither of which is near the actual location of Barlow Knoll. That is East Cemetery Hill in the background. Barlow's and the XI Corps' lines were crushed so fast that there wouldn't have been time to dig in the artillery pieces as the photograph depicts. The Federals did, in fact, have time to dig in once they regrouped around Cemetery/Culp's Hills. As far as I know, there are no known photographs of the field the XI corps fought on during the fighting of July 1 that was taken recently after the Battle of Gettysburg. — Preceding --BurghBeerSnob (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Francis C. Barlow. 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/20060508073808/http://scc.rutgers.edu/njwomenshistory/Period_3/CivilWar.htm to http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/njwomenshistory/Period_3/CivilWar.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930210926/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/american_civil_war/3029021.html to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/american_civil_war/3029021.html

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) 12:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)