 | Battle of the Wilderness has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
 | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 5, 2004, May 5, 2014, and May 5, 2023. | |||||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
I'm afraid the Image in the middle of the article (left hand) is referring to the Battle of Chancellorsville (May 1864), not to the Battle of the Wilderness (July 1864). Bye. -- Cloj 20:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Mmmm... Sorry! The mistake was mine. The above image is correct (not my brain in effect...). Any way I can't see it normally. -- Cloj 21:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No, the image is incorrect because Stonewall had died a year ago before the Battle of the Wilderness. It is an imgae of the Battle of Chancellorsville, I believe. Znitrx 20:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- What image are you discussing? Hal Jespersen 22:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Whats with the walmart supercenter thing in the middle of the map!? Some one should fix that.I don't know how. Zanerobinette ( talk) 19:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- That map is there specifically to show the proposed Walmart location as part of the battlefield preservation section. If you mean how to fix Walmart's proposal, contact the CWPT. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed something a little odd. Please look at the results listed in each of these battles on their respective wiki pages:
1. Antietam - Tactically inconclusive; strategic Union victory
2. Chancellorsville - Confederate victory
3. Wilderness - Inconclusive (Union offensive continued)
In my opinion, the results for Battle of the Wilderness should either be Tactically inconclusive; strategic Union victory (i.e, the same as Antietam), or the results for Antietam should be Tactically inconclusive (Confederate offensive stopped).
And if the latter, then the Battle of Chancellorsville should read, Tactically inconclusive (Union offensive stopped). Personally, I would go with the following:
1. Antietam - Tactically inconclusive; strategic Union victory
2. Chancellorsville - Tactically inconclusive; strategic Confederate victory
3. Wilderness - Tactically inconclusive; strategic Union victory
I think this would make more sense, especially since the only difference between Chancellorsville and Wilderness was whether or not the Union offensive continued or was stopped. Also, since Grant (at Wilderness) suffered more casualties than Hooker (at Chancellorsville), what we call the former should also be applied to the latter (i.e., in terms of language). What do you all think? Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Antietam is considered a strategic Union victory for the reasons explained in the article -- although the battle was essentially a draw, it not only ended Lee's first invasion of the North, it gave Lincoln the confidence to issue his Emancipation Proclamation. Some authors, notably James M. McPherson, consider Antietam to be the turning point of the war because of that. Chancellorsville was a clear-cut victory in the opinion of virtually every historian, even given the severe losses in Lee's smaller army. And I know of no historian who would consider the Wilderness to be a Union strategic victory. It was the first important battle in a campaign that was itself inconclusive. The Overland Campaign positioned Grant for his eventual victory, but that was two campaigns (in Virginia, that is) and 11 months later. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 01:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Hal. You said, "Antietam is considered a strategic Union victory for the reasons explained in the article -- although the battle was essentially a draw". Yes, I very much agree. No problem there. :)
- Then you said, "Chancellorsville was a clear-cut victory in the opinion of virtually every historian...."
- Once again, I agree that the BOC was a "victory" for the Confederates. But - and this is the important part - was it a tactical victory, a strategic victory, or a mix? If the BOC was a Confederate tactical victory, on what basis do historians say that? The number of casualties? No. Grant suffered greater loses in the Battle of the Wilderness (BOTW) as a %, so wouldn't that mean that the BOTW was a confederate tactical victory (as the article itself says in the Aftermath section, but yet says it was inconclusive in the summary section at the top-right)? Consider this:
- Union casualties at the BOTW: 17.3%
- Confederate casualites at the BOTW: 12.3%
- This tells me that the BOTW was a Confederate tactical victory, but a Union strategic victory because it did not force Grant to retreat. Grant moved forward. Yet...
- Union casualties at Chancellorsville: 12.8%
- Confederate casualties at Chancellorsville: 22%
- This tells me that the BOC was tactically inconconclusive (since Hooker wasn't forced to retreat for military reasons; he lost his nerve), but a strategic Confederate victory (since Hookers offensive was stopped). After all, if the result of the Battle of Antietam is described as "Tactically inconclusive; strategic Union victory", then the BOC cannot logically use different language. That is, the BOC was tactically inconclusive; Confederate strategic victory.
- Let me add that I'm not disputing ANYTHING that the majority of historians are saying with regards to victory/loss. I'm only trying to set ground rules for the language of victory/loss in wiki ACW articales on two levels: tactical and strategic.
- Therefore, let me again propose the following language in regards to a battle victory/loss:
- I. Simple Results
- a. Union victory (e.g., Battle of Champions Hill, Malvern Hill, Shiloh)
- b. Union decisive victory (e.g., Battle of Nashville)
- c. Confederate victory (e.g., Battle of Chickamauga, Fredericksburg)
- d. Confederate decisive victory (e.g., Battle of 2nd Bull Run? Jackson's valley campaign?)
- II. Mixed Results
- a. Tactical Union victory; Confederate strategic victory (e.g., Battle of Franklin)
- b. Tactical Confederate victory; Union strategic victory (e.g., BOTW, for reasons mentioned above, )
- c. Tactically inconclusive; Union strategic victory (e.g, the Battle of Antietam)
- d. Tactically inconclusive; Confederate strategic victory (e.g., the Battle of Chancellorsville, for reasons mentioned above) Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 03:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Historians rarely use numbers or percentages of casualties to determine the victor of a battle. They examine the goals of the two armies and see which one achieved the goals. Hooker's goal at Chancellorsville was to double-envelop Lee's army and destroy it, then to march on Richmond and end the war. He failed and withdrew. Lee succeeded, although at a relatively high cost. Chancellorsville was an unambiguous Confederate victory. (Whether it was a strategic victory or not is arguable, which is one of the reasons we rarely use that term in these information boxes. The victory at Chancellorsville ultimately did nothing to advance the strategic position of the Confederacy.) At the Wilderness, Grant's objective was to destroy Lee's army and Lee's objective was to avoid that and force Grant to withdraw behind the Rappahannock, as his predecessors had. Neither general succeeded and therefore the battle was inconclusive. The use of the term "strategic victory" can be justified for Antietam because historians can show a direct link between the aftermath of that battle and the ultimate end of the war. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 15:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Therefore, your statement that:
- Historians rarely use numbers or percentages of casualties to determine the victor of a battle.
- is not valid. Sorry. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 05:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The Routledge Encyclopedia of Civil War Era Biographies says this battle was "inconclusive", so does the NPS, even Lee said the results were mixed (The Battle of the Wilderness, May 5–6, 1864 by Gordon C. Rhea), The Civil War: A Visual Encyclopedia also says inconclusive, as does the Encyclopedia of the Civil War. This parsing of battles as "tactically fooian, strategically fooish" is exactly NOT what is needed in infoboxes, the template documentation points this out, and I strongly discourage editors from trying to implement this as a pattern in ACW articles. If the result of this battle was actually in question or complex (which it isn't), we would go with something like "See Aftermath" and explain it in that section. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 22:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The Battle of the Wilderness has been described as inconclusive in every history that I have read on the battle. This is a reach at best. Keep the infobox simple and stay in line with the general historical consensus. We are not rewriting history here. Tirronan ( talk) 00:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with others that "inconclusive" is the best summary. We have previously included the parenthetical "Union offensive continued", but this seems unnecessary. "Strategic Union victory" is an overstatement. – CWenger ( ^ • @) 03:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment per PM67 and WP:MILMOS keep the infobox simple. Don't engage in WP:OR and try to figure it out yourself. The sources appear fairly consistent in describing it as "inconclusive". Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 09:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I note that the source cited in the infobox in support of "Strategic Union Victory" dates from 1932. This does not inspire confidence. Gog the Mild ( talk) 22:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment "Inconclusive" or "Indecisive" seems to be the best fit. - Indy beetle ( talk) 02:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I added a quote from McPherson to the Aftermath section in order to explain the significance of the battle results. Please let me know how it looks. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 00:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding comment from Kresock about the quote from McPherson: "it's pretty big; do we need all of it, as some of this is already in the main text?"
- I tried to make the quote as brief as possible. However, I don't think the significance of the quote can be condensed any more than it already is. What Grant did after the battle was never done before May 1864, and the effect it had on the Army of the Potomatc (which was lacking in the previous version), as well as the course of the campaign and the war itself cannot be understated. I mean, it was huge, and it's like not mentioning the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in the Battle of Antietam article.
- The second paragraph can be condensed, perhaps, but in my opinion, it breaks up the context. I'm open to suggestions though. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 02:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 00:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This article IMHO is nowhere near GA standard. While the references are adequate for B Class, more in line citations are required for GA. It would be better for the nominator to remove the nomination to work on the article, than to have it failed. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 15:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am not the nominator, but as the principal author and maintainer of the article, I also recommend withdrawing the nomination or failing the proposal, whichever is easier. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 22:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nomination withdrawn, it can of course be resubmitted when ready. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 08:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
How many references would be needed to bring this up to GA-class? Wild Wolf ( talk) 20:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Every point and statement would need a cite to a reliable source. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This general isn't mentioned in this article, though his own wikipedia article says he was discharged for misconduct during this battle. Yet his article also mentions he received a head wound at the subsequent battle of Spottsylvania. I don't have the time (nor am I in a location) to do the research, but IMHO either his name needs clearing or a link could be added to explain ptsd/head injury treatment during the Civil War. Jweaver28 ( talk) 14:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I checked Gordon Rhea's book on the Wilderness and Ward only warrants a footnote, so I don't think it's appropriate to include anything in this article about the incident, but he was accused of running from the enemy without any attempt to rally his retreating men, until one of Hancock's aides persuaded him to do so. It is unclear from the various sources exactly why he was relieved on May 12. The simple biographic references, such as Ezra Warner's, suggest that he was relieved because of his action and drunkenness at the Wilderness, but Rhea cites Francis Walker's History of the Second Army Corps as stating that David B. Birney relieved him on May 12 when he discovered him drunk on that day. Perhaps it was a combination of both. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
From the article it is unclear to me if the Wilderness is a name of an actual geographical place or if it is the wilderness with the meaning "an unsettled and uncultivated tract of land left in its natural state", as Wiktionary puts it. If it is a geographical place I suggest a link to be added the first time it is used to highlight that fact (even if no article exists yet). Best, Jopparn ( talk) 21:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
What state did the Battle of the Wilderness take place in? I can't find it, and I don't have time to read through a long comprehensive article to discover where that important detail is buried. Linstrum ( talk) 01:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I very specifically went to this article to find out, and I can't find it. If the name of the state is buried somewhere deep in the text, please put it right up front where it belongs with the other information of major over-all importance. Linstrum ( talk) 01:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of the Wilderness. 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/20101028013239/http://civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/08/aug/walmart_aug08_802.htm to http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/08/aug/walmart_aug08_802.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090711181706/http://www.fowb.org:80/jEllwood.html to http://www.fowb.org/jEllwood.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028013239/http://civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/08/aug/walmart_aug08_802.htm to http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/08/aug/walmart_aug08_802.htm
- Added
{{ dead link}}tag to http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/american_civil_war/
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 23:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
wiikkkki what wiki eho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.198.183.170 ( talk) 21:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"Lance Weller" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Lance Weller. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 20#Lance Weller until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk 01:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Wilderness/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 09:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Reading now! --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 09:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that the "Background" section appears to cover the Union army only, with nothing about the confederates?
- Union Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant – see MOS:SEAOFBLUE
- Grant believed that eastern and western Union armies were too independent in fighting and strategy. – too independent for what?
- Inserted "from each other" after "independent".
TwoScars (
talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- My concern was rather related to the word "too". They were independent from each other, yes, but why "too independent"? Too independent to do what? "Too" implies there is a problem that they were independent, but what is it? Why does it matter? --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 22:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Will work on that tomorrow. Because they were so independent, Lee was able to shift Longstreet from one front to another using railroad lines. TwoScars ( talk) 22:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't that explained in the next two sentences? TwoScars ( talk) 15:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here is the rewording: Grant believed that eastern and western Union armies were too independent in fighting and strategy. The Union army had to spend resources to guard conquered territory, and the lack of coordination between Union armies allowed the Confederates to shift forces between battlefronts. Grant's new strategy was that Union armies would fight together with the objective of destroying Confederate armies instead of conquering territory. One army's mission could have an impact elsewhere. All forces would be used at the same time, making it difficult for the Confederates to transfer forces from one battlefront to another.
TwoScars (
talk) 15:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Better, but still not optimal. It's just too convoluted: First, we learn that the two armies are "too independent in fighting and strategy", and then, we also learn that they are "uncoordinated". These seem to be separate things (also indicated by the different formulations you used), and only after reading it several times, I think that they are supposed to mean the same. So why not just writing "they were too uncoordinated" from the start, making this clear? The next problem is that you use a lot of text to explain a relatively simple strategy, often by repeating stuff. It is not as concise as it should be. Third, you are mingling his strategy (attack at the same time) and his goal (destroy armies) together in a way that lacks any common thread or structure, leading to further confusion. So, what about, for example, this instead: Grant believed that eastern and western Union armies were too uncoordinated in their actions, and that the previous practise of conquering and guarding new territories required too many resources. Grant's new strategy was to attack with all forces at the same time, making it difficult for the Confederates to transfer forces from one battlefront to another. His objective was to destroy Confederate armies rather than conquering territory. My main concern with the article, at the moment, is that I found it pretty hard to follow due to problems like this one; it really needs work in this regard. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 18:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to your example. Sorry about the article being difficult to follow. It was a complicated battle, with two fronts plus plenty of maneuvers elsewhere. Hopefully the images and the two orders of battle help. For some battles, I like to have one screen with the article and a second screen with the (enlarged) images. TwoScars ( talk) 20:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Better, but still not optimal. It's just too convoluted: First, we learn that the two armies are "too independent in fighting and strategy", and then, we also learn that they are "uncoordinated". These seem to be separate things (also indicated by the different formulations you used), and only after reading it several times, I think that they are supposed to mean the same. So why not just writing "they were too uncoordinated" from the start, making this clear? The next problem is that you use a lot of text to explain a relatively simple strategy, often by repeating stuff. It is not as concise as it should be. Third, you are mingling his strategy (attack at the same time) and his goal (destroy armies) together in a way that lacks any common thread or structure, leading to further confusion. So, what about, for example, this instead: Grant believed that eastern and western Union armies were too uncoordinated in their actions, and that the previous practise of conquering and guarding new territories required too many resources. Grant's new strategy was to attack with all forces at the same time, making it difficult for the Confederates to transfer forces from one battlefront to another. His objective was to destroy Confederate armies rather than conquering territory. My main concern with the article, at the moment, is that I found it pretty hard to follow due to problems like this one; it really needs work in this regard. --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 18:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- My concern was rather related to the word "too". They were independent from each other, yes, but why "too independent"? Too independent to do what? "Too" implies there is a problem that they were independent, but what is it? Why does it matter? --
Jens Lallensack (
talk) 22:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Inserted "from each other" after "independent".
TwoScars (
talk) 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Grant's Union forces totaled 118,700 men and 316 guns – What does "guns" mean here? Only 316 of them were armed?
- The author of a book about the Wilderness battlefield says – That is a bit awkward and makes me wonder what qualifies this author to be a reliable source. I would instead provide his name, with some attribute to get an impression who that is ("Author xxx …")
- You have a number of sentences just about the size of the wilderness. Would't one sentence be enough, saying that estimates vary?
- Over time, small trees and shrubs replaced the original forest – How can that be if the original forest had been cut down, as stated in the previous sentence?
- Will work on rewording. When you chop down a forest in the 1700s or early 1800s, it does not get paved over—and can grow back. TwoScars ( talk) 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- The detail on the evolution of the forest is now a footnote. The footnote explains tobacco farming, abandonment of depleted land, the mines, and the plank roads. It also has a quote from 1732 to give some perspective of time. The important part, two sentences that describe the Wilderness, moved into the first paragraph. TwoScars ( talk) 17:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- more-manpower – why the "-"? -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 18:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Lee needed Longstreet's First Corps to be in position before the fighting started – what position, could this be more specific? Does it simply mean he was waiting until Longstreet reached the wilderness?
- Here is how the source, David J. Eicher, worded it: "Mead wanted to move southward through the Wilderness, and Lee did not want to engage until Longstreet was in position." By position, we mean the place that Lee wanted Longstreet to be when fighting. I changed the sentence to say "However, Lee needed Longstreet's First Corps to be in position to fight before the battle started." TwoScars ( talk) 21:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- After head of the V Corps reached Wilderness Tavern around 11:00 am, – should it be "After the head"?
- This change of plans by Union leadership – again, "the" missing? There are more similar instances …
- Interesting. This is a case where I would not insert a "the" in front of Union. As an example of others doing the same thing, check out this
article by the American Battlefield Trust. Third paragraph: "To avoid the tangle of trees, Union forces advanced...." Fifth paragraph: "Their movements were not entirely undetected, but were certainly underestimated by Union commanders...." That being said, I still plan to do a search on "Union" and "Confederate", and insert "the".
TwoScars (
talk) 16:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- That is ok, of course. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 16:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Inserted numerous "the"s in front of "Union" and "Confederate". TwoScars ( talk) 18:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. This is a case where I would not insert a "the" in front of Union. As an example of others doing the same thing, check out this
article by the American Battlefield Trust. Third paragraph: "To avoid the tangle of trees, Union forces advanced...." Fifth paragraph: "Their movements were not entirely undetected, but were certainly underestimated by Union commanders...." That being said, I still plan to do a search on "Union" and "Confederate", and insert "the".
TwoScars (
talk) 16:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Spencer repeating rifles – can this be linked? -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Spencer carbine is already linked in the Union Opposing forces section. The cavalry used Spencer carbines, which were lighter and had shorter barrels compared to the Spencer rifle. They called them Spencer rifles anyway, or Spencers, or Spencer repeating rifles. For some reason, nobody calls them Spencer repeating carbines—even though that is the best description. In this instance, it is important to remind the reader that the 5th New York Cavalry was armed with repeaters. I could change "rifle" to "carbine", if necessary, but that is a little–used term. TwoScars ( talk) 21:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- After head of the V Corps reached Wilderness Tavern around 11:00 am, Wilson continued south. – "V Corps" and "Wilson" is the same unit, right? I found this quite confusing. I recommend to use the same terms when you mean the same things, otherwise the reader will assume that you mean something different.
- V Corps and Wilson are different units. In the section "Grant crosses the river", it is explained that Wilson's cavalry led the way, while the V Corps and VI Corps followed. I will go back to the Opposing forces section and add "infantry" to the descriptions for II, V, VI, and IX Corps. They are not cavalry. Similar for Confederate infantry. TwoScars ( talk) 21:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- and aligned his army from Germanna Ford to Shady Grove Church while it spent the night in the Wilderness – maybe add "north to south", I think it would help.
- and western border is usually considered Mine Run. – What is "Mine Run"? I see it is explained later, but should be explained at first mention.
- On May 7, Meade and Lee's cavalries clashed again nearby at the Battle of Todd's Tavern. – But we are at "May 5". Could this be out of place?
- the remainder of Wilson's cavalry division was cut off from Meade's infantry corps – you don't seem to refer to a particular corps (?), so I suggest to avoid confusion by saying "was cutt of from the Union infantry corps". -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 19:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Changed to: "Once the Confederates advanced east of Parker's Store, the remainder of Wilson's cavalry division was cut off from Meade and Warren's VI Corps." Two points are inferred here: 1) Meade's "eyes" to the south were gone as Wilson was unable to get messages back to Meade; and 2) Wilson could no longer be supported by Warren's infantry, so his whole unit was in danger of being captured. TwoScars ( talk) 17:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Before Hill's Corps collapsed totally – that would mean that it did collapse totally, which I think is not what you mean?
- The maps are indeed very helpful, as you say. But they can be improved:
- In this one ( [4]), the "Orange Turnpike" is not labelled, although the article section of this map has this name. So the reader may not know where on the map we are.
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BattleOfTheWilderness_-_HammondAndHill.png){kind=link}
- On day six, there is no map showing the Orange Turnpike, I felt a bit helpless there.
- Lacy House – this and a few others do never appear on any of the maps.
- Note that I do not request fixes of the maps for this GA nomination; the three points above are optional.
- sides caused caused – word too much
- When I started this article, I was quite confused about the first map, as I thought the armies of Sigel, Crook, and Butler were all involved in the Battle of the Wilderness. But it's just about Meade's army. Can you make this clear somehow? Maybe, in the section "Grant's plan", you could add an additional paragraph showing how this Battle fits inside this scheme.
- Also, you introduced "Grant's plan" but we never learn if that plan actually worked out?
- In the "Performance and impact" section, added after what was the last sentence, which was: "The battle confirmed a warning made by Longstreet to Lee about Grant, that he would fight "every day and every hour till the end of the war"." Added: "By April 1865, Lee's army needed supplies and his men were starving. His army was trapped between Sheridan's and Meade's forces. On April 9, 1865, Lee surrendered his army to Grant after the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse." TwoScars ( talk) 21:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was quite happy with the second half of the article, it was good to follow. If the above are addressed, we should be ready to promote. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 16:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looks all good now. Congrats. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 17:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/us/politics/liz-cheney-concession-speech.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-apADgOr4U
U.S. Rep Liz Cheney referenced the Battle of the Wilderness in her concession speech on August 16, 2022 with these words:
"Our duty as citizens of this republic is not only to defend the freedom that's been handed down to us. We also have an obligation to learn from the actions of those who came before, to know the stories of grit and perseverance of the brave men and women who built and saved this union. In the lives of these great Americans, we find inspiration and purpose.
"In May of 1864, after years of war and a string of reluctant Union generals, Ulysses S. Grant met General Lee's forces at the Battle of the Wilderness. In two days of heavy fighting, the Union suffered over 17,000 casualties. At the end of that battle, General Grant faced a choice. Most assumed he would do what previous Union generals had done and retreat. On the evening of May 7, Grant began to move. As the fires of the battle still smoldered, Grant rode to the head of the column. He rode to the intersection of Brock Road and Orange Plank Road. And there, as the men of his army watched and waited, instead of turning north back towards Washington and safety, Grant turns his horse south toward Richmond and the heart of Lee's army. Refusing to retreat, he pressed on to victory. Lincoln and Grant and all who fought in our nation's tragic Civil War, including my own great-great-grandfathers, saved our Union. Their courage saved freedom. And if we listen closely, they are speaking to us down the generations. We must not idly squander what so many have fought and died for." SAshevilleNC ( talk) 18:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Can we add the casualty table back? I recall there used to be a table of casualties from the different sources as different reliable sources (The National Parks Service and the WP Atlas) disagree substantially on casualties. I know this is a settled issue on this article -- but I would like to exhibit that even though there is a scholarly majority that there is not unanimity (the Nat'l Parks service puts the casualties for the Union higher than on this article by about 1,000). 35.2.147.173 ( talk) 16:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
-
Here is the last revision that contained it. @
TwoScars may want to jump in about why they removed it. I thought it was neat too but maybe it doesn't fit well within the article. I don't know much about the West Point Atlas but it is interesting how much lower their Confederate casualties are versus the National Park Service. –
CWenger (
^ •
@) 17:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
CWenger:The article, in the casualties section, covers various estimates and discusses why they are good or bad estimates. Some of this is discussed in footnotes. Read Note 24 that begins with "Confederate casualties are difficult to list because only 112 of 183 regiments engaged reported." Yes, the Union casualties may be low, as noted by Rhea and in Note 22. One problem with the NPS estimates is that there are no discussions on their estimates. One might also notice that the National Parks CSA number of 11,400 in the old table does not match what the National Parks Battle Detail uses (10,800). Young's numerical study appears to be the most accurate figure for CSA casualties, and that is why it is used in the InfoBox. The 17,666 total for the Union appears most often, although (as mentioned in the text and notes) that number is probably low. Perhaps the unnamed user would like to create a separate list page that has the old table (with corrections), but also discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each source's estimate. Much of that information could be copied from the footnotes. A "Further information" underneath the Casualties section header could link to the list/table.
TwoScars (
talk) 18:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I wish I knew how to do any of that -- I would perhaps include a section about the debate about casualty numbers rather than a whole table for it since it seems like it was removed for good reason. Mentioning the influence that lost cause or lost cause lite (Foote) have had on the portrayal or representation of the casualties, or the incomplete nature of modern results would seem to be enlightening for the readers. If I was to create a new page it might be called "Controversies on the Battle of the Wilderness" which could be extensive covering casualties and narratives about the battle. 35.2.147.173 ( talk) 22:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
CWenger:The article, in the casualties section, covers various estimates and discusses why they are good or bad estimates. Some of this is discussed in footnotes. Read Note 24 that begins with "Confederate casualties are difficult to list because only 112 of 183 regiments engaged reported." Yes, the Union casualties may be low, as noted by Rhea and in Note 22. One problem with the NPS estimates is that there are no discussions on their estimates. One might also notice that the National Parks CSA number of 11,400 in the old table does not match what the National Parks Battle Detail uses (10,800). Young's numerical study appears to be the most accurate figure for CSA casualties, and that is why it is used in the InfoBox. The 17,666 total for the Union appears most often, although (as mentioned in the text and notes) that number is probably low. Perhaps the unnamed user would like to create a separate list page that has the old table (with corrections), but also discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each source's estimate. Much of that information could be copied from the footnotes. A "Further information" underneath the Casualties section header could link to the list/table.
TwoScars (
talk) 18:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Warfare good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class American Civil War articles
- American Civil War task force articles
- GA-Class Virginia articles
- High-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press