Talk:Gettysburg Campaign

Puzzled as to why this is being renamed a campaign

While I disagreed with the convention of "Foo, Battle of", I fail to see how the Gettysburg Whatever can be considered a campaign rather than a battle. Neither side planned a major engagement at Gettysburg, which would take it into the level of operational art at which campaigns are fought.

The article speaks of a battle, lasting three days, but does not describe a specific operational-level objective that would make it a campaign, as were Vicksburg and Sherman's operations in Georgia. Technically, the Battle was a meeting engagement, with much tactical improvisation.

I believe this article would be more properly entitled "Battle of Gettysburg". Howard C. Berkowitz 11:09, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

Well, the battle did result from Lee's invasion of the North, which did have a grand strategic goal - to show that the North could not protect its citizens, and to help with international recognition (IIRC). So I think the whole thing (the march North, the consolidation of the Confederate army units at Gettysburg, etc) could be termed a 'campaign', but you're right, I wouldn't use that term for the three days of fighting there alone. (Although perhaps it's intended to eventually have I see the article does already cover the manoeuvering beforehand, too.) J. Noel Chiappa 11:14, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

The article is about a month-long campaign. I agree with Noel that the three days of July 1-3 are incomprehensible except in the context of a campaign, including Lee's strategy ahead of time and, especially, the failed followup on the part of Meade. Apart from Luvas, all the chief historians (Coddington, Brown, Nofi, Woodworth, McPherson, Wertz, ) avoid "battle" in their titles and prefer instead the Gettysburg Campaign and we are following their lead. See especially James M. McPherson, "To Conquer a Peace? Lee's Goals in the Gettysburg Campaign." Civil War Times 2007 46(2): 26-33.Richard Jensen 12:05, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

Aren't there two distinct issues here? And subjects? One is what the general layperson calls "The Battle of Gettysburg", by which he/she means the three-day battle. The other is the month-long "Gettysburg Campaign" to which Prof. Jensen refers. Why not do each?

• And, by the way, here is what Larry has to say over the Forums about a pretty closely related subject:

  Even historians refer to battles as "Battle of X." There is no excuse to title our articles "X, Battle of." Ostensibly, the reason for titling any article in Richard's comma format is to make them easier to find in alphabetical listings. Putting aside the fact that we have finessed that problem with the 'abc' field in our metadata, there is no reason to think people will be more likely to look for an article about the Battle of X under X than under Battle. This is, of course, because the proper names of those battles whose names are in the form "Battle of X" are, in fact, in that form, of course. If anyone refers to them, as it were, on a "first name basis" as "Shiloh" or "Gettysburg" or "Waterloo," it is because it is obvious that they're talking about the battle. This does not entail (of course!!!) that, in titling an encyclopedia article, one can do without the words "battle of." So let's use "Battle of X," please. I also think it is implausible that people are not interested battles per se but only in the places where the battles occur. With a few exceptions, most places where famous battles have taken place are famous only because they are the sites of famous battles. Would nearly as many of us have heard of Pearl Harbor, Hastings, or Waterloo without battles being fought there? In short, there is absolutely no good reason, Richard notwithstanding, not to follow our standard CZ naming conventions in this case. Therefore, let's do so. Please do rename the relevant "battle" articles as appropriate; if anyone gives you grief about it, let me know, and please, don't expect me to do this because you're intimidated by Richard. I have too much to do myself. Just be bold!  :-) I'm giving you the right!

As an aside, it seems to me that this discussion has dragged out because Richard has taken a counterintuitive stance and then proceeded to defend it--and, in my humble opinion, weakly. I see that so far, he has persuaded no one (and several have made extremely strong points in reply). So, in this case, since the person taking the stand is one of our few active History Editors, and he seems to have made up his mind and wishes to establish his opinion as our policy, I guess it is incumbent upon me to declare that I am overruling him, as Editor-in-Chief. (Sorry, Richard.) Generally, I try to give editors the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes I do have to overrule them, which I assure you I never like to do. (End of Larry's quote -- It's hard to format this correctly.)

Hayford Peirce 12:30, 15 June 2008 (CDT)