# Talk:Battle of Shiloh

Does not mean 'peace' or anything of the sort. It's just a place. Why do people with no knowledge of Hebrew write such nonsense?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.16.132 (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC) 

"Shiloh" was a Hebrew word meaning "place of peace"—from page 222 of the book The Longest Night, a Military History of the Civil War by David J. Eicher.
From Jeff Shaara's Civil War Battlefields, page 26: By the way, in a final stroke of irony, "Shiloh" comes from the Hebrew word meaning "Place of Peace".
From Grant, by Ron Chernow, on page 196: An Old Testament name meaning "place of peace," Shiloh was the place of Jewish worship before the First Temple.
The National Park Service has some curriculum material titled "The Battle of Shiloh - A Place of Peace to Bloody Battlefield"
Thus, we have three famous historians saying it means "place of peace", and the National Park Service using "place of peace" in a curriculum. If you have a better source, that we can cite, that gives a better definition of the word "shiloh", let us know right here. I will fix things. Historians believe the definition of shiloh is worth mentioning in a discussion of the battle. TwoScars (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Shiloh. 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/20141006075858/http://www.7tharkansas.com/history-of-the-7th-arkansas.html to http://www.7tharkansas.com/history-of-the-7th-arkansas.html
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) 21:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The section discussing the armament of the two armies discusses the large numbers of CS troops armed with substandard long arms. But it does not mention that, according to Grant's autobiography, the US troops were mostly armed with obsolete and ineffective Belgian smoothbores. At the end of the campaign Grant rearmed his troops with captured Enfields. It also doesn't mention the equipment of the artillery forces, which played a major role in the battle. Someone qualified should fix this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.39.212 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC) 

Does anyone have citations for the commanders of both armies. I added William T. Sherman and I am looking for a source so if anyone would have one, or all of them, that would be great.

Sherman commanded just a division. ... GELongstreet (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Along the same lines, why is John S Bowen listed with the commanders? I'm a fan of his, but really all he did was run a brigade, and we didn't even list corps commanders in the databox. CsikosLo (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Don´t know who put him there, but you´re right that he doesn´t belong there and accordingly I removed him as well ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Shiloh. 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/20160221071640/http://www.ambrosebierce.org/ABPJournal2007.Skaptason.TrailGuide.pdf to http://www.ambrosebierce.org/abpjournal2007.skaptason.trailguide.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006163936/http://www.usma.edu/history/SitePages/American%20Civil%20War.aspx to http://www.usma.edu/history/SitePages/American%20Civil%20War.aspx
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) 05:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Shiloh. 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/20170401214428/http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1391593-the-battle-of-shiloh-the-devil-s-day to http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1391593-the-battle-of-shiloh-the-devil-s-day
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) 22:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I made a change to the final paragraph of the intro.  According to the American Battlefield Trust, a reputable source, Antietam had around 1,000 fewer casualties than Shiloh, and the casualty counts at Shiloh were surpassed by Stones River in December 1862/January 1863.  Also replaced references to "bloodiest" with "highest number of casualties" which is a more precise descriptor and easier to verify.
16:52, 05 February 2019 (UTC)
—GoddardRocket (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 February 2019‎ (UTC)

It looks like that paragraph has been changed since you fixed it. Unfortunately there is no source cited, and it compares losses with casualties, which does not seem useful. Per WP:LEAD I'm going to change it to summarize what's in the "Casualties" section. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This article contains swaths of uncited text in the latter half, uses such wonderful sources as blogspot and "lyricsinterpreation.com", has a large number of improperly formatted refs (bare URLs abound), and also contains self-referencing popular culture references.  I personally don't think this article can be easily brought up to FA standards; without a reply to the contrary, I'll be listing this for WP:FAR in a few days. Hog Farm (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: What do you think about cutting the notable veterans section entirely? Many other detailed Civil War articles such as the Battle of Gettysburg article do not have this type of section, and IMO it is a magnet for infinite additions of anyone with a Wikipedia article. In an article that doesn't mention many of the major brigade commanders such as James R. Chalmers, Pat Cleburne, Patton Anderson, etc. (and making the battle summary that detailed would make the article too long), IMO there is no reason why we should mention Bierce or Powell. Kges1901 (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kges1901: - Yeah, I agree with that.  Neither Powell nor Bierge played a substantial role in the fighting, and this isn't a common occurence in articles.  I'll remove it. Hog Farm (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What does this mean? "Tired but unfought and well-organized men from Buell's army" ... and, I suppose, is that good syntax for USEng? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm currently reading them and just finished his description of this battle, then came over here to read an encyclopedic take and it's good (thanks to all). But I was a little surprised that there were no citations to the Memoirs, there is lots of useful detail there.  Are they considered WP:OR? Tim Bray (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in Battle of Shiloh. From my point of view, Grant's Memoirs are a good source and useful to learn about his point of view. We do have to worry about bias, so the article typically uses a current source that uses the memoir as a source. For example: at the end of the "Hornet's Nest becomes focus" section, we have a sentence that says "In his memoirs, Grant was critical of Prentiss for not making a timely withdrawal." This is from the Daniel book instead of being directly from Grant, and adds "However, the Hornet's Nest stand by Prentiss and W.H.L. Wallace (who was there longer and had more men under his command) allowed Grant more time to prepare his Last Line." This adds a historian's perspective that Prentiss should not be faulted as much as Grant implied, and also adds the thought that Wallace should get more credit for holding off the Confederate attackers. Thank you for your interest. This article will eventually get reviewed for a Good Article rating, so there may be some changes (hopefully minor) before the end of the year. TwoScars (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Shiloh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence (talk · contribs) 09:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 
HI. I'll look at this one. expect 2 or 3 weeks instead of 1, though. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you think the paragraph about Buell beginning "For many years after the battle..." should be in the "Reactions and significance" subsection? I'm not insisting, just wondering aloud. § Lingzhi (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it fits under the "Beauregard's situation" section, and covers why he did not continue the attack. However, that paragraph could easily be moved to the "Reactions and significance" section between the "On April 8..." and "Halleck, a desk officer with..." paragraphs. I would probably reword the first sentence. No problems here if you think it would be best to put it there. TwoScars (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Just noticed that whoever added Note 25 this morning did not put a citation at the end (or anywhere). TwoScars (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
In the sentence about a politician complaining to Lincoln about Grant, "there's no evidence he was inebriated" seems to be from a modern perspective. Is it? That info would clash, then, with the import of the sentence. It seems to imply that there was no evidence then that Grant was sozzled. Thoughts? § Lingzhi (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
That "there is no evidence of Grant being inebriated" was added this morning by Beyond My Ken. I am removing it because there is nothing in my citation from McPherson to directly back that up other than McPherson writing "False rumors circulated that Grant was drunk at Shiloh." TwoScars (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Also already mention in the first paragraph under Reactions and significance that "false rumors circulated that Grant had been drunk." TwoScars (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The paragraph beginning "Halleck, a desk officer" was originally one long, snaky sentence. When I chopped it up, the one-mile march became a part of the move from Pittsburg Landing to Corinth that took an entire month. Originally the 1-mile march verbiage was located prior to text about the month-long journey, though it seemed a little ambiguous. If it really did take place earlier, I'll have to change that sentence. So was it...? § Lingzhi (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
More mess made by Beyond My Ken this morning. Although it is true that Halleck was a desk officer with little field experience, I don't think one can say that without a citation. This is also where he added a Note without a citation. The battle is not about Halleck, and I have always been hesitant to use a citation that covers ten pages. Beyond My Ken removed a simple sentence "Halleck led a reinforced Union army to Corinth, and the Confederates abandoned it on May 30.", with a one-page citation, and added an entire paragraph about Halleck with an uncited note and only one citation that lists 10 pages. I will have to look into this further. TwoScars (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I have cleaned this up and simplified it. I do not believe that it is necessary, in the Battle of Shiloh, to provide lots of detail about another battle—that can go in the Siege of Corinth article. (Sorry I removed your work on Beyond My Ken's writing.) The uncited note and the extra detail on Halleck are gone. They are replaced (in the last paragraph) with "Waiting until he was fully reinforced and resupplied, Halleck began a "painfully slow" movement to Corinth on April 29. Arriving on the morning of May 30, Union troops found the city abandoned." TwoScars (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I was just copy editing. When I was doing that, I had no sense yet of whether the text was germane to the overall story. All is good. § Lingzhi (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I've always thought that this was kinda ugly: [25][232][233][26]. Is there a way to merge your {{harvnb}} templates together, the way that {{sfnm}} does for {{sfn}}? § Lingzhi (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I see now. First sentence in the Casualties section has four citations because the sentence says "multiple sources". I agree that it is ugly. I also don't like citations in the middle of sentences—that is why there are none. I will see if there is a way in the Harvard style to fix that. I also have to search for citations made this morning by Beyond My Ken that do not use Harvard style.TwoScars (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Taking a break—back later. TwoScars (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Combined the book citations, but left the web citations separate so the web link would work. Looks better. Affects USA and CSA casualties. TwoScars (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I added a {{citation needed}} template.
Will work on that after a break. The lead section was changed yesterday morning by Beyond My Ken. I usually do not have any notes or citations in the Lead—and any information in the Lead is covered in the main portion of the text. Too much detail in the Lead will ruin the article for many readers. I will compare the earlier version of the Lead to the current, and probably slim it down. TwoScars (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Changed the Lead so that it was close to what it was a few days ago—much shorter and concise. Anything in the Lead should be covered in the main body of the article. The extra criticisms of Grant mentioned in yesterday's version of the Lead, and historian's opinions of those criticisms, could be added to the Reactions and significance section if necessary. The section could become five paragraphs instead of four. I will write that up in a sandbox in case you believe those are necessary. The criticisms of Beauregard in the old Lead, and historian's opinions of those criticisms, are already mentioned in the Beauregard's situation section. TwoScars (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Added "Among the more justified criticisms of Grant was the lack of fortifications at the camps around Pittsburg Landing, and one historian considers this a critical mistake. At least two of Grant's generals counseled against entrenching, and Grant believed that enemy troops would not leave their own entrenched position." to the end of the first paragraph under Reactions and significance. This addresses the most worthy criticism in the old Lead, and it has citations. TwoScars (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the controversy about Lew Wallace "taking the wrong road" is underdeveloped. Maybe seriously underdeveloped? But surely needs more than a little more time. Daniel has a good discussion. Winston Groom seems to have good details too. § Lingzhi (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Added a paragraph at the start of the "Battle, afternoon of April 6" section. Used Daniels as source. TwoScars (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
For starters, I think you added "according to Reid,  to "Only Buell, who saved Grant" and I was glad to see that. I was just gonna mention that but then noticed it was different than I remembered... There are controversies about several officers related to this battle: Buell, Grant, Wallace, maybe others as well. I haven't yet figured out the scope each one should be given. But for sure, Grant's alleged drinking should only be mentioned in this one and explored more in the Grant article. That was an ongoing criticism. And for sure, the Lew Wallace thing still does not make it clear that the controversy dogged his life for years. He was hours upon hours late. People were deeply pissed off at him. Grant said, "If it had been [another officer], he would have arrived at noon."  Winston Groom does have an interesting quote where Grant half-exonerates Wallace, or offers him a fig leaf. The point is that the Wallace controversy is specific to this battle, where accusations that Grant was a drunkard were ongoing. But I am also glad to see the bit you added about criticizing Grant for not fortifying enough. That is good. That is very specific to this battle. More later... BTW, this is an excellent article. § Lingzhi (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Added a paragraph about Lew Wallace to "Reactions and significance".  TwoScars (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm gonna get around to doing spot checks while I copy edit. So how about Eicher 2001:
Current notes 61 & 62, Eicher 2001, pp. 222–223:  Lew Wallace's division ... guard against a Confederate attack from behind. "Guard" not found; Eicher says "prevent placement of batteries; strike out against railroads". And is downstream really north? As part of criticizing Grant's defensive measures, Eicher adds that communication networks were weak. I dunno if that's important enough for the WP article to add.
I will work on the "guard" part. They did their thing against the railroads pretty quickly, so they had to be staying there for a reason.
Fixed using Eicher and Gudmans. "Lew Wallace's division was at Crump's Landing, five miles (8.0 km) downstream (north) of the Union campsites.[9] His mid-March mission had been to damage a railroad. While on this railroad raid, his men learned that a large Confederate force was nearby. Because of this Confederate force, Wallace's division remained near Crump's Landing.[61] TwoScars (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Downsteam is really north (contrary to my brain being used to things flowing south, like the Mississippi). Eicher p.222 at the bottom of the page says "...Lew Wallace, which was left five miles downsteam at Crump's Landing". Also, look at the map in the "Evening" subsection for the first day. The arrow on the Tennessee River is pointing north. TwoScars (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Current note 9, three cites, Eicher 2001, p. 222: I don't see that Sherman and Prentiss were closest to Corinth, but maybe you have to figure that out from details given. All else found.
The third citation 9 - I will check to see if I can find a better source. The map under Union and Confederate plans shows the Sherman and Prentiss camps closest to Corinth, and I could do a cite map, but I would rather hunt for text. Eicher page 223 says "Johnston's army of some 44,699 was encamped only two miles away from the divisions of Sherman and Prentiss...." McPerson on page 408 says implies that the two divisions nearest Corinth were Sherman's (he says so) and Prentiss' TwoScars (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Used McPherson p.408 as a replacement for the 3rd note 9, and added the word "inexperienced" to the sentence: The inexperienced divisions of Sherman and Prentiss were the most forward (closest to Corinth) of the group. TwoScars (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Current note 16, two cites, Eicher 2001, p. 219: both found.
Current note 246, Eicher 2001, p. 428: Eh, this is simple math, which I think is safe from WP:OR. I'm too lazy to do the math, so I'll skip this one.
Current note 239,... Eicher 2001, p. 230: found (with some simple math).
Current note 165, two cites, Eicher 2001, p. 228: both found. § Lingzhi (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I know I'm bangin' on poor Lew Wallace, but just a comment: grant himself later offered a figleaf to LW. Apparently Grant spent years criticizing him, but then read a letter from Wallace to his wife, and greatly softened his position. I dunno if that's too much information for this Wikipedia article. Grant said something like, if Sherman hadn't been pushed back 1 mile, Wallace's route woulda been correct. § Lingzhi (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Added more about Lew Wallace down in the Reactions and significance section—that paragraph is now rather long. Covers everything you mentioned. My own non-Wikipedia-worthy opinion is that Lew Wallace should have used his cavalry to know exactly where the battle lines were and the best route to get there. Because he did not, Grant's army was almost defeated. He wore Grant down trying to restore his reputation. TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Spot check Daniel, Larry J. (1997)
Current note 260,  Daniel 1997, p. 317: found.
Current note 259,  Daniel 1997, p. 316:  I don't see anything about "morale".
Changed sentence to read: Confederate President Davis believed that loss of Albert Sidney Johnston was the "turning point of our fate" in the Western Theater. TwoScars (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Current note 258,  Daniel 1997, p. 313: Yeah, OK, pretty much found.
Current note 252, two cites,  Daniel 1997, p. 261: "a" not found, though I am sure I saw those words elsewhere; "b" found.
p. 261 says at top of page ...the later charge of dilatoriness proved unjustified. Even with all the delays, the division marched fifteen miles in six and a half hours, a speed comparable to Nelson's division." TwoScars (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Current note 251, Daniel 1997, p. 260: not found.
2nd and 3rd paragraphs: "Rather than simply ordering an about-face...." and "troops filed off into the woods along the old path, crossing fences and traversing cornfields and pastures...." TwoScars (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
We're running into some problems here. § Lingzhi (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Thure de_Thulstrup_-_Battle_of_Shiloh.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 6, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-04-06. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)