Talk:Little Round Top

message: To the anonymous user who keeps putting accounts of Holman Melcher's gallantry into the [too] many pages that describe this battle: Simply reading an account from one self-interested guy that he was the one responsible for something is insufficient to warrant inclusion in an article. Check out the Desjardin book referenced in the main article, p 69, for a description of what a reputable historian says Melcher did, which was in no way insignificant, but not worthy of special mention here, which by its very nature detract's from Chamberlain's role. I would be willing to consider an alternative view if you can produce a few real historians who would back Melcher's claim. Try Desjardin, Pullen, Coddington, Pfanz, Sears, McPherson, Gallagher, Trudeau, Hartwig, Bearss, Catton, or Foote. And the use of the phrase "there is controversy" should be reserved for controversy between such historians, not between Melcher and the rest of history (or between two Wikipedia editors). Hal Jespersen 00:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Mr/Ms New Editor. I am actually quite skeptical of Chamberlain myself, although you will find people lurking here who come close to hero worship. I am not averse to raising doubts, but they need to be within a few guidelines. Vague refs to "recent historians" won't cut it when there is a list of explicit historians in the References section who all agree on the counter-point. Wikipedia has policies about injecting new research into articles; see Wikipedia:No original research to start. My own editing policy is that I try to get all the facts in the article to be findable in the works cited under References and then if there's some controversial item, I also footnote to a specific reference. Check out how this was done in Stonewall Jackson about the subject of lemons. Hal Jespersen 16:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is an interesting topic - did Chamberlain later fabricate one of more of the things he did during the war? One of my favorite interests is reading evidence that explores (or explodes) our historical myths. And with the advert of the Web, historians are gaining access to Civil War letters, diaries and memoirs that never made it into print as they were not written for publication. Some "histories" of the War written in the 1880s are in contradiction to numerous letters written shortly after an event. Enough discussion about that. Someone with more interest in this page than I should read William Larval's Lee's Last Retreat. This book explores numerous myths of the last days of the War, including Chamberlain's claim that he was in charge of the surrender and that he gave his troops Present Arms as the Confederate soldiers marched by. Many historians are now in agreement that the "histories" written in the 1880s had another primary purpose than a factual relating of events.  Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: "Colonel Chamberlin gave the order to "fix bayonets," and ALMOST [emphasis added] before he could say "charge!" the regiment leaped down the hill and closed with the foe, whom we found behind every rock and tree."  Battles and Leaders, vol. 3, "The 20th Maine At Little Round Top", by H.S. Melcher, 20th Maine Regiment (condensed from the "Lincoln County News," Waldoboro, Maine, March 13th, 1885.--Editors.)
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Holman Melcher

message: I saw you reverted the good edit of "Paddy" O'Rorke's name. Most people referred to him as Paddy. If you care so much about the name, perhaps you shoudl create his currently empty page. evrik 15:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't written one yet because (1) I have an enormous to-do list ahead of him; (2) I have little biographical info available. The format of his name is one I typically use in hundreds of ACW articles. Similar to Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson,  William F. "Baldy" Smith, or William E. "Grumble" Jones. The issue is not the name of the article (which can be whatever its author creates), but how it is referenced in other pages. And your edit deleted info that I think is useful. Hal Jespersen 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit left the reference "Patrick H. O'Rorke" intact, but only changed the visible name, "'Paddy' O'Rorke". I'm not going to get into a p-match over this one.evrik 16:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No p-ing intended, but if you reread my comment, you'll see it is the externally visible name I was concerned with, not the name of the article, which I said could be assigned by its eventual author. Hal Jespersen 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Paddy" O'Rorke

message: Anonymous user 150.134.73.71 has been making widespread edits to battle articles that are gratuitous punctuation changes and links for officers that do not meet the style we have established for American Civil War articles. Although I have been accommodating some of the substantive changes that go along with this blizzard of editing, it is an annoying burden to have to sift through the gratuitous parts, and I will consider continuation of these anonymous edits to be vandalism and revert them entirely without comment. If the anonymous user would like to contact me on my talk page, I would be happy to explain why his or her edits are disruptive. Hal Jespersen 22:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: It has a car in it. Let's just take that out...
 
Better: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Little_Round_Top_from_Devil%27s_Den.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Db0255 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to edit Little Round Top1.png 

message: " As soon as they were in line with the rest of the regiment, the remainder of the regiment charged, akin to a door swinging shut. This simultaneous frontal assault and flanking maneuver halted and captured a good portion of the 15th Alabama.[16] However, Lt. Holman S. Melcher yelled at his fellow soldiers to initiate the charge before the order was given. Chamberlain is credited by some historians with ordering the advance, however most historical research shows that Chamberlain did order the advance but Melcher was the first person to engage with the opposition. Although Chamberlain decided to order the charge before Lt. Melcher requested permission to advance the center of the line toward a boulder ledge where some of the men were wounded and unable to move, Melcher did engage first. As Melcher returned to his men, the shouts of "Bayonet!" were already working their way down the line. It is widely accepted that Chamberlain ordered the advance and Melcher was the first to engage.[17][18]"
Apparently 4 times. What in the world? Doug Weller talk 11:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many times can a paragraph say the same thing about Melcher? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Little Round Top. 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  tag to http://gisdata.usgs.gov/xmlwebservices2/elevation_service.asmx?op=getElevation
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722062632/http://gisdata.usgs.gov/xmlwebservices2/elevation_service.asmx/getElevation?X_Value=-77.23921&Y_Value=39.78634&Elevation_Units=FEET&Source_Layer=-1&Elevation_Only=FALSE to http://gisdata.usgs.gov/xmlwebservices2/elevation_service.asmx/getElevation?X_Value=-77.23921&Y_Value=39.78634&Elevation_Units=FEET&Source_Layer=-1&Elevation_Only=FALSE
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722062828/http://gisdata.usgs.gov/xmlwebservices2/elevation_service.asmx/getElevation?X_Value=-77.240839&Y_Value=39.792116&Elevation_Units=FEET&Source_Layer=-1&Elevation_Only=FALSE to http://gisdata.usgs.gov/xmlwebservices2/elevation_service.asmx/getElevation?X_Value=-77.240839&Y_Value=39.792116&Elevation_Units=FEET&Source_Layer=-1&Elevation_Only=FALSE
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The photograph depicting Holman Melcher on the Little Round Top page is in error. It is actually a photo of Thomas Chamberlain. (Joshua Chamberlain's brother) My source is myself. I was a Joshua Chamberlain tour guide from 1995-2013
Una Connors 
Brunswick, Maine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joslch62 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Chamberlain or Holman Melcher? 

message: I'm sure it was unintentional, but seems to me there is a problem with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view of this article. After reading through it twice, I see very little mention of the troop movements or efforts of the Confederate forces. The article mentions Union officers by name (down to at least the level of Lt. Benjamin F. Rittenhouse), but no mention of the names or actions of any Confederate officers. For instance, there is no mention of the fact that for a time, Longstreet captured the positions west of Little Round Top known as Peach Orchard, Wheat Field, and Devil's Den on the Federal left. He did fail to seize the vital Little Round Top. This article makes no mention at all of Confederate efforts, only the efforts of those Union soldiers standing against them, and the hardships the Union faced. That seems to be the epitome of an NPOV violation. There is plenty of well documented information available of when and where Confederate forces were at any given time during this part of the battle. In the interest of NPOV, the article should be updated to include as much of that as there is of the other. The article should make mention of what Confederate forces were involved, who led them, and what struggles they had as well. As an example, take a look at the wording of Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day#Wheatfield. The actions at Little Round Top were supported by the actions mentioned in the Wheatfield part of that article. Thoughts anyone? TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 06:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute : Entire Article Written With Movements of the Union Forces but not Confederate Forces 

message: While the stereoscopic image is interesting in its own right, it seems to me that a 2-dimensional encyclopedia webpage would be better served by a crop down to one of the two near-identical images. My preference is for the right one, since the crop could include the original subject title below that side. Of course, the original upload on Wikimedia would remain untouched. I would also likely include a note below indicating it is cropped from stereoscopic photo.
Any discussion before I 'be bold' and edit the image for this page? Hagaland (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: the 'Excelsior' Stereo View photo