Talk:Battle of Atlanta

message: As of September 26, 2023, revisions to this article are a work in progress. Expansion and additions to text, citations and sources have been made; others are being worked on in a sandbox or offline. Some sections may be expanded, revised or cleaned up before others. See also GA Reassessment section below. I will remove this entry when work is finished or if it the work becomes delayed for a prolonged period of time. Donner60 (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Some changes have been made to the article but most edits and additions are now being prepared in a sandbox. The changes and additions will be extensive and I think it is better at this point not to add them piecemeal. Donner60 (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work in Progress 

message: Normally, the strength is given by a number. Here, it is just referred to the armies, and if you go there, still, no numbers.
So, how many soldiers fought on each side? Formerly very active, now only occasional editor (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This practice is a crutch for editors who have not located the actual numbers in secondary sources. Those figures are actually difficult to nail down sometimes. It's arguably better than omitting the data entirely. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Very good. Those figures are very often difficult, or even impossible, to nail down. If you look at the articles for old battles, they very often has spans or ranges for it. I just say, someone need to insert the spans and ranges here. Formerly very active, now only occasional editor (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, in Wikipedia, the "someone" could be you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Nine years later, but for the record, these numbers are estimates of the numbers for the units involved in the battle. Most of the Union troops were too far from the locations of the battle and were not engaged. The Confederates used a larger percentage of their total force. More detail and citations are now being added to the article; the entire work may take some time yet to complete. From: McMurry, Richard M. Atlanta 1864: Last Chance for the Confederacy. Lincoln and London, University of Nebraska Press, 2000. . p. 151: "By a mixture of boldness and good luck Hood had brought a superior force to the point of battle." Donner60 (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strength 

message: In this edit, I removed unreferenced information claiming that the Battle of Atlanta was also called the Battle of Decatur. I'm starting to think that whoever added the information confused it with the Battle of Decatur of late-October 1864. If anyone can prove that the Battle of Atlanta was actually called the Battle of Decatur, please do re-add the information with a reference. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One part of the overall battle on this date included an engagement at Decatur separated by a few miles from the other part of the battle. Bonds, Russell S. War Like the Thunderbolt: The Battle and Burning of Atlanta. Yardley, PA: Westholme Publishing, 2009. . p. 161 refers to this part of the battle as the "so-called Battle of Decatur." In his new book, Hess, Earl J. July 22: The Civil War Battle of Atlanta. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2023. , Earl J. Hess has a chapter "Decatur and the Rest of July 22", which starts at p. 208: "The great battle at Sugar Creek and along the earthwork line at Bald Hill and the Georgia Railroad overshadowed a much smaller fight at Decatur on the afternoon of July 22. Although marginal, it was an important struggle...." In the Order of Battle appendix, at page 327, Hess lists the units engaged at Decatur under the caption: "Battle of Decatur, July 22." Dyer's Compendium  lists, for July 22, 1864: "Engagement at Decatur" separately from "Battle of Atlanta." Long, E. B. The Civil War Day by Day: An Almanac, 1861–1865. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971.  has the following in the entry for July 22, 1864, at page 544: "At the fringes of the gigantic battle, fighting occurred near Decatur, at Beachtown, and along the Chattahoochee River." Other citations are probably available. There is no confusion with the later battle by noting this separate action as part of the overall battle(s) on July 22. The citations here show historians have referred to this separate action as the Battle of Decatur. However, I think the distinction between the two Decatur actions should probably be noted in a footnote or in the article to avoid any possible confusion of the later action with the separate phase of the Battle of Atlanta at Decatur. Donner60 (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Decatur 

message: The lead should be expanded more; I expanded the lead to include the political ramifications since that was easy, but it still needs to do more on the background and siege.  Also, there were a number of duplicated refs in the paragraphs - the style these days seems to be you don't have to repeat references on successive sentences.  
You should include some kind of the strength numbers in the infobox and the text - the text refers to the Confederacy being out numbered repeatedly, and it should be easy to find since this is an important battle. Good luck on your GA review! Kirk (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll see if I can spruce up the lead and I'll look over the references. Thanks for reviewing! Guoguo12--Talk--  13:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick browse of Cox's Sherman's battle for Atlanta on Google books reveals appendices with the approximate sizes for each side during the campaign. Kirk (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I can seem to get to it. It says "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book". Guoguo12--Talk--  13:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its in our library - I'll see if I can find it. Kirk (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added references for the approximate strength of the confederate army from Cox, but I had to use a weblink for the Union strength; I'm not sure those web articles about the campaign are going to hold up as authoritative sources. Kirk (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll see what I can find through my local library. Guoguo12--Talk--  17:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-review 

message: In the lead you state "Union commander James McPherson" and mention that he was killed, a great tragedy for the Union army as he was an outstanding army commander. Later on in that same paragraph you state "Union commander William Sherman." 
As you know (you make this distinction later in the article) Sherman had overall command of this campaign while McPherson was the commander of the Army of the Tennessee, one of the Union armies in this campaign and present at Atlanta. I suggest you rework the paragraph so that visitors understand this. As it appears now, those unfamiliar with the War of the Rebellion might come away with the idea that Sherman rose to command after McPherson was killed. 
I recommend this as I have been told, by other editors, that the lead is the only thing some people read. 
Just as an aside, I read your last section on the rapid rebuilding of Atlanta after the war. During that time Memphis, Tennessee was often referred to as the "Queen City of the South." However, after the 1878 yellow fever epidemic hit Memphis particularly hard, her prominence declined and Atlanta became more important culturally, economically, etc. 
Good luck with this article. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Will see what I can do. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who commanded 

message: I think some alternate history is good for encyclopedia articles - make it clear what was at stake - but I don't like this passage in Aftermath:
"The fall of Atlanta was especially noteworthy for its political ramifications. In the 1864 election, former Union General George B. McClellan, a Democrat, ran against President Lincoln on a peace platform calling for truce with the Confederacy, although McCellan himself advocated continuing the war until the defeat of the Confederacy. Had this truce been achieved, it is highly unlikely that the war could ever have been restarted. However, the capture of Atlanta and Hood's burning of military facilities as he evacuated were extensively covered by Northern newspapers, and significantly increased Northern morale. Lincoln was reelected by a comfortable margin, with 212 out of 233 electoral votes.[8]"
How much of this is really cited to Boyer?  Just the result?  Is the first part original research / author's opinion / opinion of someone else?  At best, I'd want it to be "According to historian Boyer, XYZ."  But the current phrasing strongly connects the Battle to the re-election ("however") when I'd argue that it was more the general Georgia campaign that raised Union spirits, and furthermore seems to imply that had the CSA won the battle, then this truce might have had the CSA win the war.  Which, IMHO, is quite wrong; the South had already lost by 1864, McClellan lost by a lot of votes, and even if McClellan had won he'd *probably* have continued prosecuting the war.  The passage goes even further and notes "it is highly unlikely the war could ever have been restarted;" this requires way too much knowledge of the terms of the hypothetical truce to judge.  A truce that came about due to crippling Northern losses would probably have ended the war, yes.  But otherwise, the country was still a tinderbox with none of the problems fixed and no compromises likely.  President McClellan might want to deal, but on what terms?  The CSA wanted independence and McClellan was a Unionist, and the North would still have had a winning hand in 1865 even if the Georgia campaign somehow stalled out.  That's no reason to offer a truce without terms the South would be unwilling to accept.  The only thing that would have ended the war was a clear loss by one side or the other.
I'm not asking my opinions on Civil War alternate history be included, of course, but I'd ask that the ones currently in the article be either cited to a specific historian or removed. SnowFire (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Atlanta. 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/20131019062057/http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/ga017.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/ga017.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So far as I can see the only reference to Sherman burning down Atlanta when he left on November 15th is in the caption to a photo. 2601:602:9000:6700:E5C7:9994:3C82:D789 (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added further information links in the "Aftermath" section to Burning of Atlanta and Atlanta campaign. Please note from the opening paragraph: "Despite the implication of finality in its name, the battle occurred midway through the Atlanta campaign, and the city did not fall until September 2, 1864, after a Union siege and various attempts to seize railroads and supply lines leading to Atlanta." The reference to the burning of Atlanta, via the photo, is in the "Aftermath" section. It is not directly related to this battle and further mention, other than the added links, is not really needed in this article. It is somewhat complicated, a whole article being written about it, and can not be summarized briefly. The links should suffice. Donner60 (talk) 06:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know they burned Atlanta right?