Talk:Second Battle of Bull Run

message: The battle is called both Second Battle of Bull Run and the Second Battle of Manassas, but the first appears to be more widely known and used. Please don't move the page without discussion. Jonathunder 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The naming convention used in Wikipedia is to select the name most widely used by the public, to facilitate readers finding an article. We generally do use the NPS names for battles, but this is one (along with the 1861 battle) in which an exception was made after numerous discussions over the years achieved consensus. If you look at popular histories of the war, the name Bull Run is more prominent. Civil War buffs (including myself) generally call it Manassas, but these articles are written for the general public. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I live on the west coast and have never heard the battle referred to as 'Bull Run' outside of a handful of overtly pro-northern sources, which, with a few exceptions, were borderline propaganda. The NPS refers to the battle as First or Second Manassas and most the general public refer to the battles as "Manassas." Or is it Wikipedia's new policy to use the most esoteric names possible for its pages? If that's the case, I motion we change the name of the article referencing the "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea" and the articles referencing Istanbul/Constantinople should be united under "New Rome".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.42.4.210 (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Common name rule puts it at Manassas http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Second+Bull+Run%2C+Second+Manassas%2C+2nd+Bull+Run%2C+2nd+Manassas%2CBattle+of+Second+Manassas%2CBattle+of+Second+Bull+Run&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3&share=  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeapg (talk • contribs) 10:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ...but has it as Bull Run being the most common for the first battle as you can see. I don't believe that it would make sense to change this one in view of that, right? — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  please take another look at the chart you provided it supports my claim that manassas is the common name. it shows First Manassas as the most common name Georgeapg (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I do not think this is a particularly well-written article and I have it on my to do list for refurbishment, but it is not high in priority sequence, so I would encourage you to make bold changes in the meantime. I would be happy to assist you in making sure that the editing/formatting is done correctly after you have taken your best shot. Welcome aboard. Hal Jespersen 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I quote:  "...by it's Virginia names...." and "...it's battlefields...."  Maybe this is the reason why some people prefer not to use Southern spelling for these Civil War battles.JGC1010 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed many times over the past 4 years (although more frequently for the first battle). Although we almost always use the NPS name for a battle, in this case the collective judgment of the Wikipedia editors was that it is much more frequently known to the general public as Bull Run, and Wikipedia tends to gravitate to the most common names. These are the only two battles in which we frequently give both names when referring to them in other articles. I am a Civil War buff myself and often refer to these battles as Manassas, but the non-buff general public does not. BTW, Pittsburg Landing is not a commonly used name for the battle after 1862. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Stonewall Jackson's lengthy quote about his stalwart actions on the third day of the battle are in contradiction with J. Hennessy's thorough history of the battle, Return to Bull Run: the Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas. According to Hennessy, Jackson was uncharacteristically unresponsive to Lee's order to attack Pope's retreating Yankees that day. Longstreet was indeed very effective in destroying Pope's left flank, but Jackson's tardiness robbed Lee of what he wanted most, total destruction of Pope's army.
From Hennessy: "That it took two hours for the Confederate units north of the turnpike, most of them Jackson's, to move forward stands as one of the most significant Confederate failures on the field of Manassas. The delay greatly reduced the value of Jackson's advance. What an hour before might have been a movement that changed decisively the magnitude of the Confederate victory now amounted to a glancing blow against Yankee troops already headed rearward." (427)
--The failure lies mainly with Lee.  His lack of action on the 29th and the morning of the 30th in ordering Longstreet to attack is to blame.  If Lee had ordered the attack sooner, before Reynolds showed up on the left flank, we most certainly would have captured Henry House Hill and been able to sweep the turnpike and approaches to Stone Bridge.  
I'm new here, so I'll leave the editions to someone who knows what he's (or she's) doing.
--Dansato 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think this is a particularly well-written article and I have it on my to do list for refurbishment, but it is not high in priority sequence, so I would encourage you to make bold changes in the meantime. I would be happy to assist you in making sure that the editing/formatting is done correctly after you have taken your best shot. Welcome aboard. Hal Jespersen 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jackson late and ineffective

message: Gents: I hate to break the bad news, but if/when anyone cares to drive down to my homestate of Virginia, you will not see the words "Battle of Bull Run" on any sign, pamphlet, literature, highway marker, tourist center, or anything else except perhaps in some war records in the Library of Congress or in some history books collecting dust on the shelves of Harvard.  Here in Virginia these were the Battles of Manassas, and ALL ... that is every single sign and tourist literature for miles in all directions only refers to this sacred battle ground site by it's Virginia names.  Please, for the love of God, give deference to the right of a State to choose to call it's battlefields what it will.  We, here in Virginia, do not take it upon ourselves to go into Maryland or Kentucky or New York City or Pennsylvania and name their battlefields for them.  Therefore please respect the Host of the Civil War, Virginia, in her God-given right to remember her history as she sees fit.  These were the Battles of Manassas.  Please change the titles of these pages accordingly.
In honor of Col. JS Mosby, I return as the Grayghost01 05:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I quote:  "...by it's Virginia names...." and "...it's battlefields...."  Maybe this is the reason why some people prefer not to use Southern spelling for these Civil War battles.JGC1010 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This has been discussed many times over the past 4 years (although more frequently for the first battle). Although we almost always use the NPS name for a battle, in this case the collective judgment of the Wikipedia editors was that it is much more frequently known to the general public as Bull Run, and Wikipedia tends to gravitate to the most common names. These are the only two battles in which we frequently give both names when referring to them in other articles. I am a Civil War buff myself and often refer to these battles as Manassas, but the non-buff general public does not. BTW, Pittsburg Landing is not a commonly used name for the battle after 1862. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is with the naming convention in Wikipedia?

message: I am in the process of doing a major update on this article, expanding all of the sections and adding new maps. If I am lucky, I will finish within a week and will post another notice here when I'm done. Hal Jespersen 01:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Status: Wow, I really underestimated the work involved! It's done except for the August 30 maps. Watch this space... Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  update 

message: I have cleaned up some edits over the last few days. The name Brawner's Farm is by far the most common usage for this engagement despite some citations that were added. The footnote indicates the alternative names and it is fine to include Gainesville in here, but Wikipedia articles generally use the most common names for battles, not necessarily the ones with the oldest historical references. The citation that indicated that Alan Nolan was the first to use Brawner's Farm was anecdotal, not definitive. Also, the first footnote was used primarily to describe the dates of the main battle, not the alternative names for August 28, so there was no reason to go into excessive detail on citing alternative names. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brawner's Farm 

message: An image of suspicious validity has replaced the one in the infobox. Since the user doing this edit just attempted to add a copyrighted photo to Battle of Chancellorsville, I think we need to understand the source of this painting prior to allowing its use in this article. Who painted it and when? What is the source of the image--where was it copied from? (The file description page says that it is the public domain work of the uploader, but I tend to doubt that.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the image in question: :File:Gandg2.jpg, along with its two duplicates from Commons: :File:Gandg2battle.jpg and :File:Gandg2.jpg. I shot the uploader (Mercucio61) a welcome message with the basic rules, including copyright info & links. Hope this helps, and if the uploader reads this discussion they really should check out the related policies here. Kresock (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: I am new to this page, but not new to Civil War history.  Why is this battle referred to as "Bull Run" and not "Manassas".  Everyone with even a small amount of knowledge of the Civil War and how HISTORIANS label battles knows this is "Manassas".  Please note that I am not some pro-south sympathizer, but I do suspect a bit of anti-south bias here.  Why are we not following the standards used by academic historians of the Civil War? Tneely (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary discussion for this is at Talk:First Battle of Bull Run. Our policy is to use the most common name used in published reliable sources. Which academic historians are you referring to?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct name? (again)

message: The maps posted by Jespersen are inaccurate to say the least. Specifically, a major feature of the battlefield of 1861 and 1862, headquarters of General Sigel, as well as a Union hospital. This was not true of the Henry house, which was totally destroyed during Manassas I, but continues to appear on Jespersen's maps for Manassas II. Was the decision to use maps without the Robinson on them, which BTW appeared on most every map related to Manassas I & II produced before, during and after the battles, influenced by Jespersen's prejudice towards Black people, since it was the major landmark identified with Black people on the battlefields? In conclusion, these maps should be replaced, updated or otherwise fixed to include the Robinson House and the role of the house, as well as its inhabitants before, during and after the battle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkhemet (talk • contribs) 01:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These maps were roughly based on the West Point Atlas maps of 1959. The Henry property appears there, and I retained it because it provides the rationale for the name of the hill on which it stands. The Robinson house is also on the West Point map, but not every house on the battlefield appears on this map. It is not mentioned in the article. I can add it the next time I refresh these maps. Thank you for bringing the problem to my attention. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  VALIDITY OF MAPS 

message: in "Pope relieved of command", I find:
"In 1878, a special commission under General John M. Schofield exonerated Porter by finding that his reluctance to attack Longstreet probably saved Pope's Army of Virginia from an even greater defeat. Eight years later, President Chester A. Arthur reversed Porter's sentence."
8 years after 1878 is 1886, which would be in Grover Cleveland's first term, off the end of Chester Arthur presidency.  Something isn't right with what I quoted. Carlm0404 (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time during aftermath 

message: Hi, was just confused. Is the battle's other name the Battle of Second Manassas, or the Second Battle of Manassas? Because the actual town is just called "Manassas" (in Virginia), not "Second Manassas," I wasn't quite sure. (This confusion also applies to the First Battle of Bull Run.) Thanks! 23.28.31.25 (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Park Service web page about this battle is captioned "Battle of Second Manassas (Second Bull Run)"  John Hennessy's book about the battle is titled "Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas." I think the name of the town doesn't matter but Second Battle of Manassas seems like a marginally better title. Perhaps other sources title it that way but the research would not be worth the effort in view of the two cited items. Donner60 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a little confusion... 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion