Talk:Battle of Appomattox Court House

message: In both the Firefox and Opera internet browsers, the edit buttons for the first three paragraphs are in the wrong spot. In Firefox, they're overlapping the last battle section, and in Opera, all three are at the bottom of "The last battle" section. I checked in Internet Explorer, and it's working, so I don't know what's going on. Could someone please look at it?
Daniel
: I find that Campaignboxes following the Infoboxes make many articles rather fragile in this regard. Oddly enough, although I have been Wikipedia-ing for a couple of years, I have no idea where to report bugs like this. Perhaps someone can enlighten us. In the meantime, can you reconsider your edits that put these comparatively large flag images into battle articles? Either reduce them to a manageable size (50px?) or forget about it, pls. (I see that Internet Explorer, which I rarely use, displays them quite clumsily in comparison to Firefox.) Hal Jespersen 02:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something weird is happening to the edit button

message: Minor edit of quotations from Gordon and Lee.  I checked against what was written in Freeman's book on Lee as well as more current books for accuracy. Carajou 07:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Last Battle 

message: I have removed the following unencyclopedic editorial comment from the main article:
:The reference to the V Corps saluting the Confederates (Gordon) was a myth perpetuated by Chamberlain (his Union peers came to despise the man as the man to boast his political goals blew the Gettysburg incidents out of portion).  This was a common thing for the age Mrs. Jackson did the same for Thomas as did Mrs. Pickett and later Mrs. Custer.  It just was not acceptable and considered in bad taste when done by the indiviual.  In reality the salute was nothing more then relieving the men who standing in one position became very tired; they were ordered to change positions every few minutes.  (Diaries show that the men rather then being friendly had to be relived of the ammunition to ensure shots were not taken).
Before this paragraph is restored to the article, we will need to have some citations from secondary sources to back up this claim. We also can do without the POV opinions on the characters of Chamberlain and the other Civil War generals mentioned. Hal Jespersen 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who has read J.B. Gordon's memoirs will know that he was a fantasist. They read like a bedtime story of romantc chivalry. Valetude (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  saluting 

message: I just took an editing pass over some of the recent additions to the article. In my opinion, we are adding too much detail about activities that are not directly related to the battle that occurred on April 9. I think it would be more appropriate to move most of the voluminous material (actually, a lot of detail has been omitted even from this lengthy description) about prior battles, surrender negotiations, and the following surrender ceremonies to the currently brief Appomattox Campaign article. It is on my to-do list to expand the campaign article and, unless someone beats me to it, I think this particular battle article should be focused much more sharply on the battle itself. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my intent to just add more information, and worry about trimming later; it's a lot easier than having to go back. I don't have access to the sources I need to expand the rest of it at this time. I don't think it makes much sense to redirect the surrender info to the Appomattox Campaign article, because I doubt even once it's been expanded it will be that large. It makes much more sense to just discuss the natural outgrowth of the day's fighting here, because it's more directly relevant than the campaign in general. Also, I would like to know why you are reverting formatting changes. Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand me. I'm saying it's best to add more information and cut it down; the only unsourced information that's been added has been added by you. There's no sort of article precedent about formatting. You are trying to own this article and control its changes, preventing good-faith additions to this article. I would like to see this reach GA, and that can't happen if any sort of background information is removed. Not everyone is a Civil War buff, and articles must be accessible. Martin Raybourne (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The surrender was a result of this battle, not the campaign. To place it anywhere else would be disingenuous and misleading. Martin Raybourne (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Well I'm trying to improve this article, with all the available sources that I have. I would prefer if you didn't stand in the way of that. Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ever-expanding article 

message: The general guideline we used for information boxes is to list the uppermost commander on each side. We sometimes list key subordinate commanders if they have some particularly noted role, such as command in an isolated part of the battle, or if a famous one is killed, such as Jackson at Chancellorsville. In the case of this minor battle, George Meade played almost no personal role. (He is not even mentioned in the main text of the article, other than an unlinked reference to his last name in the aftermath section.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, he was the commander of the Army of the Potomac, therefore it wouldn't matter what little he did.Red Wiki 18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  commanders in information box 

message: Does anyone know where this is? I keep looking it up but all I get is history on this place. I need it for my English paper. thanks!Mira (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's see. There's a link to the coordinates at the top of the article, a link to the coordinates in the infobox, and the intro says "Lee's final stand was at Appomattox Court House, where he launched an attack to break through the Union force to his front…" What part of the location isn't clear with that? —C.Fred (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: HELP

message: A map of the battle would be a helpful addition. Dan653 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: An IP editor has been changing the Confederate casualty figures (killed and wounded) in the infobox from about 500 to 195 while leaving the source for the original figures, Salmon, Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide p. 492 as the citation. Here is the URL/link for the source which clearly states "about 500." http://books.google.com/books?id=f_B3ToTmp1oC&pg=PA492&lpg=PA492&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false If this is in error and there is a better, reliable source that justifies a change, it should be cited. If the change is meant to refer only to the number killed, it would still need a different citation because that number (195) is not given in Salmon on page 492. Note, too, that Salmon refers to "casualties" with respect to the figures for both armies, so presumably that is the figure he believes is correct for killed and wounded for both sides, not killed for one and killed and wounded for the other. Donner60 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederate Casualties, Salmon citation 

message: The word "fias" appeared in the first paragraph, and I can find no meaning for it. It does not look like a misspelling to me. In addition there was a sentence fragment in the first paragraph of the "Background" section, which read "Confederate GeneralRobert E. Lee waited for an opportunity to leave the Petry turned Lee's flank at the Battle of Five Forks." I removed this. I hope some historian who knows this battle can correct these changes. Nick Beeson (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oct. 2013 Vandalism (?) 

message: I'm not going to fix this because (insert whatever you'd like to believe here), but 'courthouse' is a single word. Writing it as 'court house' is an elementary-school mistake. I'll add that the article text is inconsistent, sometimes getting it correctly as one word, mostly splitting it in two. 99.66.150.5 (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this comment is a couple years old, but just for clarification for future editors, Appomattox Court House in this context is the full proper name of a village, not a reference to a judicial building. The village included the judicial building/county seat, but the surrender took place in a private home, as the article explains. It appears the only existing reference to a judicial building, as of this writing, is in a photo caption, where it is spelled as one word. -EightYearBreak (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Courthouse' is a single word 

message: The overwhelming majority of sources written in the past century has confirmed that there were only about 60,000 Union Soldiers present at Appomattox Court House at the time of the battle and surrender. 150,000 men is an absurd inflation, which is to be expected from a German book written more than a century ago that someone for some reason felt was a reliable source (Bodart, Gaston (1908). Militär-historisches Kriegs-Lexikon, (1618–1905). Stern.) Sukurabu (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated with strength values from the American Battlefield Trust. Mojoworker (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union 'Strength' is Absurdly Bloated 

message: Shum mishtake shurely!  Boscaswell talk 22:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox:  Confederate strength: 26,000,  Confederate surrendered: 26-28,000 

message: The redirect Appomatox coart house surrender has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Mdewman6 (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Appomatox coart house surrender]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Battle of appommatox courthouse has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Mdewman6 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Battle of appommatox courthouse]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]