Talk:Battle of Shiloh

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Shiloh 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weapons comparison seems slanted and incomplete 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations for Commanders 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits to intro page regarding number of casualties (February 2019) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  - 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)
thread_title:  This article is an FA, but does not meet the Featured Article criteria 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sentence in the lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Grant's memoirs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD