Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Galveston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second battles?

[edit]

Isn't this the second battle of Galverston? The external link leads to another battle...68.95.138.120 05:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I added some new wording and linked this to the Second Battle, not the first. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune?

[edit]

The first two sentences describing the battle don't make sense. The Neptune is mentioned, but doesn't explain on which side. The sentence says "The Neptune arrived shortly thereafter." After what? The battle section needs to be expanded.GregE625 (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article expansion and renaming.

[edit]

There are severe problems with this article. There were two battles of Galveston and this one (subtitled) is the Second Battle of Galveston, Improvements needed and the list may not be in order;

  1. - Name change. The name will of course depend on references and an ability to create a First Battle of Galveston. If there is not enough references I propose Battles of Galveston. I will look into this along with anyone else that might want to join.
  2. - Article expansion. If there are enough references the name change may have to be first.
  3. - References, references, references.
  • I am currently looking at this as well as the First and Second Battles of Sabine Pass, the misnamed Sabine Pass Lighthouse, and Fort Manhassett. There is a lot of interconnection with these articles. Otr500 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where this stands but the "First Battle of Galveston" article already exists in the form Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862) which was and is linked in the second paragraph of this article. Red Harvest (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are redirects to handle the naming, and cross referencing which does give cohesion but:
A problem with the naming can be observed from reading the articles. The "Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862)" was an attack with the intent, and success, of taking Galveston. There was not much in the way of a battle in the harbor (at all) with some firing back and forth (ship to shore and back) and then the Confederates evacuated. It is customary that a battle involving a harbor (the water) involve ships.
The "Battle of Galveston" did involve a navy battle between ships. According to the article the Union army thought the navy was surrendering and, therefore, laid down their arms.. Maybe I am just looking at it wrong but there is an article, "Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862)", about a harbor battle with the taking of a town that does not actually have a harbor battle. There is a battle in a harbor, "Battle of Galveston", that has a harbor battle, ships being grounded and exploded, ships being sunk: you know, all the aspects of a good harbor battle, and it is titled "Battle of Galveston".
  • The first reference in the Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862) gives a title First Battle of Galveston (October 4, 1862)
  • The second reference just uses "Galveston" and the Wikipedia article is an almost copy of this. The main differences being only when links are used to other articles. I quit reading half way through because it is either a copy from Wikipedia or editing copy/paste (a no-no 99.9% of the time) that is far more than just close paraphrasing or plagiarism and might be copyright violations.
I have not looked into any of these as of yet just stating what I have thus observed. I am sure a good Wiki-lawyer can explain why the crossed up names make sense but I have not seen it yet but will look a little closer. At this point I still think there are title issues as well as egregious problems.
The good news is that the Sabine Pass Lighthouse is now properly named. A point needing correction is in both articles:
  • Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862): "...and the port remained in Southern hands for much of the rest of the war."
  • Battle of Galveston: "...and Galveston remained in Confederate hands for the remainder of the war.".
"much of the rest of the war" indicates there was a time or times when Galveston exchanged hands again, what do you think? Otr500 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The primary issue is that the events are not frequently covered and as a result have escaped common official names. Even books about the subject don't seem to settle on a specific name for each engagement. The NPS/ABPP designations are generic "Galveston" for both--with other names listed as "none" for both. The 2nd edition of the Civil War Battlefield Guide lists them as "Galveston I" and "Galveston II" which is a default for distinguishing them. This sort of default has been mostly replaced with better descriptions in other battles. That is likely the reason for the current listings in the wiki article.
While I would prefer to see some good sourcing of the names used for the articles, I don't have a problem with the current ones, especially because of the use of "first" and "second" as alternates. Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862) seems okay because it was a brief exchange between shore batteries and ships. Referring to the other as Battle of Galveston or Second Battle of Galveston seems even more defensible because it was an actual combined forces battle with land and sea elements on both sides. Plus, that is the name the Texas Historical Association is using. Since this was the primary and decisive battle and the prior was little more than some skirmishing/positioning, I can see why the THA would give it the name.
While the 1862 harbor battle article is weak, I'm not even sure that such direct lifting from the ABPP summary is a violation, because I think it qualifies as public domain. (However, I'm not sure of this and am not responsible for the content.) Interestingly, it originally was copied from a website that had essentially copied the a ABPP material except that the website applied "First" and "Second" names. Red Harvest (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I get a chance I will check for public domain or possible copy vio. Otr500 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify, please.

[edit]

The Union blockade around the city of Galveston was lifted temporarily for four days, and Galveston remained the only major port that remained in Confederate hands at the end of the war.

So what was significance of the four days? Was it a truce, to allow the Union troops to be evacuated? Valetude (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Galveston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Galveston. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number of men

[edit]

I am aware that it states the casualties but it does not say the initial number of men. could you please add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.135.27 (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Galveston&oldid=1206167429"