Talk:Battle of Cold Harbor

Strength?

Did Lee have 59,000 troops as per the article, or did he have 62,000 troops a per the info box in the article? Dalf | Talk 20:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just as with the casualty table I added at the end, estimates vary. The guys who did the battleboxes in these articles use the National Park Service numbers and I think consistency is a good thing for those boxes. For this battle, Esposito and Eicher say Lee had 59,000. Smith says 60,000. I could look up others, but you get the idea. Hal Jespersen 21:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Facts altered

Certain facts in this article seem to have been altered. Can someone please confirm that the altered versions are correct. If not, please revert the changes.

—gorgan_almighty 14:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Such as what? I did a 'diff' back to March and other than the big casualty discussion at the end, few substantive changes have been made in the past 7 months. Hal Jespersen 15:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I did the original article; I don't see any factual changes, or any changes at all that I'd disagree with. user:Jsc1973

Question

I just watched Ken Burns' "The Civil War", and it repeatedly stated that 7,000 soldiers died in 20 minutes at some point during the battle. Anyone have a source on this?Lord of the Ping 06:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a rather lengthy discussion of casualty figures in the article. The 7000 figure is often mentioned for the first 20 minutes of the June 3 assault, although recent scholarship has indicated that it was closer to 4000. It is either sloppy writing or sloppy listening to consider a casualty figure to be the number killed. Casualties include wounded and prisoners as well and often only about 10% of the casualty figures from a Civil War battle are actually killed in action. Hal Jespersen 16:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that casualties and the number of killed are not necessarily the same. The film said there were 7000 killed in 20 minutes, not that there were 7000 casualties. I just brought it up because "The Civil War" is a popular documentary and that was a salient statistic. I couldn't find a reputable online source for that either.--Lord of the Ping 06:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Details of the Battle

I am not a Civil War buff, far from it, and I know that the real buffs take their history very seriously. As I read the details of the battle (the section named "Battle"), I noticed that the various divisions of each army are consistently identified by their commanding officer, but not necessarily by their affiliation (Union or Confederacy). Obviously, I could have clicked on the links for each commander and found their affiliation quickly enough, but this article, by itself, does not always make the affiliation of a particular unit clear. Is it standard in detailed Civil War or military history discussions to only identify a military unit by its commander, and not by affiliation? If so, I'll quite happily leave it as it is and not interfere. If not, however, clearly indicating which side each unit is fighting for would improve the text description of the battle dramatically. Oneforlogic (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ever notice?

At what point in the War did Union soldiers stop being green and inexperienced and become "veterans" as the Confederates are always described as being? Certainly not by the 4th year of the War. In reading the battle histories I have noticed these truisms...

(1) Union victories are due to the brilliance of Union commanders, while Confederate victories are due to misunderstandings, miscommunications, bad ground, bad weather, or simply sheer good fortune favoring the "veteran" Confederates.

(2) Union victories stand alone in triumph. Confederate victories are not absolute, and must be weighed against other factors such as earlier or later battles, or the eventual outcome of the war. Confederate victories are therefore always tainted with a "it did no good for them to win" approach to the victory.

(3) Union soldiers are only veterans in the case of heroic or successful military actions, but are always poorly led raw recruits in Union defeats. Win or lose, the Confederates are always battle hardened veterans. This hardness contributes both to Union defeats by creating an excuse, and to Union victories by glamorizing the extra courage and effort necessary to defeat the Confederates.

(3) Despite their overwhelming size, the Union armies never use "all their forces" in any battle, especially the ones the lucky Confederates won. The Confederate Army of course never suffered from this problem, and its troops were always in the thick of things.

(4) Union forces sizes are always ambiguous and usually understated despite the excellence of U.S. Army record keeping, while Confederate numbers are generally inflated despite the absence of reliable archival data and statements of Confederates to the contrary. The Union Army always seems to know more about the size of the opposing forces than it did its own. Union numbers usually include only those activily committed to battle, while Confederate "estimates" are theaterwide. Dead Confederates are simply dead, while as in this article dead Federals are dead only in relation to the relative sizes of the two armies (therefore a higher Union loss is really a lesser loss).

(5) The Union soldiers had finicky morale, which could be affected by a number of factors. The Confederates, despite their rarely mentioned many privations that were unknown to the Federals (such as living hungry and barefoot), always had superb morale which again runs counter to Confederate accounts. Where the word "morale" is used, either good or bad, it is nearly always in reference to Union soldiers. The only differences between the Union and Confederate armies were their sizes in numbers, and the right to have bad morale which was afforded only to the Federals. The types, numbers and condition of weapons and other necessities of war such as shoes are not considered.

(6) Accounts of battles, which resulted in Union defeats, are always prefaced by the reasons for the upcoming defeat (see #1, #2 and #3). It is possible to determine the victor of any battle simply by reading the first two paragraphs of the text. And, I think I know why. The reason is to obscure the simple fact that in all the essentials of war except population size and industrial capacity, the Confederates were superior. If the South could have enjoyed anything approaching parity with the North on these two factors, the history we read would be very, very different.

The article is typical.

98.193.216.6 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather than waxing philosophically about generalities, why don't you recommend specific problems to correct in specific articles--or, in the spirit of Wikipedia, edit them yourself? Cold Harbor definitely had some green troops (at least in terms of their combat infantry experience) on the Union side because Grant transferred some soldiers from DC heavy artillery units to the front. Proportional losses in the armies was one of the key factors in judging the effectiveness of Grant's campaign. The morale of the Union soldiers in this battle is widely noted by all historians--they felt they were being sent on a hopeless attack, and rightfully so. (Although I tend to doubt that a cheerful army would have prevailed here in any event, it's too widely remarked upon to ignore here.) And if you think that trying to disguise the winner of the battle in the first couple of paragraphs is a good idea, perhaps you would be more interested in mystery novels than history articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cold Harbor vs Fredericksburg Aftermath

I have read both articles (an example of splendid Wikipedian writing that this site can be recognized for), however, one thing that makes me a little mad is the the criticism that occurred in the aftermath of both battles. At Fredericksburg, it seems that Burnside is heavily criticized and flamed upon by the press to great lengths, while the only thing I can find in this article that criticizes Grant is "Grant became known as the "fumbling butcher" for his poor decisions". Whereas, I see all this towards Burnside and the President:

The Cincinnati Commercial wrote, "It can hardly be in human nature for men to show more valor or generals to manifest less judgment, than were perceptible on our side that day." Senator Zachariah Chandler, a Radical Republican, wrote that, "The President is a weak man, too weak for the occasion, and those fool or traitor generals are wasting time and yet more precious blood in indecisive battles and delays." Pennsylvania Governor Andrew Curtin visited the White House after a trip to the battlefield. He told the president, "It was not a battle, it was a butchery." Curtin reported that the president was "heart-broken at the recital, and soon reached a state of nervous excitement bordering on insanity." Lincoln himself wrote, "If there is a worse place than hell, I am in it."

Was this battle seriously only a "small blow to Union morale" or are there some unmentioned facts in this article?--McBuHoMeGr (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it also states "The battle caused a rise in anti-war sentiment in the Northern states." The tendency to focus on the Fredericksburg aftermath is probably due to the fact that it represented the end of a failed campaign for a new commander and the rest of the winter would be spent mulling over the defeat. In the case of Cold Harbor, it was the third in a series of really bloody battles coming one after another and Grant kept moving forward, giving reporters other things to write about. That is only my opinion. This is one of my earlier articles and as you can see it is deficient in citations. I will eventually upgrade it and take your concerns into account, but in the meantime you are welcome to make improvements to the article yourself. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you wrote this article? Congratulations man, I mean, this article is really good. What else articles have you wrote about the Civil War? Also, when exactly do you plan on "upgrading" this article? Thanks!!!--McBuHoMeGr (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

casualties

An anonymous user persists in changing the casualty numbers presented by the article. The numbers here are supported by citations to secondary sources, and therefore cannot be changed without adjusting those citations. In the case of this article, eight secondary sources are shown in the table and they all differ from each other. Most of them do not attempt to present anything more than an estimate of Confederate casualties. However, a very recent secondary source, Young's Lee's Army during the Overland Campaign: A Numerical Study, has done significant research into the actual numbers. This study has been endorsed by Gordon C. Rhea, the preeminent modern historian of the Overland Campaign. Because of the focused approach of this work, it is the most appropriate choice when attempting to select from the eight secondary sources. Now if there is a consensus that these numbers are incorrect, and that another secondary source is more accurate, the numbers in the information box and in the casualty section can be modified, but only if the citation/footnote is rewritten appropriately. We can have the discussion about that decision in this talk page, and I will continue to revert arbitrary changes to the article until that discussion has reached consensus. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you mention consensus, I will add my agreement with you, for what it is worth. You of course are correct that the early sources on casualties almost always differ, sometimes considerably. Confederate casualty numbers were often estimates of uncertain origin or value. They are usually even more problematical than Union casualty figures. Modern scholars have taken all the early sources on casualty figures into account, not just one or two of them, along with any other information they can gather. They then come up with what they consider the best figure taking into account all the information. Just because a figure is from an early source does not give it special worth because the early source is often not based on someone or group of people doing a formal and careful count, especially for large battles. One must be attentive to whether a modern writer has given consideration to all the sources or to a definite later study, of course. In this case, it is quite clear that if a careful, expert author on this campaign such as Gordon Rhea accepts these numbers, especially after work by another careful author working specifically on a book that gives the results of the study of the statistics of the campaign, they are the best that can be offered. Donner60 (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Our anonymous user has posted the following on my personal talk page, but it is more appropriate here: "Any and every source available suggests that Confederate battle dead at Cold Harbor was no more than a hundred. Your illusion of this 788 figure is erroneous and in no way could be close to an accurate figure. In fact, wikipedia is filled with lies and inconsistencies, because historical revisionists such as yourself want to control and distort accurate facts."

My reply: I would be interested to see all of the available sources you have seen that give accurate figures for Confederate deaths. Confederate record-keeping was often unreliable. The casually section of this article lists a variety of popular sources, and as you can see, few of them offer any numbers other than estimates of total casualties for both June 1 and 3. These estimates range from 1500 to 5000+. At the upper range, 788 deaths (killed immediately and mortally wounded) is not an unusual percentage of the total casualty estimate. In any event, Young goes into great depth, breaking out the types of casualties for each of the units at division level at Cold Harbor, so it seems a reasonable source. (It is rather interesting if you look at the previous numbers we used in this article, which are based on the Bonekemper reference in the table. Looking at his citations, he based his casualty estimate on an article that the same Alfred Young wrote in 2000. This goes to show that Civil War historiography continues to evolve as more sources become available.) By the way, as you become more familiar with Civil War history, you will find that "accurate facts" are not as accurate as you might think, and "lying" by historians is not nearly as common as laziness. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

After page protection by Berean Hunter (thank you for that, by the way; I was just about to file a 3RR complaint against our IP hopper when you did), our ubiquitous anonymous user posted another unsigned complaint directly on Mr. Jespersen's talk page (as opposed to, you know, here). It is as follows:

I am disgusted with the editors of wikipedia. Making up silly numbers, locking pages that have inaccurate information. If you all choose to edit online encyclopedia's [sic], take on some responsibility and report accurate figures.

My response to their desire that we, "take on some responsibility and report accurate figures," is quite simple: That's exactly what we did. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Poor article - lack of strategic view

I think this article poor. The detail is impressive, but the narrative wholly fails to comprehend and so to convey the larger Union strategy; to pin Lee down, giving Sherman free reign. 78.149.199.81 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Many of the American Civil War articles on Wikipedia rely on a concept called hyperlinking, which allows background information to be accessed easily by clicking on links of overview articles, etc. There is no reason for the 500+ battle articles to each give strategic views of the campaign or war in which they are a part. In this case, the battle is part of the Overland Campaign, the article about which gives a lot of strategic detail. Your opinion about giving Sherman free reign while Grant merely pinned down Lee is not really a mainstream opinion, by the way.

I reverted your change to remove the cited material. In the first place, Grant's memoirs are hardly an unbiased view of the events. They are a primary source, and the secondary sources cited in the article take precedence. Second, you should not blithely remove cited material from Wikipedia articles. If there are alternative viewpoints not represented, they can be added to the article, not simply used to overwrite existing secondary sources. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Great Article and good to the point

First of all, there is nothing wrong with the way the detail of this article is portrayed; in fact, the opening read is straightforwardly brilliant. Conclusively, there is no necessary exigency to alter this article from where it stands in ANY form.shyjayb 13:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Cold Harbor. 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/20100618232825/http://www.nps.gov:80/history/hps/abpp/battles/va062.htm to http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/va062.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518044125/http://richmondthenandnow.com/Cold-Harbor.html to http://richmondthenandnow.com/Cold-Harbor.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle result? Infobox is in conflict with the Aftermath section

It's not clear the battle result as the infobox says it's inconclusive, whereas the aftermath refers to it as Lee's last victory. —BlueMax14 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is inconsistent. A more accurate summary might be: "Tactical Confederate Victory; Union strategic advance continues but shifts south of the James River" ... —70.49.98.230 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Per this template documentation, the result parameter recommends either "X victory" or "inconclusive" as options, specifically recommending against introducing 'non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat.' This is not a content issue; it is a MOS issue. The instructions there recommend deleting the optional "results" parameter altogether in preference to speculation like the discussion above suggests. BusterD (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree we can't give a nuanced subjective explanation for the results in the infobox, per its guideline (as noted), and per the whole point of any infobox -- to list quick (terse) objective facts, only.

While omitting the results is the default for any disagreement, I think we can resolve this "conflict" by keeping the infobox result as "inconclusive" and improve the Aftermath section, where we can be as nuanced and explanatory as needed. Lee successfully held his ground, but then Grant resumed going around Lee. We really shouldn't call that a simple "victory" for Lee in WP's voice. We can say that some historians call it his "last victory" (mostly to foreshadow that further battles were worse for him), followed by how such a "victory" is marginal in scope. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't recall ever having read an account of Cold Harbor which described the battle as "inconclusive". Grant's pledge to "fight it out on this line if it takes all summer" effectively ended at Cold Harbor as he shifted south of the James. Perhaps one should not use terms like "tactical victory" in the info box if one doesn't like nuance. But certainly many other battle description websites do precisely that and, as a result, provide a better description of the actual outcome of an engagement - for example: tactically inconclusive, but a strategic and political victory for the Union; what more acccurate summary could there be of the Battle of Antietam for example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.98.230 (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You are suggesting going against WP's guidelines based on what other websites do; that won't fly here. Again, we can explain everything in as much detail as needed in the article. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. But the main thing is that for 155 years, analysis and scholarship has regarded Cold Harbor as a Confederate victory. Now we are saying on this site that it's not. If you are going to change 155 years of scholarship and analysis, the evidence should be stonger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.98.230 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

We can't get stronger evidence that the latest authoritative respected sources. As they change, so must WP. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

One or two "recent" sources does not a reassessment make. One source, if well presented, is perhaps an interesting thesis - a challenge that might be referenced - but it hardly becomes definitive just because its recent. WP does not enhance its credibility if that becomes its definitive raison d'etre. It just becomes silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.98.230 (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

(Please see WP:THREAD for how to indent your comments in talk pages. Please see WP:SIG about how to sign your comments.)

It's silly to assert what the sources say without present the sources. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it is generally accepted that this was a Confederate victory based on the following:

1) You have major works in the field over the decades: Shelby Foote, Bruce Catton, William Frassanito, etc, etc.

2) You have Grant's own words regretting the "final attack" at Cold Harbor which hardly suggests he thought the outcome "inconclusive"

3) You have the synthesis of analysis and agreement on Confederate victory in publications like Britannica or by the National Battlefield Trust, etc: see: eg. https://www.britannica.com/event/battle-of-Cold-Harbor; https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/battles-of-cold-harbor https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/cold-harbor

4) You have the analysis of the National Park Service, which is the actual custodian of the battlefield: https://www.nps.gov/rich/learn/historyculture/cold-harbor.htm

I think the argument that this was inconclusive, because Grant was able to successfully (and, to be sure, brilliantly) detach from Lee on June 12 and shift to the south, is not new. Rossiter Johnson (writing in the 1890s when many of the principals were still alive) noted that Grant deliberately stayed tied to Lee's lines after the disaster of June 3 in order to keep Lee from repositioning and then was able to detach withn Lee unaware (see "Campfire and Battlefield" - 1894 (Fairfax Printing edition 1978) - p. 365-69). But I don't think many would say that this detachment then makes Cold Harbor itself "inconclusive". Any Union plan to bash their way through to Richmond in the summer of 1864 (as Grant seems to have intended - "I intend to fight on this line if it takes all summer") ended with the disaster at Cold Harbor. The defeat at Cold Harbor necessitated an alteration of Grant's strategy - and I fully agree that he altered his strategy brilliantly. But the requirement to alter, and the very lopsided casulaties in the battle itself, makes the battle itself a Confederate victory.

It seems to me that this is what the scholarship in essence agrees on. If there are sources that argue for in inconclusive outcome (eg. Fuller which I am sorry I have not read), they should certainly be cited, but I don't think that this view is definitive. But there may be other views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.98.230 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(Please see WP:THREAD for how to indent your comments in talk pages. Please see WP:SIG about how to sign your comments.)

This goes some way towards providing sources supporting "confederate victory", but isn't yet sufficient.

In the list of major works, the authors are listed, but not what they said; the precise wording must be exact and complete to avoid WP:SYNTH.

Grant's own words are a WP:PRIMARY source. Per SYNTH, individual editors can't interpret this in lieu of military history authorities. Also, having regrets is not equivalent to defeat; a general can still have regrets about his greatest victory. To equate regret with defeat is beyond even SYNTH; it's WP:OR.

Other encyclopedias aren't as good as secondary sources. It's better for readers to WP:VERIFY our statements by bypassing the other encyclopedias and directly using the sources they use.

The National Park Service is not recognized as a consistently reliable source.

As noted, the outcome of the battle depends on many factors, and is especially complex in this case; any simple claim of "victory" is an overstatement. The Aftermath section can cover this with all the detailed explanation needed. The infobox cannot. Given this, per stated infobox guidelines, our only choices for the results in the infobox are either "inconclusive" or leave the results completely out. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

You're acting like an editorial dictator and hypocrite. You are the only person on this page/sub to suggest that Cold Harbor, one of the most lopsided battles in US history, was a Confederate victory. You accuse us of WP: SYNTH, but in your own sources don't quote specific words from said sources. No one claimed that Grant's memoirs was the sole reason for claiming it was a Confederate victory, just that it provides insight into the then-contemporary view of the battle.

"This goes some way towards providing sources supporting "confederate victory", but isn't yet sufficient." - we provided 4 sources, the same amount you provided. 4 is sufficient for you but not for us?

"Other encyclopedias aren't as good as secondary sources." The fact that you didn't even bother checking my sources is astounding as none of them were encyclopedias, but historical analyses of the battle, with one being dedicated entirely to said battle. "The National Park Service is not recognized as a consistently reliable source." NPS was only one source, regardless you haven't provided any reason as to why it's not a reliable source. Nothing in WP:Reliability outlists the NPS as a reliable source.

It is a fact- the Union army was battered and Grant had to abandon his objective of taking Richmond directly, switch to crossing the James and besieging Petersburg. Up until that point, Petersburg was not a part of the Overland Campaign's plan. When an army has suffered more casualties, calls for a truce, retreats from the battlefield first, AND has to change its strategic objectives, it has LOST the battle. You can argue all the nonsensical semantics you want: Cold Harbor was a Confederate victory, end of discussion.Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

First, my last post was a response to what 70.49.98.230 wrote immediate before. That's how talk page discussions work. I discussed the sources being suggested by the IP. No part of what I wrote has anything to do with Valkyrie Red, who had not been part of the discussion before.

Second, I don't have a horse in this race. The sources aren't mine, the results aren't mine; these originated from other editors. I've responded in this discussion to editor opinions on what the results should be, repeating that editor opinions – however well reasoned – don't matter, per SYNTH. Present sources, with their exact wording, and we can evaluate them, discuss, and reach consensus.

On the National Park Service, if it provides the sources it uses, then we can cite it per WP:Verifiability, if the author of the statements in the NPS known as an respected and authoritative military historian.

On Grant's regret, again, it's a primary source. We cannot in any way use it as a reliable secondary source.

Lastly, any claimed "facts" don't matter, because those (again) are just editors' options. Sources matter. And, as I've stated elsewhere, no editor has the power stop others from continuing a discussion until consensus is reached. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Amusing for you to educate me on "how talk page discussions work" when you're the one who abandoned talks on July 17. Considering you only responded AFTER I put in my own sources, it's not far-fetched for me to have assumed you were doing a double response. My apologies for the confusion, but it was an honest mistake.

If you didn't have a horse in this race you wouldn't have taken the time to revert my edits and continue back discussions here. The fact is you do have a horse and you do care about ensuring the Infobox result shows "Inconclusive." It's too late to claim editorial objectivity. I'm also 99% sure that this user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2605:A601:AD60:8E00:FDF3:CF38:EC37:505B) is YOU given that they're the ones who initiated the initial inconclusive changes to the infobox and have proceeded to not appear on these discussion pages, with you instead conveniently taking up their position.

You continue to be an advocate of hypocrisy. When the Special Contributions IP put in their sources, guess what, THEY didn't list specific wording or sentences from said sources. When they did it, you were perfectly fine with the vagueness. But now that I and the other IP put in our own, you suddenly care about WP:SYNTH? This is beyond humorous. I understand I have to indulge in this facet since Wikipedia rules are objective, but given that you made the claim that it's inconclusive, YOU ALSO have to provide specific wording from your sources.

From "Not War But Murder- From June 3, 1864, to this day, for those who know anything about the American Civil War, the name Cold Harbor has been a synonym for mindless slaughter. U. S. Grant admitted that he never should have ordered the all-out attack against Robert E. Lee's entrenched troops there on that Friday, and afterward he did his best to pretend that it had never happened. One of Lee's staff colonels called the one-sided Southern victory "perhaps the easiest ever granted to Confederate arms by the folly of Federal commanders." When the North realized how seriously the Union army was bloodied there, the muttered barroom description of Grant as butcher swelled into the public prints. Speaking as newspapers ran long lists of the dead and wounded, Abraham Lincoln, who would have fired any previous commander after such a debacle, grieved that "it can almost be said that the 'heavens are hung in black.' " His closest friend in the press, Noah Brooks, reflected the mood in Washington when he wrote that "those days will appear to be the darkest of the many dark days through which passed the friends and lovers of the Federal Union." A hundred years later, Bruce Catton called Cold Harbor "one of the hard and terrible names of the Civil War, perhaps the most terrible one of all." Those words, among the many written about Cold Harbor, remain true. It was Grant's worst defeat, and Lee's last great victory. Thousands of soldiers who survived agreed with Confederate general Evander Law that "It was not war, it was murder." But it was much more than one head-on attack and ruthless repulse."

From Rhea's book "Several years later, Lee's aide lieutenant colonel Charles S venable still regarded the June 3 victory as "perhaps the easiest ever granted to Confederate arms by the folly of the Federal commanders." Lee had earned high marks as a defensive fighter, deadlocking an army nearly double the size of his own force, and Cold Harbor added to his laurels."

Again, the NPS is a reliable source per WP:RELIABILITY. It is a base article on a reliable, independent site with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As the guy pointed out, the NPS is the custodian of the battlefield. And either way, it is ONE of FOUR sources present. I don't know why you think contesting it is going to do you any good.

For the second time, Grant's regret is not being cited as a reason to list Cold Harbor as a CSA victory, just that it provides insight into the commanding general's own thoughts on the matter.

Editor opinion? So it's an opinion that the Union army suffered 2x more casualties than the CSA ala Fredericksburg? It's an opinion that Grant had to negotiate a truce to collect the dead and wounded? It's an opinion that the Union army left the battlefield first? It's an opinion that Grant had to change the objective from capturing Richmond and destroying the ANV to capturing Petersburg? Geez, if those are all opinions I'm not sure what to believe anymore.Valkyrie Red (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

For my part, I wish all this passion and sourcing was going into improving the Aftermath section, and not debating a few words in the infobox. A perfectly reasonable argument can be made the casualties of the battle itself demonstrate a Union loss; another perfectly reasonable argument can be made the Confederate Army left the battlefield in worse circumstances than when it entered. Both happen to be true (if arguable) and provable (with sourcing aplenty). If this page were solely about June 3, Confederate victory would be the only possible result. This page is about the entire thirteen day engagement and the result was more complicated than mere casualty counts. Given the nature of instructions to Template:Infobox military conflict results parameter, we are limited in our choices.

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

IMHO, neither "X victory" or "inconclusive" adequately describe the result of the engagement, so neither are appropriate. In this case, our guidance is relatively clear--omit the result parameter. But as I mentioned in the thread below, there are better options. The Battle of Passchendaele was a lengthier, more deadly, and far more complex encounter than this battle. The page watchers there chose to use a link to their Analysis section, and spent their energy improving the section. Their entire #Aftermath section is quite readable, well broken down, and uses lots of superior sources. I would prefer an outcome here which isn't controversial and doesn't require re-arguing next time. Using the "see Analysis section" solves all our problems and redirects our energy towards page improvement, not disagreement. BusterD (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I 100% disagree with this proposal. Just because something worked on another Wikipedia page does not mean it is suited for this. You are also comparing a 3 month campaign from WW1 to a 13 day battle in the American Civil War, completely different circumstances, length, goals, tactics, and results. If anything, the infobox for the Overland Campaign could be argued to be changed from Union Victory to that analysis since it was 2 months long, had multiple failed objectives, didn't accomplish what Grant set out to do, and ended with nearly 2x Union casualties as CSA. But that is neither here nor there.

Let's keep in mind one thing- the vast majority of historians have never questioned the result of Cold Harbor- that it was a Union loss. Geoffrey Ward, Shelby Foote, Ernest B. Furgurson, Rhea, to organizations dedicated to the preservation of Civil War monuments/battlefields like the American Battlefield Trust and NPS. The reason this started is b/c an unidentified IP (the same IP you just reverted Mr. Buster, and who I am 90% sure is a sockpuppet of Mr. Monroe) said that calling Cold Harbor a Union loss was Lost Cause mythology. Lost Cause mythology. What planet do you have to be from to claim one of the most lopsided battles of the war, that the vast majority of historians say was a loss, is in fact Lost Cause mythology?

I presented my sources which affirms the loss as a loss. If anything, I propose doing what my unidentified IP contributor proposed, which is to simply do what we did on the Gettysburg page years ago when there was strong debate over whether or not it was a decisive victory- create a section wherein you show how some historians have argued that Cold Harbor wasn't a complete Union loss. We're seeing that on McClellan's page where contemporary historians are arguing that he was an effective general. The fact is the consensus will never change, but it will at least entertain this "Lost Cause" notion. As the IP said "Fine, put in a direct quotation in the text from a source which argues that the battle was not a Confederate victory. But that quotation must be specific and it still wouldn't alter the consensus amassed over 155 years."Valkyrie Red (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

There is someone who is continuously editing this article to label it "inconclusive" despite a host of sources rejecting this conclusion. Perhaps it is one of the individuals who was previously part of this discussion thread but whoever it is, this individual not only ignores every source inconsistent with his/her own views, he/she goes so far as to totally ignore/misinterpret General Grant's own words, to wit: “I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made … no advantage was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained”. I have yet to encounter this on another page but it discredits the entire "Battle of Cold Harbor" entry.

Active edit war on the infobox

There seems to be a lot of arguing in edit summaries but insufficient discussion on talk about these changes in entry in the result parameter of the infobox. To me the previous discussion seemed to indicate a consensus toward "inconclusive" but several editors seem to prefer "Confederate victory". This article's infobox seems to have seen edits toward both results for many years. I have no strong preference either way. At any rate, can we stop the edit war in live pagespace? Please make the case here. BusterD (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no edit war, only reversals of a single decision that was never reached from discussion or consensus. User AD Monroe decided to change the result to inconclusive without consulting the other historians here, and while we can chalk it up to a good faith edit, the fact that he abandoned the discussion on July 17 and proceeded to do more of his edits showcases he had no intention of debating it out. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that the previous discussion indicated a consensus when he flat-out abandoned the discourse on July 17.

Likewise, there is no edit war on my part. I did not revert his edits, but instead addressed his problems by adding 4 strong reliable sources to defend the notion that it was a Confederate victory. What does he do? He proceeds to REVERT my edits without discussing them, THEN decides its time to resume the discussions he abandoned on July 17. Absolutely ridiculous that we have to bend over to whatever his will is when he's the one who initiated things without talking them out. I am not in violation of any rules since I didn't do the initial revert- I only did the second one because he did so without addressing my edits. If he reverts my revert instead of continuing the discussions, he will be in violation of 3RR rule and WILL be reported.Valkyrie Red (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The overwhelming consensus of participants, commentators, analysts and scholars since 1864 is that Cold Harbor was a defeat for the Army of the Potomac. One can't just waltz in and argue for "inconclusive" and then try to unilaterally make that definitive in the face of all that. Even one or two well-researched and solid sources wouldn't necessarily change the consensus on the outcome of this battle. Fine, put in a direct quotation in the text from a source which argues that the battle was not a Confederate victory. But that quotation must be specific and it still wouldn't alter the consensus amassed over 155 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.98.230 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI I've just reverted an ip contributor because they made changes while this discussion is still ongoing. I have also requested temporary semi-protection for the page while we're hashing this out. Please understand that I'm not convinced that the change I just reverted is incorrect, but while this discussion continues the ip editor's change is certainly unwarranted and inappropriate. I appreciate all the editors who are using this talk page to help us decide what outcome is best for the pedia. I wanted to add that on today's main page "On This Day" section the Battle of Passchendaele is linked; that lengthy page on a similarly massive topic seems to use "See Analysis section" which might be a useful way to address this difference of position. BusterD (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So I do not know how you can argue that it was a Confederate by keeping it May 31 to June 12. I can tell you right now that Lee did not feel that he won by June 12 after Grant's forces slipped away. And just because popular opinion is that they view it as a "confederate victory" does not mean it is correct. There is still a lot of myth that surrounds Cold Harbor. If you want to bridge academia and the public's perception of the battle then you would mark this battle as inconclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AD60:8E00:C92F:71D5:18C5:4F41 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)