An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with thegood article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review,click here and then edit the page.
Short description: Action of the American Civil War
Battle of Marion was one of theWarfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet thegood article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofVirginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
There are still problems with this article as i go through copy editing. There are many points that need clarification. For example, it was stated that the commanders "wanted to appease the outspoken Union public", the exact wording from your primary source too, by the way. But appease them for what reason? This throw away line does not clarify the commanders decision if the reason for appeasement is not given.
In addition the timeline is not easy to comprehend, and your primary source is no clearer. "Burbridge was then ordered to bring his army of approximately four thousand men through theCumberland Gap to meet inTennessee", again, the exact same text as you primary source, but to meet whom? And where in Tennessee? I assume to meet Stoneman and General Alvan Gillem. Who is the latter, why no mention that he has an army too? So two small armies meet? This really needs to be clarified.
Do these two armies meet before or after the ambush set by General Basil Duke's? The article says "OnDecember 13, on the march through the Cumberland Gap Stoneman's army defeated Confederate General Basil Duke'scavalry ambush atRogersville, Tennessee." But which army is this, Burbridge's troops, Gillem's troops or both? If both was this the second trip through the cumberland gap for these soldiers?
These confusions need to be cleared up if you want to get this to a good article status. And all these plagiarised sentences need to be purged. In future I suggest you write the articles from scratch, in your own words. It is apparent that what you did here was start with the source article and tweek it here and there. That is not acceptable for two reasons, deleted material can lead to lack of context. The appeased Union public is a good example of that. Also, the order of words and key phrases is effectively identical to your source even if tweeked here and there. It is much better that an article is your own original synthesis, using the source to make sure the points you make are accurate.David D.(Talk)22:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I went ahead and failed this article, as there are several major issues with it. It's a good start, but I doubt that the work required would be able to be completed in a week or so.
Lack of Sources - Anything that is not common knowledge, or in other words, about 95% of this article, needs to be sourced. As this is a GA Review, and not an FA Review, I would have been willing to let a few things slide here or there, but too much of this article is lacking citations. For instance, there is only one reference in the 'Background' section, when ideally nearly all of it would be sourced. Also, there appear to be some formatting issues with the citations that are here. The external links used as sources should be fleshed out a bit, and not simply be a URL with ref and ref/ around it.
Style - There are also a few issues concerning style and encyclopedic prose. For starters, Union soldiers shouldn't be referred to as 'Yankees' - in addition to some other problems with the word, it is too informal. This wasn't the only thing I found, but most of these issues are rather minor.
Illustrations - This isn't necessarily a make-or-break thing with me, especially as illustrations for an article of this sort are probably difficult to come by. However, adding illustrations beyond simply a dot on the battle's location in Virginia and pictures of the commanders would go a long way toward GA status if you were to re-nominate the article in the future. Modern-day pictures of the battlefield or maps showing the movement of units during the battle would be great.
This relies far too heavily on the CSA sources referenced. Even Marvel presents a more realistic depiction (although it is short and lacks a map of the action) that is more of a blend of Union and CSA reports.
The references could use some descriptive titles and page numbers where appropriate.
Casualties do not equal killed. ACW casualties consisted of killed, wounded, and captured/missing.
*I thought the saltworks were at Saltville, not Marion? "The salt works at Marion were later destroyed by the Union army." They were destroyed at Saltville as part of this raid and as the result of this battle.
No mention is made of the Union strength.
*Kingsport in in Tennessee, not Kentucky or Virginia.
The map shows Stoneman's raid coming from the North, but the expedition/raid started from Knoxville, TN (southwest) to Kingsport, TN then Bristol, VA and then hit Wytheville while the CSA tried to block the door at Marion, VA. While fighting was occurring at Marion, Stoneman succeeded in cutting the road back to Saltville and Breckinridge was forced to withdraw in the direction of Wytheville.
Some of the description makes it sound like a Union "rout", etc. but that was not the case. The Union forces weren't able to force their way across and Burbridge seems to have gotten his command totally muddled (See Stoneman's O.R. report.) In the meantime part of Gillem's command interposed.
*The CSA experienced tactical success in repulsing the attacks, but they were beaten strategically, outflanked and out of ammo. It appears that all the major Union objectives were achieved.Red Harvest (talk)04:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tertiary source (Chaltas and Brown) that seems to form the basis for much of this article is incredibly biased and misleading and seriously damages the quality of the present wiki article. Since the source doesn't footnote (only references) it is unclear how much it is the authors' opinions and how much comes from primary or secondary sources. I'm putting up the NPOV tag until we can get this cleaned up.
Looking at the O.R. reports, Schofield was the one Stoneman proposed the raid to and who authorized it. (Correspondence aobut this after the raid was to Halleck and Thomas.) This is yet another example of how the Chaltas & Brown article has confused previous editors.
The "Preparations" sections are problematic because they work best for set piece battles, not cavalry raids. This was a very fluid expedition. There were several actions preceding the battle and things occurring over many miles in different directions. Some subsection paragraphs about different preceding events are probably in order, with a final paragraph about what forces were coalescing for the battle itself (that is where the Order of Battle would fit.)Red Harvest (talk)19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reference links that are not directly related to the point being cited. I'm removing them as I find them but am uncertain why they are present in the first place.
Unfortunately, this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. The article needs to be thoroughly sourced before it can achieve GA status. Currently, there are many uncited statements. In addition, there are multiple "citation needed" tags (one of the quick-fail criteria for a GA review). Aside from the lack of references, I believe that some copyediting is needed to improve the quality of prose and MOS compliance. I would recommend getting someone without a background in American military history, if possible, as I believe that this article would be difficult for many readers to follow. The verb tense needs to be consistent (past tense), so phrases like "Stoneman would use troops" and "As these men would attempt to retreat from their positions at the bridge, the Confederates of the would pick most of them off" should not be used. Instead, it should be "Stoneman used troops" and "As these men attempted to retreat from their positions at the bridge, the Confederates picked most of them off". The latter of these sentences also underscores the need for copyediting, as "the Confederates of the would" is awkward. The League of Copyeditors might be a good idea.
The web citations that are given need to have at least a title, publisher, url and accessdate (preferably using the {{cite web}} template. The books should list at least an author, title, publisher, date, url and page (preferably using the {{cite book}} template. There are also a few concerns from last listed above this review, and it seems as though most of them haven't been dealt with. I am going to fail this article, but I urge you to address my concerns and the ones listed above, find a copyeditor, list the article for peer review, and renominate when it's ready. Best wishes,GaryColemanFan (talk)02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that this article has been renominated. I would just like to point out that several of my previous concerns remain (notably: verb tense, lack of references, and insufficient information in the references).GaryColemanFan (talk)02:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, lack of references is still a major problem. Every paragraph needs at least one reference. Verb tense is still inconsistent. One sentence that I specifically mentioned in the GA review was "As these men would attempt to retreat from their positions at the bridge, the Confederates of the would pick most of them off". This sentence has not been changed. In addition, the references still contain insufficient information (the minimum is title, publisher, url and accessdate).GaryColemanFan (talk)19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your other points, GCF, but it seems to me that a reference for every paragraph seems more of an aesthetics thing rather than one of veribility.Nousernamesleftcopper, notwood22:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, this is not a GA review, but it may help with future review processes.
Some of the internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem may hinder a GA nomination. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length atWikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>
If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article undergoes GA review, and indeed this is something that a reviewer should insist you do before promoting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found atWikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk)16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked to comment on the article. My comments are based on a quick read/skim only. I had difficulty maintaining interest even in the lede, and have not yet read the entire article, so these are just my early impressions. Part of my lack of interest in the article is just not being very interested in the topic of civil war battles; I am more interested in the politics. However, the main thing that would create a stir of political interest - that a former candidate for president of the USA was commanding on the side of the CSA - does not appear to be mentioned anywhere. I also think there could be a POV problem with calling Stoneman's offense a "raid into Virginia". This is not the language of thesource, and "raid" can suggest a "short, rapid attack into someone else's territory to take spoils". I also found it annoying that I had to hunt the list of references to find that source - it makes it that much harder to care to check -- and not even alphabetical order could be used to shorten the search. Also, that rather short source (with barely a dozen facts in it) is referenced 10 times. I would not normally mention this last point, since it could seem overly-critical, but I am just commenting on my early impressions. I apologize that all my comments are negative, but I would need to read the entire article before committing myself to any positive comments. ;=) --JimWae (talk)07:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that "Stoneman's Raid" is a very common name for the battle(s). I also see there is a template in the article WITH that name attached. Is this the CSA name? Does the USA have a different name for it? "Raid" appears 7 times in the article, but only once (in the template) as an actual name for the offense. Last sentence of first paragraph & first sentence of 2nd paragraph are repetetive. --JimWae (talk)08:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if "stoneman's raid" is used in the template & "raid" is used so very many times in the article (overused, I'd say - esp as "Union raiders"), then some text should connect to the "raid" "by that title". I ask again, did the CSA & Union use the same names for these offensives? --JimWae (talk)05:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And again, doesn't a raid usually imply a quick attack followed by a withdrawal? It seems the Union continued to advance after the battle --JimWae (talk)05:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that since there were multiple Stoneman raids, you have to qualify which raid this was. His North Carolina raid in 1865 is arguably better known. In this particular action, as in all raids, the intent was to advance, destroy things, but not retain territory (as an invasion would). The problem here is that a single minor battle in the raid is being elevated to seem more important than the full operation. The article should probably be structured as a description of the full raid--Stoneman's Raid into Southwest Virginia--like one of our campaign articles, and the battle should be a brief article that points to the raid article for context. Or even a redirect.Hal Jespersen (talk)14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted some simple edits to the article as part of a general review, but there are some systemic problems that I am not able to fix (or did not feel like fixing):
The reference to Heritage Preservation Services is, I assume, the National Park Service's CWSAC battle summary. This webpage has almost no information in it, so the wealth of footnotes citing it are probably not all valid. When you cite a webpage, it is a courtesy to put the actual URL into the footnote. By the way, the use of the name= parameter on the ref tag means that you only have to write the detailed citation text once and then you can refer to<ref name=foo/> for subsequent citations to the same place.
Rather than saying US War Dept, it is traditional to footnote the "Official Records" or OR and put the volume number in the footnote.
You are really overusing the term "army" for such small forces.
The Mason-Dixon line is nowhere near Southwest Virginia.
I removed a number of links to simple English vocabulary words.
The manual of style does not support the hard coding of thumbnail image sizes, which allows users' personal preferences to select sizes for all thumbnails.
I see that this has been nominated again for Good Article status. However, you do not seem to have acted on the issues raised above by other editors. Particularly of concern is that you are still referencing a large number of citations to a website that gives an extremely brief summation of the battle, and does not support the many citations you have made in various sentences. Please fix this before the article can be reviewed.Skinny87 (talk)19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Background section, you say "The force opposing Stoneman was the forces". Please reword this so you don't use the word "force" twice within the same sentence.
Please either always use convert templates or never use them. For example, you use a convert template in the third paragraph of the Background section, but not in the fifth paragraph.
For Ref #3 (Heritage Preservation Services:Battle Summary), I'm not sure which long ref this is pointing towards. It's either the first or the second listing in the References section, but I can't figure out which one. Also, whichever one it is, the other one doesn't have a corresponding short ref (as far as I can find), and so should probably be removed from the references section.
I have some concerns about whether the cites cover what they claim to cover. For example for ref 3, both of the possibilities that it could be (see above comment) are short summaries of the battle. Neither of them cover exact casualty and loss stats, force strength, commander approval (first paragraph of the background section), etc. This needs to be fixed. I haven't checked the other references, but as there are 11 references to Ref 3, this is something that I will be watching carefully.
It isbroad in its coverage.
a(major aspects): b(focused):
In the last sentence of the article, you say "Stoneman claimed" to have taken a bunch of prisoners. Is there something that contradicts this? Or was it just not verified by independent sources?
A couple of issues with prose, but the most serious issue is with references. I see that the issue of misrepresented references has been brought up before on the talk page, and it is something thatmust be taken care of. I am putting this article on hold for now. Let me know if you have any questions.Dana boomer (talk)18:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I still don't know which reference "Heritage Preservation Services: Battle Summary" is supposed to lead to. Also, whichever one it does (if it's one of the first two in the references section) still doesn't back up what it's supposed to be referencing. There is presently a fact tag in the article, and a hidden comment about the page range of Ref 3 (Official records), which needs to be checked out. I agree with the hidden comment, as page 442 of the Official records does not cover, for example, the strength and losses of the armies, for which it is currently cited. Please make sure thatall of your references currently coverall of the information for which they are being cited. Blatantly mis-using sources is a very bad habit to get into...Dana boomer (talk)19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to have to fail this article's GA nom. Nothing has really been done on the article in the two weeks since my last comment, and I still have concerns about the reliability of the sourcing. Please, please, fix this (it's been pointed out in previous GA reviews and by other editors, as well as me), before you renom for GA or A class. Good luck.Dana boomer (talk)15:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the bencaudill.com source would be considered reliable enough for GA nowadays. Concerns with the reliability of this source were brought up as early as the failed A-Class review in 2009, but it is still very heavily used. The pagination of the sources is doubtful as well - for instance "where Gillem was refitting his own command into a picked force of 1,500 men" is sourced to McKnight p. 222, which mentions neither Knoxville nor Gillem.
Realizing that the location was unprotected, the remaining Union forces attempted to withdraw to the starting lines. Confederate forces—now stationed near the covered bridge—exacted heavy casualties on retreating forces. The few Union soldiers who remained at the bridge—now caught between multiple Confederate regiments—refrained from attacking. When Union forces attempted to break through to the bridge, Confederate forces inflicted further casualties, forcing the attack to withdraw is source entirely to McKnight, p. 222. The content in McKnight about Marion isAt Marion, Virginia, on 17 December, the largest battle of Stoneman’s raid took place when Burbridge’s force ran into Breckinridge’s command just east of the town. Throughout the early evening and into the night, the two forces dueled around a covered bridge that spanned the Holston River.55 After a respite the following morning, the battle resumed with deadly ferocity. Ned Guerrant described the resultant confl ict as “Breckinridge with 1000 Kentuckians against Burbridge & Stoneman with 4000 Yankees & negroes.” After spirited fi ghting throughout the day, the Confederates suffered from a severe shortage of ammunition. Understanding the impact that a shortage had had on the Federal effort at Saltville in early October, Confederate commanders ordered their men to fi re only when assured of killing one of the enemy. Ned Guerrant, more pessimistic than most, put it matter-of-factly, “Only about ten or fi fteen rounds [of ammunition] in the whole Dept. of S. W. Va. & 4000 Yankees in it.” Shortly before midnight, Breckinridge ordered his men to withdraw from the fi eld and thus ended the last major battle of the Civil War in southwestern Virginia. During the early morning hours of 19 December, Breckinridge and his men beat a hasty retreat out of Marion and through the mud that had resulted from several days of continuous rain.56 on p. 221; these clearly aren't comparable in a good way.Good article reassessment will be needed unless the sourcing issues here can be brought up to code.Hog FarmTalk00:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have occasionally found similar cited text on other mil history pages to relate to text several pages beyond what is actually cited do you have a physical copy of McKnight or could you share an online resource for it cheersLeChatiliers Pupper (talk)22:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both provide no mention of the battle and only note George Stoneman lead a raid into SW VA. Mayo calls it Stoneman's raid but there is no description of the events in either.LeChatiliers Pupper (talk)22:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
two locomotives, and several railroad cars. More importantly, railroad bridges were destroyed as far as Marion.17
strong
Stoneman was ready to finish off the salt works as he moved south towards Marion. Breckinridge, seeing that his forces were being cut to pieces by Federal cavalry, left his defensive positions at the salt works and moved east to confront the Federals, just as Stone- man hoped he would. On December 18, the Confederates put up a "spirited resistance" near Marion, according to Stoneman, while Confederate accounts called the engagement "a substantial victory for the Confederates who held their position against largely superior forces."18 The battle was fought on foot, but the Federals' Spencer carbines made the difference in the see-saw battle, although the Confederates were holding the better ground. At one point, Confederate cavalry got in the Union rear and attacked them from the direc- tion of Wytheville. However, the 12th Ohio Cavalry beat off the enemy. If anyone doubted Stoneman's personal bravery, he proved them wrong in this battle as he formed the lines and fought alongside his men. Finally, Stoneman sent Gillem around the Confederate left, which effectively cut them off from the salt works, were now largely undefended. Breck- enridge, in danger of being surrounded, broke off the engagement and escaped over a mountain road to North Carolina.19
Stoneman now set upon the salt works and the town of Saltville where the workers lived. The town was burned to the ground and the entire day and night of December 21 "was devoted to the destruction and demolition of the buildings, kettles, masonry, machin- ery, pumps, wells, stores, material, and supplies of all kinds." On the following day, Stone- man reported that the ruins of the salt works were a desolate sight.20
Although there were differences in Confederate and Union accounts concerning the extent of the damage, the destruction at Saltville was a major blow to the Confederacy. Salt had been in short supply in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia and now it was almost nonexistent. What little meat there was available for Lee's hungry men now could not be preserved.21
theres a couple paragraphs after it giving the additional analysis that confederate and union accounts differ on the extent of the destruction and also giving the analysis that what little meat available for the army of N.VA could now not be preserved
Very little has been written about this small battle, and good sources are difficult to find. The following sources have issues and should be used with caution. I don't have any problem using them to describe the location, weather, or list the regimental commander. I do have a problem with using some of them to describe a situation in a battle that could be exaggerated or misleading. If the sources are used, I believe it helps to use them in combination with other sources. In some cases, a criticism of a source is noted to prevent someone from "correcting" facts with doubtful sources.
Colonel Ben E. Caudill Camp No. 1629, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2013). 13th Kentucky Cavalry, CSA: "Caudill's Army". This book is useful for the purpose of listing the units that were part of "Duke's Cavalry". It mentions the 11th Michigan Cavalry as the unit chasing Witcher back to Marion, which conflicts with the Mason version that states it was the 12th Ohio Cavalry and the 11th Kentucky Cavalry. It also gives credit to Colonel Caudill for capturing the strong hilltop position, which could be correct, but another source says gives credit to Duke. (Caudill was in Giltner's cavalry.)
Mason, Frank Holcomb (1871). The Twelfth Ohio Cavalry; A Record of its Organization, and Services in the War of the Rebellion, Together with a Complete Roster of the Regiment. This book discusses (on page 86) a colonel from a different regiment deferring to a major from the the 12th Ohio Cavalry—that could have some exaggeration.
Trowbridge, Luther S. (1905). A Brief History of the Tenth Michigan Cavalry. This source is used only one time, and that is to mention that only 50 men went on Stoneman's Raid, and they were his personal guard.
Walker, Gary C. (1985). The War in Southwest Virginia, 1861-65. Walker (on page 146) says Burbridge took a force of over 1,000 men that started flanking Breckinridge's left early in the morning on December 18. Gillem is not mentioned. This conflicts with all other sources, which say: Gillem was sent to Saltville, a messenger called him back, and he arrived at Breckenridge's left near the end of the day. Walker also says on page 147, that "187, mostly colored troops, lay dead in front of his line before the day was over" and that the official Union count was 143". This disagrees significantly with Dyer'sCompendium, which lists Union casualties for Marion as 18 killed and 58 wounded. A newspaper with an assistant surgeon's report says the 5th U.S. Colored Cavalry had one killed and seven wounded on the entire excursion. In theReport of the Adjutant General of the State of Kentucky, Volume 2, it is difficult to find any deaths for the 5th or 6th U.S. Colored Cavalry that occurred in December 1864. Walker's book provides plenty of information, but perhaps some of his sources made some exaggerations.
Other comments:
Burbridge, Stephen G. (1902). "Reports of Bvt. Maj. Gen. Stephen G. Burbridge, U.S. Army". In Ainsworth, Fred C.; Kirkley, Joseph W. (eds.). The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies Additions and Corrections to Series I Volume XLV. Burbridge "tended to exaggerate the size and strength of Confederate forces" according to page 61 of the book "The Most Hated Man in Kentucky: The Lost Cause and the Legacy of Union General Stephen Burbridge" by Brad Asher. Burbridge's glowing reports contrast with Stoneman, who mentioned (on page 812 of his report) that he (Stoneman) had to take over for Burbridge at Marion and "spent the fore part of the night getting things straightened out."
InJohn S. Salmon's "The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide", on page 390, he writes "...Breckinridge decided to retreat to Mount Airy,North Carolina." Mount Airy, North Carolina is about 75 miles from Marion using today's highways! On page 391 he says that Breckinridge "found his way blocked by Col. Harvey M. Buckley's 54th Kentucky Mounted Infantry and therefore turned away from North Carolina toward Wytheville." This disagrees with other sources, which say that Breckinridge retreated south toward North Carolina, but then moved northeast to Mount Airy,Virginia (his choice). Stoneman thought Breckinridge went to North Carolina. Buckley's brigade would have prevented Breckinridge from movingback to Saltville. This source (Salmon) has not been used.
Scott, Samuel W.; Angel, Samuel P. (1903). History of the Thirteenth Regiment, Tennessee Volunteer Cavalry, U.S.A.,... Like any regimental history, one must use caution when using a source that may be portraying itself better than it should be. Although not used, page 220 confirms the officers present on the raid.
Stephens, Ann S. (1867). Pictorial History of the War for the Union: A Complete and Reliable History of the War from its Commencement to its Close ... Together with a Complete Chronological Analysis of the War. This book has a section that describes Stoneman's December expedition, and it matches (word for word) a newspaper article (Stoneman) on page 2 of the January 6, 1865, edition of thePhiladelphia Inquirer. This isnot to say her/the newspaper report information at the time is incorrect.TwoScars (talk)19:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Marion page has been completely redone (May 2, 2025). There were no good sources on this battle. One will note that there are over 30 citations that use multiple references. This was done in some cases because a consensus was needed in order to feel comfortable with the facts. There are a few places where a note discusses the alternate views. The previous Battle of Marion page listed casualties and losses of 89 killed and 55 wounded for the Union; and 91 killed and 29 wounded for the Confederates. These were cited as coming from William Marvel's 1992 book called "Southwest Virginia in the Civil War: The Battles for Saltville". I have not been able to find any source that says where those figures come from. The previous version also did not seem to differentiate much from the Battle of Marion vs. the entire Stoneman Raid of 1864. For example: the Union force at the start of the expedition was about 5,500, but one brigade and one regiment were not present at the battlefield—and another brigade arrived at the battlefield at dusk on the second day of fighting, but did not engage. Similar for the Confederate force. Breckenridge did have roughly 1,500 soldiers, but about 500 remained at Saltville.TwoScars (talk)21:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @TwoScars, just a thought re the length perhaps the Opposing forces section could be spun off into a separate article Battle of Marion order of battle, I dont think its that critical and might be fine as is.
As for the Southwest Virginia in the Civil War: The Battles for Saltville casualty figures I would think they could still remain in the article unless you think there is something deeply suspicious about them, the source looks like a RS and even if we dont know what primary sources he based his numbers on we are allowed to rely and are encouraged to use non primary sources in wiki to prevent OR.LeChatiliers Pupper (talk)05:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What concerned me about using Marvel as a source is: 1) I do not have a copy, the nearest library that might have a copy is over an hour away, the book is hard to find, and used versions cost $100!; and 2) William Marvel is the author, and William Marvel might be the publisher—WorldCat says the publisher is William Marvel, but Google Books says the publisher is H.E. Howard. I know that some of the other sources cited in the original article cited pages that had nothing (or very little) to do with the Battle of Marion—so I am afraid to use the numbers and cite a book I do not have access to. If someone has access to a copy of the book, can confirm his numbers (and a correct page number, he says Marvel p.129), and the self-published book lists its source, then I would put them in if I could check his source.TwoScars (talk)15:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There does not seem to be a publicly-held copy of this book in the entire state I live in. In cases where a work like this is long out of print and essentially unobtainable, I just relegate it to further reading. The NPSinternal library catalog has the publisher as H. E. Howard.Hog FarmTalk02:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm@LeChatiliers Pupper@TwoScars I have three books by Marvel but unfortunately the 1992 book is not one of them The three that I have are all published by the University of North Carolina Press. Perry Jamison in Spring 1865 praises Marvel's scholarly work on one of the points in his book. This battle is not one of them. I have seen the Marion battle mentioned at least briefly in connection with Stonesman's Raid (the one on late 1864 and early 1865) such as Heidler and Heidlers Encyclopedia of the Civil War. None of this is especially helpful except to point out that Marvel should be a good source and that Marion, if mentioned at all in a book, may be folded into Stoneman's Raid. John S. Salmon's "The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide", is mentioned critically above. On page 391, the following appears: "The two sides suffered perhaps 300 casualties altogether at Marion." Obviously, this isn't especially helpful or definitive. FWIW.Donner60 (talk)00:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Marvel did some serious research, and the numbers are for the Battle of Marion only, and I have proof that those numbers are on a page, I would cite them. I could not find casualties for the battle in the OR or Stoneman book or Breckinridge book. Right now, it seems "fishy" that nobody else has those numbers, and the Union numbers are 89 killed (Marvel) vs. 18 (Dyer).TwoScars (talk)21:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
b(MoS):
b(focused):
DonearkiolinistDrop me a line17:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
