This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theJohn B. Gordon article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
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 is within the scope ofWikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofGeorgia 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.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state)
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theUnited States Congress 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.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
Note that while many historians indeed dismiss the Barlow - Gordon incident as an embellishment on the part of Gordon, recent research by Georgia author Gregory C. White has revealed that the earliest records on this subject are from Northern sources, predating Gordon's speaking tours and his memoirs.
Scott Mingus
I was wondering about that. If the story is true, then it isn'tapocryphal.Bubba73 00:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
PS, since it is in Gordon's book as a fact, instead of being a friend-of-a-friend tale, I think it should be called "possibly apocryphal". I tend to believe that it is not apocryphal.Bubba73 22:56, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
If you don't buy 'apocryphal', how about 'ridiculous'? Barlow and Gordon were division commanders in opposing armies through 1864-65. The chance that Gordon didn't know Barlow was alive after 1863 is absurd.Hal Jespersen23:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hal, you should read Greg White's research. He traces the origin of the story to Barlow, years before Gordon's speaking tour, where he popularized the story and certainly embellished it quite a bit. White' premise is that Gordon and Barlow did indeed meet on the field after the battle. I still have a tough time buying the part about not knowing each other was alive, but there are some who totally dismiss the fact that the two generals did indeed meet. I have found in carefully studying Gordon for my upcoming book that he tended to exaggerate often, but there is a kernel of truth in virtually all his other stories.Scott Mingus 00:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Well, provide a citation and I'll think about it. I think that the meet-on-the-battlefield part of the story is arguable, but uninteresting. (There's also the matter of whether Barlow's wife actually met with Gordon in Gettysburg and I tend to doubt that, too.) The meet-in-Washington story is fascinating, but bogus, IMHO.Hal Jespersen02:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed Greg White and he gave me a lot of details - contemporary newspaper accounts, other sources, etc. He said that his research was published "a few years ago" inBlue & Gray magazine as a response to an article written by Gettyburg historian Gary Kross, and that his research wasn't contradicted by the author of the original article. I can't give a citation, but someone withB&G could look it up. I think he also mentioned that it might be in a future book. I'm out of here.Bubba73 16:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
The article by Kross and White's response are now in the references. The story was told first by Garlow and later by Gordon. It was reported in several newspapers in March 1879, from a reporter for theBoston Transcript. It was in theNational Tribune, theDublin Post, and others. It was in theNew York Times on July 4, 1888. White emailed me that he has found several other sources and references since his response was published, and it is to be in his book "Georgia at Gettysburg" in a few years.Bubba73(talk),19:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's relevant for this article, but maybe Jeffrey Keene is interesting enough to have his own article, since he's been on tv-shows and written a published book. Then a "see also" link can be added to link the two articles.Jiiimbooh (talk)01:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article said "Gordon married Fanny Haralson, daughter of Hugh Anderson Haralson, in 1854.She represented Georgia in Congress for many years after the Civil War." (emphasis added)
I found nothing about her being in congress. This website doesn't mention it:Fanny, so I'm changing "she" to "he" unless someone knows that she was in congress.Bubba73 [[User_talk:Bubba73|(talk)]]03:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why no section on Gen. Gordon's well-known feud with Gen. Longstreet regarding Gordon's belief that Longstreet failed to follow Lee's orders at Gettysburg?— Precedingunsigned comment added by69.105.97.214 (talk)03:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there could be some reference to his memoirs 'Reminiscences of the Civil War'. These were one of the most vivid and readable accounts of the conflict, but critics have found them to be unreliable.Valetude (talk)13:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link onJohn Brown Gordon. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was:Moved toJohn B. Gordon as the most succinct of the less problematic means of disambiguation. The original suggestion is a non-starter due to there being multiple generals named "John Gordon" or the like. —Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,mellohi! (投稿)01:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perWP:NATURAL. When disambiguation is necessary, as here, a person's natural name is preferable, as long as it's not obscure. He is called John Brown Gordon in reliable sources such asNPS andNew Georgia Encyclopedia and others. Not to mention there are at least two other generals named John Gordon on the dab page (who are similarly naturally disambiguated).Station1 (talk)21:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John Gordon is extremely uncommon. Virtually every source I've seen refers to him as John B. Gordon or John Brown Gordon.Station1 (talk)02:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed. We obviously can't useJohn Gordon (general), as there are two other generals by that name. As both are British, we could useJohn Gordon (American general). It is certainly not true that we use a name that was not commonly used just for natural disambiguation. In fact,John B. Gordon looks to be the commonest form of his name and that already redirects here, so may be the best bet. --Necrothesp (talk)13:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.