Talk:Battle of Gettysburg

Gettisburg vs Geteezburg

is the indicated pronunciation based on the way the place is pronounced today, or 150 years ago? because, many words have changed their pronunciation in the past 150 years and it's not particularly "correct" to pronounce them auld style today; interesting, but not more correct. I ask because the notation in the article says "local", while the citation appears to be temporal. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The town is named after James Gettys (pro. Gettis), so it is arguable that the local pronunciation is actually the correct one, whereas the more widespread Geteez is incorrectly assuming that it's named after a Getty, like Getty's Burg. Since this latter pronunciation is enormously more widespread, the article refers to the "correct" pronunciation as local because that is essentially where its use is concentrated. It is conceivable that the correct pronunciation was more widespread outside of the local area in the past, but we have no documentary evidence to verify that. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sort of like "Looosiana" then, or "Missou-rah ' ", let the locals decide. Staunton, Virginia is properly pronounced, "Stanton". Harder decision with "Nawlins" for New Orleans. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that local pronunciations are interesting, and they are in many ways "definitive", but I would also point out that we need to distinguish between accent vs local idiosyncracy, and separately the point I was making above was with regard to general dialect changes over time. For example, the Massachusetts city of Worcester (named after an England county) is pronounced in two syllables as "wuss-ster". So that part of it I would call "local". However, how you pronounce "wuss-ster" is dependent on your accent. Many people in Massachusetts have the "Boston accent" or the "New England" accent (and that accent itself varies regionally but let's pretend there is one). I would pronounce it "wuss-ster" but the local accent would have it as "wuss-stah". However, nobody from "wuss-stah" would correct my pronunciation because they wouldn't correct my pronunciation of car/cah, Harvard/Hahvahd, etc. That's how they pronounce the -er ending and they recognize that I have a different accent, has nothing to do with that particular town. So my original issue is still ambiguous: I don't think the Battle of Gettysburg page needs to point out how the people of Gettysburg pronounce their town, that type of information would be more appropriate in the page for the Town of Gettysburg (which does not list this fact); unless there is some reason historically why we need to know this with respect to the battleground but not the town. The way it reads now is as a bit of trivia, and an ambiguous one at that. Is "gettis-burg" the two syllable part of "wuss-ster" or is it the "wuss-ster/wuss-stah" distinction, or is it a historical artifact true for the battleground but not the town? That's what I meant when I said it's ambiguous, and I realize these things are difficult to describe, for example the two syllable bit for "wuss-ster" is itself an historical artifact from England, but that just makes the point that I don't understand why this tidbit of knowledge was placed in this article, I'm not sure what conclusion I'm supposed to walk away with. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

With the copy edit proposal for Geteez-burg pronunciation in the Battle of Gettysburg article and the pronunciation of Gettis-burg labelled as local to the town, I agree. Examples for showing both: New Orleans (/njuː ˈɔrliənz/ or /ˈnjuː ɔrˈliːnz/, locally /njuː ˈɔrlənz/ or /ˈnɔrlənz/; or at Worcester Worcester (/ˈwʊstər/ wuuss-tər). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I've gone to the trouble to google the topic and to look it up in the dictionary... there is no clear consensus at all that the town is pronounced gettis. 69.201.168.196 (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hlj and 69.201.168.196: In the present we have the Battle of Gettysburg as widely known as a turning point of the American Civil War, or as the high-water mark of the Confederacy. It is generally pronounced \ˈge-tēz-ˌbərg\ in American English in the modern era. Since British pronunciation is i/ˈɡɛtɨsbɜrɡ/, with an /s/ sound, see Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, both should be included in the first sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is the British pronunciation useful?? It's an American-only battle. Rjensen (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the pronunciation as it now reads should be changed in the article, Battle of Gettysburg, to read the American English pronunciation, Getteezburg, \ˈge-tēz-ˌbərg\. The British pronunciation is useful only because it is the same as the locals, and Hal Jesperson took an interest in the local dialect. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly a very important issue. I think the suggestion that this topic belongs in the article about the town rather than the battle is a good one, and that is the place that it would be appropriate to point out that the "local dialect," as you are calling it, is based on the pronunciation of the name of the founder of the town (Gettys), rather than the more widespread mispronunciation (Getty's). I would counsel against labeling the Gettys pronunciation as British, even if it is, because I have found that this will open the door to editors who want to include the French pronunciation, Japanese pronunciation, etc. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus copy edit?

So the consensus copy edit would be something like US usage only or US and Brit/local:

US: /ˈɡɛtiːzbɜːrɡ/ , (REF ”Gettysburg”, Merriam-Webster, Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. viewed September 25, 2014.)

or locally /ˈɡɛtsbɜːrɡ/ . (REF Robert D. Quigley, Civil War Spoken Here: A Dictionary of Mispronounced People, Places and Things of the 1860's (Collingswood, NJ: C. W. Historicals, 1993), p. 68. ISBN 0-9637745-0-6.)

The proposal still needs an assist with the audio for the U.S. pronunciation, \ˈge-tēz-ˌbərg\, I have not yet found the coding to make it work. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

Didn't the south suffer more than 28,000 casualties at Gettysburg? I must research more concerning the specifics of the total in numbers regarding this matter when it comes to casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In the Aftermath section of the article, there are footnoted references to quite a number of varying casualty figures. We are using the modern Busey and Martin figure, which is getting increasing acceptance by historians as the most definitive currently available. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

AGAIN the south suffered over 28,000 casualties and once more you are undermining the totals with your figures. Article headline will be corrected.

It seems like footnotes are being contradicted to title headlines, if I'm reading this correctly. Are we making sure to cross check multiple sources for accuracy? Also we should remain factual and respectful in our presentation of information that may say something different to that of what someone else posts. Remember, no one is trying to be wrong on wikipedia and everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. It would be tough if we're trying to prove something on something so long ago and we have two so called "experts" saying something against another. There's a lot of nuances in old history and the more data we can use to support, the better.Chewbakadog (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

AGAIN, read my reply to the previous comment. Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources and when those secondary sources disagree, about all we can do is compile those disagreements either in the text or in footnotes, which we have done in this article. However, in selecting a single figure to show in the article's information box and to highlight in the main text, we have chosen to use the most comprehensive recent work on the subject of Gettysburg casualties. If you look at recent scholarship, you will find that quite a few authors have been adopting these figures since they were published, which gives us some degree of confidence we are presenting the most reliable information, while not totally ignoring the older versions. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

The numbers on front page are MISLEADING. The casualties 28,0000 SOUTH. 23,000 NORTH. The approximate numbers calculated, the texts and footnotes, the information boxes and everything else is fine. The Article's front page headline should say south 28,000 casualties.shyjayb 13:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

At this point, you're just spamming the talk page; for the love of all that is holy, read the actual article, because you're wrong. We have footnotes and sources for a reason, and the article quite clearly gives sources showing why the popularized and simplistic 28,000 figure is no longer academically accepted. There is, indeed, an entire section on this. You're actual demanding that debunked information be added to the top of the article. If you have an actual academic source for your claim that makes a reasonable case why all of the other academic sources that show you to be incorrect are themselves inaccurate, please, we'd love to see it. --IcarusPhoenix--^{The Labyrinth} 23:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)