Talk:Military leadership in the American Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

West pointism[edit]

It was a major issue during the Civil War--the tension between the west pointers and the rest. It should not have to be a POV issue here. Rjensen 04:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No matter what your viewpoint, deleting the introduction is vandalism. BusterD 10:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I produced a much better introduction. This article is about the Civil War -- not about military academies today. (And yes, I used to be a professor at West Point). Rjensen 10:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
So what. You should still discuss major changes before applying them... Professor--Looper5920 11:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever qualifications you claim, this is not at all apparent from the content of your posts and the raging controversies on your talk pages. No matter what authority you propose to represent, you are making destructive edits, and NOT adding improvement to the work (or many of the works you to which you regularly post, for that matter). Your demonstrated style is one of bully, not academic. I oppose the changes you've made on their lack of merit alone and not because you have bullying style. BusterD 11:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Your most recent destructive edit (taken after you've been warned my Looper5920), reveals page code, because despite your claimed qualifications, apparently using preview is just too difficult a task for you. You have now reverted the intro 3 times, if you continue, you will be in violation of 3RR. If you can't work within accepted procedures, don't work. BusterD 11:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary has to summarize article[edit]

The summary is all mucked up. It does not summarize the article oand instead consists of low-grade, unsourced POV about remotely related topics. Has to be improved. Rjensen 11:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By my count, you've made 4 reversions to the intro on this page. You are in violation of 3RR. BusterD 11:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope--I kept the original section in a new location. Rjensen 11:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes but you violated the spirit of the law by completely changing the essence of the intro. Please do not make massive changes and then come on the talk page and start telling everyone else they are the ones that are wrong. Discuss your proposals before hand and then make changes as appropriate.--Looper5920 12:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Now you've used a device to claim this isn't actually a violation. You and I have gotten into an edit war over the subject of the introduction of this article, not any specific text of the article. Looper5920 attempted to cool things down and urge discussion, yet you've continued to edit the introduction without any discussion. The temperament of your actions seems incongruous to the temperament of one who claims your authority. If both of us were blocked, I wouldn't be surprised. Yet you have a long and colorful history of acting in this exact sort of irresponsible (or at the very least OVERbold) manner. BusterD 12:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
What Looper5920 said. It's clear that other editors disagree with the change(s) you're making; regardless of whether you're violating 3RR or not, you should step back and discuss the issue. Kirill Lokshin 12:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Intro[edit]

I was asked to review the flurry of editing going on and just took a peek. (This is not an article on which I have focused my attention because others have been leading the way.) I have to say that, if I can ignore the substandard editing skills involved, some of the concepts that Jensen has been trying to inject need to be raised. Although I will not jump in and try to do any wordsmithing, I believe that the major themes of the Civil War leadership needing to be addressed in the article, and thus summarized in the introduction, include:

  • The enormous hands-on influence of the two civilian presidents on the strategic directions of the war.
  • The tensions, rivalries, and substantive problems that resulted from the need to appoint "political generals."
  • The impact of politics, such as the JCCW, on the actions of military leaders.
  • The challenge to military academy officers who were educated in an environment of small-scale actions (and fought in such during the Mexican War) and now-obsolete doctrine, and how they learned on the job.

Perhaps you should do the wordsmithing of the intro here in the Talk page before 3RRing each other. Hal Jespersen 14:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I envisoned when I created the article[edit]

This article was inspired by the (more commanders) link in the American Revolutionary War infobox. After an abortive effort to write a better intro to the ACW article, one issue raised was that the ACW article didn't really reflect the lessons of Napoleonic warfare, and public perception of warmaking.

I envisoned what's present now as a start only. I had planned to eventually add sections as follows:

The lessons of the Napoleonic wars[edit]

The lessons of the service academies[edit]

The lessons of the Mexican-American war[edit]

The lessons of the frontier indian conflicts[edit]

The lessons learned through direct command experience[edit]

I'd be only too glad if any user, including Rjensen wanted to add to this article in a framework similar to that. Some of this issues raised in this discussion go farther than I intended. For example, this is NOT the article for a narrative of the conflict itself. It was instead originally intended to supplement the ACW article by listing key commanders (in the Regular Army sections, I've only listed Union Army or Department commanders, or Confederate Corps or Department commanders). After that brief discussion, which was to include Regular vs. Volunteers, and the militia material already in, the article was intended to cover issues of interest in the developing leadership arena.

I'm not for a moment suggesting my intention is the only direction this article could grow, but am trying to explain what my expectations are as my original vision intended. I will defend any article against the replacement of strong prose with poorly written prose, and that was also my intention when I objected to Rjensen's edits. BusterD 16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that the opening is violating Wiki suidelines a "summary" that fails badly to summarize the article and instead injects irrelevant POV. That needs fixing. Rjensen 13:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction must introduce article[edit]

A summary appears at the end of an article, and summarizes what is said. An introduction appears at the beginning of and article and introduces the subject matter. Right now this introduction accurately introduces the subject matter described. I suggest you add a paragraph to the introduction, instead of changing the strong and accurate prose already present. I further invite all users to build upon the structure of the article as described in my talk above. However, I will not brook the sort of mucking which has transformed the ACW page into such drek it begs regular "cleaning." BusterD 13:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What I just did[edit]

It is not usually necessary to explain good-faith editorial changes in articles, but one of the two that I just made may appear esoteric to persons not familiar with the Civil War navies. The first, the addition of Isaac Newton Brown to the list of important naval commanders, should not be controversial; Brown was the only Confederate naval commander on the Mississippi who did not have his reputation shattered in the course of the war. The second was to change the description of the Confederate vessels purchased in Britain from "privateers" to "raiders." This is necessary because these ships were regularly commissioned vessels in the Confederate States Navy; privateers were a completely different beast. The Confederacy tried privateers at the beginning of the war, but they were largely ineffectual. By contrast, the raiders were spectacularly successful, at least in reducing the American Merchant Marine. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)