User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I'll reply to your message here.

New category[edit]

U.S. historical landmarks on stamps -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


New category[edit]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Death of J.E.B. Stuart[edit]

JEB STUART[edit]

I cannot find JEB Stuart's staff members listed anywhere in all of Internet. His personal doctor was [Peter ?] Fontaine, son of Col. Edmund Fontaine of "Beaver Dam". JEB's death message came to Beaverdam where MRS JEB Stuart was staying with the Edmund Fontaine family. Can anyone assist in finding JEB Stuart's staff officers? Thank you for your consideration and knowledge. Maury (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

At the unveiling of Stuart’s statue, there was an address found at J.E.B. Stuart, An Address delivered May 30, 1907, by Theodore S. Garnett, his aide de camp, page 8 notes Major Andrew R. Venable presiding, Rev. Walter Q. Hullihen offered a prayer and Judge Garnett delivered the address. “All of these officers were members of General Stuart’s staff in 1864, the last named being chosen by the Veteran Cavalry Association to make the address.” p.8. his adjutant-General, the late Major H.B. McClellan p.9. I hope this helps with a couple of leads, even though it is from a primary source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Two scholarly sources may be of use, Try Robert J. Trout, They followed the plume:the story of J.E.B. Stuart and his staff.
Jeffry D. Wert’s Cavalryman of the Lost Cause: a Biography of J.E.B. Stuart, notes on page 87, performance of Capt. William D. Farley, new appointee as a volunteer aide-de-camp. page 18 notes William P. Mason and William F. Biddle, aides de camp, personal staff when embarking for the peninsula were Col. Thomas M. Key, Col. E.H. Wright. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC[edit]

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)



FYI[edit]

  • Toppan, George L.; Deats, Hiram E.; Holland, Alexander (1899). Historical reference list of the Revenue Stamps of the United States.
    Boston Philatelic Society; Salem, Press of Newcomb & Gauss, 423 pages.
     , e'Book, PDF

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your Battle of Fort Pulaski revert[edit]

Not sure why you chose to revert this to something that is obviously incorrect. Did you actually read it? It didn't even make sense, no lead in, missing words, etc. (It's also misplaced in this article, the whole "Men of War" section probably should be in Fort Pulaski rather than the battle.) Rather than my edit being "speculation" as you called it, I actually looked up the history to try to figure out what the jumble of words was supposed to be about, then simplified it to fit the format. I avoided speculation and kept it concise. This didn't seem to disagree with the summary inside the cite notation and the info is readily available in the wikilink to the Immortal 600, so I'm confused by your reaction.

It gets better, I found I actually have a modern version of the NPS summary that the cite refers to (1997 vs. 1962) the sentence fragments/numbers are a perfect match. What I see from reading it is that what you reverted to is a very poor summary of the cite. Brown was the one who cut rations (per orders and perhaps against his will) and did not restore them until the medical inspection. Portals to Hell conflicts with this source several ways, most notably it indicates that 222 were transferred to Hilton Head in November and does not discuss deaths at Pulaski (has a zero and question mark in its summary for deaths.) It doesn't really go into detail of what happened at Pulaski. Unfortunately, the NPS work does not provide sources/notes/references. It also conflicts with the 2007 NPS Living History summary of the Immortal 600 event there (13 dead vs. 55.) I don't have one of the more recent books specifically about the group, so I'm not inclined to provide a detailed summary with questionable sources.

Anyway, I'm going to update this as before, although it doesn't really belong in this battle article since it is really not part of the aftermath of the battle that was two and a half years earlier. Should be part of the Fort Pulaski article. Red Harvest (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Many articles discuss "aftermath" developments related to the military operation. Fort Pulaski was completely secure as a federal prison late in the war. The link is good, your information is already in the footnote. You are simply disrupting the article to remove an account of the humanitarian effort by a Federal officer towards his Confederate POW charges for your own unsourced POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
No, that is not what I'm doing. Why are you making this unsupported accusation and personal attack? Do you have me confused with someone else? I'm actually trying to get the statement to agree with the apparent source, not my POV. Take a look at a version of the source if you have access. If you want to discuss Brown, that's fine, but it is going to take more sentences than currently there because it isn't a simple thing. (Putting a "The" before "Fort's commander" would help readibility.) From pg. 26, "On December 15 Brown was ordered to impose a starvation ration." This continued until six days after the Fort was reassigned to a new district under Grover. On approx. Jan 27 "the district's medical director inspected the fort and the prisoners were immediately returned to full rations." The booklet suggests only 465 of the original 520 survived to be sent to Ft. Delaware, but this is at odds with several other sources, so I'm hesitant to apply figures without some sort of verifiable notes or work that explains the discrepancies. The answers might be in one of the more recent books about the Immortal 600. I don't have them. Portals of Hell by Speer uses some of the same primary sources to tell a somewhat different but very incomplete story. Speer even indicates that 222 of the men were moved in November.
The link you restored is broken when I try it. Is it working for you? I was hoping to see if these indeed are the same publication just updated. I tried providing what appears to be the source with even an author's name, you removed it.
I still maintain that this section is out of place with respect to the siege and its aftermath. It is not part of either. It has more to do with the fort proper. It is mentioned there, but not really sourced. This, of course, is a common problem with wiki pages, multiple pages covering the same thing with limited continuity. I have no problem with telling Brown's story, if it can be told accurately from reliable sources. Part of the problem is to tell it you need context, and by the time context is provided, the section is way beyond the scope of the siege. Red Harvest (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, contrary to the statement in your latest revert, the link doesn't work. After doing some trial and error URL guess work for the last 20 minutes I figured out what was wrong with it (NPS has changed their web addresses and it isn't forwarding, perhaps low security browser setting might let someone else load it, who knows). Didn't help that the NPS search link also kicks to a dead URL. This 1961 reprint of a 1954 work is erroneously given as 1962 in the cite. I don't see an author on this older work, although the newer work copies much of the same material. Red Harvest (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the link still works for me, but thanks for the detective work. I like the idea of using your updated link. My key concern was to place a link to the Immortal 600, to balance the Fort's Union aftermath as a station on the underground railroad. The place had military significance in the Civil War to both sides after the battle. Those interested in the battle would reasonably be interested in the Immortal 600. Part of that story is the humanity of one of the Union officers. I agree the passage must be kept brief on this page.
My ambition is to put up at least a stub bio of Charles H. Olmstead, who acquitted himself well in the battle, gunnery was so accurate Union construction could only be carried forward at night. Local press savaged his reputation at the time, sometimes reflected in sources during the post war "war of the memoirs" --- that bias is echoed in the title of this article, two-day "battle" versus six-month "siege", which I have been unpersuasive at changing --- as sourced from both sides and discussed in the article, a longer bombardment was to be expected with solid shot, but the Union's innovation of explosive projectiles altered the strategic landscape.
Olmstead later served capably at the head of Georgia troops in the Western Theater. During Reconstruction, he assisted in distributing aid to freedmen. (In Virginia, Fitzhugh Lee went into business partnership with two African-Americans to cultivate farms around Fredericksburg, VA.)
There is also a story to be told about how former Confederates worked to reconcile the races in the new economic order without slavery, including the development of a sharecropping economic system of independent workers versus the alternative in an annual contract labor system of gang labor which was little better than slavery at best.-- yes there were abuses to report with sharecropping... -- But I digress. -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, glad we are now understanding one another and motivations. I agree that this should be a siege. We both argued this, but at different times. I suggest we go ahead and request the change be made. There has been no actual opposition thus far. I made the tactical blunder of not being "bold" and instead sought some affirmation. By the time it came (from you) I was on to other projects and I didn't notice it. I've had a few other ACW pages' names changed with similar discussion but it has been a long time.
Someone very recently created the Olmstead stub Charles H. Olmstead. It needs a lot of fleshing out. I usually start with Confederate Colonels or other such work when building such a page. It's surprising how tedious that and building the framework is, at least if one tries to rephrase, be accurate, yet extensively cite and multiple sources. Olmstead got a raw deal, but I notice that Cleburne wasn't fond of him (reminds me I need to finish that book.) Although Olmstead was unaware at the time, Cleburne wanted to replace him as he didn't consider Olmstead "efficient." I've wanted to do a Col. Moses J. White page eventually (Ft. Macon.) He's a really sad young figure, he was too rigid/not charismatic enough and suffered from epilepsy which claimed him before the end of the war. I've got at least a dozen others I would like to do. Red Harvest (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Jefferson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Clinton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

Information iconIt appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence United States. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. TFD (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have left messages at the notice boards for interested communities listed at Talk:United States, and with participants in previous discussions on including territories, including those who have posted for exclusion in the past, introducing the discussion surrounding a new reliable source, the U.S. Census Bureau chart, "States Area...". That is not canvassing, in that there is no "biased choice of users' talk pages".
You have no 21st century sources to exclude the five major territories from the area of the U.S. in a geographical sense. Golbez now wants me to stop posting direct sourced quotes related to discussion to counter your unsupported original research. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of sources by allowing decisions to reflect reliable resources. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator[edit]

"Administrator Golbez insisted on linking geographical area and population databases for this RfC." Please stop bringing up my administrator status in this, as it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. --Golbez (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

But you assert your administrator role as a club, "I'll fight". Regardless of the majority finding in the dispute resolution, was it not you who said you let in the territories, you could take them out? At one time you said you would not fight it, but then you did. -- Mostly over the months I agree with you. When I don't, I generally defer to you on most things. That you are an administrator is part of my deference.
As for discussions, I have found a way to advance several articles to B-class rating from stubs, but A-class is eluding me. I had great fun collaborating on expanding the stub for Stephen Simpson (writer), an early American figure who anticipated Marx in a value-of-labor economic analysis. Research and writing about American historical topics is what I'd rather be doing. I have been able to make several contributions to the United States history section and the History of the United States, and related articles. Part of my perspective on territories is based in study of the Louisiana Territory, the first expansion of the U.S. which incorporated French and Spanish aliens with U.S. citizenship.
Your having lost in a dispute resolution last year and lost in a poll this year, you now influence the framing of an RfC to once again diminish any reporting of islander U.S. citizens as a part of the United States as a federal republic or geographically, by technical maneuvers rather than by sourced persuasion. But as an administrator, let me ask you, Should the RfC be publicized directly to the three WikiProjects interested in the United States article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not recall ever saying I would use my administrator powers or connections in any way to get my way in this. I would appreciate if you would stop implying that I have. I have no further input on this RFC, I am not engaging in it beyond my statement of abstention. --Golbez (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

NPS pages have gone AWOL[edit]

There is a big problem happening with the NPS pages. I've been trying to resolve it for the past 13 days without success. Through several email exchangers the NPS web coordinator has confirmed the problem but so far I've not been told that it will be fixed. As I had surmised, they migrated from cr.nps to nps, this was a DC server to new Denver server move...not sure when. Apparently for years they've been working on the resulting duplicate URL issue. They recently updated their page structure as well, and when they did that a lot of the old material disappeared. When I say a lot I mean the entire online NPS Civil War Series is missing as best I can tell, and the search doesn't work, etc.

Now some of the old series links might work for you if you have pages in cache, but all of the Latimer links, etc. are unavailable to me. At this point, I'm considering trying to find the same refs in the current hardcover NPS Fort Pulaski work by Schiller since it mostly follows Latimer. But this will mean removal of all the old online links, since the newer series are now gone from the web. I've completely lost faith in relying on web links if paper versions are available. Red Harvest (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the research and followup. I hope there is enough interest in the battlefield personnel to lend a hand at NPS to rescan the documents if that is necessary. Aren't the links sourced in text, so the notes can stand alone without the brackets? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Personal attacks against you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Moving my comment[edit]

Do not move or reindent other people's comments. By putting it under Khadija's comment instead of Robert McClennon's, you drastically altered its meaning. I will be civil and assume this was not your intent, but do not do it again. --Golbez (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will not do it again. I understood before correction that each post was to be indented one space, and Inserts were to be labelled in bold and placed directly below the relevant comment. I will not reindent other people's comments again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please[edit]

I don't like hating people. And I don't want to hate you. And I do respect you. I just ... I really want you to understand how unhelpful your method of arguing is. I see you are a teacher. This kind of approach might work in the classroom, where you are the voice of God and if the student doesn't agree with you, it's their fault. But in this situation, when someone doesn't agree with you, the solution is not to just repeat the same reference or statement over and over again. Can you see why that might frustrate people and make them think you aren't interested in a solution, but simply in winning? I really want to work with you, but to do that you'll have to stop assuming that people's minds will be changed if you repeat yourself just one more time. It hasn't worked until now, there's no reason to expect it to start working. Maybe then we can get into a situation where we can actually discuss what form this data should take on Wikipedia. --Golbez (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You profoundly misunderstand how a public school classroom works. --- I was not the one who said, relative to a 2-1 majority dispute resolution language, owner-like: I’m the one who let it in, I can take it out. — I think you may misunderstand me, I defer to you out of respect, I await sources to counter those I have provided. --- I am not trying to "win", but I do source information which is lacking in the article.
When misrepresented in reductio ad absurdum without any supporting source, I restate the argument with a reliable source, sometimes with a different one, sometimes with multiples. There are now some twenty current references which point to the territories as a part of the United States, — and opposed — is an unsourced database footnote, or a handful of references to court case holdings from before organic acts, constitutions and citizenship were extended to the territories.
Territorial status has two aspects, they are politically incorporated “as a part of the United States” internationally and they are judicially “unincorporated” for internal governance relative to certain tax and constitutional provisions. The preponderance of sources show both, — why do you insist that there is only one way to look at the territories? The inclusion of the territories allows for narrative on the inconsistencies and inequities facing islander populations of U.S. citizens and nationals -- see the videos "Harvard Law Today: The Insular Cases: Consitutional experts assess the status of territories acquired in the Spanish-American War." [1], --- which I admit I have not yet completed viewing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Mediation ?[edit]

I have a hard time thinking that formal mediation will accomplish anything. Formal mediation is a heavyweight version of moderated dispute resolution. Moderated dispute resolution was tried a year ago, and the quarreling has resumed. Formal mediation is privileged, so that the record of the mediation is kept out of the public eye, which will make it difficult to cite when editors edit against agreement. There is, as you say, likely to be a difference of opinion as to the scope of the mediation. Also, mediation, like moderated dispute resolution, does not deal with personal attacks and other conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Putting anything in the infobox without full explanation in the article text is just wrong.
My point is that "incorporated" territories, which, as you say, originally had to do with particular taxes, is a counter-intuitive meaning, because the five major territories are political corporations, with American-style three-branch governments, and persons born in them are United States citizens. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so far I have not found the arguments to exclude the five major territories persuasive. There is the unsourced database footnote "Officially the U.S. is 50 states and DC", but there are nearly twenty references to support the phrase "a part of the United States" in executive, legislative, judicial and scholarly sources. I would compromise to footnote "50 states and DC" data in the Infobox for area and population, -- but for other data bases it should be only what the published sources report, "50 states and DC", or "50 states, DC and Puerto Rico".
The question is how to explain BOTH how the territories are politically incorporated by Congress as self-governing entities with delegate Members of Congress, --- AND how they are labelled "unincorporated" -- meaning "foreign in a domestic sense" -- for certain tax and constitutional provisions in many other governmental sources, including organic acts establishing their self-governance. I say both how they are "incorporated" and how they are "unincorporated" should be expressed, Golbez and others insist only "unincorporated" should be expressed until all government sources uniformly say "incorporated".
The language agreed to 18 months ago by a 2-1 majority in the dispute resolution was to say in the introductory sentence, something like, "The U.S. is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five territories. -- note: Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have delegate Members of Congress." Now the territories are introduced later in the introduction section. Is there another section in the article which could address the nature of the territories to address how the territories are a part of the U.S.?
The five major territories are included in government fields of homeland security, environmental protection, transportation, education...for U.S. citizenship travel without passports and federal funding allocations. The criticism has always been that each source is applicable only to the referenced area. Maybe the answer is to list all the areas the territories are included as a part of the U.S. But Van Dyke and Sparrow look at all the ways the five major territories are internally connected with the U.S. and conclude that they are "included" in or are "a part of" the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of material left out on 1st day of the CSS Virginia - how Buchanan and flag officer were shot from shore after surrender of ship.[edit]

Please look at my talk page. I have the flu and am not totally together today but I know this history and it is not on Wikipedia under CSS Virginia article. Maury (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

RFM[edit]

I have named most (not all) of the parties whom you listed in the request for mediation. You should receive a bot notice shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A bot is supposed to notify the parties. I notified the Mediation Committee that the bot had not notified the parties. It appears now to be notifying them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. go it.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 December 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]