Talk:Van Buren raid

Orphaned references in Battle of Van Buren

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Van Buren's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nps":

• From Arkansas Militia in the Civil War: National Park Service, Civil War Soldiers and Sailors System, Confederate Arkansas Troops, Thrall's Battery, Arkansas Light Artillery, Accessed Jan 14, 2011, http://www.civilwar.nps.gov/cwss/regiments.cfm
• From Battle of Prairie Grove: ABPP

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Van Buren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111010185724/http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/item-detail.aspx?type=Time+Period&item=Civil+War+through+Reconstruction+(1861+-+1874) to http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/item-detail.aspx?type=Time+Period&item=Civil+War+through+Reconstruction+(1861+-+1874)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC 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 with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Van Buren/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 23:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, look! An Arkansas Civil War Battle... I wonder who wrote it (snickers). I'll get to this in a day or two. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• General:
  • Suggest somewhere laying out a quick description of the geography of the battle area - the river and local mountains have more impact on this battle than some other battlefield locations, so it'd be useful to the reader to have an idea of the layout.
    • I've made an attempt at describing this, although it was hard to find a description of how nasty the Bostons would have been to cross at that time.
• Refs:
  • Not required for GA, but if you're aiming at FAC - need a OCLC or ISBN for Bearss' Fort Smith.
  • Also not required for GA, but for FAC - either use locations for all the books, or none of them (No location for Castel)
    • Added (Lawrence, Kansas)
  • And lastly, again, not required for GA, but for FAC - you want to either link all the publishers or none - I generally lean none (it's just clutter in the references)
    • Added for all except Piston, which doesn't have one (it's affiliated with Missouri State University somehow). When I read articles, I like to evaluate publisher quality by following the links there, so I tend to do that in the ones I write
• Lead:
  • "Beginning the raid on December 27, the Union troops struck at an outlying Confederate cavalry unit near Drippings Springs, north of Van Buren, on the morning of December 28." It may just be me, but I think of beginning the raid as the first attack - maybe "Setting out on December 27, the Union troops struck at an outlying Confederate cavalry unit near Drippings Springs, north of Van Buren, on the morning of December 28."?
    • Done
  • "and the Union returned from the raid, unable to keep a supply line across the Boston Mountains." This is going to be unintelligible to anyone not from Arkansas (or with ancestors from there). I suspect what you mean is that the Union forces couldn't retain control of Van Buren even though they had taken it, becuase they couldn't secure a supply line to Van Buren across the Boston Mountains, but ... it's not clear from the actual sentence in the article that that is the case.
    • I've tried to rephrase this a bit
• Background:
  • "moved most of the Confederate soldiers and supplies in the state of Arkansas east of the Mississippi River, leaving" non-Americans (and sadly, many Americans) won't realize that the Mississippi is the eastern border of ARkansas ... so moving the forces east of the river means moving them out of the state... (okay, technically, I'm sure there are like two or so tiny pockets of Arkansas east of the river because of the river changing it's bed but ... )
    • Clarified
  • "began moving across the Boston Mountains on December" where are these mountains?
    • I've removed the old map and have added an enlarged crop of a Civil War map on Commons that shows more clearly the location of the river and the mountains in relation to everything else. Will try to find a way to work a prose description of the location in as well. Hog Farm _Talk 18:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Pre-battle:
  • "despite Crump having previously been reprimanded for inattentiveness." feels tacked on but I'm not sure where it would fit better...
    • I've got no idea where else to put it
  • "which was 7 miles (11 km)[18] or 9 miles (14 km)[17][19] north of Van Buren" - okay, can we like use a map for this distance instead of conflicting historians (who, probably didn't consult a map or may be using different standards - direct or by road would be my guess...)
    • I've been trying to find a historical map that shows Dripping Springs and Van Buren, but since Dripping Springs wasn't much of a place and the USGS made their quadrangle boundary line run about halfway between Van Buren and Dripping Springs, I'm not having much luck. The earliest map I can find showing both is from 1947, but by then the Dripping Springs area was apparently known as "Stattler", the bend in the river mentioned in the article had become an oxbow lake, and a railroad had been built through the area. It's so close to Van Buren on the pushpin map that adding it there would just make the map unreadable. Hog Farm _Talk 18:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • "Holmes visited on December 21" - visited where? Last thing we were discussing was Crump so was the visit to Crump or to Van Buren?
    • Van Buren. Added
  • "forces to Lewisburg, Arkansas, where" ... how far, what direction?
    • I've clarified this in another part of the article. Lewisburg was where Marmaduke had been sent, and the direction/distance is given there so I've mentioned Lewisburg by name there.
  • Is Van Buren on the Arkansas River? (I'm more familiar with the sw corner than the nw corner of Arkansas - family is from the Ouachitas...)
    • Yes, this is covered in the geographic introduction now
  • Bearss says that it was two brigades left behind - but brigades of what? Who does Shea says commanded the forces left behind?
    • Roane's brigade was Texas cavalry. Cooper's is just stated to be Native Americans. Shaler was infantry. Shea doesn't say, the reference in Shea 2009 is just one regiment of Texas cavalry and one brigade of Arkansas infantry. If I had to guess, that's a reference to Crump and Shaler, but I have nothing to back that up. Shea's footnote sheds no light on the matter.
  • "Hindman began to move the sick and any supplies not needed for Roane and Cooper out of Fort Smith on December 23" ... which sounds like we've decided that Shea is wrong and that Bearss is correct that Roane and Cooper were left behind? I suggest instead "Hindman began to move the sick and any supplies not needed by rearguard out of Fort Smith on December 23"
    • Done. On a second reading of Bearss, Roane/Shaler and Cooper were to defend Fort Smith and the Indian Territory, so I've clarified that in the article (which does make more sense as to why Cooper wasn't at Fort Smith during the raid)
  • Okay, so "Hindman began to move the sick and any supplies not needed for Roane and Cooper out of Fort Smith on December 23." but the very next sentence is "The Confederates began withdrawing on December 26" ... which date is correct?
    • I've clarified that it was the main force leaving on December 26 - the supplies and sick would have moved slower than the healthy soldiers, so it makes sense to give them a head start.
• Battle:
  • "On the morning of the 28th, Blunt's cavalry led his force." Uh, didn't cavalry usually lead forces? Perhaps "On the morning of the 28th, Blunt's cavalry was at the head of his forces when a halt was..."
    • Done
  • "One of the Union mountain howitzers fired on the ferry" - ferry in Van Buren or somewhere else? We've just been discussing locations downstream... so this is a bit confusing. If it IS the ferry in Van Buren, suggest beginning a new paragraph here as we're changing subjects back to Van Buren.
    • Clarified that it was the one in Van Buren and have moved the paragraph break
  • "and took three ammunition wagons and 27 wagons " per MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently" so either "and took 3 ammunition wagons and 27 wagons" or "and took three ammunition wagons and twenty-seven wagons"
    • Done
  • Suggest "Rose Douglass, Key West, and Frederick Notrebe were returned to Van Buren[42] by the early afternoon.[43]"
    • Done
  • I detest the habit of milhist of using the 24 hour clock for articles on US battles ... frankly, it's just an affectation in my mind - most of your readers are going to assume it's a 12 hour clock for something like "10:00" and wonder if it's am or pm. (mutters) Did the US or Confederate militaries even USE a 24 hour clock in the civil war?
    • It would not have been common at that time; I've switched to am/pm time
  • "When Cloud arrived, the position was held by Tilden's Missouri Battery and part of Hunter's Missouri Infantry Regiment and had been sent there by Frost." Awkward - suggest "When Cloud arrived, the position was held by Tilden's Missouri Battery and part of Hunter's Missouri Infantry Regiment who had been sent there by Frost."
    • Done
• I copy-edited as usual, please make sure it didn't break anything.
• I purposefully reviewed with an eye towards FA, given your comments on your talk page, so be aware that not everything is absolutely required for GA.
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: - Thanks for the review! I've attempt to address all of the concerns. I'm surprised it already was showing in mirrors; I had to do a 100% word-for-word rewrite because the prior author had some copyvio issues. Hog Farm _Talk 19:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Those changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move 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: move to Van Buren raid. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Battle of Van Buren → Van Buren Raid – I've been thinking about this after attending a Civil War Roundtable presentation on this event, which referred to it as the "Van Buren Raid". It's noteworth that of the two principal sources, Bearss 1967 is titled "The Federals Raid Van Buren and Threaten Fort Smith" and the relevant chapter in Shea 2009 is titled "Raid on Van Buren", with the following chapter beginning "The Van Buren raid marked ...". The Encyclopedia of Arkansas refers to this as the "Capture of Van Buren", and never uses the term "battle" to describe this event. I no longer believe the current title is appropriate terminology to refer to this action as a battle. Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• It certainly reads like a battle. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Sopport but lowercase A google books search for Battle of Van Buren isn't producing noticeable hits as opposed to Van Buren Raid, where there are hits for "raid on Van Buren" or "Van Buren raid" with a significant number of prose uses using lowercase "raid". Cinderella157 (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Van Buren raid seems good to me, based on the quoted sources. No reason to cap Raid there. Dicklyon (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, from the description of the battle on the page it sounds like a battle between opposing forces. No need to reclassify this as a raid. But the appropriate WikiProjects should be notified if they haven't been already in order to clarify between "battle" and "raid". Please note that this discussion has been spammed on a page which lists it as a "casing discussion" (arguably an inappropriate use of that section). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is a casing discussion, with regard to the proposed name, and it's entirely appropriate for editors who care about and know a lot about such matters to be aware of the discussion. RM exists to bring more eyes and brains in to article title discussions, not exclude them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Agree as to the more interested editors reading an RM the better, which is where the canvassing guidelines should be a bit relaxed as they have been at the casing listing. There are quite a few areas of discussion or deletion to keep track of if an editor is so inclined, and even watchlisted things will slip by. Still surprises me how many editors here just go around nomming things or prodding things for deletion, many nice pages slip through this sieve without being seen or commented on by even involved editors (which is why maybe it should be a guideline that when something is nommed for deletion the main editors of the page, or template, or a dozen other things should be directly notified, by bot if need be, so that they can comment on why they believe the topic is of value). As for this one, I wish more American Civil War editors would comment to get a better take on the raid/battle question. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support, but lower-case. If this has no provable WP:COMMONNAME at all, then it's not possible for any of these descriptive terms to be proper names (in the sense WP cares about, i.e. that which is provably treated as a proper name by being "capitalized consistently in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" - MOS:CAPS). All of these (at least 4) descriptive phrases are clearly WP:NDESCs. However, if the sourcing clearly shows a preference for referring to this as a raid and not as a battle, then follow the sources as usual. The novel theory above that it somehow cannot be a "raid" and must be a "battle" if any fighting happened is unsustainable WP:OR. PS: There are lots of things that clearly were battles but which do not have "battle" in their article titles here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

They had already been notified when I opened this Hog Farm _Talk 19:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support lowercase I'm not seeing evidence of consistent capitalization in RS (t · c) buidhe 19:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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.