Talk:Nathan Bedford Forrest
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
You can't fault pro-Forrest websites for being biased and then fill the article with suggestions that he was an irredeemable racist and only cite sources which have a clear and obvious bias AGAINST Forrest. It is not for Wikipedia to pay historical figures back over perceived sins which do not have strong historical support. If you want this to remain "Wikipinion" or "Wikigossip" keep doing this kind of thing...I don't think it's credible in the shape that this site is in to suggest that this is any kind of credible encyclopedia...I wonder if this entire think is a help or hindrance based on how many rumors and outright lies are passed off to millions as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
Agreed with the above. I am doing work from original sources and newspapers on Forrest. I am also following the Klan literature. Forrest owned having been a member of the Pale Faces and denied ever being a member of the KuKlux. He also said he only went to a couple Pale Faces meetings. At the time, members of one fraternal organization often belonged to many others. Forrest was not a ritualistic sort of guy; he was a military man. He was ill a lot of the time post-War, a fact demonstrated by his early death. That his heroic deeds were such that a lot of people might claim Forrest's authority is a given - I have already traced some of this. This Wikipedia entry is an example of why people are stupid for depending upon Wikipedia where controversial issues are to be found, and mentions of Forrest in other pages are often even worse. That this is driven politically by people in more than one party makes it even worse. Forrest and Americans of all races deserve better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SongspiritUSA (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam, I am confused my your recent undoing of my edit and your warning against "remov[ing] quotes to alter excerpts taken from book text." None of the information that I moved was in quotes, so why does it need to be the same as it would appear in a book? In fact, we're supposed to avoid having it be exactly the same. I made the edit in order to remove a double link to Sherman's name in the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- I was also confused. Along with the double-link, multiple uses of "Union Major General William T. Sherman" become obnoxiously cumbersome. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Too long, too much credibility.
This article needs to be shortened and condensed down to reflect the stature of the man described. Two (2) short paragraphs would suffice. This article would make it appear that he was a General of some importance, when in fact, he was not. In addition to being a terrible human, he was also a lousy general and should not receive undue attention or accolades. On the other hand, one could argue that he contributed greatly to the US / Union victory by being so incompetent. I guess there's that to consider. Perhaps he was actually an agent of the Union / USA. Interesting question. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- When the above editor says Forrest was a "terrible human", I agree. But "lousy general"? "Incompetent"? I don't think so. I think a lengthy article is appropriate. Oaklandguy (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I also doubt the text of the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association speech . No doubt he gave such a speech, but the actual taxt seems to be modern, there is no period source for the actual words. This should be edited out. Wulfy95113 (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Say what? The "taxt" is from the Memphis Daily Appeal, July 6, 1875. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Nathan Bedford Forrest was the first grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, which was and is widely known as one of the first terrorist organizations in the United States. His name can not be mentioned as a relevant addition to history without synchronously being affiliated with the KKK. As a confederate general, he was a prominently terrifying cavalry commander to the union armies of the north. In each respect to his profile and status both during and after the Civil War, he is a significant figure to be considered. But There are an ample amount of sources linking him directly to the KKK. It's not a theory but a given, proven fact.shyjayb 22:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)
- His membership in the Klan is mentioned in the lede, and full sections of the article's text are devoted to it. Why don't you hop down from your soapbox? It will be easier to read. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Intro reads like Hagiography
This entire passage needs to be cited. Most of it is opinion that either needs to be clearly attributed and cited or taken out:
Ulysses S. Grant called him "that devil Forrest." Another Union general, William Tecumseh Sherman, it is reported, considered him "the most remarkable man our civil war produced on either side." He was unquestionably one of the Civil War's most brilliant tacticians. Without military education or training, he became the scourge of Grant, Sherman, and almost every other Union general who fought in Tennessee, Alabama, or Kentucky. Forrest fought by simple rules: he maintained that "war means fighting and fighting means killing" and that the way to win was "to get there first with the most men." His cavalry, which Sherman reported in disgust "could travel one hundred miles in less time it takes ours to travel ten," secured more Union guns, horses, and supplies than any other single Confederate unit.
- I agree with Wolotresbond. Without proper citations, this passage should be removed. Megs (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- If it's in the lede, it doesn't need to be cited, but it still needs to be backed up by properly cited information within the body of the article. Keeping that caveat in mind, by all means, if it can't be substantiated you're free to remove it. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
'[S]atisfy the basest of conduct' is an odd phrase that Fuchs's editors should have amended ('conduct' should be 'motives'). What the sentence says is correct, but I wonder whether another quotation to the same effect should be substituted because of this lexical error.