Jump to content

User talk:Hlj/archive2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

[edit]


To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fort Sumter, Operation Brothers at War

[edit]

Sir, my compliments on the voluminous work you've done over the years on so many Civil War articles. I just wanted to draw your attention to a post I've made here regarding getting the Battle of Fort Sumter up to FA in time for its 150th. Any thoughts you might have would be appreciated. Indeed, to count you among the ranks of the special project would be outstanding and I hope you might consider it. Best, Historical Perspective (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

expanding Chancellorsville

[edit]

Just dropping by to say that is great work you did to expand Battle of Chancellorsville. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Days Battles

[edit]

I can't find the citation you added to capturing Richmond and ending the war.

Richmond was the leading industrial center of the Confederacy, so I think that should at least be noted.

I think it is unreasonable for anyone to assume the capture of Richmond in 1862 would have ended the war because when Grant finally took Richmond the South did not surrender. The end came a week later when Grant trapped Lee and 30,000 at Appomattox before he could combine forces with Johnston. Lee had no intention of surrendering after the fall of Richmond, unless by force, so why would he do it in 1862 with 3 times as many men? Had Lee been successful in consolidating troops with Johnston, the war could have continued indefinitely.

There's really no way of knowing for sure if the war would have ended, so I think a word like "hasten" or "potentially" should be added, too. Maybe something like this?

"The Peninsula Campaign was the unsuccessful attempt by McClellan to capture the industrial center and Confederate capital of Richmond and hasten the end of the war."

KevinLuna (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Petersburg

[edit]

Hi! I've been working on this article for a few days now, by adding in info from Welsh's book and reorganizing some sentences ect. I was wondering if you'd be interested in trying to promote this article with me to a GA and possibly an FA any time soon. Considering that you are by far the biggest writer on the article in terms of edits and the written text, I would love to collaborate with you on finishing it up. Feel free to respond on your talk page, I've got it watchlisted ;) All the best,--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 02:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of external linking

[edit]

This user is questionably a borderline spammer with most every edit dedicated to promoting that site. He has never responded to others on his own talk page or other talk pages when concerns have been raised. What has started out looking harmless may be getting out of hand. I was wanting your assessment of the overall situation as I'm contemplating what to do about it. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said something. It's tragic that this insertion of links to a website Shenk promotes seems to be the only significant contribution by that qualified and worthy user recently. There's such a better way for him to accomplish his purpose, even if it is to attach links. He publishes what most of us would consider a generally reliable source, as websites go. The articles themselves aren't bad. BusterD (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you re-engaging a bit more on the pedia and glad to get your opinion on this, too. 2-for-1 special on valued opinions. I can't speak for Hal but your presence has been missed. Thank you for speaking (or trying) with the user...I'd like to see him contribute more differently. Hopefully, he turns a new leaf.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask you to go easy on this one. Rob is a great guy and a personal friend. He normally takes my WP editing feedback without argument and adjusts his tactics accordingly. He has also provided a number images in Commons (usually when I ask him for help). As to general contributions, I have on more than one occasion lobbied with Jim Lighthizer, Garry Adelman, and Rob to put more content into Wikipedia, and they seem very sympathetic, but they always seem to be too busy or focused elsewhere. (I am sorry to say that this is true as well for virtually every professional Civil War historian I know.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This helps. When I looked at his contribs, he doesn't look like he's communicating with anyone which comes across as obstinate and unresponsive (classic spammer or vandal). If he is cooperating with others in some form of communication, that helps a lot. Based on what you have said and Buster's efforts, I'm fine with him...it would still be good to get him to diversify his contribs as it seems he could really be beneficial to the project. I only see five images of his at Commons. Are there more elsewhere? I love ACW images.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't counted, but whenever I've asked him for one (usually one I've seen on their website, many of which he shoots himself), he comes through by uploading to Commons. I'm sure he'd do the same for you. What I would really like to see is the Civil War Trust contributing more information about battlefield preservation, but not simply promotions for their current fundraising campaigns. It would be useful in the battle articles to have information about how much is preserved, the history of the preservation efforts, etc. However, they are busy guys and this is a volunteer effort after all. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content Creativity Barnstar

[edit]
The Content Creativity Barnstar
In recognition of your extra efforts and contributions in writing, sourcing and map-making which have all improved the quality of the American Civil War articles substantially. Your efforts are noticed and very appreciated.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Floating Battery

[edit]

I struggled with how to cite in short form when their wasn't an actual author name. "Our Special Correspondent" was essentially a nameless spy...and I didn't want to use those long article titles as it seemed to defeat the purpose of putting them in short form. I'm open to suggestions or if you can improve it, be bold...I won't mind a bit.

Btw, do you have a photo wish list? I'm digging around when I get the chance and uploading at Commons...if you have a list, I can try to work from that as well as whatever I find interesting.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pakistani War of 1965

[edit]

I really liked your maps, specially on Gettysburg Campaign. I would like to do something similar for the Lahore Front of Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and would thus request you to guide or help me create a map of battles around Lahore. Could you please tell me which software did you use to create the maps and movement of troops?? Thanks.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Shiloh

[edit]

Hello Hal, quite a distinguished picture you have there. You're almost as old as I am. Quite a list of Civil War articles. I'm not going to fight you for it. For the song, it is not non-notable. This is one of the most famous civil war folk songs there are. Considering the topic is the battle, I think it belongs there. Concerning the format, well, in external appearance my format does not differ from your format. But, it is not my format. WP went to a lot of trouble to design these citation templates and they recommend you use them. It provides a uniform look. Of course you can imitate them by hand as you have done. The WP look is preferable. What you have there is the harvard ref system. That is better handled by the templates. I could fight you through to a successful conclusion on this, I am pretty sure. But, like the civil war, it would not be worth the cost. You obviously do a good article. Your services are or should be valued. Exceptions have been made for you obviously and I will not break that tradition. 2004? You got me beat by a year. Well, I will not bicker with you. Do it your way. If it were less than a good article it would be a different story. This is not my primary interest. I will not put a tag on there and insist it be done right. You might consider my changes. It is a lot of work to change formats so I can understand your not wanting to do it. In your mind you probably see the whole array of all the dozens of articles you have done by hand and feel personally responsible for the set. Maybe you should think about why you are doing this and what your stake is in keeping it the same when it could be improved. Beyond these suggestions, I'm done with it. I'm not switching from my current tasks to go over your article for errors - possibly page numbers left out, possibly required book identification information not supplied, possibly commercialized or non-notable external links. You do it. I want to get on to some bad articles in my area of interest. No need to reply unless you can do so in a civil manner. If not, best to leave well enough alone. Bye now.Dave (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reno

[edit]

Rather than get into an editing war, I think we need to find a copy of the commission itself (which so far I'm finding surprisingly difficult, though I shall keep trying); it would be nice if either Warner or the Eichers gave a specific source. That being said, I think we can pretty much guarantee that his nomination at least (not to mention his being informed of that nomination) happened during his lifetime... otherwise we probably wouldn't have a photo of him wearing the uniform of a Major General, since I can't seem to find a record of a brevet for that rank, either (though I don't rule out the possibility that one exists).
IcarusPhoenix (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It actually gets somewhat more complicated than that, and I am beginning to think that perhaps there was either a) a brevet that no one has ever found; or b) a miscommunication of some kind from Reno's superiors; the reason I say this is that the Official Records cloud things even more; as late as 3 September 1862, a subordinate refers to him as "Brig. Gen. Reno", but as early as 12 August he was signing orders "Maj. Gen. Reno" and begin referred to sporadically as such.IcarusPhoenix (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into this but is it possible that he was beholding to one rank in the United States Volunteers and another rank in the regular army? That happened with others.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More, Woodbury & Burnside credit him as receiving his promotion on April 26, 1862. In Major-general Ambrose E. Burnside and the Ninth army corps. It is confirmed in The Portrait monthly: containing sketches of departed heroes, and ..., Volume 1.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's interesting. Combing through primary sources such as the ORs is original research; we need to rely on the secondary sources to sort these things out. As for the two antique sources Berean Hunter found, they could go into a footnote or be ignored as an error. It is pretty certain that Reno was not a regular army BG or MG. Way too few of them for confusion to result. Fry's book on brevets shows none for Reno after the Mex War. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ORs may not be OR...(Did I just say that? )...if presented prima facie per WP:PRIMARY. I would still consult them. As for the antique sources, they count as secondaries don't they? ...and how much more valuable than modern day finagling. I prefer listening to those older voices...but then again I'm an old soul.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think using the OR's counts as OR per se, unless we try to draw our own conclusions from them; they are certainly a valid primary source. Also, Reno's Regular Army rank at the time of his death was definitely Captain - General Barnard's official report of Reno's death to General Cullum even has "Maj. Gen. Jesse L. Reno, U.S. Volunteers, captain of ordnance..." I wouldn't be too surprised if he wasn't being referred to as "Major General" by Burnside at the time in part because he was holding a Corps command; Burnside may simply have thought that such a promotion was a forgone conclusion.
I just realized that it's a century-and-a-half later, and we're still blaming Ambrose Burnside... IcarusPhoenix (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a Southerner, I think the Union needed more just like him. He did great at Sharpsburg and then again at Fredericksburg....not!
Icarus, you may want to edit your response and subst "believe" for "the" as the third word. I agree with your summation....but I haven't found Reno's promotion yet in the OR. A more modern source (Ezra Ayers Carman, Joseph Pierro - 2008) states the correct April 26 '62 date here although not in an online view...I also don't have hard copy....but here is broken quote from this view: "When Burnside was given command of the right wing (the First and Ninth Corps of the army), Jesse L. Reno was ... For distinguished gallantry at Roanoke Island and New Bern, he was promoted major general of volunteers on April 26, 1862."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, "think" was what I had meant to put... as for the OR, it doesn't contain most promotions (with the possible exceptions of Upton and Chamberlain due to circumstances), so most of those records are in the possession of the National Archives... who haven't put most of that online... lazy bums... IcarusPhoenix (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are conflicting secondary source citations about a date it is relatively simple to handle those, either partially or in whole by using footnotes. I provide some simple guidance in my style guide: User:Hlj/CWediting#EFP. The problem here is deciding which of the dates is probably correct. As you know, I am a proponent of the Eichers' reference, so if it were entirely up to me I would use that as the definitive date and put the alternative date into the footnote. Carman is a good source, although it would be preferable to use Tom Clemens's recently published version over Pierro's because it has achieved a better reputation.
I occasionally have disagreements with people over the value of antique sources. I guess some people cherish the romance of reading accounts from people who were contemporaries of the events. Others may think that information loses accuracy over time. I, however, believe that modern secondary sources can take advantage of all of the older sources as well as more recent information. It is surprising to learn that the primary sources available increase over time, as new diaries and letters and other data are unearthed or made available in more accessible forms. I consider the official records to be primary sources and they are sometimes of dubious value. There are instances of officers who created spurious reports, or who edited them after the fact to improve their reputations. Other reports are incomplete or contradictory. This is not to say that secondary sources are infallible and I certainly have found instances of errors, although the tendency I have noticed is that those produced in the last 10 years are remarkably more accurate than those produced, say, 50 or 100 years ago. It is unfortunate that some Wikipedia editors place so much stock in documents that are available free online because they are mining information from less accurate sources, IMHO. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hal for your answer on Henry A. Wise "saving Petersburg"

[edit]

BTW, if you can throw an eye on [[Henry A. Wise on WP french, I'd be glad to have your advice, I've somewhat thickened the english article... Best regards, T.y. Arapaima (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm not sure what I can accomplish by looking at the French version, a language I do not speak (beyond restaurant interactions). Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Hlj. You have new messages at Berean Hunter's talk page.
Message added 15:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello Hal, I thought the article on Spencer rifle

[edit]

needed one more JPG, so I added a sketch by Alfred Waud about troopers firing Spencers during the battle of Middleburg. Can you please check if my legend is correctly written ? And I try (unsuccessfully) to find a JPG showing an indian brave with a Spencer rifle, if you know of one such photo in Commons ?...Thanks beforehand, & I hope to see too tracks of your visit on my last traductions : "Fusil Henry" & "Campagne de Burnside en Caroline du Nord" . Hope you're thriving ! Cheers, Arapaima (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"tracks of your visit on my last traductions" = some corrections, additions etc... 'd be very welcome coming from you. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

[edit]

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

98.180.13.138

[edit]

What do you think about this (Ip 98.180.13.138 edits it, like here and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mine_Run&diff=prev&oldid=432242154 here).Volga2 (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were right ...

[edit]

... and I was wrong about em dash usage; I should have read WP:EMDASH first. My apologies. Ylee (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up!

[edit]

Just discovered your ACW maps. Beautiful done. Thank you on behalf of all current and future Wikipedia users. jengod (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Big Bethel

[edit]

Thanks. I realize that the introduction is too long and has material that should be in the background. I tried to indicate that I was aware of that in the edit summary but, of course, only a few phrases can be put there and that may not have been clear along with the message that I intend to expand the other sections. The anniversary date of the battle is nearly here and after doing some research on the battle, I thought I could get it in a little better shape before the date arrived. While I think the material is correct and adds appropriate detail to the article, it is not properly organized. I started to replace the material and got too far into the details when I realized that I had to leave it as it was and get back to it later. The paragraph that this material replaced was copied nearly word for word from The Civil War Day by Day by Philip Katcher, which I discovered only by chance since I do not own that book. That increased my urge to replace the summary. I suppose it would have been better not to jump the gun and put too much into the introduction just because of the anniversary date and the copied paragraph. Yet it seemed to me that the article was insufficient as it was so I plunged ahead with the idea that this would be a temporary improvement and I would get it in better shape quickly. Perhaps taking the material off once it got too long and putting the material that is more in the nature of background in the proper section would have been a better approach. In any event, I should have time to work on it later today and over the next few days to get it in better form and add a few details and citations.

After I get the Big Bethel article in what I think will be better shape, I will send you an e-mail about a few other articles I have worked on, including one that I had trouble with. I intend to work on the Battle of Vienna, Virginia (June 17, 1861), another early minor battle with an anniversary date next week and the West Virginia battles next. The article on the Battle of Philippi looked sufficient but some of the others from that campaign seem too sparse and perhaps are mainly just the NPS summaries. I can get back to the end of the war (Appomattox campaign, mostly) articles on which I have some research and notes already collected after work on the 1861 articles is done. Donner60 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Wilderness GA review

[edit]

Hi there. I notice that you maintain the above article, so I was hoping you could help with the GA review here. Thanks Wild Wolf (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Hlj. You have new messages at Talk:Wilmer McLean.
Message added 12:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello again after a long silence from me! Do you feel like having a very swift look at this merger discussion please? It's obviously correct: I would do something myself right now, but I don't know what is procedurally necessary ... would love your input! Thanks. DBaK (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, someone was bolder than I, and it's done, thanks! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Writer's Barnstar
LightSpectra (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Writer's Barnstar
Kitt1987 (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson's Valley Campaign articles

[edit]

Sorry about that. I will start correcting the Port Republic and Cross Keys articles soon, although it might take me a week or two (due to my work schedule). Wild Wolf (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little off your beaten path

[edit]

Hi Hal! Do you mind giving my new Template:American Revolutionary War a look for completeness and other issues? I've based the construction off our ACW template, so I'm sure I've missed something important. While this is a live template, it's not transcluded anywhere yet. BusterD (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War

[edit]

Hello Hlj. The article Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War has been completed. I put this as a separate article so additional information can be added. Please feel free to make any improvements to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

defensive tactics within a strategic offensive

[edit]

Hello there. "Longstreet gave all of the credit for the victory to Lee, describing the campaign as "clever and brilliant." It established a strategic model he believed to be ideal—the use of defensive tactics within a strategic offensive.[22]" Shouldn't this be the other way around? Namely "offensive tactics and a defensive strategy?" I recall having heard that this was the difference in opinion between Longstreet and Lee at Gettysburg, the former not wanting to go on the offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.12.75 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not easy to communicate with an anonymous user unless you keep checking my talk page. I would suggest sending me an e-mail using the link at the top of the page if you want to continue. However, the answer to your question is no. Longstreet wanted to conduct a strategic offensive – invading Pennsylvania, for example – and then to fight a defensive battle there. This is what Lee did at Second Manassas. He sent Jackson on a strategic offensive move into Pope's rear, and then hunkered down and let Pope hammer at him ineffectually. Lee then counterattacked and won the battle. This is exactly what Longstreet wanted Lee to do in Pennsylvania. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.204.74 (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Sheridan - Legacy

[edit]

Philip Sheridan is the person behind the "Sheridan's boys in the blockhouse that night" line from Woody Guthrie's song "Roll On Columbia". http://everything2.com/title/Roll+On%252C+Columbia%252C+Roll+On is the source I found supporting this.

-Sam gamerSRC@gmail.com [yeah, I know I really should set up an account if I want to contribute...] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.3.250 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Leonidas Polk

[edit]

Please see my question about pictures of Polk on his talk page. Mangoe (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gen. George Thomas

[edit]

I re-edited the article to put back in

In 1831 Thomas and his family were nearly caught up in the slave revolt of Nat Turner. Whilst some repressive acts were enforced following the crushing of the revolt, Thomas took the lesson another way, seeing that slavery was so vile an institution that it had forced the slaves to act in violence.[1]

Yes, Turner was mentioned in the previous article, but nothing about Thomas' life-changing reaction to slavery following the revolt

Montalban (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Einolf

[edit]

There's a number of references given on the General G. Thomas entry that only have an author, such as "Einolf". I think these need to be proper (more academic) references, with book title and publisher details.

regards, Montalban (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas as slave owner

[edit]

I'm purchasing Christopher J. Einolf's book "George Thomas: Virginian for the Union (Campaigns and Commanders)" I'd be interested to read if Thomas himself owned slaves, or merely his family did... as it seems he went off to West Point rather early and wouldn't have had time for slave-owning Montalban (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lorenzo Thomas.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lorenzo Thomas.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 04:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chickamauga Campaign Davis's Cross Roads.png

[edit]

I was wondering if I might suggest a change to this map. I found it took me some time to locate the area covered in the detail maps in the article on the larger map. Would it be possible to get an outline on the larger map, showing the location of the smaller maps below? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brevets, etc.

[edit]

On of the problem I have with showing brevets is not only the differences with actual rank or substantive authority but that only 58 of the Civil War Union Army brevet generals were appointed by President Lincoln. That means all the others are were appointed by Andrew Johnson. I only have seen one these (Francis Barlow) where the nomination/appointment date was in 1865. The others were appointed well after the war was over. Other historians have taken the view that most of these appointments were little more than disguised good conduct medals when the only award available was the Congressional Medal of Honor. I would not deny that the early appointments made by Lincoln might have had a little more substantive value, although at least a couple of these were posthumous. I think we mislead people by implying that the Union Army was full of brevet major generals when in fact very few of them had been appointed during the war and many of the generals (or lower officers as the case may be) had already been mustered out when they received the brevet grade. I don't think this is worth quarreling over, however. As long as we can put the dates of nomination and confirmation as well as the date of rank into the body of the article, I suppose I would not care if the infobox states this as a rank. A discerning reader will be able to figure out the appointment time line as long as it is clearly given.

Someone has been changing all the ranks for Union generals to their brevet rank. I had reversed some of these for the reasons I stated. I will cease doing that, although I will add the proper dates to any articles that do not have them. I will change Barnes back but I may rely on our current changer (who is actually operating with a "red" user name with no user page and a separate IP address; I think it is reasonably clear it is the same person but as long as there is no vandalism involved, I suppose it does not matter) to continue his campaign or change others as I run across them.

I have been concentrating on a few lists and responding to watchlist changes that seem to need attention. I intend to get back to the West Virginia campaign, a few other smaller battles from the first year or so of the war, missing biographies and eventually the Appomattox campaign. I may eventually even study the brevet material closer to revise the article on brevet because it seemed to need a little work the last time I looked at it.

We have had a user "ScarfacedCharley" who has been putting on dozens of stubs and inserts into articles, some of them Civil War articles, using maybe one old source. Some of these are not too well written and a few seem to be over the line from a NPOV, perhaps unintentionally. I have amended or added to some of the articles and totally rewritten a couple, ignoring the citations for the most part in order to get a good, corrected version on line, which I may need to get back to and supplement. Some of his articles, including some on Civil War battles or campaigns, have been speedily deleted by others. He seems to have concentrated on Asian and other military history recently. Perhaps the attention his articles and changes in articles on the Civil War have received have prompted him to concentrate on other interests.

I hope you are doing well and if you attended some Civil War events this summer that they went well.

Donner60 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points in your reply. I think the infoboxes can be good additions to articles in many cases but they certainly do not tell the whole story and can be misleading because they are limited to a word or a few words. As you note, "decisive victory" is too strong in almost all cases. (Vicksburg? Five Forks?) Often, as it should be, the introduction is a better summary. As I wrote earlier, I will put the dates in these articles as they come up and that should be good enough. The dates are from Eicher. It occurs to me that I can easily find any such changes that I made yesterday and change them all. It occurs to me that I can find these on my contributions as well as my watchlist, which seems to expire after a short period of time even if I click on "all." This will catch the recent changes prompted by the anonymous user's changes. Any of the earlier such examples might be harder to find but are more likely to be reverted by the changer or come across over a period of time. Donner60 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe I have a solution to this problem; first of all, I think it's worth noting that if you just look at brevets for general-grade officers, it isn't some of them who were appointed as a reward, but most (to the tune of 1,541 of them, or a whopping 96%). It should also be noted that a slight majority of the fifty-nine solely-brevet conferences of general grades were posthumous. That being said, I am of the opinion that Searcher 1990's wholesale correction of officers' ranks to their brevets is an incorrect action, but not wholly so (I'm fairly certain that's who is currently doing it, anyway). My suggestion is to do what we have done on the Union Generals list and put both substantive and brevet grades in the infobox, separated by a carriage return and possibly bulleted. Realistically, Civil War-era brevets were very rarely used in the field for any grade short of Major Generals, and the post-Civil War Army ignored them completely when it came to field service. When combined with the remarkable frequency of brevets posthumously or in the post-war years as rewards for service or for political reasons, I think it only fair to note substantive ranks on all articles as well as brevets.IcarusPhoenix (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since there are multiple people participating in this discussion, I guess I can assume you are watching my talk page. I have no objection to listing both substantive and brevet ranks in the infobox, but they should be listed as ranks, not awards. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hal: Great. IcarusPhoenix had a very good idea on this. This will gives the officer credit for the brevet but will not appear to inflate his position. The way to make the significance of the ranks clearer is to put the dates of appointment, nomination, confirmation in the text. I will continue to do this. I again will redo those I had changed the other day and others as I come across them or time permits me to search for them. I read your travelogues from earlier in the year. I thought they showed that your trips went rather well (except maybe for some heat and humidity) and that the programs were interesting. Your expressed purpose for writing these make them of great interest to me and presumably to others who are interested in Civil War history and the battlefields. It is interesting to hear the key remarks of some of the historians whose books we read for enjoyment and source material. You have noted a few facts that I certainly do not remember reading about. These are not dry reports on obscure points from the conferences but are truly made more interesting by your observations from the battlefields or historic sites. I am not trying to flatter you. I admire your writing and your energy and your contribution to Civil War scholarship - not to mention your marathon participation. We can get some insights from your remarks that would be difficult to get other than attending these events, which is not necessarily easy for some people to do. I hope the Mosby event goes well. It sounds quite interesting. The weather should be good at this time of year, although one can never be sure about that in advance. Donner60 (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hal

[edit]

Howdy Hal, This is Joe, from ALBG. I am new to the Wikipedia world and have much to learn. Thanks so much for your note. We are off to Balls Bluff,VA this weekend for the 150th. I continue to follow your adventures. Best JoeMieczkowski (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughfare Gap

[edit]

Yes, it's the 1993 edition (actually its my dad's book; I borrow quite a few of his books for my Wikipedia editing). BTW, thanks so, so, so much for cleaning up all of my mistakes. Wild Wolf (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ulysses S. Grant

[edit]

Hello Hlj. Would you Hlj, be interested in editing the Ulysses S. Grant article for a rewrite from the Vicksburg Campaign through Appomattox? One contributor in the talk page mentioned a rewrite was needed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Probably not, sorry. I usually concentrate non-trivial work only on the articles I've written myself. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response Hlj. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back from "retirement"

[edit]

Hi Hal! I can't stay away. Miss the clash and the BS. Probably stay page focused. I want to improve James A. McDougall for one. Might ask for help, though I know he's off your beaten path. See you in talkspace. BusterD (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hlj are you BusterD? Sorry I've not used wiki to talk before... its making me crazy and its a short drive tonight! Looking4family (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC) looking4family[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about ACW campaign categories

[edit]

At question has come up at WT:MILHIST#Chattanooga Campaign categories regarding the category structure for some of the smaller ACW campaigns. I vaguely recall that we had discussed this at one point, and that there was a rationale for having the categories set up as they are; are they based on the National Park Service scheme? In any case, if you have a bit of free time, any insight you could provide at the discussion would be very appreciated. Thanks! Kirill [talk] [prof] 19:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Sickles

[edit]

I haven't found Swanberg's page # but I do see numerous sources citing both ages. A suitable one for the latter would be that Gallagher states 16. He may cite where he got the info if you have this book.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually an essay by William Glenn Robertson and he cites Swanberg as his source (pp. 77-87). Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. After looking at a few sources, I wonder if the age discrepancy (and confusion) doesn't also originate from the fact that they had two marriages about 7 months apart. She is apparently buried in an unmarked grave.
Oh well. I tried. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I knew about the two wedding ceremonies, but the second one in a church in 1853 found her undoubtedly 16 (possibly 17!), so that is not the source of the confusion. I guess if she were born in October through December 1836 she would have been technically 15. Perhaps her grave is Sickles's final revenge. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

[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 here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French translat. of Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War

[edit]

Hello Hal ! Hope you are OK. Just to tell you I'm glad I've completed my french version of "Mil. hist. of Af. Am. in A.C.W." , & I'd be awfully happy if you'd cast a glance on it. As you'll see, I choose a chronological order. I hope I did not forget a battle where the Colored Troops rose & shone ! You can also of course look at my french U.S.C.T. and Corps d'Afrique.

Hoping to see tracks of your visit on the articles (i.e. : improvements, additions etc...), and with all my best wishes (health, riches, contrib. etc...) for 2012, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ow, c'mon, please, I'm sure you can at least look at the headlines & see if I didn't make any big blunders, or forget a battle where colored troops were eminent, can't you ?

And I'm sure you know who is this brig.gen. Stuart the en article hints at :"Union Brigadier-General D. Stuart observed that "...the enemy, and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men. The casualties in the brigade were 11 killed, 40 wounded, and 4 missing; aggregate, 55....". ref: Ervin L. Jordan, Jr. Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (1995).Forgive me Hal for boring you, thanks a lot beforehand, & t.y.Arapaima (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A thousand thanks again, Hal. Stuart comes handy for my next translation : "Political General". As for the "Black Confederates" issue, I saw the turmoil on the DPs, & choose to be very wary about it. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Bobrick, B, (2009) "Master of War: The Life of General George H Thomas"
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hlj/archive2011&oldid=1144594233"