Talk:Ambrose Burnside/Archive 1

Carbine?
Personally, I was surprised not to see any mention of Burnside's firearms design. He designed the breechloading Burnside carbine. Produced in Massachusetts, the design, although based on the earlier Hall breechloader, was quite innovative and was issued to (and fairly popular with) many union cavalry units. His credit as a firearms designer was probably instrumental in his selection as the first presdient of the National Rifle Association.


 * Feel free to edit, but the carbine is mentioned in the second paragraph of the Early life section. Hal Jespersen 01:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bridges
Is it me, or did Ambrose Burnside, in his spectacularly brief career in the spotlight on the US Civil War, have a fixation on bridges? There's Antietam's lower bridge, as we all know well by his name attached to it, which he had to purchase in human flesh because he didn't realize that his trooops could ford the river. Then at Fredericksburg, he declined a frontal assault on the Confederate positions until pontoon bridges could be recieved from Henry Halleck, the overall Union Army supply commander. In both instances, his fixation on bridges resulted in higher casualties inflicted upon his men, and in the case of Fredericksburg, a ghastly and horrific bloodbath that could have been avoided. (I don't award the near-bungle at Antietam to him, because the gravest threat to the Union Army, George McClellan, was in overall command at that point.) Could anyone offer support/insight on this for me?


 * I do not really see the point of this line of argument. Virtually all Civil War generals had to deal with bridges in one way or another. Also, Burnside's career was not as short as some believe -- he was active in North Carolina, Tennessee, and the Overland Campaign. I do not claim he was a very successful general, but he did not completely burn out and disappear as many of his contemporaries did. Hal Jespersen 15:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Burnside was a very competent officer in smaller actions which he could oversee personally. His actions early in the war showed initiative and skill and he'd have made a good Brigadier General to be entrusted with carrying out orders. Unfortunately he was promoted beyond his level of skill (and comfort). To his credit he was aware of this.

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of July 4, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Yes, good standard of prose, appropriate use of military terms.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Plenty of reliable published sources per WP:V and WP:RS.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Lengthy and detailed.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Some problems here, especially in the "Assessment and legacy" section - would be better to quote from sources rather than stating just one opinion. Not enough to fail GA, however.
 * 5. Article stability? Yes.
 * 6. Images?: Appropriate public-domain image used.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — Waltontalk 13:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I have made a few minor alterations to the grammar in places, and the lead would benefit from further expansion, as currently it does really not do the article justice (see WP:LEAD for more info on this).

However, I believe the article still meets the GA criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 13:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Three cheers
Since I live in Rhode Island as he did, I say we give a hand to Burnside, one of the best Union generals in the Civil War. 72.221.69.79 (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Last name
Are we sure his last name isn't Sideburn? It sure seems like it. ~ RayLast  « Talk! » 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We are sure. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sideburn-Burnside
There isn't a source to back up the statement that sideburns comes from his name. How do we know it's true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.95 (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The little number [22] at the end of the sentence is a footnote with a citation to a source. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

'Sideburn' doesn't come from 'Burnside' it's an urban legend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.2.130 (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sez who? Here's a link with a citation to the Oxford English Dictionary: http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/index/2007/03/P20/ (which I do own, so cannot put the actual cite in the article). You can also look at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sideburns Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Historian
Historian Dryasdust is a pompous noise. If used at all, it should be Dryasdust, the historian; the other form is a TimeStyle illiteracy. It is being used here for "someone who writes books on history", and is therefore redundant when used of anyone whose books are in the bibliography. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We could use fuller titles to show more expertice for their works, such as Army of the Potomac military historian Jeffry D. Wert... or Army of the Potomac historian Bruce Catton... for their numerous works about that army and its leaders. This might be overkill, though. I agree with the simple title historian of even military historian for both gents, before their names, to let readers know why their judgements/quotes have been included. I've used this approach many times and no one has gassed them yet. Kresock (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of the title "historian" is to differentiate a person -- particularly one who is not identified with a wiki link -- from other people who might be quoted in an article, such as military historians, biographers, contemporaries, newspaperman, editorial writers, novelists, etc. I would not have a great objection to saying "Joe Smith, historian," but also do not see any benefit to making that change. Assuming that someone would find the nearest footnote and then drop down to the bottom of a lengthy article to see the role of a person in the References section is a burden I do not think we should place on the average reader. In some cases I follow Kresock's suggestion to expand the descriptions of historians if they specialize in a particular topic. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well now they have been. I will rewrite so that this semiliterate piece of pompous bloviation is at least English; but ideally we would not imitate the bad habits of the vainer adornments of American historiography. Irving Brant and James Thomas Flexner have done a great deal to earn their vanity; we haven't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess I'm semiliterate because I have no idea what the heck you're talking about or why you think it's important to distinguish between "job-description name" and "name, job description," but I have no objection to the change you made. Please specify here what POV dispute caused you to add a warning box to the section or remove it. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That there is some meaning to historian here, beyond having written books, which is redundant with the bibliography and the links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What meaning to historian do you believe is being pushed? When I use such a title, it's to clarify the justification of including their words and/or their assessments. As Hal points out, a small notation like this saves casual readers from checking against the references every time new writers are introduced, which average readers probably don't do anyway. This is especially important if the authors don't have a page of their own, or in some of the articles lacking in-line citations. Kresock (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, both authors here do have articles. Does historian have any meaning here which ''author would not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the case of linked people, I have no objection to removing any of these descriptions. The use of "author" is so generic that it is valueless. Historian implies to most readers, I'd suspect, that someone is a published, professional historian (vs. someone like me who edits Wikipedia for free) and its use in my articles is, as I mentioned above, to differentiate quotes or opinions from other types of authors, such as military historians, biographers, contemporaries, newspaperman, editorial writers, novelists, etc. By the way, since we started this friendly discussion, I have coincidentally encountered two professionally published books that used the construct, "historian Joe Blow," naming someone who is certainly not a well-known person. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What were sideburns called before him?
They had to have a name... Are you sure "sideburns" come from "Burnside"? Latrosicarius (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. (If you can find an alternative etymology in a reliable source, let us know.) Not every physical feature has a unique name. What, for instance, is the purple birthmark on Gorbachev's head called? Or the gap between Lauren Hutton's front teeth? Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Coinslot is a harsh but common nick for those gaps. As far as the bearding, I think wiskers is among the oldest terms of any pattern. That was probably used until Ambrose's got famous. Kresock (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That lovely gap between Lauren Hutton's front teeth is a diastema.Iglew (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Robert Holoway
This NYT article might be of interest here. SaltyBoatr get wet 22:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This Line Should Be Taken Out
I feel that this line, "Burnside did not perform adequate reconnaissance of the area, and instead of taking advantage of several easy fording sites out of range of the enemy, his troops were forced into repeated assaults across the narrow bridge which was dominated by Confederate sharpshooters on high ground." Should be taken out of the article, because he couldn't cross the Fjords as mentioned in the Antietam article, "Burnside concentrated his plan instead on storming the bridge while simultaneously crossing a ford McClellan's engineers had identified a half mile (1 km) downstream, but when Burnside's men reached it, they found the banks too high to negotiate."--Red Wiki 14:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

I believe that Burnside Bridge and Burnside street in Portland are not named for General Burnside. According to Wikipedia Burnside street/bridge in Portland, OR..... "In 1891, Burnside Street was changed from "B" street to take the name of Dan Burnside, a local businessman who was a proponent of the 1866 dredging of the Willamette River. The original Burnside Bridge was a swing span bridge that opened in 1894". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.72.52 (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Arrest of U.S. Representative Vallandingham
According to Thomas J. DiLorenzo in his book The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, Burnside was in command of Federal Troops which deported U.S. Representative Clement L. Vallandigham.

I think this might be of interest to other users of wikipedia. I'm not very comfortable editing pages and would like to include it in the article.

12.30.196.14 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC) FURB


 * It's already in the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

First NRA President
Hi. I was wondering whether Burnside being the first president of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is significant enough to merit inclusion in the introductory paragraphs? Seems like a big deal to me, especially given that the NRA has grown so strong that in one Fortune Magazine survey, American lawmakers and congressional staffers "considered the NRA the most influential lobbying group in the USA." Thanks.123.225.149.193 (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This article's lead section should probably be expanded 3X to summarize the content of the article appropriately. His role in the NRA is certainly important enough to include in that revision. Feel free to edit responsibly. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC) I just don't think it's fair to say he was incompetent, which is why I deleted that last line on his first paragraph.shyjayb 03:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

East Tennessee edits
An anonymous user has expanded the section on East Tennessee. I have to say that I am impressed with the quality of writing, which is well beyond what anonymous users normally submit. However, the citation on the paragraph is now inaccurate, merely taking the McPherson footnote and applying it to the entire collection of new material. Please provide adequate citations for all of these additions within 10 days, or I will need to revert the change. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Burnside in Portland, Oregon.
I removed the un-sourced fact about a distillery in Portland naming a bourbon after Ambrose Burnside. The bourbon is actually named after Burnside, the major street/bridge in the city, which happens to be named after David Burnside, a Portland merchant in 1892. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGDumptruck (talk • contribs) 07:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Ambrose Burnside2.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Ambrose Burnside2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 23, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-05-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

General Order No. 38
Burnside's imposition of illegal military rule under General Order No. 38 warrants a section on controversy, does it not?119.224.13.116 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)