Talk:Battle of Carthage, Missouri

Major disagreement with the "Franz Sigel" article
The Franz Sigel article states, "At the start of the war, Sigel recruited and organized an expedition to southwest Missouri and fought the Battle of Carthage, defeating 8,000 Confederates with only 800 of his own men."

This Battle of Carthage article states, "The experienced Col. Franz Sigel commanded 1,100 well trained soldiers fighting for the United States. The Missouri State Guard was commanded by Governor Claiborne F. Jackson who commanded over 4,000 unorganized, inexperienced soldiers, along with 2,000 unarmed troops who did not participate in the battle. It was a major victory for the Missouri State Guard, who fought under the Confederate flag, and played a huge part in determining Missouri's course during the war."

That's a major disagreement in the two articles. 207.69.137.202 05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been fixed. Scott Mingus 22:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See my addition in the Franz Sigel entry talk page. Auror 6 February, 2007

Missouri State Guard and Militia confusion
In many/most of the start-of-the-ACW-in Missouri wiki articles, there is considerable incorrect (yet understandable) mixing of nomenclature with respect to the Missouri State Guard and the militia. It was not until immediately after the Camp Jackson Affair that the MSG was formed. Before that there was simply a state militia. The MSG was a reorganization and reauthorization of the pre-existing system. Red Harvest (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle needs expansion
This is a good start, but the battle section is nearly non-existent at present and requires considerable expansion. Red Harvest (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle of Carthage (1861). 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/20060907083451/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/hps/abpp/battles/mo002.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/mo002.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907083451/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/hps/abpp/battles/mo002.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/mo002.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2021

 * 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: Moved to Battle of Carthage, Missouri as proposed. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Engagement near Carthage → Battle of Carthage, Missouri – Was moved in 2019 by without a discussion that I can find. Essentially, the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion do refer to this as the "engagement near Carthage", but "Battle of Carthage" is what is generally used in secondary sources such as the Burchett 2013 and Hinze & Farnham 1997 books in the further reading and this older article in the Missouri Historical Review. The state of Missouri also refers to it as a battle in naming Battle of Carthage State Historic Site. "engagement near Carthage" seems primarily limited to 19th-century sources and wikipedia mirrors, so I'm not convinced that it's the best title here, since it's rarely used in modern sources that I've seen. This clearly isn't the primary topic for Battle of Carthage (disambiguation), so it needs dabbed. Not sure if location or year is standard, but guessing the former based on Battle of Glasgow, Missouri and Battle of Jackson, Mississippi. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 21 July 2021 (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.
 * Support - based on evidence presented. I also did a google search and responses for "engagement" appear to be near exclusively mirrors. I also think that the location disambiguator is appropriate, given the Punic war relationship.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. On reading the title, I was expecting to find an article about North Africa in the Roman-era. Some form of disambiguator is needed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed or move back to Battle of Carthage (1861). There were many engagements near Carthage, but they were nowhere near the small town in Missouri. The renaming was clearly US-centric. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Support. This would seem to reflect the common modern usage and Wikipedian conventions. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support with caveat . I support move back to Battle of Carthage (1861) for the reason Necrothesp points out above. Would jibe with disimbiguation page. -- Lieutcoluseng (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Battle of Carthage, Missouri. I view this as akin to Aurora, Illinois shooting, where the title 2019 Aurora shooting was rejected for potentially misleading readers into believing that the shooting took place in Colorado. I think Battle of Carthage (1861) feels a bit WP:ASTONISHing given how overwhelming of a primary topic Carthage is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed – like Battle of Waynesboro, Georgia and Battle of Waynesboro, Virginia. Mojoworker (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of style overhaul by User:68.227.102.237
I have reverted these edits. They appear to have been a good-faith attempt to improve the article's style and readability, but they have had a severe opposite effect - the reason I noticed these changes at all was because I read this article for this first time just now and came out of it baffled, wondering "why does this article about such a US-centric topic read like it was translated from German?" A minority of the changes are good, but the majority seem to be motivated by this editor's highly indiosyncratic views on a couple of issues (possessives with apostrophes, short prepositional phrases, and anything that even LOOKS like the passive voice, even when it's not, e.g. "Political views in Missouri were divided before the American Civil War."). The result of this crusade is sentence after sentence that is either downright ungrammatical ("Sigel returned back in Carthage", "Troops of Sigel", "Intelligence of Sigel") or extremely unnatural ("Colonel Franz Sigel" becoming "Franz Sigel, colonel"; "Lyon moved elements of his St. Louis garrison up the Missouri River by steamer" becoming "Lyon moved elements of his Saint Louis garrison to steam up the Missouri River"; "However, the force in Lamar was, for the most part, armed only with hunting rifles, shotguns, knives or, in some cases, no weapons at all" becoming "Only hunting rifles, shotguns, knives, or, in some cases, no weapons at all, however, for the most part armed the force in Lamar").

These changes, and most others in these edits, make the article far, far less readable and fluent-sounding in the service of one editor's very idiosyncratic, non-standard stylistic pet peeves. (They also cut off the second-to-last paragraph partway through.) It was clearly a lot of work done in good faith, and there are some good changes in there, but they're so overwhelmed by these other bad changes that I think the only viable solution is a full rollback. I've gone ahead and done so because I find it hard to imagine others will disagree, but please say something if you do. User:68.227.102.237, please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia manual of style before making major style overhauls like this in the future, and if your style changes are not supported by it and are likely to be contentious in any way (e.g. removing every single instance of the passive voice because you personally don't like it), please be sure to discuss the changes on the talk page first. -Elmer Clark (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)