Talk:Fishing Creek Confederacy

Copy edit, August 2013
I am copy editing this article in response to a GOCE request made by User:King jakob c 2. I am rearranging many of the sentences to improve the prose. There are a few questions I have, listed below.


 * The last paragraph of the "background" section mentions a soldier shot in the northwestern part of the county, but it doesn't say when it happened, or who was shot, so it's hard to coordinate it with other facts in that paragraph. Is more information available? Or is that soldier Lieutenant Robinson? It's not clear.
 * Removed for now, but I'll look into it. King Jakob  C2 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears you removed the part where three soldiers were shot, not the part where one soldier was shot. – Quadell (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The same paragraph then mentions "several Union soldiers" shot "in early August 1864". Is this referring to the incident where Robinson was shot? Or some other incident? It would appear to be a shooting that occurred either during or after it.
 * Possibly a newspaper error. I've corrected this. King Jakob  C2 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have to go with what the sources say. – Quadell (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They don't say this, interestingly enough. It'll stay removed. King Jakob  C2 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the entire final paragraph of "background" ("A soldier was shot...") should be incorporated into the rest of the text chronologically. Either it mentions shootings that are also mentioned below, or it mentions shootings that should be mentioned below. It also mentions the 1000 soldiers dispatched, and that is clearly in the wrong section. Someone who has read the actual sources and understands the chronology will have to reorganize this, since it is not clear to me.
 * It is organized chronologically. It discusses the latest events mentioned in that section. King Jakob  C2 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It really isn't clear, but it doesn't seem to be chronological at all, and it seems self-contradictory. I'll go point by point.
 * The last paragraph of "Background" talks about a shooting "in July or August 1864 near Raven Creek", and then rumors spread, and finally "the group of soldiers" (what group?) gets "dispatched to occupy Columbia County" to search for a fort.
 * The next section, "Initial search for deserters", goes back to July of 1864, where a group of soldiers (the same group?) is dispatched to Union county, but ended up in Columbia. But they're not there to search for a fort; they're searching for deserters. It doesn't say when Robinson gets shot, but from context it must be July or August 1864 near Raven Creek, making me strongly suspect Robinson is the soldier mentioned in the last paragraph of "Background". (If not, it's another soldier killed in the same time and place.) After that, in "Search for the 'fort'", a group of soldiers really is dispatched to occupy Columbia County, just as was earlier described in "Background", to search for a fort.
 * So either (a) the entire last paragraph of "background" describes what happens in the next several sections, and info from that paragraph should be incorporated into those sections instead, or (b) that paragraph describes a separate shooting in the same time and place and a separate group of soldiers dispatched for the same purpose, in which case it needs to be better explained. – Quadell (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's probably going to take me until Monday to finish this up. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your comments. King Jakob  C2 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In "Aftermath", the article refers to soldiers "living off the inhabitants". I know what you mean, but it sounds comically like the soldiers were eating the citizens. I'm not sure how to best rephrase it though. Were they living in civilians' homes? Or just taking their food?
 * I didn't see that in the source, so I removed it. King Jakob  C2 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Aftermath" section say that by November 2 there were fewer political prisoners. That's an emotionally laden term. In my opinion, you should either (a) simply say "prisoners" instead, or (b) use the term political prisoners above in the section where prisoners are taken, along with a source that calls them that.
 * for consistency's sake, but "political prisoners" were actually mentioned in the source. King Jakob  C2 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That section also says the soldiers guarded the polling location "to stop Democrats from voting". That's a pretty striking accusation. Does this mean "to stop deserters from voting"? They can't have stopped all voters from voting for Democrats, since Democrats still won those elections. Were the "44 Democrats" arrested for being Democrats, or for being deserters?
 * Apparently, it was two newspaper editors (see the names in my comment below) who said this; I changed the wording on that. King Jakob  C2 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Finally, the "Aftermath" section says "Local newspaper editors blamed the low turnout on the abolitionists", but no abolitionists have been mentioned. Do you mean that they blamed the low turnout on the soldiers, whom they referred to as abolitionists? Or were other abolitionists meant?
 * The source I got that information says The editors [Tate and Jacoby] laid much of the blame on local abolitionists. I changed the wording to better convey this. King Jakob  C2 22:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've finished proofreading this article. It will remain on my watchlist, and I'll be available to answer any questions. – Quadell (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Poorly Sourced
Is this just a book report on a single source ("Sauers & Tomasak") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen577 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 12 separate sources. The Sauers/Tomasak book is just one of them. This is an encyclopedia article not a book report. --Jakob (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)