Talk:James Barnes (general)

Slight expansion
I added the infobox, filled it in some, and added important dates for Barnes with cites. More info is needed about his life before West Point as well as expanding on his life after the Civil War, hence the "no" answers to B-class one and two. Kresock (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Hal Jespersen
Hal asked for specifics regarding V Corps being in rederve or not at Chancellorsville.

Both Sykes' & Humphreys' Divisions of V Corps were engaged at Chancellorsville. On May 1 XII Corps attacked down the Orange Plank Road. V Corps attacked with Sykes' Division down the Orange Turnpike & Giffin's Division leading Humphreys' down the River Road. Sykes met McLaws' Division and was attacked in the flank by Rodes' division and retreated. Hooker ordered all attacking forces back (before any enemy were met on the River Road).

The V corps then held the front line from near to Scott's Dam to near Chancellorsville. This was not a reserve position, it just so happened that the V corps was not attacked here.

On 3 May V corps moved to the west to extend a new line facing Stuart's Corps. Humphreys' Division was attacked here by Colquitt's brigade. Griffin's Division was behind and to the right of Humphreys'.

Again the corps as a whole was not in a reserve position.

Graeme Cook (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my brief edit summary wasn't clear. I was not saying that specifics on the corps are needed, I was saying that a biography of a brigade commander does not need to have a lot of specifics about what other units in the Corps were doing, particularly in a battle in which he played such a minor role. This sort of detail would be fine in the Battle of Chancellorsville article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The current construction of the last sentence of the second paragraph of "Civil War service" appears to suggest the Battle of Chancellorsville occurred before December 26th, 1862. And cites Eicher as source. I've seen that author used to justify some high horsehockey in my day, but this is a snafu-paloosa. BusterD (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Somewhere along the line that sentence got out of sequence, because the battle being referred to was Fredericksburg. He was in temporary division command from December 26, 1862, until February 1, 1863, and then again May 5 to July 21, 1863. I have adjusted the article to mention only the second of these. You have the possibility with these detailed command history lists from Eicher and other places of really bogging down on temporary assignments and I don't think they are very important. In this case, the second temporary assignment led him to command at Gettysburg, so it is worth mentioning. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hal, I am not suggesting specifics about what other units in the Corps were doing be included in the article but after I changed: "the old pattern returned and the V Corps was left in reserve." to: "Griffin's Division was left in reserve" you changed it to: "the V Corps was once again left in reserve". It seemed you needed some convincing. Has this conspiracy theory of leaving the V Corps in reserve been perpetrated on other articles?

Graeme Cook (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My most recent edit was to say "At the Battle of Chancellorsville in May, Barnes's brigade was not heavily engaged", which omits any reference to V Corps or other divisions. Although I do not think it is relevant to a Barnes biography, V Corps' did not play a giant role in the fighting at Chancellorsville. Their 700 casualties is the second lowest (I Corps had 300) out of 17,000. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So, has this conspiracy theory of leaving the V Corps in reserve been perpetrated on other articles?

Graeme Cook (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hal,

The fact that "Barnes's" was used sometime in the past but since not been part of the article has no bearing on the style that new text should use. Your changes to this new text from "Barnes'" to "Barnes's" is for reasons of style alone, which is not allowed by the Wikipedia style guide.

Graeme Cook (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per request as uncontroversial - no discussion needed. - GTBacchus(talk) 04:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

James Barnes (General) → James Barnes (general) — per standard
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.