Talk:Northern Virginia campaign

Edits of May 28, 2010
I have reverted the edits made by anonymous user 208.101.136.95. My apologies for using a blunt instrument to facilitate communications, but since I have no assured means of communications with an anonymous user, I am hoping this gets your attention. The edits are not lost and can be easily retrieved. (I do not understand the motivation for people who do not establish user IDs on Wikipedia. No personal identifying information is required, and having an established identity, even as a pseudonym -- which most people use -- makes it easier both for you and the rest of the community to communicate.)

I do not have particular problems with any of the edits that you made in terms of substance, other than a few spelling errors and an inability to use Wikipedia's notation for linking to other articles, but those are the kinds of problems that I am accustomed to helping correct. The problem in this case is that you are injecting new material into cited paragraphs and it is not clear that the citations currently in the article support the changes you are making. I describe this situation in my "style guide" for ACW articles, User:Hlj/CWediting, which I encourage you to read. If you choose to reinsert this material into the article, please either provide citations at the point of your addition or adjust the paragraph citation appropriately. If you are not able to do that using Wikipedia markup, I invite you to comment about your sources here on the talk page and I can provide some integration assistance. By the way, I do notice that the Hennessy citation is adequate for the large expansion of Pope's quotation, although I would ask you to reconsider reproducing this entire document. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of full text reproduction, and a lengthy quotation that is appropriate for a large book about a subject may not be so appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

One other comment about some of your related editing in other articles. The encyclopedic nature of our writing does not lend itself to be florid style of writing that is appropriate for magazines or books. In the American Civil War articles, we generally leave this level of adjective-laden writing to quotations from the participants or historians, usually in side boxes to add some color to the article, but to maintain an encyclopedic tone in the main text. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

QUESTION
Just a friendly question. Where does the phrase Northern Virginia Campaign come from? I have 6-700 books about the Civil war, 4-500 magazines plus the official records, southern historical papers etc, and I can never recall having seen Northern Virginia Campaign been used, except the last years on Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be best to use the historical correct name, as it appears on reports etc, in the official records. Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomV71 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ANSWER: CWSAC classification from the National Park Service. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)