User talk:Hlj/archive2008

Please explain
Please explain why you would find a need to dictate that a link I added to the Edward Ord site would be irrelevant. The item demonstrates an interesting piece of the Ord family history. All of my items are very well researched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomyarbro (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vicksburg
Greetings - This paragraph describing the siege of Vicksburg:

In the twenty days since the river crossing at Bruinsburg, Mississippi, Grant had marched his troops 180 miles, inflicting 7,200 casualties at a cost of 4,300 of his own, winning five of five battles—Port Gibson, Raymond, Jackson, Champion Hill, and Big Black River Bridge—and not losing a single gun or stand of colors.

Is remarkably similar to Foote's description in his second book on the Civil War, page 381 in which Foote writes:

"In the twenty days since they crossed the Mississippi, they had marched 180 miles to fight and win five battles -- Port Gibson, Raymond, Jackson, Champion Hill, Big Black River --occupy a deep south capital, inflict over 7000 casualties at a cost of less than 4300 of their own. . .they had not lost a gun or a stand of colors."

This is too close for comfort. I'd like to see this paragraph changed or at least attributed to the venerable Foote. Thanks.

Joe Williams williamsjm@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.216.235 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle Article Icons
I've received a few responses where the authors say they actually likes the additions. Should be on my talk page. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI. BusterD (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the message left on my talk page: Agreed. If you'll notice, I've done almost all of 1861, 1863, and 1865. I've corrected some where another has ran with my idea but used the wrong flag. I'll keep an eye on this. One more question, however. Where it lists combatants, do you think it's a good idea to go in and change them all from "United States of America" to "United States" (which then links to "Union (American Civil War)")? Foofighter20x (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, same question with "Confederate State os America"... Shorten that to Confederate States or Confederacy?? Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anon Editors on Atlanta Campaign
In response to your question about leaving warning messages (WP:UTM) on anon IP talk pages, it does seem to be effective. It's also good to identify the IP address as a public one (such as SharedIPEDU as that helps admins track it's usage. Either the anon vandal reads the message and stops, or if they persist from the same IP, then you can report them on WP:AIV. Just make sure you have progressed through the warnings sufficiently and have reach level 3 or 4 within a few hours before reporting. It's also good to tag the IP talk page for apparrent vandalism so that people can identify trouble IPs that always seem to be misbehaving. Just make sure you read and understand Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism before trying to get the IP blocked. If you don't follow the rules, the admins will not block the IPs.

In the case the Atlanta Campaign, the anon edits seem to be coming from different IPs on a daily basis though so it might reduce the effectiveness of this approach, but there's not really a plan "B" as far as I know. Hope this helps! --Roswell native (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, forgot a couple of important items. You want enlist a few other editors interested in the article to avoid breaking the three-revert rule 3RR as that could also weakened your case when requesting a block.  Especially in this case when an administrator not familiar with the topic might think that the anon IP edits have some credibility (i.e they'll think it's an edit war instead of vandalism).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roswell native (talk • contribs) 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, didn't see your message on my talk page until just now. Looks like the anon editing has quieted down on this a bit. I'm not an admin, but I've had similar issues with other articles I have edited. When I saw similar things happening on that article, I thought I could help.  Take care, --Roswell native (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits and comments
Hi. I want to salute you as a true American and a person of valuable dedication to important topics in this overall project. your consistent and high-quality editing of articles and concepts which are important to the history of our nation is truly encouraging to observe. thanks for all your efforts. hope all goes well. i look forward to watching more of your efforts and work in this regard. thanks very much. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that Maintained is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Custer Lead Paragraph
Hello HLJ -

I reverted some of the new lead you included in the Custer article and explained why on the Talk page. I'd be happy to discuss a good way to include some of the additional information you provided into the article. Sensei48 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

abner doubleday and the cable car
I am writing the biography of Abner Doubleday. You seem to have info I do not about his role in the cable car story. please e mail me. at tombart0@yahoo.com Prof. Tom Barthel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.72.12 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Bull Run (Manassass)
Hey why dont you want the exact numbers of the Battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.195.140 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As explained in the footnotes, there are no exact numbers for the battle itself in any of the article's references. If you have information from secondary sources that give them, you can adjust the numbers, footnotes, and Refs accordingly. You can't simply change the numbers. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the aid in the XXII Corps (ACW) page. I learned a couple things from your assistance. Leobold1 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fuze vs. Fuse for ACW Artillery
I noticed you changed the spelling on this. While my natural inclination is to use "fuse" as well, I read an analysis of this by several of the foremost ACW artillery projectile authors (Jack Melton and Peter George at least) that reached a consensus of "fuze." http://cwpforums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=140 This doesn't necessarily agree with modern parlance or other armies/conflicts, but it appears to have been the appropriate term for the Union and Confederate service orndance literature. The O.R. uses "fuse" mostly but I'm not sure if those transcriptions are accurate reproductions of the (mostly volunteer civilian) officer's own handwritten spellings, or the government typesetters who were accustomed to using "fuse." As one fellow points out, percussion devices are properly termed "fuze" rather than "fuse". He seems to indicate that "fuze" would be inclusive of both burning powder train and other types. Me, I don't really care as long as I know the rules. Red Harvest (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28. -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Bull run
what did they wear during the battle of bull run —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.210.137 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you would like to ask me a legitimate question, sign in as a Wikipedia user so that I can reply on your Talk page or send me an e-mail. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Winfield Scott citations you requested
The majority of the information is directly from wiki articles relating to those persons or places in the paragraph. Since the words are linked, would I still need to cite the wiki article again? For example, in the first paragraph, it is almost word for word from the wiki article on Martin Van Buren. I could put it in quotes and cite the wiki article if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odestiny (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Winfield Scott citations - update
Thank you for your reply. I have added citations and hope they will suffice. If not, I will try to supply better. For the soldier's statement, I added a second reference in the links at the bottom of the page back to the full letter reproduced on the Cherokee Nation website. Having seen some of the craziness added to the wiki page about the Cherokee, I am beginning to understand the importance of the citations now. Thanks again. Odestiny (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perryville battle maps
Hal,

Outstanding job with the diagrams to accompany the Battle of Perryville article. I've been there and have read a couple of books about the battle; it's not an easy one to get a handle on and your maps greatly enhance the impact of the article.

Thanks!

Rdikeman (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Dead Confederate at Petersburg
I have just one question, upon a close examination of the photo of the individual I see that he is wearing a US breast plate insigia. Has anyone else noticed this or made any comments about this matter? If the breast plate is accurate this was probably a Union soldier. The uniform looks more like the Confederates of the time. Very few had official CSA garb. Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crfarris (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed the outcome of the Battle of Monocacy Junction (slightly)
In the Book "Team of Rivals," Goodwin states that Wallace couldn't hold off the efenders, but delay them instead. Since this was accomplished (delaying Early) I chnaged the outcome to "Tactical Confederate victory, Strategic Union victory (Early is delayed)." Exec. Tassadar  ( comments,  contribs ) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruggles Batteries
Hey, continued this here off the Shiloh page - as far as the numbers go, I don't know about newer vs older research (nor do I have access to the footnote/source you asked about). Heck, I'm not even positive I remember the numbers exactly, it's just what I think I remembered reading on probably a National Park Service plaque there on the battlefield itself (and I have *no* idea how one would cite that, although you'd hope that it could be considered at least a semi-reliable source). Hence, my original question about the numbers. --Umrguy42 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry, looked at the wrong reference. Never mind :) --Umrguy42 (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheridan
Hal: I agree with you that a lot of Sheridan is battle description. However, I've only modified Perryville and Chickamauga and have not added to the length. In both cases to focus more specifically on Sheridan. I am brand new at wikipedia and want to get this done right.

As for biographies, my thought is that development of the subject's personality and impact should be the primary focus. Am I reaching by wanting to put in things like quotes from Sheridan. For example at Chickamauga, I have a newspaper account by a colonel who saw Sheridan crying at the destruction of his division. There is another at Chickamauga where he sees his men being forced back into the battle line by subordinate officers, cut down by Confederate fire but unable to return fire because of retreating Yankee mobs from the front line. Sheridan screamed out to the officers, "Let them go! Let them go for their lives!" I was thinking the bio entroy could show Chickamauga as the biggest whipping that Sheridan ever got in his life. I would cut out the he went this way and that way and focus on him. There is also a great quote from Gen. Lovell Rousseau on Sheridan at Stones River. It would tell the reader more about Sheridan in combat that simply saying he was promoted x date to rank from x date.

What are your thoughts?

On the overland, I didn't have much of a problem with most of the section. Just the statement that he lost all the battles but one. I don't think this is needed as a contrarian position. Rather, eliminate that statement and the Sheridan quote. Both are what I would view as being on either extreme.

Procedure question: I'll be making some extensive edits to the Valley. Is there a way that I can store proposed edits without changing the actual content?

ShenandoahValley (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Old Abe
I added the battles and spelled the names out, looks like you like to contribute battles and there are several on the Old Abe page that need added if you like.(Lookinhere (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Longstreet
Hi. I know that Wert had been discussed on the talk page, that was why I replaced it and asked that it not be removed again. I had no interest in Fuller, he would be more appropriate on a Blitzkrieg page as far as I know. Sorry for the confusion, I was reverting vandalism there when I noticed your ref was missing again. Mstuczynski (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anytime you need it. Mstuczynski (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment now open!
An FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open and can be found here if you wish to comment! Thanks! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:David Hunter.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:David Hunter.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana
Hal: How do I go about nominating an article (in this case, an image) for deletion? To be specific, I think the image of CSS Louisiana (Wikipedia site Image:CSSLouisiana.jpg) should either be deleted, for reasons that I state on its Discussion page, or at least marked so that users know that it is incorrect. Thank you in advance for your attention.PKKloeppel (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Longstreet
Mr. Jespersen, I have to disagree on most of your assumptions - you say Fullers book is a book about Lee, certainly, but Jean. E. Smiths book is about Grant. By that assertion, that book should not be a source either. And who says that an enormous amount of scholarship simply overides what came before, or makes an earlier observation correct? The problem with that notion in the case of Longstreet is much of the secondary sources about this general are a re-hash of the Lost Cause propaganda, and do not consider objective research, or research by military historians. The problem with your assetion that it is not important what Mr. Wert's background is, as long as he is widely respected, or a prolific writer, is that his background is an important part of writing about war. No doubt he is a good Civil War writer, but at some point he does not have the professional depth of knowledge and experience to quantify SDF Freeman, for example, is correct about the slow on the 2nd day of Gettysburg accusation. If Jeff Shaara, for example, was a writer of medical novels based on historical medical events, he could still only be considered to have a less than prefessional amount of knowledge on the subject of medicine. I am not simply deleting a viewpoint I do not like, I am deleting an observation not proven beyond the level that some earlier historians of bias thought this. Another problem with relying so heavily on one source - Wert, is that about 30 of 64 notes are soley from that book. Again, he is a respected author, but he is not the final say, or only author or source that talks about longstreet. Clearly, this article could use a somewhat more diverse spread of sources.(110fremont (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

In time I'll find an add more sources that will make this article better. Some will be primary sources, and I re-read through the policy, there is no absolute policy that says Wikipedia is only secondary sources. With all due respect, you are not the owner and approval authority of what goes in this article, everyone that uses Wikipeida is the owner/editor of any and all articles. Wert is a secindary source and so is Fuller, both are relevant sources to use as contributing sources to this article. Fuller's way of explaining this piece of the event is better than what is in Wert, that is why I select to use it. Thanks. (110fremont (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC))


 * And I thought Longstreet's article was quite stable, oh silly me! And I'm still not sure why this discussion wasn't carried out on the talk page for the article. Anyways I was under the impression that Wert has been relied upon as a trusted resource about the general, the most thorough and probably the most complete one out there. Even my keyboard recommends him! Your compromises should prevent any 3RR nonsense from occurring, and that's good. Like you say, the hashing out is best left up to other readers to decide with (hopefully) all evidence and points of view available in the page. Kresock (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any problem with the new phrasing you made to the passage, I think it is free of emotionalist Lost Cause political interpretation, and provides solid objectivity. I agree with that policy section you provided - as I understand it, and your example of temperture, a primary source that states a simple fact, is a supportive part to secondary interpretation. I added a recent article of examination to the reading list done this year, which is one of the best I have ever seen on the known fact "play by play" one can read straight from the ORs. (John Lott) Large portions of entire books have been written, such as by Phanz, on the second day. He would be a strong counter to the Wert statement for example. Another Wikipedia article could be established for that aspect alone, if the details of what happened are too far in the weeds for the purposes of this artcile (more of an overview of his career). An article like that could weight Lost Cause vs. academic vs. military, for eaxmple. (110fremont (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Suggested additions/revisions to Battle of Nashville article
This is not for inclusion in the article, but I read the above captioned article and have a couple problems with it.

There certainly was a whole lot of intrigue, directed at Thomas, happening on the union side, some of it within his own lines, but nothing is said in Thomas' defense. Thomas is unfairly characterized as being slow, but I think he insisted on being ready. His enemy was entrenched in field fortifications, and I seem to recall that a 3-1 superiority was desired to assure success. His goal was to obliterate the AOT as a force to be reckoned with, primarily by an effective pursuit, which was uncommon in the ACW. This was going to require cavalry...

When Sherman walked out of the war toward Savannah, (saying that if Hood wanted to go to the Ohio River, he was willing to provide rations!) he took the best two thirds of the force that had besieged Atlanta with him, including about half of Thomas' superb Army of the Cumberland, and all the serviceable cavalry horses. To replace that portion, Thomas got the Army of the Ohio, mainly the XXIII Corps, led (from well to the rear, by some accounts...) by the scheming Schofield. He also got the XVI Corps, off somewhere in Missouri! My impression is that the XVI arrived just in time to go into the trenches/fortifications the night before the scheduled attack/ice storm. Wilson, his cavalry commander, was commandeering almost anything with four legs for his troops, as far away as Louisville, and still couldn't get enough horses for them all.

I think Hoods' army was going nowhere. Having the ability to maneuver is different from saying that he could outrun Thomas in a race to the Ohio. By 1864, the countryside had to be pretty well stripped, and what passed for service of supply in the AOT couldn't have been up to that kind of move, either. Hell, some of his troops didn't even have shoes!

Hoods' chances of recruiting any significant force from an invasion in late 1864 had to be lower than in 1862, when Bragg moved into Kentucky. The troops recruited then didn't add up to a whole regiment...

In the event, I think Hood did Thomas a favor by moving to Nashville and waiting for the ax to fall. That the ax was ready to fall eight days after the Battle of Franklin speaks well for Thomas' organizational skills, welding a victorious army together out of the diverse elements that formed it, originally scattered over four or five states...

I think the reason for the panic by the union high command related to their fear that in the unlikely event that Hood somehow did get by, there would be a lot of hard questions relating to Shermans' jaunt to Savannah. OK, maybe it wasn't panic, but you could see it from there...

I think this article might be well served by a timeline indicating what portions of his army arrived and when, thus showing that the panic at the top was unwarranted.

I believe his pursuit gives the lie to those who thought Thomas slow. His troops, led by the remounted cavalry, chased the AOT over a hundred miles in little more than a week, over at least a couple major rivers swollen by the continuous rain, right out of Tennessee and pretty much right out of the war. The AOT never fought as a cohesive unit again, though some elements were present in North Carolina at the very end... Charlie Welch (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Coddington
I have only scanned this book, my impressions were, as you say, at the operational and strategic level, and not at the tactical. One book review I read once said Phanz was better at the lower level, interesting it was mentioned in the review of Coddington. I can only say I have heard positive comments on Coddington's assessment of the campaign. Civil War Courier is a monthly newpaper. It usually has 2-3 articles each month from contributing authors - some well known. I am not sure what else Mr. Lott has written, the article did not provide a bio. (147.217.65.7 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

To answer your last on more objective sources - we discussed Phanz is good for the second day, but yes, there are sections where he rehashes Freeman I beleive. Glenn Tucker wrote "Lee and Longstreet at Gettysburg." That's a really good one. Actually many contemporary primary sources seem to be the best, which became ignored after Lee died in 1870. Read Lee's report, and Longstreet's, Ewell and Hill's. British liaison/officer Col. Arthur Freemantle, who kept a diary, published it before the end of the war and he basically gives Longstreet credit for realizing that the attack could not succeed but saw no reluctance on Longstreet's part to obey orders. The German/Prussian liaison also wrote reports and observation, which I cannot comment on, as I have not read them. A person I know who works for the Park service at Anteitam just recently read an account that said that Longstreet looked "just fine at the battlefield," then observed how unhappy he was, when he observed Longstreet in the saddle on the way back to Virginia. For a more current writer - Gary Gallagher has worked to straighten out some of the Lost Cause Mentality, Gallagher is a very prominent historian, not just a writer. Dr. Piston's book a alright, but i have heard that if he wrote it today, instead of 1987, he would have steered farther away from Lost Cause influence. At the time, it was still not possible to get a book about Longstreet published that did not follow the popular formula. Someone who knows Piston told me that his original manuscript was 650 pages, and the publisher would only publish if he cut it to less than 200. I heard that 2nd or 3rd hand, but if its true, it shows how strong the grip on what was allowed and what was not allowed by the academic circles for a log time. I hope a few of these names are of interest to you. (110fremont (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

No, it would take some time to get through all this. I see your point that "the goal here is not to assemble quotes from 1863 and analyze them ourselves, it is to find analyses by secondary sources that come to the explicit conclusions that, in contrast to the claims of the lost causers, Longstreet supported Lee's tactics and enthusiastically and aggressively approached the battlefield on July 2." To my knowledge explicit secondary source conclusion as you describe are out there, but will be not as easy to find compared to the better known books like Gallager, many will be in more obscure magazines and journals. I will look for the type of wording you describe - direct contradiction to the anti-Longstreet type stuff. One easy one I know is Dr. Willaim Garrett Piston Lee's Tarnished Lieutenantp.58: 'No one will ever guess Longstreet's dislike of Lee's tactics from his performance on JUly 2. He timed his en echelon attacks carefully. He even led Barksdale's Mississippi Brigade against the peach orchard in person, riding well ahead of the attack and waving his black hat instead of a sword.''' A captured Union soldier remarked: Our generals don't do that sort of thing." That is a secondary source description of Longstreet who was doing his all in aggresive action and attitude to make Lee's plan work. He knew the plan was not going to be easy to make work, because he saw the tactics as faulty, so he added his own presence to compenstate. To get the maximum out of tired troops, that were already spent from the march. The Union quote is of course a primary. See if that fits somehow. It does not use the word aggressively, but it is Dr. Pistons description of aggressive support of his boss's plan. I'll have to read the Lott article, which I have, to see how that author describes Longstreet. (110fremont (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for your comments, they are thought-provoking. Because of some time scheduling limitations on my part, I have not been planning on doing any upgrades to this article in the near future--probably not until the fall, at the earliest. You are certainly welcome to make improvements to the article yourself. Although the article currently has very few in-line citations/footnotes, that is an acknowledged limitation that I hope to correct over time. If you make any additions, footnotes would be welcome. By the way, I often have discussions with people regarding the ineffectual pursuits during the Civil War and Thomas after Nashville is the only counter example anyone can come up with. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hal- You're far from the first to call me provocative, but it's usually not in a good way! One provocative statement I like to make is that the best general in the ACW was a Virginian. The obvious comeback is 'Lee or Jackson?' When I answer no, the gears start to grind. I makes people stop and think, it usually opens their minds to rationally consider a point of view. I have no clue about how to do anything on this site; I've answered some questions on wikianswers because I feel like I can. I'm not big on citations and footnotes because, while I can remember that I saw something on a given subject, where I saw it can be elusive. Also, some people expect equal respect to be given to sources regardless of its respectability; just because something appears in print somewhere doesn't necessarily make it true, just ask the publishers of supermarket tabloids. I read most of B&L about 20 years ago before it occurred to me that it was merely a forum for some to defend/justify/ their actions. I feel confident in asserting that more ink has been spilled than blood in the ACW. My knowledge of history in general, and the ACW in particular, is at least above average, but a lot of it I remember from decades ago. The last book I read on the ACW was written by a retired navy captain named Buell, who compared the leadership of three pairs of generals who opposed one another Opportunities for pursuit were usually passed up in the ACW, especially early on. This may be because both sides had about the same level of mobility. I like defining pursuit as chasing a defeated enemy, as opposed to just continuing an advance, such as the AoP or Shermans' army in their 1864 campaigns.

Appomattox would be another instance of a successful pursuit followed to it's conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Welch (talk • contribs) 06:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: G.H. Thomas @ Nashville, reply to yours of 4/17
Thank you for your comments, they are thought-provoking. Because of some time scheduling limitations on my part, I have not been planning on doing any upgrades to this article in the near future--probably not until the fall, at the earliest. You are certainly welcome to make improvements to the article yourself. Although the article currently has very few in-line citations/footnotes, that is an acknowledged limitation that I hope to correct over time. If you make any additions, footnotes would be welcome. By the way, I often have discussions with people regarding the ineffectual pursuits during the Civil War and Thomas after Nashville is the only counter example anyone can come up with. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hal- You're far from the first to call me provocative, but it's usually not in a good way!

One provocative statement I like to make is that the best general in the ACW was a Virginian. The obvious comeback is 'Lee or Jackson?' When I answer no, the gears start to grind. I makes people stop and think, it usually opens their minds to rationally consider a different point of view.

I have no clue about how to do anything on this site; I've answered some questions on wikianswers because I feel like I can. I'm not big on citations and footnotes because, while I can remember that I saw something on a given subject, where I saw it can be elusive. Also, some people expect equal respect to be given to sources regardless of its' respectability; just because something appears in print somewhere doesn't necessarily make it true, just ask the publishers of supermarket tabloids. Maybe a question to ask here is what sources are considered reputable, which are thought less so, and how might the casual observer tell the difference? And where could a discussion on this as it relates to the ACW be found?

I read most of B&L about 20 years ago before it occurred to me that it was merely a forum for some to defend/justify/whitewash their actions. I feel confident in asserting that more ink has been spilled on this subject than blood in the ACW.

My knowledge of history in general, and the ACW in particular, is at least above average, but a lot of it I remember from decades ago. My first interest in the ACW coincided with the Centennial, and the last time I did much reading on the subject was about the time of Ken Burns opus on PBS...

The last book I read on the ACW was written by a retired navy captain named Buell, who compared the leadership of three pairs of generals who opposed one another. Thomas ended up looking very good; I think Buell (no relation to the general) may have said that Thomas was one of the progenitors of what has come to be called 'The American Way of War.'

Opportunities for pursuit were usually passed up in the ACW, especially early on. This may be because both sides had about the same level of mobility, or maybe it just wasn't covered at West Point. I think Clausewitz said pursuit is the most difficult operation and the one that yielded the greatest rewards, but I don't know if there was even an English translation in the 1860's...

I would define pursuit as chasing a routed enemy, as opposed to just continuing an advance to the next position, such as the AoP or Shermans' army in their 1864 campaigns.

Rear guard actions are required to slow/prevent pursuit. There are a lot more instances of successful rear guard action than successful pursuit. Forrest after Shiloh and Cleburne after Chattanooga come to mind. Does Thomas' defense of Snodgrass Hill at Chickamauga qualify as a rear guard action?

BTW, I think Appomattox would be another instance of a successful pursuit followed to it's conclusion.

Re: G.H. Thomas @ Nashville, reply to yours of 4/17
Thank you for your comments, they are thought-provoking. Because of some time scheduling limitations on my part, I have not been planning on doing any upgrades to this article in the near future--probably not until the fall, at the earliest. You are certainly welcome to make improvements to the article yourself. Although the article currently has very few in-line citations/footnotes, that is an acknowledged limitation that I hope to correct over time. If you make any additions, footnotes would be welcome. By the way, I often have discussions with people regarding the ineffectual pursuits during the Civil War and Thomas after Nashville is the only counter example anyone can come up with. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hal- You're far from the first to call me provocative, but it's usually not in a good way!

One provocative statement I like to make is that the best general in the ACW was a Virginian. The obvious comeback is 'Lee or Jackson?' When I answer no, the gears start to grind. I makes people stop and think, it usually opens their minds to rationally consider a different point of view.

I have no clue about how to do anything on this site; I've answered some questions on wikianswers because I feel like I can. I'm not big on citations and footnotes because, while I can remember that I saw something on a given subject, where I saw it can be elusive. Also, some people expect equal respect to be given to sources regardless of its' respectability; just because something appears in print somewhere doesn't necessarily make it true, just ask the publishers of supermarket tabloids. Maybe a question to ask here is what sources are considered reputable, which are thought less so, and how might the casual observer tell the difference? And where could a discussion on this as it relates to the ACW be found?

I read most of B&L about 20 years ago before it occurred to me that it was merely a forum for some to defend/justify/whitewash their actions. I feel confident in asserting that more ink has been spilled on this subject than blood in the ACW.

My knowledge of history in general, and the ACW in particular, is at least above average, but a lot of it I remember from decades ago. My first interest in the ACW coincided with the Centennial, and the last time I did much reading on the subject was about the time of Ken Burns opus on PBS...

The last book I read on the ACW was written by a retired navy captain named Buell, who compared the leadership of three pairs of generals who opposed one another. Thomas ended up looking very good; I think Buell (no relation to the general) may have said that Thomas was one of the progenitors of what has come to be called 'The American Way of War.'

Opportunities for pursuit were usually passed up in the ACW, especially early on. This may be because both sides had about the same level of mobility, or maybe it just wasn't covered at West Point. I think Clausewitz said pursuit is the most difficult operation and the one that yielded the greatest rewards, but I don't know if there was even an English translation in the 1860's...

I would define pursuit as chasing a routed enemy, as opposed to just continuing an advance to the next position, such as the AoP or Shermans' army in their 1864 campaigns.

Rear guard actions are required to slow/prevent pursuit. There are a lot more instances of successful rear guard action than successful pursuit. Forrest after Shiloh and Cleburne after Chattanooga come to mind. Does Thomas' defense of Snodgrass Hill at Chickamauga qualify as a rear guard action?

BTW, I think Appomattox would be another instance of a successful pursuit followed to it's conclusion.

Charlie Welch (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You might notice some activity on Battle of Ball's Bluff
I own all the standard sources, so I'm going to build this article up. Don't be shy about feedback or editing boldly. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Refuting LCM allegations Longstreet was "not aggresive" on 2nd July
I will try to get a passage from the Lott article tommorow, which gets to this - the prep before the assault at 4.00pm. Additionally, a Park Historian/Longstreet biographer had this to say about the second day concerning some of this (pretty interesting)- - Wert referred to Moxley Sorrel's statement on page 167, "There was apparent apathy in his movements.  They lacked the fire and point of his usual bearing on the battlefield." Wert keyed in on that sentence (one man's opinion), and I will add that the book was published in 1905, after Longstreet and Sorrel had both died, so Sorrel's disloyalty would not be caught by L, and Sorrel, being dead, would escape the other wrath that I'm sure the SHS was going to heap on him for overwhelmingy positive things he said about Longstreet in the book. Sorrel's book was not well received in those days. It seems to me that it was a concession to the SHS to keep from making too many waves. Wert missed that no one else considered L lacking in fire or apathy in his movements during July 2nd. As a matter of fact, L's other sharp critic of Longstreet, McLaws, contradicts this and stated that "he was very excited and rode all over the field giving contradictory orders to the units" from Lee's staff officers. Doesn't sound very apathetic to me. The foreign observers, Peter Lawley and Arthur Freemantle, both wrote that L and Lee were in accord during the event, and Freemantle had no idea whatsoever of the level of L's unhappiness. Let me say that my respect for Sorrel couldn't have dropped much lower when I read what he wrote. When all the accounts are read, only L's staff and top subordinates knew he was angry and frustrated about these tactics, but he was also fired up about getting things as right as can be to make the assualt work. Everyone else reported L as behaving very normally. Anyway, that was overblown by Lost Cause types into the 20th century - like freeman. Wert is not a Lost Causer, but his research is mostly from secondary Lost Cause sources. Good perspective. (110fremont (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:McClellan+Lee.jpg
Hi Hlj!

We thank you for uploading Image:McClellan+Lee.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just another 2 cents ...
Hal, Hi. We've touched base a few times in regard to JEB Stuart's role & forays during the Gettysburg campaign.

"Historian Allan Nevins wrote, "Actually, incompetence and timidity offer a better explanation of Pope than treachery, though he certainly showed an insubordinate spirit."[4]" This has always been the assumption & general view of Pope (mine too) at a cursory perspective. Again, after just reading & studying greater detailed works by S. Sears, D.S. Freeman & S. Foote, there are more insights to Pope & his strategies that show a semblance of fair mindedness, balance, leadership, etc. & not solely his known braggadocio & incompetence. Esp. Foote acknowledges that a few of his planned moves & motives at the time of Second Bull Run were of sound generalship. As usual in combat & war, additional factors, intangibles & indeterminate causes played out their roles. In the end, the views of Nevins stand, just there's a bit more to it.

You've done a great job w/ the Civil War info. Kudos ... keep up the good work.

John H. johnheigljr@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.160.132 (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Appomattox Campaign
Please, is the accent on the "po" or on the "matt"??

I think I know the answer but not being an American, I never hear the word used. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm one of many lazy people who use dictionaries but ignore the weird symbols that follow the word. It was probably taught somewhere in my "education". Maybe I was ill that week.  ;o)


 * Wanderer57 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ACW task force
You don't appear to have joined it, although they do cite you in the main page. If I were you, I would join it (unless you are the leader or something). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PwnerELITE (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not much of a joiner. I watch the project page, but I rarely see much action going on there. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I respect that, but I still think that you should join... if it appears inactive, then maybe you could lead it? PwnerELITE (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have little interest in the bureaucracy and administrivia of things like this. When I'm not spending time reverting vandalism, I'd prefer to devote my Wikipedia time to write or improve notable articles, not shuffle around categories or rate others' articles. Wikipedia is becoming way too complex for the average person to tackle. I'm a computer guy, so I can survive the coding and procedural jungle, but I see all this bureaucracy as a true barrier that many people will not choose to cross. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Barnstar graphic moved to User:Hlj/stars. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

John Lott article
Mr. Lott's article reads: "Looking at General Early's allegations that General Longstreet was too slow, and negligent in commencing a morning attack, we are faced with enough evidence to contradict this conclusion. It would have been impossible for Longstreet to make an organized attack much earlier then that occurred based on the following. The commanding general made no final decision until late in the morning. No preparations could be finalized until this plan was in place. Even if the march was not countermarched, it could not have saved much time, not enough to compensate for the absence of a morning attack. Inadequate reconnaissance was made and given by the engineering staff, evidenced by the countermarch determined to be necessary and the fact that the US flank was not where it was expected. Thus, it is fair to state even though Longstreet should have planned for McLaw’s division by having it prepared earlier, or countermanded the orders to follow Captain Johnson, General Longstreet did all that could be expected on the 2nd day and any allegations of failing to exercise his duty by ordering a morning can be repudiated. It would have been impossible to have commenced an attack much earlier than it occurred, and it is doubtful that the Confederacy could have placed the attack in any more secure hands than General Longstreet.” This article is very long, and this is a sumation of all the arguments he lays out in detail in the body. (110fremont (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Lott article
Lott, John "Could Longstreet's Fatal Delay Have Been Avoided?" in the Civil War Courier, February 2008, page 27. The full article is page 12-27. (110fremont (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Sorry if I'm butting in, here, but I encourage you to take care using any quote from any article or book by John Lott. Aside from his tenuous relationship to anything even approximating credential as a CW historian, he does possess a long and storied history of writing what I'll generously characterize as "misleading" non-fiction in many venues. His Wikipedia reputation isn't so hot either. I don't think he can qualify as a reliable source. BusterD (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of Hlj's reading skills
Meade certainly lost battles to Lee? Not germane to the cited quote. When you fail to read the English language found within the quoted section ("as a commanding general"), Meade NEVER lost a battle to Lee. Only under Grant's control over the Army of the Potomac, did Meade lose a battle. Please read prior to editing.

Andrew Bolton, Esq. Spring, Texas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.151.9 (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

More Longstreet
I will have to look at for bit. You are trying to illustrate earlier Lost Cause influenced writers made bold negative statements that were usually an indictment of Longstreet, etc.? And that writers who were not influeunced by the LC, and went back to weigh known fact in the ORs (as Lott) and studied the mission, troops, time, terrain, etc. conclude Longstreet did the best that could have been done?? And That interpretations are changing? Second - not sure the names of Wert, Lott and others need to be placed in the article. Readers can look to them in the back by corresponding endnote #. An encylopedia article, which Wikipedia is, should be more matter of fact in appearance, in my opinion. I would condense it, and say in your own words, or paraphrase the two opposite ways Longstreet on 2nd July has been told by historians. Lott could close as you have to conclude the emotionalist interpretations were from a dying movement, and others ways of looking at the situation show different conlcusions, which show a prefessional general working through a very tough set of tasks. The other thing is overall perspective. Many authors who say things like Longstreet should have been censured or punished, etc., it seems way out of perspective/proportion for a general that delivered some great victories, and who Lee repeatedly praised and counted on. Its one thing to state fact that Longstreet did not think x tactic was a good idea, which probably was a source of frustration at one point. But some of the things these authors say, is over the top personal emotional opinion. They are free to write what they want in thier books, but alot of it is fiction. This Wikipedia article would be a great source of more matter of fact kind of phrasing on Gettysburg, or Knoxville, the events he is almost vilified for. (110fremont (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Adminship
I was considering nominating you for adminship. You seem fit enough, and sysop powers would only help you. Please contact me with more info, including whether you do or do not wish to be an admin, on my talk page. PwnerELITE (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Evander Laws Profile
I noticed that Laws is credited with commanding an Alabama Brigade. This was in name only, since he also had regiments from Mississippi and North Carolina. My ancestor fought under Laws in the 6th NC in several battles. At Antietam 2 of Law's 4 regiments were from Mississippi (2nd and 11th). At Fredericksburg, 3 of Laws 5 regiments were from NC (6th, 54th, and 57th). In fact, it was largely the 57th NC and 54th NC that saw action under Laws at Fredericksburg. To pretend that he commanded an exclusively Alabama brigade in all these actions is incorrect and insulting to the other states' regiments.

The statement "Law and Hood were used again as the primary assaulting force in Longstreet's surprise attack against the Union left flank, almost destroying Maj. Gen. John Pope's Army of Virginia" is a gross overstatement. They did experience two marvelous charges, but came nowhere near destroying the Army of Virginia. The entire forces of Longstreet and Jackson were contesting with Gen. Pope's army and together defeated Pope, but did not "almost destroy" his army and certainly 2 brigades of the Confederate army did not almost destroy the Army of Virginia.

I had another ancestor in the 21st NC of Jackson's Corps in Trimble's Brigade. This brigade saw much more action at 2nd Manassas than did Hood's and Law's Brigades. The 21st fought all three days at Manassass including the first evening that was about 20 hours before Laws, Hood, and Longstreet even showed up. So to imply these two brigades accomplished something that the entire Army of Northern Virginia was unable to do is absurd and insulting to the entire ANV and especially Gen. Jackson.

Somone please rectify these inaccuracies and place the qualifying remarks necessary. Misinformation is far, far worse than no information. bwilliams29@nc.rr.com 69.134.18.77 (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Longstreet
My apologies, I only have a moment and will respond in length soon - although I have quickly cut a bio on Wert for you: Abstract: Jeffry Wert is a well-known Civil War historian. After receiving a B.A. and M.A. in History, Wert had articles published in several magazines and journals and has currently written six books. Biography: Jeffry Wert's interest in history first began after an eighth grade school field trip to the Gettysburg battlefield. After high school he graduated cum laude with a B.A. from Lock Haven University, and a M.A. from The Pennsylvania State University, both in History. He worked for many years as a history teacher at Penns Valley Area High School in Spring Mills, PA. (110fremont (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

First Bull Run
I found a small error in paragraph three of the article "1st Battle of Bull Run". The sentence refers to the "Division of Brigadier Richardson". Col Israel B. Richardson commanded the 4th Bridage of Tylers Division. His brigade was involved in the skirmish on the 18th and left in place south of Centerville while the rest of Tylers Division moved to attack the Confederate left. I do not know if Richardson was left as an independent command or assigned to Miles Division which guarded Centerville during the battle. There is confirmation in the article "1st Bull Run Union Order of Battle". This is my first time with a correction and I am not sure if I have done it correctly. But, thank you for the opportunity. lrbaker1201@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrbaker1201 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Robert_E._Rodes.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Robert_E._Rodes.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 01:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops
Brevetted was something that I thought I was correcting from just a common misspelling. That like the possessive form. Does this mean that you would prefer that I not change the word? I don't feel strongly about it either way..it gave me a great excuse to read articles and check for other edits that I might could see. I ceased changing the possessive forms but that creates a small quandary for me..I'm running into articles like Franklin Gardner where both forms are present (in back to back paragraphs about May '63) and it is inconsistent. I'm uncertain what to do with this and will likely skip that kind of edit.

On another subject, could you look at Benjamin Piatt Runkle and my edits and my comment on the talk page? I don't want to demote this man unduly. All 49 occurrences of Runkle in the OR lists no rank greater than colonel..in fact, reading those letters leads me to wonder whether he is notable. I don't know what Eicher may have on him. His military career looks less than stellar..the only positive light that I saw for him was that Burnside includes him in a general list of subordinates that he is commending in the Tullahoma campaign. A couple of significant dings go against him from one of his commanders as well as one subordinate (worth reading if you take pleasure in reading the OR). If you have the time, I'd appreciate your review of this. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, your "add a message" link above doesn't work for those of us using the secure server..it opens a new browser window on the regular server and we're not logged in. A wikilink may work though...
 * ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, One slight error on the General Meade page: An Army general would not be expected to check on his corps commanders to see if pickets had been put out. The obligation to isure pickets are out is way down the line of command. Kind regards, Abrabks (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Alan Culpin

General Meade's Bookplate
Hello, Does anyone know what General Meade's bookplate looked like? Kind regards, Abrabks (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Alan Culpin

History of Confederate States Army Generals
Thanks for the formatting & clar. help on the page, and for the kind words. Losing the caps on the section "Generals" has messed up the redirects I made to them, but that was a minor fix. The page does look better and more complete now, and a lack of such an article has been bothering me for a while. I am pondering whether to include a table for the top 25-40 major generals as some of them were promoted and would be redundant (though one for the 350+ brigs probably is not gonna happen) and would love your imput on this and any other ideas for expansion. Perhaps on the talk page?. Kresock (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lafayette McLaws
I expanded on this article and ran into a problem with the text already on the page, and could use your help. I think the past editors condensed the military charges against him by Longstreet and later by Bragg, as well as Davis' intervention, all together. I tried to sort it out using McLaw's entry in Civil War High Commands, citing what I could. Could you look it over and make sure what I did sounds right to you? Thanks. Kresock (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it and beefing the section up. Much better and clearer now! Kresock (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Armistead/Masonic claims
The citation I left on the Lewis A. Armistead page was for the cause of death. I didn't add any of the info about the Masons. Kingwhick (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Joe Hooker
Thanks for finding the cite for his reaction to the nickname. He did indeed hate it. I ended up finding a less complete cite, mentioning only the "bandit" part, so yours is more complete. I was also considering adding a very small bit about his asking for Charles Stone for chief of staff. Catton's second book about the Army of the Potomac spends a few pages describing what happened to Stone at Ball's Bluff and praises Hooker for even asking for the exiled brigadier; I thought it could add to the character of Hooker.Kresock (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. The Stone anecdote is also in Sears Chancellorsville, p. 62, already in the Refs. Hal Jespersen (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the story about Stone to the page along with some of Hooker's other command changes. However I do not own the work by Sears, so you could compare the two and make sure it jives. I'm concerned the vast amount of Hooker's scheming ("croaking' as Edwin Sumner called it) is not fully represented on his page, though. Kresock (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't find my copy right now, but Stephen Sears wrote cogent analysis on both Stone and Hooker in his "Controversies and Commanders" book and illustrated the connection. Catton's listed source for Hooker's attempted Stone appointment is Darius Couch (in B&L), but Couch (four-year USMA classmate of Stone) never covers it at any length. Hooker (who was a USMA staff officer while Stone and Couch were at the academy) likely did business with Stone in 1850's Solano County, CA; Hooker ranched horses and cattle in Vallejo while Stone needed to procure large quantities of leather (and meat) for Benicia arsenal projects. BusterD (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for attention: Washington, D.C. in the American Civil War
This brief article has recently been merged into History of Washington, D.C. with little discussion. I disagree with this merge, especially since the merge request first appeared less than a week ago, because the article is part of the series "state or territory in the American Civil War". If this is interesting to you, please consider joining the discussion. BusterD (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions welcome
Hi Hal, Here's *one* that I hope you enjoy with your coffee. I used your style guide as a resource..thank you for maintaining it. This turned out to be challenging finding info for sources. Any contributions are welcome. Cheers, <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles S. Winder
I see that you made some edits to the article I just created for Charles S. Winder- thank you for the "clean up" you did with some of the technical details. I am new to Wikipedia, and so am learning things as I go. I saw that there is a "citation needed" regarding the quote I included of Gen. Jackson's lamentation of Winder's loss, taken from the Official Records. I certainly wish to write my articles correctly, with all information verifiable- what can I do to ensure this quote has been properly cited?

Also, I would like to be able to include a picture of Winder for the article, the only one, in fact, that I have ever seen of him. However, I do not know how to go about using the picture, as I would not know how to verify the copyright status of the image. In Robert K. Krick's Stonewall Jackson at Cedar Mountain each photo has a source credit, with the exception of Winder's image. Looking at the photo credits of the same image in my collection of the Time Life Civil War series, it was cited has having been from Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, Vol. II, which I also own. All it says in that book is that it is an engraving from a photo, not otherwise cited. Is this something I can use? Any information you can provide regarding this and the first question above would be much appreciated. Mws77 (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC) -Matt


 * Thanks for the response and the tips. I was actually able to locate the picture of Gen. Winder on the LOC's website, so was able to include it in the article. Also, I tried to clean things up a little more by adding some footnotes, although I was having trouble figuring out how to properly list multiple footnotes from the same source, so the notes currently show three references to Krick, which I don't believe is optimal, looking at your page. Mws77 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard H. Anderson
I just finished some work on this page, and added a NPS map of part of the Battle of Spotsylvania CH to it. I was wondering if you have any plans to create one of your map drawings relating to this action, as the NPS one doesn't address the night march I added nor does it match most of the other ACW pages, a lot of which have your art in them. Thank you in advance. Kresock (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just noticed it in your to-do list on your user page! Kresock (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Template: American Civil War
It occurs to me our little child has now grown up past our control. If we've been good parents, and continue to keep our eyes open, we might never need to use the terrible swift sword again. I'm so proud. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My friend User:Khedive has joined wikipedia this eve. He's an expert battlefield guide and author of one of the cited books, as one of his edit summaries declares. This is a very good thing for us, and may be a big thing for the BB article. BusterD (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Enfield Rifle on Article
This article referances the wrong Enfield rifle in the battle description. It should be this one:   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.161.198 (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in case you're watching my Talk page and can reply, what article are you referring to? Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Capital Trail - DYK
from User:Vaoverland with many thanks for the excellent map you contributed!!

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Early's Charge on East Cemetery Hill.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Early's Charge on East Cemetery Hill.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. |EPO| da: 16:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Perryville picture
I thought you might like to know that one of your pictures is now on the front page of Wikipedia.-- King Bedford I <sup style="color:green;">Seek his grace  22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Adolph von Steinwehr.JPG
Image:Adolph von Steinwehr.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Adolph von Steinwehr.JPG. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wauhatchie
Ouch! I was in the middle of a large edit of Battle of Wauhatchie when there was an edit conflict with you. Most of the edit (but not all -- why?) was blown to smithereens. Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! It was a big edit too. Djmaschek (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Charles Sawyer Russell
Hal,

Do you have any information on Charles Sawyer Russell? I wrote the article yesterday, but most of the sources are non-military (genealogies, chiefly). I think he's in Generals in Blue, but I'm not sure. Any time you could spare would certainly improve the article. --Coemgenus 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Eicher link. That should add some info on his war service.  --Coemgenus 23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Early's Charge on East Cemetery Hill.jpg
Image:Early's Charge on East Cemetery Hill.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Early&. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Francis C. Barlow.jpg is now available as Commons:Image:Francis C. Barlow portrait.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Benjamin F. Cheatham.jpg is now available as Commons:Image:Benjamin F. Cheatham 05989v.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Doubleday and wife.jpg is now available as Commons:Image:Doubleday and wife (1).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard B. Garnett
I noticed your edit summary "don't point to USA rank articles for CSA" regarding the use the current rank links besides for general officers. What to use for those ranks this isn't covered in your style guide, but I do object to the CSA to USA conversions for all ranks, which was one of the driving forces behind the Histiory of CSA generals page. However I do not want to start adding something like :Colonel (CSA) for Col. and such to lots of pages in the hopes that Confederate equivalents will be written. Perhaps you plan to create articles for them (I would love to help with that, too) and I only wanted to link them to the closest available match.

Just to let you know, though I bet you watch them too, Kumioko was been doing lots of AWB rank link updating, so what you changed on Garnett to the non-USA versions will probably be changed right back the next time he goes through that part of the alphabet again. Both BusterD and I have reverted/talked to him when the wrong country is associated (see Stone's page) as well as other redirect problems with his edits. Let me know how you would like to see this handled. Kresock (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I began sticking to your recommendation on a new page for William Duncan Smith when it came to his ranks in the CSA. On a side note, I made the page with his Eichers' CW High Commands entry, but it is very much the dry bones of info; I suppose this obscure fellow is lucky to have a page anyway! If you have any meat for the article it would be greatly appreciated, but not of a great importance when. Kresock (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a couple of updates from Warner, but this guy was pretty obscure. Incidentally, do you think it is appropriate to put the U.S. Army portal link on a guy who was a Confederate general? I realize he was a junior officer in the U.S. Army first, but it just seems peculiar to me. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was peculiar as well, for the same reasoning you give, but it goes back to the Kumioko edits. When they go through this portal link is usually added to any west pointer for either army, often in a See also section (I've seen the section made just for that portal link!) Other conventions I've begun due to them is not spacing around section names (I did it just to save my eyesight, but Kumioko's AWB always kills the spaces), as well as using <-br-/-> instead of <-br->, which I've been using to save typing (I see no difference between the two myself.) And the Full General (CSA) link being replaced by History of Confederate States Army Generals to bybass my redirects; again I wanted to save us typing. Just wanna limit the AWB sweeping through that might hide edits we need to look at. Kresock (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A more correct portal would be for USMA, or alumni from there, or such, however I couldn't find them. I have no problem with the Army one being gassed, though. Kresock (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just thought I would snipe a comment in here. Many of the edits that I do are progressive and build on the one prior. So, although I may initially place an army portal link alone in a see also section I will follow up later and place in the civil war portal or USMA.  I will also add links to the List of general officers, persondata, categories (on occasion), build strucure to the article, add infoboxes, etc. So although I do make the occassion oops (such as the Lt General (egypt) issue if you give me time I will be back around to add more info.  By the way the Manual of Style states that the portal links should go in a see also section. Also, regarding the rank changes.  Most of the changes I make to ranks are for generic ranks such as Major but I do also look for redirects and change those to be more accurate.  So feel free to save yourself some time in typing when adding the links and as I run through I will clean them up.  Why do I "waste my time" with this you ask.  Because I do not believe that it is a waste of my time to point to the proper place rather than an uncountable number of different redirect pages.  For those of us that use AWB it is much easier to pull in a group of articles for 1 link than trying to guess at what other combinations could be redirecting to it.  I hope I am not coming off negatively because I do not mean too. You both do awesome work on those articles and I commend you for it, I just don't want you all to think I am running amuck either or wasting time "cleaning" up my edits. Additionally, if there are things that you would like me to do to further enhance these articles please let me know.--Kumioko (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there is more than one person in this thread, I will reply here, rather than using my usual tactic of replying on the user's own talk page. A methodology of applying sequential edits over a period of time will often run into problems with editors who are watching the current state of a page, so you have to understand when partial edits are not accepted. If you can figure out how to perform multiple steps in a single edit -- such as creating content in a See also section so that it does not appear empty when the portal box is floating around the right-hand side of the page -- that would be an improvement. My personal philosophy on improving Wikipedia is to spend my time and intellect on the factual content of articles, spending time as little time as possible on formatting issues. When formatting issues approach the level of virtually zero value to the average reader -- such as removing date links or exhaustively adding links to list articles that are only tangentially related -- I tend to consider these a waste of my time and only bother with them when I am making factual changes or editorial improvements to one article at time. Wholesale application of these minor changes often serve to mask vandalism and other substantive changes that may occur and become unnoticed in a blizzard of AWB editing. I appreciate it, however, that in your recent sweeps of date formatting that you are not going really overboard with hundreds of edits at a time. As to your request for enhancement ideas, there are many ACW articles that could use improvement in terms of content and citations. I maintain a personal to-do list with deficiencies in articles I care about and you are welcome to make improvements in any of them. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Kumioko, though I don't use or understand the limitations of AWB, I do appreciate your edits building towards consistency in articles, something we all strive for and try to maintain through discussions like these. Putting the See Also sections and Rank Links aside (I'm beginning to think they matter more to us editors than the readers) the major concern expressed by both Hal and myself are a slew of edits made to pages we watch and pages that are also common vandal targets, especially the Confederate ones. I usually take the same approach of working to improve (or restore) one article at a time, and address some formatting or link updates as I go. I find this method combined with an appropriate edit summary makes changes much easier to digest and track, and avoids burying edits we need to look at, which might be easily glossed over otherwise. And I'm not trying to be negative either, just expressing concerns and using conversation to help my methods co-exist with yours. Kresock (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Portals and see also
Good Afternoon Good Sir, I noticed that you moved some portal links from the see also section to references per See Also portal links should be placed in the see also section. Also regarding the Civil war generals I am in the process of adding a link to the List of American Civil War generals page under the see also section along witht the portal links for the Civil war and the service they were in. Let me know if you have any questions.--Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The see also sections wheren't empty they had portal templates in them and the MOS says they should be in the see also section. If you think they should be in another location when there is no other link then you should suggest a change to the MOS manual. As far as the link to the list of generals, maybe they do and maybe they don't but it is a related article that relates directly to the subject and isn't already linked within the article. Plus it makes it easier to make edits to the articles systematically if you don't have to constantly bounce around to get to them and it presents consistency if all the articles are similar in structure and layout. If you think its dumb thats fine but it is allowed.--Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Command tables
Hi. In an edit summary, I made a reference to the brigade command table that you added to one of the general articles. Very, very few of the ACW biographies have tables of this type. There was a discussion probably a couple of years ago in the military history task force in which such tabular data was discouraged, preferring to see the information included within the context of the major portion of the text, intermixed with battles and other life events. The context of the discussion was some really lengthy tables about World War II and other modern generals in which they listed every promotion and every unit that they commanded from West Point through retirement -- sometimes as many as 30-40 entries for a typical military career. Yours are obviously a lot more modest, but it is something to consider. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Sorry I had to look for your edit summary; it was already 4 deep in the history!) Hello. I haven't been actively edting that long so discussions like that I've missed. I've only done two or three of them so far, for a couple of reasons. I think the info should be included, but not in the main body lacking context, like where/battles/casualties/CO and the like. I also find it good to check various sources that get added later for inaccuracies, like when I find a bit in one of Foote's works (I have found a few instances in his writings lacking correct location/unit info) and other books. I've tried adding the info in the CW service sections, but never liked the looks of them. If you wish, I'll be happy to either table them in the CW section or move the lists to the talks until they can be fleshed out more properly. Just let me know. Kresock (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Maps
As I work on various articles about Virginia, I seem to frequently come across Civil War related content and often encounter your outstanding maps. I find the detail and quality to be inspirational in my own efforts. Having just had another such an experience as I plodded through some less-than-exciting work about some of our smaller communities in the mountain region, I just wanted to pause and take a moment to thank you again for your energies in sharing your talent. Thanks. (now back to work!) Mark Vaoverland (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

St. Clair Augustine Mulholland
I noticed in the article for St. Clair Augustine Mulholland it is mentioned that he took command of the 140th Pennsylvania at Gettysburg, a fact which is vehemently disputed by Andrew G. White, a soldier in Co. F, 140th PV in his history of that company, which can be read at: http://www.bchistory.org/beavercounty/beavercountytopical/Military/CompanyF.html

Mulholland makes no mention of this in his report found in the Official Records and indeed the 140th's own lieutennant colonels says nothing of the sort in his report, either. White makes a valid point that it was not common for a major of one unit to usurp a lieutennant colonel's command of another unit. Is this something that should be addressed in Mulholland's article, as far as being a disputed fact? I just wanted to get your thoughts and opionion on the matter. Thanks! Mws77 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) -Matt

Is there any kind of particular protocol for noting that a fact stated in an article may be incorrect, and if so, do you know what the typed commands would be? And regarding the correction of his highest attained rank, do you mean it should be noted that he was a colonel, or a brevet brigadier general in the lead paragraph? Thanks! Mws77 (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC) -Matt


 * I made a change to the next and used footnotes referring to the reports in the Official Records. Does this look okay? Also, can a footnote only reference printed material, as opposed to information found on a website? The reason I ask is that if Andrew G. White's history of Co. F, 140th PV was published, I have no idea when or in what form. Thanks for your help and guidance, as always. Mws77 (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:George Sykes.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:George Sykes.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. - AWeenieMan (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Earl Van Dorn
I've been working on this page and have a request of you sir. If you have a moment, could you look over my changes to see if they're kosher, and if you own the works could you cite the casualties of Pea Ridge, as I took them from the battle's page. Any help is greatly appreciated. Kresock (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the numbers and refs. I applied what I could, and added Shea & Hess' work to the further reading section of Van Dorn's page. I appreciate you venturing across the Mississippi on this one! What do you make of this comment by BushMAN11 below mine? Kresock (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Iv'e noticed some very wrong editing. Help me keep an eye out 4 it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BushMAN11 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Philippi, Virginia
You may be interested to see some extensive changes I've made to this page. I hope you are not offended by my wholesale re-writing. I felt it needed to be more clear in particular about troop dispositions prior to the battle and I've made changes based on the Official Records. I don't have access to your sources cited to know if modern historians are aware of any discrepancies in the original reports, so you may want to check what I've written.

It can still use footnotes for some specific details not available in all the sources - i.e. McLennan's intentions towards Richmond, and the actions of the Confederate sympathizer who tried to warn them of the Union attack. If you added those details, can you please footnote them?

You can also look at what I've done for the Battle of Big Bethel too.

Texas Whitt (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

to-do list
Hi. Could I ask a favor from you? You have been making improvements and adding citations to a number of the articles that I wrote a long time ago (in the prehistoric era in which Wikipedia article did not emphasize the use of footnotes). A while back I compiled a list of all of the ACW biographies that I thought were important, whether I wrote them or not, and noted whether they lacked citations, details, etc. Since I was almost the only one working on any of these articles, it was easy to keep track of which ones had been improved. Would you consider going through the list and updating those articles (i.e., delete them from the list) that you have improved? It's User:Hlj. Thanks, Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to. I know you don't really mess with the rating aspect, but some on your list have been assessed as B's by MILHIST, so those can easily be gassed. Also I list the bios I've made or worked on heavily on my user page and those probably could go too. Question: would you mind if I updated what is still needed in terms of expansion, footnotes, etc. for those still on the list, or do you wanna? I'll start hacking at it for deletions first until I hear from you.
 * By the way, I've started a page for Elisha F. Paxton, and am having a difficult time coming up with references, relying mostly on the web. (Foote doesn't even mention him!) Anything you can add or suggest would be great. Kresock (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Longstreet statue at Gettysburg.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Longstreet statue at Gettysburg.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Marion
Sorry to trouble you, Hal, but one of our budding editors has been working very hard on Battle of Marion and the text needs some work on it. It's not in bad shape but he's aiming for FAC, you see. Would you have time to give it a quick read through and improve as necessary? I know you don't normally get involved with things like this but I really can't think of a better person to ask. Thanks for your time, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Great news! Thank you. In the meantime, enjoy your vacation! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been tweaking the text and the biggest prose omission seems to be any kind of context. What stage of the war? What were the strategies? Just a thought ... All the best, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard Taylor
Sir, I would like to know how i would go about getting a copy of this file, I haven"t seen this picture since i was a little boy,. Would like to access the highest resolution available so it may be reproduced for our family . He was my great grandfather. Thank you   John Edinger Simpsonville Ky  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doublenaught spy (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Gettysburg Campaign articles
Hello Hal! It would be great if you would update your excellent maps of the Gettysburg Campaign to include Funkstown and Monterey Pass. I will add some verbiage to the Gettysburg Campaign article. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Military Ranks
Hal,

Here is an online DoD rank abbreviation guideline:

http://www.pacom.mil/staff/j01p/titles_dress/MILITARY%20RANK%20ABBREVIATIONS.doc

In any current army publication, George Washington would be referred to as LTG Washington. Army ranks are all caps, and that is retroactively applied to all persons in U.S. Army history. Wiki must conform to that stylistic guideline for the US Army and all its current and historical persons. Also same applies to all Navy ranks which are also now all CAPS. ADM Farragut is such, but Adm Semmes is that way because he was never an ADM in the U.S. Navy.

Another note, no military rank abbreviations have ever had periods, and they are strictly forbidden per the USMC Officers Guide, and I know that is true in the other services in the DoD.

The Confederate Army was not the U.S. Army, and never used the "new" U.S. Army abbreviations. Thus the USMC abbreviates all Confederate ranks in its teaching materials in what we call the "old fashioned" rank abbreviations, which is what the USMC currently uses. Like with Capt Semmes above, the Confederates should be entitled by old rank abbreviation styles.

As far as not capitalizing ranks when not directly in front of a person's name, like in the Turner Ashby article, okay I'll concede that one. Often in the military when only the rank was used synonymously for a specific person known by context, it was capitalized.

I haven't any idea what "MOS" means that you refer to. The Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) is usually numeric or alpha-numeric. A Marine comm officer is a 2602.

If you need any further reference I can call down to the Pentagon this week and try and get an official guideline. But as far as the Marines, I have my handbook with me in hardcopy, and the Marines have not ... and will never change.

Oh, while I'm thinking of it, I meant to get back to you and let you know that the names of the Battles of Manassas are so particularly etched in stone in Virginia, that it is reflected in the name of the city itself. What I mean is that there was no city of Manassas before the war. The city arose because of the Civil War suppy depots built there (originally by the CSA). Because the battles of Manassas were fought there, and named that, and because it was a major CSA encampment, the area just simply became known as Manassas. When the Feds took over, it was not re-dubbed "Bull Run". Everything in central Prince William County has that name, even the little breakaway town of Manassas Park. The name of the battlefied is Manassas National Battlefield Park, and the Park service calls it Manassas. We must really go by the NPS on this one. http://www.nps.gov/mana/

Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "In any current army publication, George Washington would be referred to as LTG Washington. Army ranks are all caps, and that is retroactively applied to all persons in U.S. Army history. Wiki must conform to that stylistic guideline for the US Army and all its current and historical persons...."


 * That is incorrect and it would be an anachronistic mistake. The military are not an English language authority, their changes have nothing to do with reality. They do not "apply" anything retroactively over civilian sources. All the other books in print aren't going to be subject to some current internal military standard that someone loftily thinks applies to the civilian world to replace conventions...and you seem to be incorrect about using periods in ranks, see this official DOD document that shows the Marines as as well as the Navy using them. Strictly forbidden? Are you sure about your documentation? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 05:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The abbreviations we use in these articles are the ones universally recognized by English-speaking civilians, unaffected by the relatively small community of current and former Army personnel (of which I am one, BTW). They are also the ones most widely used by ACW historians in books and magazines over the past half century. (Previous authors often used longer abbreviations, like Lieut. Col.) I happen to have a single book in my library of 300+ ACW books that uses modern US Army abbreviations and dates (BG, MG, ARTY, INF, 4 JUL 63, etc.) and I have to tell you, they stick out like a sore thumb. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I called down to the Pentagon today. The abbreviations the U.S. Army uses apply to any reference to historical member of the service when referenced in new publications. Same for the Navy. That is the way it is. Any new publication by the U.S. Navy will tell you how ADM Farragut damned the torpedoes and steamed ahead. The motley variation of what historians use is interesting ... and could be used as is in a direct quote, according to the two protocol officers I spoke to. There you have it. Also the Navy said they abbreviate foreign officer ranks with the appropriate abbreviation provided and used by the host nation, as that is proper protocol as well. Thus, I believe, Wiki is not the final authority on the English language, and is honor bound to follow verified sources (like the National Park Service?). Regardless, after a career, constantly reading "Maj.Gen." in Wiki sticks out like a sore thumb, and I've just grown tired of the various made up stuff in Wiki that is not real.

www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_20.pdf

Grayghost01 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, you just posted why this is seemingly your problem...


 * "Regardless, after a career, constantly reading "Maj.Gen." in Wiki sticks out like a sore thumb, and I've just grown tired of the various made up stuff in Wiki that is not real."
 * "Regardless, after a career, constantly reading "Maj.Gen." in Wiki sticks out like a sore thumb, and I've just grown tired of the various made up stuff in Wiki that is not real."


 * ..meaning you don't like it because you were used to being in the military and reading their printed material so you think that it ought to be here as well. No. I've been reading historical documents and official correspondence for many years..you are completely wrong. The military used those abbreviations in their own publications...so how can you say that they didn't? You are trying to assert something that hasn't been accepted by any consensus to my knowledge (please point out where, if so).  <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 02:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have posted the question on the ACW Task Force talk page. Grayghost is still changing the ranks in articles, incorrectly I believe. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm here in response to Bearean Hunter's post on the Milhist ACW talk page.
 * I know of no consensus nor guideline for applying current DOD rank abbreviations to Milhist articles at all, let alone retrospecively to historical events. The unchallenged convention for many years has been to use the abbreviations common in the English-speaking world, which have the advantage of being instantly understood by the vast majority of readers.
 * I agree with Hal that the current jargon sits uncomfortably in an historical context.
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hal, I am beginning the process of recommending your style guide as a guideline unless you object. I put it forth in the thread at the ACW Task Force talk page...I don't know how to proceed yet beyond that but it is a start. Greyghost, from his new post on my talk page, believes that Wikipedia currently uses the standards he's using. Hopefully more members than Roger speak up (Thank you, Roger). Cheers, <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 11:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

General US military terminology question
Could you clarify please what "activated" means precisely in the context of a new formation (in this case, the 11th Airborne Division)? Is it the date the unit had its own headquaters? The day the CO moved into his office? The day the men arrived to start training? Or the day the unit became fully operational? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Recommended Changes (29 Oct 08)
Hlj -

I propose the following changes to your article on General Andrew A. Humphreys:

First paragraph under 'Civil War' subcategory:

1. "He led the division in a reserve role in the Battle of Antietam."

While it's true that Humphreys was technically attached to the V Corps at Antietam (and the V Corps was in reserve), Humphreys actually did not arrive at Antietam until 18 September (the day after the battle). Source: Major-General Fitz-John Porter's official report (Official Records, Vol XIX (19), Page 338-339: 'Humphreys division arrived on the 18th and relieved Morell, who was ordered to the left in support of Burnside.' - paragraph 8 of cite). [Minor technicality.]

2. "At the Battle of Fredericksburg, his division achieved the farthest advance against fierce Confederate fire from Marye's Heights; his corps commander, Maj. Gen. George G. Meade, wrote: "He behaved with distinguished gallantry at Fredericksburg.""

Major General George Meade was not Humphreys Corps Commander at Fredericksburg; moreover, Meade would have not had the opportunity to witness Humphreys' behavior at Fredericksburg as Meade was on the Union left and Humphreys was on the Union right (Meade was still a division commander at Fredericksburg). Dan Butterfield was the V Corps Commander at Fredericksburg. In my opinion - even if Meade did say it at some point (having formed such an opinion from second-hand accounts) - the sentence is misleading because it leaves readers with the idea that Meade was Humphreys' Corps Commander at Fredericksburg. Recommend you use what Dan Butterfield said about his division commanders in Official Records:

"I hardly know how to express my appreciation of the soldierly qualities, the gallantry, and energy displayed by my division commanders, Generals Sykes, Humphreys, and Griffin." and/or "General Humphreys personally led his division in the most gallant manner." [source: Page 402, Vol XXI (22), Official Records; the same volume provides source for the Order of Battle and can confirm (1) Meade was on the Union left with the 1st Corps and (2) Dan Butterfield was actually Humphreys Corps Commander at Fredericksburg]

This is my first time submitting a change to a Wikipedia page (I've got lots of rules to read); nevertheless, didn't want to just post the change until you had a chance to review and agree.

I'll be glad to provide links to these sources if you want me to email you (links would go direct to appropriate pages in the Official Records).

CChartreux (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Best regards, CChartreux

Peninsular Campaign
I'm done with the page. It was for a school project, I couldn't care less about Wikipedia or this article. Do as you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteppeMerc (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Train Raid of 1861
I'm thinking the best thing to do is to make a solid, simple proposal that would allow folks to respond with a clear "yes" or "no". My general concept of the article is expressed in my reply to the section on the article's talk page "7 Purpose of Wikipedia - a reminder". While reasonable people may have differences on some aspects of it, I think the basic format of LEDE, MAIN BODY OF ARTICLE (the more numerous version), and then CONTROVERSY is pretty much consistent with common Wikipedia practices. I think the important first step is to get the entire subsection "6.3 List of historians believing the locomotive raid true" out of the article. If it has information of value then it should be presented in the body of the article w/o all the OR about what it proves or refutes re Robertson. Unless something else develops in the next couple days, I will probably propose something as a "Request for Consensus" on the discussion page and see what happens -- I find it difficult to believe that anybody will argue that the section remain. If you have ideas along this line let me know. Thanks. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I am the one who started the article, and since I am now smack in the middle of going through and extensively adding 34 (or more) references and hundred of citations, changing the maximum possible to direct quoations ... let's hold off on yet another end-run ... and let me finish that work. Then open it up for review and comment.  At that point the table of 34+ references will likely not be needed, and a smaller section summarizing the "pro" view can be left.Grayghost01 (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is time, in my opinion, to start eliminating non-encyclopedic material from the article. Please see Talk:Great Train Raid of 1861. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

John Bell Hood
I was curious if you would think if a discussion on Hood's two personal controversies are relevant to his entry: 1) His alleged use of opiates after his two serious woundings, which some have suggested caused disorientation particularly during the Nashville campaign, and 2) his failed courtship with Sally Buck Preston. Of course, there is a lot of speculation regarding these, hence "controversy." I'm not suggesting anything to the degree that some have alleged, i.e. he invaded Tennessee to impress Buck, etc., but I think it is noteworthy. The only reason I thought of it is because of the current article's reference to Mrs. Chesnut's diary, which went into some detail on that subject. Your thoughts? P.S. Your help pages are invaluable and I plan on consulting them often. Yep, I'm new here and sorta dumb. Thanks. Ismaelbobo (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

John Bell Hood

 * There is no reason to avoid controversy as long as it is backed up by solid research and quotations/citations from reliable secondary sources and all of the reasonable POVs are represented. I think the laudanum issue is pretty well known and should be easy to get citations, but the Sally connection will be more difficult. Welcome to Wikipedia and don't hesitate to ask for editing advice. You may find it more convenient to use the e-mail connection on my user page if you want to have an extended conversation. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and encouragement. Actually, I think the Sally connection is far easier to document than the laudanum. (Unless your point is that Chestnut's diary is pretty much the only single source cited by all the writers who've written on the subject.) The diary is both famous and much admired and has the credibility necessary to pass muster as to the existence of the affair itself. It's effect upon Hood has had many interpretations, which of course, would need to be balanced. Or not dealt with at all to be strictly encyclopedic. We will never know for sure how he ultimately felt about it since he didn't cover the broken engagement in Advance and Retreat.

Keep your eye out for it. Thanks again.Ismaelbobo (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

5 generals
Good day! Thank you for you thoughts. I did some wording changes to nail down the grades as they applied in late 1862, and put in a note about using the term "full" generals based on your previous edit. Let me know if it's adequate. Question: in Wert's bio of Longstreet, he refers to Bragg several times as general-in-chief, and I am wondering if this should be included on the page, probably as a footnote. Also I haven't forgotten about your to-do bios request, just that the fellows I've been working on aren't on it! Thanks. Kresock (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

One other comment: I noticed in some of the footnotes that you are equating date of rank with "date of confirmation." This is a bit ambiguous. The Congress acted on a particular day, but the date of rank was used specifically to indicate who outranked whom and is unrelated to the date or sequence in which Congress acted. According to Eicher page 807, Jefferson Davis actually assigned the date of rank. There were also dates of nomination and confirmation, which are interesting to understand because then you know which rank an officer carried on any actual date, rather than the usually backdated date of rank. (For instance, someone promoted to general officer with a date of rank of July 21, 1861, probably was not wearing general's insignia at First Manassas. It was backdated to serve as a reward for service in that battle. You have to look at the nomination date to determine when the government decided to promote the officer.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I replaced the notes on the Line Command Lists with this:


 * Eicher, p. 807. whatever grade general rank dates determined by Jefferson Davis, who drew up promotion lists himself.
 * Let me know if this isn't clear enough. Bragg caught my attention since that was the first time anywhere I had seen him referred to as such, and I though that fact alone might be noteworthy, if not adding to the confusion. (I notice at the bottom on Robert E. Lee's page the use of "office" and "position" even if it's in a place few will read.) Always appreciate your taking the time to educate me! Kresock (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How's it look now? I added the nom, conf, & re-conf date info for the full generals, just to see what it looks like and await feedback. If OK I'll add to the other tables as well, trying not to screw up the edit links and go around pics. Also, per your suggestion, I combined and updated the notes about Davis and the dates of rank. Kresock (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Expanded on the Lt. Generals list, and added info about the temporary appointments to that grade. Question: do you know whether is it possible to use the show/hide function on tables that I see on the templates? The tables are nice and informative, but they now kinda dominate the page. Kresock (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Kresock, I've changed the ACW template to collapse on First Battle of Bull Run..is this what you are looking for? Cheers, <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought that I was responding to the question he asked you (I believed that you weren't online and was thinking I could help him in the meantime). I changed the one thing on the template and edited the collapse state on the one article to see if this is what he was talking about. I wrote on your talk page because I wanted you to be aware of these changes even if they are temporary...I would be dropping him a note on his page but haven't gotten there yet for being sidetracked elsewhere on Wiki. Sorry for any confusion. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misunderstood (I think) which template Kresock was referring to...I thought he was referring to Template:American Civil War. I believe upon looking a little closer that one of the tables he is talking about might begin like this:


 * ===Lieutenant general line command list===

{|class="wikitable"
 * Abbreviations: KIA &#0061; killed in action, MW &#0061; mortally wounded

In which case replacing the class value with:
 * class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" width="100%"


 * should achieve the desired results. I've reversed my other edits to First Bull Run and the ACW template. My apologies for botching that. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both for looking into this. I applied the class change to two of the tables on the page, leaving the Maj. Gen. list alone until I expand it further, a reminder to myself in case I get sidetracked as well. Sorry for any confusion this caused. Kresock (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Gettysburg
Hi,my name is andres. im in 7th grade and im doing a report on the Battle of Gettysburg. If you could just give me some tips to get started on a rough draft, that would be great! thanxs!!!

Battle of Gettysburg
Hi,my name is andres. im in 7th grade and im doing a report on the Battle of Gettysburg. If you could just give me some tips to get started on a rough draft, that would be great! thanxs!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.146.74.219 (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My tip would be to read the Wikipedia article to get an overview of the battle, find one aspect of it that interests you, follow the links to read more about it, and then check the footnotes to find references listed in the article that you can read to get more detail. Hal Jespersen (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cedar Mountain edits
Sorry about undoing revisions you made on Battle of Cedar Creek. I have never had Edit Conflict arise before. I was trying to figure out what edits you hade made and incorporate them with mine, but I guess it didn't work out too well. Arbogastlw (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Hal!
For all you have contributed over the years, frankly no one deserves this Wiki award more than you. It was your inspiration and early encouragement that got me deeply involved for a couple of years as a Wiki ACW editor, and, although I am not nearly as active any more because of work and my own professional writing career, I still frequently follow your newer work. And, your maps are simply outstanding and a major contribution to Wikipedia!

Image
It's here <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 23:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No clue. I only run AWB bots (and only at Wikispecies) so I cannot answer your question. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 23:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Anon blocked
FYI, I had the nuisance that did this blocked for a week because of it. He was just coming off the last 48 hour block for the previous edit. Should be at least one week of peace... <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 15:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Maintained tag
Hi there. I had a quick question about this tag, which I put on the New Mexico Campaign talk page and the page now displays my entire user page. I was wondering what I am doing wrong with this. Thank you. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Drive-by. I took care of this here, Hal..  Wild Wolf, just use brackets instead of curly braces...  <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Seven Days July 1.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Seven Days July 1.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Seven Pines.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Seven Pines.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 08:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)