User talk:Hlj/archive2010

Portals
I understand that you do not agree with some of the edits that I am making and that you think that they are visually unappealing but I believe that having them in this fashion is better than leaving huge areas of white space or having the portals spilling into other sections. I also understand that you do a lot of good work on the ACW pages but I personally find your sense of ownership as irritating as you find my inconsequential edits. They are not Hlj's American Civil War encyclopedia articles. If you don't like the portals in the see also section then I suggest you recommend a change to the MOS. It is what states they should be there. As for my inconsequential edits, over the past couple of years I have built up the Medal of Honor recipient articles adding structure, portals, categories, persondata templates, infoboxes, content, etc. All in small increments because if you do the small changes the large ones will take care of themselves. I have even adding over a hundred articles and have gotten many to Good or Featured articles status as well as getting dozens more to a state were over the next few months I will be building them up so that by the summer time all of the MOH recipients will have a page, most or all lists will be featured and at least a handful from each conflict will be good or better. Now you obviously enjoy what you do and so do I so lets quite this stupid bickering and work together to build up these articles. --Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Valkyrie Red
Has been blocked again for editwarring and disruption. I've been discouraged from calling the user's edits vandalism, but I think some questionable edits were intended to arouse attention, hence pointy, hence actual vandalism. That said, when the user returns, I believe we should seek a content area ban, preventing the user from editing the infoboxes or talk pages of many articles in the ACW content cluster. BusterD (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, ban him. It wasn't vandalism...it was trolling. (No one has discouraged me from stating the truth :) ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 13:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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) 03:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant GA Review
I got the references from the different articles. Other changes have been made to the article. I tried to put more criticism into the article reading without being overbearing. Grant at Fort Donelson and Shilo had blundered in not being prepared for Confederate onslaughts. I added that other generals and even that Abraham Lincoln was involved with Grant's campaigns. For all the battles discussed I added the casuality numbers, except for luka and Corinth since Grant had limited oversight over the battles. If you like you could review the article again. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)}

Thanks for all those suggestions! I have already started on a few. I will attempt to edit the article and keep the accuracy, interest, and length to Wikipedia standards. {Cmguy777 (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)}

Hello. I have been trimming down the battle narrations as much as possible without loosing meaning or accuracy. Should the Civil War be another separate section for Ulysses S. Grant with just a summary of his campaigns and battles? {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)}

I am attempting to make more clean ups to the article. I have attempted and outline. It would shorten the outline, however, it might take away some of the emotional appeal to the reader. I believe that it is good to have the Civil War segments as is without reducing the size anymore. The Civil War really is what made Grant who he was. Do you believe the article can get a GA with the current length? McFeely and Smith are both good sources along with Simpson. I also am reading the linked Civil War articles to get matched. I don't want to repeat what they are saying but it is important, like you say, to keep them in agreement with each other. I have gotten the Shiloh to go along with the Shiloh articles. Shiloh was tough because it involved more then just a seige. Also Vann Dorn and Forest constantly harrassed Grant. Maybe that can be put or reput in the article somehow in the Shiloh segment. Getting an FA would also be good. If you believe the Civil War section should be reduced to a summary, please let me know. I appreciate all your advise. {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)}


 * I agree that the Civil War was the most significant part of Grant's biography -- the only reason he ever became president -- so it is fine to keep it focused here instead of a sub-article. I think that Van Dorn is worth mentioning because he put a big roadblock into Grant's initial Vicksburg plans by destroying his supply base. Grant had to go through the political thought process of deciding how to react to that without appearing to be retreating and to avoid political conflicts with John McClernand. (Grant was remarkably adept at political positioning and in communicating with politicians. His only equal at that during the war was Robert E. Lee.) Forrest on the other hand was the nemesis of every Union general in the Western theater, so I'm not sure he needs special mention in a Grant biography. If you are interested in biographies, Joan Waugh has a new book about how Grant is remembered. During the 19th century, Grant was positively adored and was considered one of the three great men of American history, alongside Washington and Lincoln. That sort of legacy would be useful to explore in this article. My suggestion would be to get the GA before worrying about the FA. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I GA would be good.  I believe Grant got lost in history due to political biases from many historians and did not get a fair deal.  His faults and his good qualities are both interesting.  McFeely was probably the first historian to take Grant seriously and did a real good job with his Presidency as far as behind the scenes go.  I agree that the main focus of this article should be the Civil War segments.  There is one thing that you can learn from Grant and that is how American politics works and continues to work today. I would like all the Articles to get GA.  I have been working on Washington and Jefferson slavery articles. In a sense, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and Grant are linked through time because of the slavery issue.Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)}
 * I made changes to Vicksburg. Could you look at that to see if it is factually correct? Vicksburg is hard to summarize since it was actually two campaigns.   That really was a complicated campaign.  I looked up the Vicksburg campaign article to make sure things matched.  I added the Van Dorn and Forsest information.  I found that in order to trim the article I only focused on the military campaign, rather then the politics.  I kept the Chattanooga campaign basically as you wrote it.{Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)}

I made a change to the Vicksburg segment putting McClernand's plan at the first paragraph and the start of Grant's Mississippi campaign in the second. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)}

Are you able to review USG? Thanks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)}

Can you recommend anyone to review the USG article? {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)}

Samuel Bookatz
Hi Hal, I don't know if your even getting this. My buddy Pete said your the master. My partner created a wiki. page for the artist Samuel Bookatz. How do you get the stuff at the top to disappear. We own several of his paintings and wanted to place them on the site. It seem's that is a problem. Do we need permissoin from the Bookatz foundation even if we own the work? Were not computer whiz's. We just wanted to get this info. to the public since Mr. Bookatz has died.Any thoughts? Sincerely, Michael Freeman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.32.195 (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Maps
Hal:

I am trying to upgrade the Battle of Piedmont page. I would like to put a nice map on there similar to the New Market map. Scott Mingus said that you might be able to assist.

We met a couple of years ago when I was a guide on the Second Manassas Tour for the Middleburg Mosby seminar.

Scott Shenandoah1864 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenandoah1864 (talk • contribs)

Restored Vicksburg segment
I restored the Vicksburg segement you wrote. I added the details about the McClernand-Grant rivalry and Van Dorn and Bedford Forest. Looks good! I believe the segment is now factually correct. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)}
 * I deleted the information about McClernand-Grant rivalry since Sherman was not under McClernand's command until after the Battle of Chickasaw Bluffs. Also Halleck had restored Grants control in the West. There was a rivalry between Grant and McClernand, however, I am not sure how to incorporate it the Vicksburg segment.{Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)}
 * I reinserted information McClernand-Grant rivalry. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)}

I made the recommendation changes you mentioned. I believe the Vicksburg segment is the central peice to this article. It looks good. I am glad we could get it finished on President's day. Your insights into the article have helped tremendously. Thanks! {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)}


 * To be honest with you I have read two accounts on Vicksburg, one from McFeely Grant: A Biography and the other from Catton Never Call Retreat. Catton, I believe has the best narrative on Vicksburg, and things seemed to just fall into place, especially the parts about the Van Dorn and Forest raids.  Catton also aptly points out Grant's genius in keeping Pemberton guessing.  It helped me with understanding the other wikipedia articles, also.  McFeely, only in terms of Civil War descriptions, is good, but sometimes hard to follow.  Anyway.  Thanks for helping.  I hope USG can get a GA eventually.  I believe it is GA status, however, there are few cleans ups to be done.  {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)}


 * Your edits are remarkably clear and really add to the article! The addition of the map really helps.  Thanks.  {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)}

March Coordinator elections
I know this is off your beaten path, but I'd like you to consider running for coordinator in the Military History project elections in March. I consider you the natural leader of this content area, Tom and the Jims notwithstanding. Think about it before refusing... BusterD (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We're famous! :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grierson%27s_Raid&action=historysubmit&diff=346532436&oldid=346530773 Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * maybe we can use this to our advantage.... perhaps land a reality show or something! Kresock (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 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) 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Feature Review for J.E.B. Stuart
nominated J.E.B. Stuart for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Lord Oliver  The Olive Branch 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that this is not a FAR but an FAC. Please opine there if you wish for this to go forward since you are the primary contributor and the nomination appears to be a drive-by nom. -MBK004 03:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good or A Class Article J.E.B. Stuart?
Hello,

I was wondering if you were ok with me or you nominating J.E.B. Stuart for Good or A Class status. Please reply to my my talk. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver  The Olive Branch 15:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for the message! :) Have a Great Day! Lord Oliver   The Olive Branch 19:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the advice on Theophilus H. Holmes. I will change up the sources, after I am finished finding references and putting in information. Thanks Again and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver  The Olive Branch 23:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bull Run / Manassas naming convention
I do not agree with the rationale used for the Bull Run / Manassas, as well as the treatment the name Battle of Manassas is given. Consider the merits of the name Bull Run.

Pro: This is the name of the battle used in Northern school curriculums, although, many texts present both names. Therefore, the name Bull Run is arguably more common.

Con: This name creates confusion. The battlefield is named Manassas by the NPS. Vistors will not find any battlefield in this country called Bull Run. This will create confusion.

Con: The battlefield is located near the present day town of Manassas. Again, common sense leans towards this name.

Con: From a logical standpoint, the name Bull Run is less apt than Manassas. From a military standpoint, the only reason the battle took place here was because of the railroad junction which was located here, as well as the subsequent military depot. Bull Run itself did not even play a role in the second battle, which was fought purely as a result of the depot. Understanding the importance of Manassas to the battle is more important than understanding the tactical significance of the stream.

Further, the treatment of the name Manassas is inappropriate. Manassas is not just the name used by the southern states, it is also the official name of the battle, and the consensus name used by military historians. Both of these points should be included in the article, so as to show full respect for the Manassas name.

A final point on the name Manassas should be made. Those from Northern schools who prefer the name Bull Run should remember the work done by military history buffs and concerned citizens, predominately southern, who saved this battlefield from Disney development. Without their efforts, the park experience today would be very much lessened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.109.238 (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cavalry in the American Civil War
Completely agree with your point, and thanks for the fix with the pic. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your fix on the second pic as well. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction to the time & place of a historical incident re:Heny Benning
03/25/2010 Hlj-

FYI... I would like to point out a correction that is needed as to the time & place of the incident of BG Henry Benning's rebuke from LtGEN James Longstreet.

The incident took place at the Battle of Chickamauga on Sept 20, 1863 and not at the Second Battle of Bull Run, Manassas, VA (Aug 30, 1862).

Source: verbatim transcript included in "A Biography of GEN James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier by Jeffry D. Wert, Touchstone First Edition 1994, ISBN 0-671-89287-8 (pbk), page 314.

John Roark Burke, VA Net: jer2@cox.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.51.226 (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 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) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Marmiton River
Hi Hal,

Here is one that I see you haven't visited before and thought that you might have beneficial input/knowledge. Looks minimal at the present. I didn't think there too many ACW articles that you haven't contributed to. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 13:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sherman article
Hal: Have you noticed the new first paragraph of the WT Sherman article -- what seems to me to b e over the top commentary on Indian wars? What can/should be done? Thanks for any thoughts. Hartfelt (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hal: Thanks for your thoughts. I hoped someone else would take action against that sentence, but now I have done so,  Would appreciate your keping your more experienced eye on things.  Hartfelt (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Secession
I agree with both of your ideas regarding the subsection label and the length. The length issue has been resisted but I note that there is a small (at this point) group (see WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Operation Brothers at War) that has raising the article to FA as a goal. If that project gets off the ground then these issues will need to be addressed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Translation into french of Gettysburg Campaign  : thanks etc...
Hello Hal ! I am about to edit on WP:fr a big addition from your article on Gettysburg Campaign, the 1st draft of it is now on a sub-page on my french user's page.

Thanks for your good material ( & maps) I took a lot of pleasure to work on. I shunned the officers list, since for french use it looked superfluous to me (I think those who are interested in it can read your article) - & I put the time-table at the end. From the great number of red links, we can see the amount of work which we have yet to do in our WP:fr...

I hope you'll be kind enough to come over to WP:fr & cast a glance on your child. My big issue is about iconos : among the ones I collect in Commons, some come out very well, & some remain a line of red text. Why, but WHY ?

I saw your works list : WOW ! T.y. Arapaima (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)



Thanks again, t.y. ("Campagne de Gettysburg"" is now (yet uncomplete) on WP:fr) Arapaima (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "selection of images" : I try to give french readers a general hint of anglo-saxon culture, along with description of war, which I think rather dreary in itself. About that, did you see my french Arthur Fremantle ?...
 * "Iconos"" are ""images"" in (scientific) french, I thought it was widely used, sorry. You'll see if you come back on "Campagne de Gettysburg" that, for exemple : the Steeple-chase for St-Patrick's day - the panorama from Winchester's Old Hospital - the cottage and Meade head-quarters on Cemetery Ridge -... don't come as an icono, but as a simple red line of text, & it tears away my bowells, because I'm not even sure to be able to find them again.
 * Punctuation in french ? Example : "well, we use to do it that way, but I may have blundered a lot. See?..."


 * Thanks again for giving me a key to my icono problems. As for Arthur Fremantle, of course he was just a speck on the surface of earth , but I think his "Diary" is a quite precious piece of observation. And anyway a soldier who managed to become a general in England between 1885 & 1884 while staying in London Tower & guarding the Crown Jewels must have had some wit, no ? T.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Manasass Station Operations
I understand. I'll move it to the battle of Manasass Station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regaina (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 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) 21:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Franklin Preservation
That's fine if you can do quickly I didn't really have anything to go by when I did that. Thanks.

Sample USG Civil War segment summary
Thanks Hal. The following was a summary of Ulysses S. Grant's Civil War record to replace the one on USG article. This is done in order to put the information currently on USG Civil War segment on a separate article page. If there are errors in the summary, please let me know. It is important to be accurate. I have been using Smith and McFeely as sources. {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)}

Your insight is valued beyond measure. Thanks again. I am making the neccessary changes and getting rid of the semicolons. The summary is in rough draft stage. I was planning on expanding both the Vicksburg and Chattanooga sections. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)}


 * Hi Hal. I have gotten as far as Petersburg Campaign.  I would appriciate if you could read the USG Civil War summary for accuracy.  I have been reading the separate articles on each battle.  That really helped.  Any input would be appreciated.  {Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)}


 * Hi Hal. That is fine about the retirement from the summary.  You have been valuably important. Thanks!  Much of the original segment on Grant's civil war career you wrote and started is to be made into a separate article on Wikipedia.  In 2011 it will be Grant's 150th Civil War anniversary.  I have read different sources and attempt to put them together as best I can. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)}


 * Hi Hal. I have completed the USG Civil War summary with citations, links, and segment titles.  A title is needed for the separate article on Grant's Civil War Carreer.  Do you have any suggestions before making the web page.
 * Some titles I have come up with are:
 * American Civil War Career of Ulysses S. Grant
 * Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War.
 * American Civil War Battles of Ulysses S. Grant
 * {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)}


 * Yes. I can use the second title.  That sounds good.  In the main USG article I am putting in his military controversies such as "drunkeness" and "anti-semitism" in the battle segments.  That should reduce the size of the USG main article.  I put criticism for him being a "butcher" in a Northern resentment segment.  Is it best to have just have USG Civil War article or an article on his entire military career? {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)}

OK. Sounds good. Just wanted to make sure before making the Web Page. I need to introduce West Point and the educational military training program at that time. According to McFeely West Point when Grant went there was not the "train soldiers to kill boot camp" environment that it is today. The education was more academic then military. I also believe it is important to mention that Grant knew many if not all of the Generals he fought against, giving him an advantage in the field. He not only observed the Generals, but other cadets and soilders as well in the Mexican-American War. I plan to start out with his West Point education; briefly mention the Mexican-American War service; then add the Civil War section from the current USG bio article. I need to mention his service after the Civil War as General in terms of Reconstruction and Native American policy. I have to look into this, but I believe he put down an Irish invasion of Canada. One other issue is that he was reinstated by Grover Cleveland as General in order to get a much need pension payment for his family. By the time Grant died the nation was finally starting to meld as a nation. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)}

Fourth of July in Vicksburg
Regarding the note about the bottom of the article about Vicksburg's celebration of the Fourth of July, Ken Burns cited in his documentary, that the Fourth was not celebrated until 1944. See Link : http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/facts.html Bully84 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Vicksburg and the Fourth of July
The point I am trying to make is that it appears to me that the text on the page along with the annotation, makes it look like the story that Vicksburg did not celebrate the Fourth of July is merely the stuff of legend, and my opinion is that it is factual. As for your comment regarding Ken Burns, I did not realize that Burns was not considered a scholarly source. However, there are sources other than Burns on the Internet, that also cite this as a fact. Aside from all of that, my late father was born and raised in Vicksburg. My mother, who is still living, visited his family there early one July shortly after they were married in 1943. Many times in my early adulthood, she relayed a rather humorous story how she found out that the Fourth was not to be celebrated there....and this was long before I had ever heard of Ken Burns. Bully84 (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Grant article
Hal: I am curious whether you are supportive of the total overhaul of the Grant page effectuated today. My own reaction, while hasty and superficial, is negative. I think I may turn away from this page for good and hope Sherman doesn't get the same treatment. Hartfelt (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hal, Thank you for your response, as always. Hartfelt (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Hal. I apoligize if I have interfered in any way with your writing in the USG bio article.  My only goal is get USG bio to GA status.  Hartfelt has really made the article good with his edits.  I incorporated the military critisism in the USG bio article rather then a separate segment.  I also added detail about North Ana and how Lee and other Confederate officers were either sick or injured during this time.  I hope that the article has retained your original intent. Respectfully. {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}


 * I have attempted to incorporate all your original work, ideas, and suggestions into the article as much as possible. You, Hartfelt, and Rjensen are some of the best contributors on Wikipedia. I was trying to get Rjensen involved, but he was (possibly is) on vacation or traveling.  His views would have been valuable.  That is why the current version may have been appeared "hastily" written.  Rjensen could be helpful with any suggestions. {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}


 * Hi Hal. Rjensen is currently on the road, but has recently made solid edits to the Initial Commissions section.  He knows history and is able to make the article accurate, readable, and professional. Please let me know if you believe the article is improving.{Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)}

Robert Emmett Rodes/Robert Emmet Rodes
Hi Hal,

To add to the discussion on the spelling of Rodes' middle name: Rodes's son was named Robert Emmet Rodes, as was his grandson, his great-grandson, and his great-great-grandson (me). All of his descendants have always spelled their name with one t. The understanding of our family is that we are named after the Irish patriot Robert Emmet, whom his father David admired. For these reasons, as well as the spelling on his gravestone and the VMI record, it seems to me unlikely that the correct spelling of the General's name has two t's, biographers notwithstanding. I'm not sure how the discrepancy began, but would be interested to find out. Perhaps there's a signature somewhere?

Best Regards,

Bob Rodes

(Robert Emmet Rodes V) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robtrodes (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hi Hal,

Evidence for the spelling Emmet:

1. It is spelled Emmet in his VMI records. 2. It is spelled Emmet on his gravestone. 3. We have all sorts of evidence that my grandfather spelled his name with one t, including a passport, business cards, official letters to the state department, and so on. 4. My father spells his name with one t. 5.  I spell my name with one t. 6.  There is a family tradition that we were named after the Irish patriot Robert Emmet.

Evidence against is that there are more primary records that use two t's than one. To be fair, there may be more evidence than this.

Nevertheless, it seems to me rather implausible that VMI would have spelled his name wrong. It seems much more implausible that Hortense Rodes would have allowed a misspelling on his gravestone. I also find it unlikely that his son would have inadvertently misspelled his name, and then misspelled his first son's name when naming him. It is certain in my mind that my grandfather would not have taken it upon himself to change the spelling to one t (thereby correcting his father) for any reason. Finally, oral traditions are not always reliable, but this one is plausible.

What is more plausible to me is that an early military record (such as the Brigadier General commission) spelled it wrong, and that he didn't bother to correct it. Rodes's focus was on preparing his troops and fighting battles, and it seems likely that an error of this sort would have been too trivial to care about to him. Such an error might well have propagated from there.

Of course, his own letters are very rare, and he was apparently in the habit of abbreviating his name when he signed it, so we have no "smoking gun" there.

It seems more likely to me that the misspelling occurred somewhere in military records, and it was more trouble than it was worth to try to correct it. Suppose, for example, that his Brigadier General's commission had it misspelled. He might very well have felt that there was too much important work to do to go to the trouble of having it corrected. This seems to me quite plausible.

I don't believe that any of his biographers have researched this one way or the other. Most of his records come from military sources, I believe. I'll email Darrell Collins and see if he has a reason for the misspelling, and write again with anything he might have.

Best Regards,

Bob Rodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robtrodes (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Northrop
Thank you for your changes, which are good ones. Bigturtle (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Signing post
Hi Hal, Just noticed that you forgot to sign your post on Lee's talk page. :) <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

findagrave.com
Hi. I'm a bit curious about your two reverts of my removal of the findagrave.com website. Could you explain how the link is in accordance with WP:EL and, more importantly, how it does not violate WP:ELNO #1? --Conti|✉ 18:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference this archived discussion. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the most recent discussion is at Village_pump_(miscellaneous). :) --Conti|✉ 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I never have much luck deciphering such enormous back and forth discussion pages, but I will know for sure that a consensus has been reached when the Find a Grave template is removed. I agree that ELNO #1 implies that we should be driving around and doing our own grave photography, but # 12 allows such collaborative/wiki sites "with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I do not support FaG as a reliable source for citations, but if an article has no gravesite/memorial photography, it is at least temporarily useful, just as IMDB is for unimportant movie/TV cast information. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't consider a picture of a grave a good enough reason to link to the site. It's a minor "nice to have" thing, nothing that's necessary for our readers to understand the article. Anyhow, the site has various problems, as I pointed out in that discussions (WP:ELNO #1, copyright problems, etc.), and just because it does not violate all WP:ELNO points it does not mean it should be used. --Conti|✉ 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

United States Civil War Entries
I've noticed you tend to monitor the various American Civil War pages very closely, for instance when I was adding the Gettysburg animation and other data to the Battle of Gettysburg page. However, you're removing references on the Joshua Chamberlain page that are validly posted in other articles on Wikipedia. I'd like to reiterate my discussion post from Talk:Battle of Gettysburg:

'...saying please let us know and we will consider including them in the articles'' purports possession of this article by you and others, which defies the public ownership which is the purpose of all Wikipedia articles. Refer to the CABALS and OWN entries. The first line of the latter reads "Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article". '''

While do not for one moment think your credentials as a military historian are in any way lacking, you must remember that "owning" articles does not happen on Wikipedia. While a group might chiefly contribute, they are not the sole owners and therefore ultimate decision makers for what goes into an article. --SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that you bring up Joshua Chamberlain because I do not recall making any recent significant changes to this article and this is not one of the 300 or so that I attempt to influence at a detailed level. (I did write the majority of the article, but a number of other editors have put their marks on it, so it has drifted away from my direct interest.) The issue of "ownership" is a rather murky one when you are dealing with specific edits. User A has a perfect right to add something to a Wikipedia article, but User B has the same perfect right to remove it if he thinks that the added material is incorrect or inappropriate. (Otherwise, Wikipedia would be plagued by ever-increasing masses of erroneous text that could never be removed.) This one-on-one dispute often ends with one of the parties giving way. (In my personal experience with ACW editing, this happens about 95% of the time.) In other cases, impasses occur that are only resolved when additional editors lend their support to one side or another. The notion of a "cabal" is more appropriately reserved for issues of significant political or philosophical importance, such as global warming controversies, and not relatively trivial matters such as people wanting to promote their personal websites. Furthermore, the argument that text appropriate in one article requires that it be acceptable for all other articles is specious. But thank you for your advice on Wikipedia procedures. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC) The

Civil War Articles
Hal, I was just looking at some of the Civil War articles, found that you had been doing some edit managing, looked at your page and... wow. I can't believe the work you have done. Very impressive, very broad, very nicely done. I made a few additions to your piece on George Pickett. I am very new to trying to help. I listed a reference twice but do not know the short hand, code wise, for that, so it is down in the notes section twice.

Nicely done, Hal. Very nicely done.

Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw your fix. I'll make use of that in the future. Thanks.

Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hal, if you get a chance could you look at my user page. There is an article there I am trying to prepare. It is my first effort to submit an article. No one has commented yet off the wiki-request page. Any thoughts or helps would be greatly appreciated. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am traveling for about a week and will have limited time for WP. I also know nothing about boats. Hal Jespersen (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Old Abe
Good call, Hal. I always ask members what the name of the eagle is on the patch. I haven't met anyone that knows. The story of Old Abe should have been made into a movie (I suggested by Disney). Unless they think of it, it won't be done. It is their loss and a loss to education and historic preservation. They would rather produce a love story about Captain Smith and Pocahontas that didn't exist. She was pre-teen and he was in his 20's with 20 years between them. Ed. Zimmerman, Jr. USS UNITED STATES Foundation USSUNITEDSTATES@Yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.9.163 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not sure what prompted this remark, but I will consider it a compliment that I know the eagle's name. :-) I think that the nature of Old Abe's eventual demise would make a rather depressing Disney movie. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Franklin map
Your map of the Battle of Franklin gives an incorrect date of the battle. It occurred November 30, 1864. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.72.142 (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops! I have 1863 on the brain! Fixed. Thanks for catching. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Article on the Battle of Franklin (1864)
Dear sir;

In the Wikipedia article is a side bar containing a description of the casualites of Franklin (in the section named"Aftermath") and comparing them to Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg (From Stanley F. Horn's "The Army of Tennessee." He compares the total losses at Franklin at over 6,000 compared to 1,354 at Pickett's Charge. This is very misleading. The total loss at Pickett's Charge was very comparable to the losses at Franklin since most sources that I've read agree that approximately 50% of the attacking force of 13,000 -13,500 was killed or injured. This is in fact confirmed by a Wikipedia article on Pickett's Charge.

Jiro Tomiyama, Los Angeles, Ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.246.107 (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in responding, but I have been traveling out of Wikipedia range. The quotation from Stanley Horn conveys a famous, albeit dated, story about Franklin. However, since it is separated from the main body of the article – sort of like color commentary to a football game – and since it is clarified in a footnote, I do not think it is a problem. (At one time, this information was presented without attribution in the main body of the article, so I could see why you would have objected to that.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Simon B. Buckner
Regarding the edit you reverted, I spent all afternoon using those headings for the 61 Kentucky governor articles that will comprise a good topic (GT) once John Y. Brown, Jr. passes GA. This is a place where conventions clash, I suppose, but in the interest of keeping SBB consistent with the others, would it be OK to change it back? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Joseph K. Mansfield.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Joseph K. Mansfield.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, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed the public domain template to a more specific template to address this. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Which template did you change for which file? Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Magog has since deleted the file File:Joseph K. Mansfield.jpg from Wikipedia in lieu of the version now at Commons (I can still see it in my browser cache but my contrib looks to be gone from my edit history). I had added the template  which reads "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain."  <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, so you added the template to a file that was then deleted. Not that it makes much difference, but how can you assert that it was a government employee who took the photograph? After all, many of the photographs were taken by civilians, such as Mathew Brady. When the identity of a Civil War photographer is unknown to me, and thus I cannot know the year of his death for copyright purposes, I usually use the version of public domain that says "published in United States before 1923." Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Appomattox Campaign
Hal: Thanks for the comments. I note that you have been at this for some years and have done quite a lot of good work on the Civil War articles. My casual and brief observation leads me to think that after an initial flurry of work in the first few years of Wikipedia, not very much substantive work on the Civil War has been done in the past few years except by you and a few other people. If Wikipedia is to reach its goals, more needs to be written and verified on this important historical topic. Donner60 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been working on Wikipedia articles for a few months. One of the first articles that I submitted for B class review had about 75% of the sentences footnoted. I thought this might be a little much but I wanted to be sure I met the criteria. To my surprise, even though the non-footnoted sentences were related and seemed to me to hang together, I was asked to provide citations for additional sentences. Maybe I picked the wrong ones to leave without footnotes. The point is that this experience made me wary of submitting an article without every (or almost every) sentence footnoted. I do not like doing it that way. I agree that it looks a little odd and it slows down the writing process as well. I may try to get one approved by the assessors with fewer footnotes to see if I can cut back and still get a B assessment. I suppose I need to be judicious in regard to which ones to choose.
 * I have thrown in a few footnotes in the lead section for the same reason. However, it seems that since it is a Wikipedia guideline to avoid footnotes in the lead section and presumably any significant assertion will be repeated in the body of the article, I will avoid putting footnotes in the lead section. Citations in the main section should be enough anyway.
 * Thanks for the reference to your references page. You are correct that I have been trying to use that format. After an assessor recently not only suggested the Wikipedia format but actually went ahead and reformatted one of my reference sections, I looked at the guideline more closely. The Wikipedia format is not required and the guideline specifically states that the policy is neutral. I will continue to use the format that I have been using and that you use. It is faster and easier to read, especially when one is drafting, as far as I am concerned. If I have not gotten a few of them exactly in line with the style, I did that inadvertently. I think the Wikipedia format results in saving some kilobytes in an article. At this time, I think that is not enough reason to use it in most articles if it is not required.
 * I have tried to do the second author with the link as you have written it. I think I even did it successfully at least once. With this article, however, I kept getting the link set on the first name rather than on David J. Eicher. I tried a few variations and kept getting the same result. I know that I must have a little error somewhere but eventually I decided to give up on that particular citation so I could finish the article. I will compare your underlying text to see if I can spot what I am doing wrong.
 * Your reference to the external links is especially good. I need to take a little time to learn how to cite these without cluttering up the article. I thought that the full citation of the URL did not look right, especially when compared to a few other articles I had read. Since I had not cited many downloaded books until I got to the Appomattox Campaign, I had not learned the shortcut and I must say I had not really thought about looking into it this time as I finished the article.
 * I have tried to always include the ISBN number. If I have missed any, I did it inadvertently. The OLSC number is another matter. I am not familiar with that number or how to find it. I will look more closely. I gather from your comment that it is embedded in the download URL but if that is not right, I will look elsewhere. I do not want to just copy yours and ultimately not know how to find it if I come up with a new source.
 * I have cited encyclopedia articles as you suggest. I agree that is both the suggested and the best form. I can cite only forgetfulness (hopefully not laziness) in not doing that with the citation in this article. (The Heidlers wrote some of the articles themselves, as I am sure you know, but I need to check on whether the cited article was one of them.)
 * My impression of the NPS summaries is that they are not only incomplete but some of the facts or assertions are at least inaccurate, if not completely erroneous. It may be that it is just not possible to reduce some of these complicated and detailed battles to a single paragraph summary. Still, given the sources they cite and the people whose names are on the project, I must say that I am disappointed. We have much more freedom to write longer articles about these topics, of course. In any event, I think that reliance on the NPS summaries is misplaced and we should use the sources if there is any conflict. I have worked on a few stub articles that are little more than the NPS summaries in order to try to remove the flaws and put a better and more detailed article on Wikipedia.
 * My current plan is to revise and expand the articles on the Appomattox Campaign. I have not decided whether to include Dinwiddie Court House and Five Forks in my current work but I will probably include Sutherland Station. I want to consider whether the first two are in need of revision, or prompt revision. I am not so sure that they really belong as part of the Appomattox Campaign. I agree that Dinwiddie and Five Forks must be noted as necessary background so I suppose it does not make much difference whether they are included as part of the campaign or not. Similarly, even though the Appomattox Court House/surrender article probably needs some revision, I may or may decide to work on it when I get to that point. It seems to me that unless changes are carefully done, they could provoke controversy and vandalism, not that these can not be dealt with in the long run. I have a few other articles in process and would like to get back to them before too long, but I think I will finish the job on the Appomattox campaign soon if no one else does it first.
 * After I finish the individual articles, I will accept your invitation to work on the campaign article. Since at least some of the paragraphs draw from the NPS articles, they may have some of the infirmities I mention above. Of course, we have a summary article here and must be careful about expanding each section too much. I hope that you will review and comment on this as I get around to it. Next up for me is Sayler's Creek, which I have already started to work on. I am going to stick to chronological order (except perhaps I will go back to Sutherland's Station first) until I get to Appomattox Court House.
 * Sorry for the long dissertation but I thought you should get a complete response to your helpful comments and some information I where I plan to go with this.

Second message: Donner60 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a lot on your agenda but I think there are at least a few of the articles on lesser known articles that need maps. I hope you will consider a few requests on these.
 * I have not ignored all the formatting requirements but I have probably got quite a bit to learn. I thought that I could probably spend a lot of time on that and it would be better to get some writing done after some basic reading. I have found comments from others can explain some points better than all the technical pages, especially since they will be on a point one is working on.
 * Thanks for the reference on the ISBN and OCLC numbers.
 * As soon as I read your comment, I realized that the Siege of Petersburg (regardless of how phrased) can not be equated with the Overland Campaign which is the Wilderness to Petersburg (about June 18, 1864). I should have picked that up. I think it likely I copied that from another Wikipedia article or perhaps another source. Even so, I should have thought about it more. If I did that, there may be another such mistake. Of course, I also might have glimpsed the titles near each other and mistakenly copied them together. In any event, it shows that care is necessary.
 * I may have tended to get a little impatient to finish an article. Since I know this and since I have learned a few things as I go along, I have gone back and tweaked a few articles accordingly. It is better to have everything down right and in perfect form to begin with but corrections, clarifications and additions can help produce a better end product as well.
 * I have limited experience but I have noted some different review standards, especially with respect to citations as I previously noted. I almost let one article stay as it was after several revisions because I thought it was good enough but I made one final revision and got it over the hump. I am not looking for gold stars, either. At this point, however, I take a B rating as some measure of meeting a minimal Wikipedia standard so I will continue to try to meet those criteria. This may mean continuing to satisfy various reviewers citation criteria, of course, but I hope I can reach a reasonable balance on this point. If reviews get to the point of frustrating the purpose of making information available without undue delay and red tape, I may change my mind.
 * I have no problem with the original intent of using the NPS summaries as starter articles. It is better to have a little (accurate) information than none at all, which is stated somewhere on Wikipedia. If I read your comments correctly, you seem to think a little more highly of these than I do but since we both think that the Wikipedia articles that use these should be revised and expanded, it would seem to make no real difference in our approaches. I have no problem in using the NPS characterization of the result of the battle for an infobox. I think there are at least a few of the battles which I would characterize differently but the NPS position is no doubt at least arguable in each case. Any disagreement could be noted in a footnote or could be left to the reader's judgment based on the recitation of the facts. You won't have the infobox argument with me. The only possibility might be if I leave an existing box in an article that I might edit and it does not contain the NPS conclusion but the conclusion of a previous editor.
 * I have tried to adhere to the guidance not to remove what is in an article but just to add to it. This has produced comments in a few cases on the remaining material or led to a mistake. I still intend to adhere to this but I think that it should not be done at the expense of clarity and especially not at the expense of accuracy. I removed a few citations to master theses and other papers in an article that I did not rely upon and which I simply could not find at a link or otherwise.
 * Every witness does not see a complex occurrence like a battle the same way, almost certainly does not see the entirety and may rely on differing sources. Historians and witnesses come up with different facts, have different emphases and come to different conclusions. Sometimes one can confidently rule out an outlying opinion or assertion but often it may be necessary to present both sides to be consistent with a neutral point of view. I think that is your main point on the topic and I agree.
 * I am going to change that campaign nomenclature and then continue with Sayler's Creek.
 * After I finished my last note I my plan, I thought that I would mention that I have allowed myself to be distracted into tweaking an article or spending some time reworking an article that I did not have on my schedule so I suppose that although I think I will go through the articles in order much as I state, I may take a detour or two. If so, it will be on a topic that catches my interest and which I think I can finish rather quickly so I can get back to the Appomattox Campaign articles.
 * Thanks for your further comments and references.

Hal: Donner60 (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have your second message today as well so let me reply to or comment on both messages.
 * In line with your offer, please e-mail the page from Calkins to me at donner_party_60 at yahoo.com. I have a considerable number of books but the Calkins book is not one of them. As I recall, Questia is a pay service and in the absence of frequent need for it, I am not inclined to sign up.
 * I just checked the web site and the State of Virginia now calls the park "Sailor's Creek Battlefield Historical State Park." It is located on "Sayler's Creek Road." The site refers to the "Battle of Little Sailor's Creek," which I believe is technically correct, at least for the main action. I think the state park may have been named "Sayler's" at one time since a Google map shows it as such. It seems that the trend is in favor of using "Sailor's." I have no problem with that as long as "Sayler's" is referenced as well. I am not sure without further study what the protocol might be for changing the name of an article or the technique for doing so.
 * I did cite the Kennedy book, which I have, as the second citation to two points. I have no problem with the book, to the extent I am familiar with it. I certainly have no problem with the historians, which is why I was surprised by some (not all) of the summaries. I suspect that in most cases they just lent their names because their works were cited. In any event, I agree that most of the problems with these summaries are by omission and not by outright error. I think the bottom line is that we agree that Wikipedia should be at least a little more detailed even for the "minor" engagements. They were not so minor to anyone involved, I assume.
 * I have worked on revising and expanding stub articles and a few start articles. I have added a sentence or a few sentence or even a few paragraphs to other articles. I think most, if not all, of them were stub or start articles. I am not inclined to work on longer articles except perhaps to add a missing detail or citation or to correct a clear error. I doubt that most of them would need wholesale revision but I must say that I have seen a few of them that need some considerable work. See e.g. John S. Mosby which is tagged as needing work and cleanup. It would seem that our approaches on which articles to work on are similar if not identical.
 * Most Civil War topics and biographies already have a stub or start article. I think a few generals and others have no entry yet, but I would be surprised if there are many such cases. Since I have yet to initiate an article, I think I will try to put something together on one or a few of these missing topics or people in the near future, partly for the learning experience and satisfaction of starting one from the beginning.
 * I am aware of the guideline about not including original research in articles. That seems to carry a primary source guideline but I think it is a murkier follow on. The secondary sources often rely on these sources, of course. I will look at this further but I think that at least if the secondary sources refer to or agree with a book or article written by a participant, there is no reason to avoid it entirely. Oddly, I suppose a book written by a reporter or historian in 1866 could be a secondary source but a book written by a participant at the same time might not be. I realize these participants may have their own agenda but some of the accounts seem rather straightforward.
 * The context of the previous point, however, is that the references, even modern, secondary, professional historian references, may not agree. It is mainly these that you are talking about and in fact are the ones that I have mostly found the conflicts in because they are the ones I have mostly used. I think we are both saying that these are the types of conflicts that should be noted, at least if there is no reasonable way to determine whether one of them is wrong (including such minor things as typos). You said: "What is interesting to me, or frustrating, is to see how the basic facts of history (number of casualties, sequence of events, etc.) are expressed differently by different professional historians. Those are the cases in which we have to use footnote or text explanations to sort out those differences." I agree rather strongly with this which is why I quote it back to you. It is frustrating when it appears that a key point or fact is given in a reputable reference only to find a very different point or fact or number in another reputable reference.
 * I am aware that brevet grade or brevet rank was not totally honorary and that the concept is complicated. The substantive aspects are somewhat minor, or at least they seem to have been minor or of no importance to most, if not almost all, brevet appointments in the Civil War. I have been adding "honorary" to brevet appointment details so we have been at cross purposes on that. My reasoning at this point is that almost all of these awards were made well after the war was over and in many cases after the individual officers had been mustered out. I think it is misleading to characterize an officer as a "general" in the Union Army when he may have only been an actual rank major and may have done little except as a faithful assistant adjutant general (a more minor point, I suppose) and, as to the majority of appointments, did not receive confirmation for the award until a year or two after the war was over. Most of these awards were back dated, many to March 13, 1865, but I can not see how anyone would have addressed these officers as "general" on that date. There were a few exceptions, and certainly there were colonels who commanded brigades but the brevet appointment was not the basis for that command. Some of these colonels who commanded brigades, though probably as well deserving, never received the brevet award. I am not hung up on the word "honorary" but I am not sure how to approach the point I am making without going into a paragraph explanation each time. I think that giving more detail on the dates of appointment and confirmation, with which there can be no controversy, is helpful in most cases because a discerning reader should get the point. As I recall, Joshua Chamberlain, among other contemporaries, denigrated the wholesale award of backdated brevet appointments so this is a controversy of long standing. In any event, I find it aggravating to see articles where an officer is described as a Civil War "general" and where the brevet may be referred to (as it usually is) but only with respect to the back date of rank, not to when the nomination and confirmation actually was made. I think the addition of those details are the most important.
 * I agree that using brevet as a verb is bad form but although I have tried to avoid it, I can not swear that I have never done it, especially if I picked up a phrase from a source.
 * I have started researching the law and history of brevet grades. Even that is not easy to track down or write in an explainable way. One of my passed over projects, for the time being, is to revise the article on brevet. I decided to let that go for awhile and get some substantive contributions on line. I also have begun a separate list of all brevet generals (who were not also actual rank generals) but although I have the names all down, I don't have the dates, which I think are important. That was taking some time. I think the brevet generals should not be included on a list of actual rank generals, which is quite long even by itself, so I may complete this at some time.
 * Along similar lines, the articles on Regular Army and United States Volunteers probably need to be revised and clarified. I have little problem with simply using "of volunteers" if in fact the phrase "U.S. Volunteers" was not in use. I do not think it inappropriate to link to that article, especially if the explanation is included in the article. I will avoid using the term "U.S. Volunteers" unless I am quoting someone or find some contemporary use. I will let you know if I do come across anything of interest. I am not sure I will try to track down every past use, at least for the time being, except in the eight or so articles which I have substantially revised and expanded. The article revisions are not at the top of my list in part because I have not found quite as much on the early use of the phrase "regular army" as I would like. Equivalent terms can be used but these in turn will require additional explanation and references.
 * I assume you follow the articles to which you have contributed. That would be a big job but, on the other hand, perhaps there is not activity or much activity on most of them. In any event, I will let you know when I post a Sailor's Creek update before I submit it to the reviewers for B class consideration since you submitted that article in a little more than stub format and I assume you are more interested in that than in the other minor engagements leading up to the surrender.
 * Thanks again for your comments, suggestions and references.
 * Further thought below.

Hal: Donner60 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking further about brevet awards, I think the word "honorary" could be avoided by starting the sentence(s) on the award with a distinction such as: "Although not promoted to (one or more words such as: full or actual or substantive) grade, Colonel so and so was awarded the appointment of..." or "...grade, President Andrew Johnson nominated Colonel so and so for the appointment to (or award of) the grade of brevet..." Probably the word not previously used, award or appointment, would be used for the confirmation description. As long as promoted or promotion is not used and the dates are given, that would satisfy my concern that readers be advised there is a difference between the regular and brevet grades without inflating the nature of the award or describing it as merely honorary. If some additional details are pertinent for certain individuals, they can be added. I think it may just as important to note that a colonel frequently exercised command of a brigade and did not get the regular promotion (or maybe even a brevet) as it is to point out that a staff officer was simply given a back dated pat on the back or equivalent of a medal as recognition, rather than an actual command. At this point, I think I will not use the word "honorary" in connection with brevet awards. I may even change some or all of my previous uses to the extent I can find them, not just by deletion but by adding some of the language noted - unless, of course, the remaining words still convey the point. I don't see that as a first priority. I would not rule out that the circumstances might justify the use of honorary in some cases, but they would be fact specific. I do not have as much trouble with the brevet description for officers who eventually got regular grade general officer promotions or who got major general brevets to go with regular brigadier general appointments. I still think the dates of nomination and confirmation should be given. For regular promotions, these dates usually appear to have been not much later than the rank date. The brevet awards usually have a long gap between rank date and nomination and confirmation which seem to me worth noting.

Hal: Donner60 (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I was glad to see your shortened form coincided with mine. I did not spend much time checking back on them but at least at first I was getting the page number that I had used, not the first page. I assume that was because I left too many characters in the URL but I wondered whether I needed to use the URL for the first page or book in general and not just shorten a reference to the page. I have downloaded almost all the old books that I cited although in a few cases I have simply downloaded a title page and a few pages because the book did not look like it would be of much use in general.
 * I missed the part about putting the OCLC numbers in a particular form but I had in mind that Wikipedia was automatically putting these numbers and ISBN numbers in proper form.
 * I think you have invited copying of your forms of references. I have already put your sample journal and article sections on my ACW reference sub-page. Assuming you do not mind, I plan to copy your references for all the books that I have which you have on your list. That also should guide me with the others, but I think I am close. I only have some frequently used references or likely to be general references on the page now. Most of them should be in line with your form but I may just replace them to be sure. It is quite a bit easier to be able to go get the proper reference from a list than to search a past article or go back
 * I will use "retrieved." Since I still plan to ask for assessment, I will need to include that.
 * I will leave out the editor's name in the shortened footnotes. It will be easier and will look better.
 * As I think I said, at least in part, I plan to try to get the 8 or 9 articles that I have substantially revised and expanded in proper form. Most should already be close. The various articles that I may have only put in a sentence or a paragraph or a few paragraphs at most I may not bother to go back to because I usually only used a few sources such as the Eichers. I realized that I could find all of my past contributions on that list. I had in mind when I qualified that before that I could only find those on my watchlist and I may not have put them all on that list. I am reasonably sure most of them are on it. In any event, there is the other method.


 * Just to note: I have just sent an e-mail with a reply to two comments you left on my user talk page, and to included comments from you in a reply e-mail to a previous e-mail from me (starting to look complicated!). Of course, none of that will appear on our user talk pages but I suppose that is not of much importance or that we could put some of it online if it really were of any significance. I did want to leave a message, as I did briefly on my own user talk page, to indicate that I had replied so that it was clear that I did reply and that we carried on the exchange. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)