Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Archive 3

Opinion Sought - Inclusion as External Link for Campaigns/Battles - Animated Maps of Civil War Battles
Hello All

See civilwaranimated.com

ROGER DAVIES and TomStar81 recommended I raise the question here and seek guidance. 1) Would it be OK to a single link to these animations from a campaign or battle page (External Link) as I have had in the past? 2) Are these acceptable as reliable sources?

First, I have the animations for free on a site (civilwaranimated.com) which is non-commercial (the smallest possible google ad just to make sure google visits - if you suggest I remove it, I will). I make no money on this at all and have no desire to. If it were possible to just put the animations directly on Wiki, I would be glad to do so. Similar animations for Civil War battles are for sale on another site for $29 each (see travelbrains.com).

Second, I have spent the last couple of years building animated maps in Flash of key Civil War battles (each takes between 200-250 hours to complete). These are thoroughly researched based on the best reliable sources I can find (For example the Gettysburg animation is entirely based on Sear's "Gettysburg" and the recent "Maps of Gettysburg"(based on recommendation by Hal Jespersen)). So these are all entirely based on reliable sources and there has been no attempt at all to reinterpret history. Any opinion quoted is referenced (see the conclusion of Gettysburg for example).

Background I have included links to these animations in the past as external links on key campaign battle sites. Recently though, some of these were called into question. In May, 2008 I received an informal warning but it was responded to by the author of the article "I came here to thank Jcagney for adding the "Animated History of The Siege of Petersburg and Surrender at Appomattox" external link to the Battle of Sayler's Creek article which i was watching because i recently created the Sayler's Creek Battlefield article. I found it really interesting and played it all the way through. I could see it being questioned for its direct relevance to any one article like the Battle of Sayler's Creek article, which is covered in only one page of the animation. The animation would be most relevant for a wikipedia article about the entire siege-to-surrender period, if there is one. However, for the Sayler's Creek article, having the link there still helps to place that battle in a larger context. I think this is an unusual thing, we should try to figure out how to incorporate links to this, rather than block it off because it is different. Anyhow, thanks again because i enjoyed it! doncram (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)" I took this to mean that the links were acceptable for Civil War battle articles.

In the past week though, many links were removed. Another person reversed one of the link deletions stating: "Hi, Donald. I'm not sure why you think the animated history links are spam, but I restored the one on General Forrest after checking the link. I think it's an excellent link for anyone interested in Forrest's military history. JD Lambert(T|C) 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)"

I asked the author of the Gettysburg Page if it would be OK to add an external link to the Gettysburg page and Hal Jespersen replied "One link per battle or campaign seems fine to me. But that's just my opinion."

So, I am asking the Civil War community to please provide an opinion as to whether it would be OK for me to add a link to a campaign or battle. If you have any specific guidelines to suggest or would suggest a change to the animation that would help (I.E. identification of the reliable source at the beginning/end of the animation) I am certainly open to suggestions.

I respect and admire the Wiki community greatly and this is my way of contributing. I have a skill in Flash and that is how I feel I can best contribute. If I can help in any other way, I will be glad to as well. I will begin to offer reviewing articles.

Thank you for your opinion, suggestion.

James CagneyJcagney (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your animations are well done and don't object to judicious inclusion as External links. My concept of judicious would be to select only the most important or relevant places to link. For instance, Gettysburg has dozens of articles about the campaign and battle and literally hundreds of articles about men, women, and units who fought there. I'd recommend linking only from Battle of Gettysburg and Gettysburg Campaign (assuming you also animate the campaign as a whole). By the way, 'reliable sources' is a concept only relevant if someone were to put your animation into References or Notes, using them as a cited source of info for writing the article. In most of the important ACW articles that are well-cited, we tend to avoid website References unless they have very notable owners, such as government agencies, universities, historical societies, etc. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Marion now open
The A-Class review for Battle of Marion is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Swathe of reviews of ACW articles
We've seen a high proportion of ACW articles up both for peer review and A-Class review recently. It would be great if editors in this task force could find the time to review them. Here are the current A-class review candidates:


 * WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Fort Donelson
 * WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Fort Henry
 * WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Marion

-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 05:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for American Civil War
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln finds a general
How do people here rate this as a source? I have vols. 1 & 2 which seem pretty good to me and I was wondering whether to invest in the other three volumes. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 05:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Does no one here have an opinion? That's unusual :)) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Eicher has a lengthy review of it in
 * Eicher, David J., The Civil War in Books: An Analytical Bibliography, University of Illinois, 1997, ISBN 0-252-02273-4.
 * and calls it masterful, comparing it as a complement to Freeman. I was surprised to see that the five volumes and 2500 pages end in 1863 before Chattanooga; the author died before finishing his proposed seven volumes. Even Shelby Foote was able get the whole war into 2500 pages and cover both sides. :-) Eicher does criticize the overly positive treatment of Grant in the early years. Hal Jespersen (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Connecticut in the American Civil War
I took the liberty of creating a new article&mdash;Connecticut in the American Civil War. It had linked to the general History of Connecticut article, which had not even mentioned the ACW. I added a small section and a link to the new article. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I nominated it for DYK.-- Gen. Bedford  his Forest 16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Treasurers of the Confederate States of America
One of the requested biographies on the ACW Task Force's main page was for Edward C. Elmore, the first CSA Treasurer. I took the liberty of researching him and subsequently created the Wiki article. However, the stub could use some expansion. I then went ahead and created a stub article for his successor, John N. Hendren. It too needs more work, but I could not find much more in my files or on the Internet. Feel free to expand these two stubs if you have additional biographic material for these gentlemen. Regards from southern Ohio! 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another state article knocked off!
See Rhode Island in the American Civil War. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, so is Nebraska in the American Civil War.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done! How many is that now? And how many to go? 17:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We have at least five to go; the creating of redirects screws up the count. This count also figures combining the two Dakotas and there not being ones for Alaska and Hawaii, for obvious reasons.-- Gen. Bedford  his Forest 17:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks.-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I did a better count; it is now eight. Everything left is Union.-- Gen. Bedford  his Forest 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Make that seven. I started Utah in the American Civil War by combining material from several other Wikipedia articles pertaining to the Utah Territory during the ACW years. Feel free to add to this new article. Thanks! 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Specifically, these ones are left: Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Delaware, Dakota, Washington. — jwillbur 04:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I completed the Maine article. I would think that New Hampshire, Delaware, and Minnesota are likely the priorities for future work. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there isn't much to go on for those further west, which is why I'm working on articles about salt and music, not other states.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 15:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

New articles
I made a page to announce new articles, and then make it scrollable from this task force's main page. We'll keep the articles on the list for one month. It's at WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/New articles. Let's see if it works.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 06:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Music of the American Civil War now open
The peer review for Music of the American Civil War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks!


 * I noticed there is a DYK nomination open for the article, in which it is asserted "that during the American Civil War, musicians were one of every forty-one soldiers in the armies of both sides?". I think that is a) not supported by the article (because the article notes that ratio was not maintained throughout the ACW, and is very vague about the Confederate side), and b) I disbelieve the one source in the article that supports something close to that assertion (that the Union forces had such a ratio).  I simply don't believe the assertion, because it would seem really stupid to me that the Union armies would dedicate such a high proportion for musicians, although they did fork out funds for absurd Zouave uniforms.  And, even if there was a regulation "requiring" so many musicians, that is not adequate evidence that requirement was ever fulfilled.  There are many stupid requirements that are not fulfilled.  And, I think the article should be modified to state that "one source asserts that a 1:41 ratio of musicians to other soldiers" was achieved by the union army, with emphasis that it is one source, not an accepted truth.  I'll mention this at the peer review, but the DYK nomination is different.  Anyhow, some attention to the DYK nomination would be helpful.  Perhaps one of the alternative DYK suggestions put forward already could be used instead. doncram (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, excuse me, I commented at the peer review, and Bedford reverted my comment! With an edit summary referring to a ban?!?  What is going on, Bedford? doncram (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems there is some, um, "history" between Doncram and Bedford. That said:
 * Doncram: perhaps you could refactor your comment at the peer review in more moderate terms, avoiding inflammatory language like "absurd", "moronic" and "stupid".
 * Bedford: perhaps you could resist the temptation to revert. This is rarely necessary, especially in peer reviews.
 * Otherwise, gentlemen, please both proceed with decorum and civility. Neither peer review nor this task force exist to provide a cockpit for unseemly brawling. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A peer review is useless if the reviewer has shown he does not do it in good faith. Per   and, my actions are justified.  The only reason doncram is on this task force is to, as someone else put it, "wikistalk" me.-- Gen. Bedford  his Forest 06:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Poor judgment doesn't always mean bad faith. It's far better for someone uninvolved to make these decisions though. If you have wikistalking concerns, perhaps AN/I is the place to raise them? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image catagorization
I've created Category:Images of the American Civil War‎, so we can keep better track of what images we already have on en.wikipedia. Any help in this would be appreciated (and maybe even awarded).-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 07:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of the PD pics I've uploaded have been added to Commons and then deleted here. I'll come up with a list soon. Kresock (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Added to the categories. Will do more when I have time. Kresock (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm not trying to do it all in a few bites either.-- Gen. Bedford  his Forest 02:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you give me a note on my user talk page if you find any images I could use for the Sex in the American Civil War article.-- Gen. Bedford his Forest 13:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

concern about multiple civil war articles pushed at DYK
As noted in a discussion above, i have had previous disagreements with Bedford about Civil War and other articles that he has put up for DYK. These disagreements have all been in two categories: me expressing concern about basic referencing (largely resolved by new consensus reached in DYK requirements, that experienced DYK editors need to meet certain footnoting standards), and me expressing concern about inadequate research in articles and article topics which i found inadequate (for example, I opened an AfD about Idaho in the Civil War, which was Bedford has pointed out was rejected). I don't want to go back into those now, but I feel both my motivation and my arguments were justified, although Bedford questions both.

My concern now is a stream of American Civil War articles being created and rushed to DYK by Bedford: Salt in the ACW, Sex in the ACW, etc. As I did with the Idaho in the ACW article, I think many of these are poorly justified and have severe problems. I think there is a systematic problem here, that these are too rushed and reflect poorly on Wikipedia and on the MilHist wikiproject. I wonder if ACW task force members can engage constructively with Bedford about these, and perhaps work out some out some sandbox review process to hold these before starting the DYK 5 day clock and obtain some consensus about topics and adequacy of development. Certainly during the DYK clock period, Bedford has interpreted my and others' comments and criticism as unjustified attacks. Is there any other way for ACW task force to be involved in vetting these articles, with less pressure?

For example, a current DYK nomination, and alternate, are (quoting):
 * ... that the usual punishment for a soldier who raped in the American Civil War was hanging or a firing squad? (created by -- Gen. Bedford his Forest 07:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (alt hook)... that only three books of a sexual nature from the American Civil War are known to still exist? -- Gen. Bedford his Forest 13:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the drafted Sex in the ACW article is inadequate to be highlighted by DYK mention, and I believe that both of those DYK nomination statements are not justified and are likely to be offensive to many readers. The first one is inappropriately blithe about the topic of rape. For one matter, it implies that soldiers who raped in that war were identified and prosecuted, while it is highly doubtful that any high percentage of rapists were ever identified, much less prosecuted and punished in this way. There may be many who could be offended by the Panglossian-like implication that any crimes are dealt with. I don't think the DYK statement is supported by the article, even. About the second one, the DYK assertion is an overstatement. From the article, it appears that there happened to be one particular line of titillating books, of which only 3 are known to survive. That is far from establishing the overly broad DYK assertion. There are many many books that would meet the vague criteria of being "of a sexual nature", depending upon how conservative or how sexually extreme is your point of view. Even if there is one source which makes such a broad assertion (and it is not clear in the article that the broad assertion is made by the relevant source), it would be inadequate for an encyclopedia article assertion and especially inadequate for a DYK front page assertion, in my view. The only justifiable assertion would be along the lines of, "did you know that one source asserts that only 3 books of a sexual nature survive".

This is just one example. There is a running problem here, in my view. It is not practical for the DYK editors to police these matters. I think that this ACW task force is possibly the appropriate place--and I don't see another natural place--to raise this kind of question about a series of current and future ACW-topic articles. doncram (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done that is within the TF's scope. My feeling is that DYK-specific issues should be raised at DYK. On the broader issues, what we have is a content dispute and there are other, better, fora/forums for resolving that. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Rank styling
One of your members, User:Grayghost01, seems to think that the current abbreviations used by the military should be applied retroactively across historical articles including the Civil War. He is making edits like this, and this. He stated his rationale here. Is this sanctioned by this group as correct? I don't see clear documentation here but I use HALMOS for rank styling. Thank you. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently, Grayghost missed this thread and is now explaining to me on my talk page that I'm all wrong and that Wikipedia uses the standard he's using, I'm fighting an uphill battle and further that the OR is unreliable as a source for spellings. He is completely wrong. What amazes me is that no one has questioned why no standard is being used. I have intentionally stayed away from his edits that I feel are incorrect because there is discussion going on but I do notice others change the ranks and he changes them back..this needs addressing. I'm surprised that a member of this group is making these edits.


 * Since it seems to be missing, I would like to nominate HALMOS as a guideline so we have something as a standard. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 11:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have maintained that file to explain styles I've used in many hundreds of ACW articles--about 300 I wrote myself and lots more I've helped format. At one time there was a movement afoot in this group to adopt it as a group standard, but nothing formal happened. In the meantime, most of the really active members of the group have been using it, or at least not objecting when I do style editing to conform to it. If the group wants to adopt it, it should be copied to an official place and rewritten out of the first person and without some of my personal editorial comments. Otherwise, I (and only I) periodically make changes to my own file and don't attempt to achieve any consensus about what's said there, which is not a good practice for a group standard.


 * Regarding the rank controversy, I think DoD guidelines apply to DoD publications and monuments and that's about all. An interesting data point to those of us who are serving or have served in the U.S. military. However, that group of readers is a trivial percentage of the world's English-speaking population. More interesting metrics for selecting abbreviations are: (1) What is intuitively understandable to English readers? (2) What do the bulk of history books and magazines on the subject, both academic and popular, use? (There is another consideration that is more arguable. The Official Records of the war and the correspondence of the time use abbreviations inconsistently, but in general much more akin with the abbreviations here than in modern DoD usage. This consideration is important for those of us who are Civil War buffs, although perhaps less so for the general reader population.) By the way, when I created my own list of abbreviations for these ranks, I neglected to check with the Chicago Manual of Style, which I consider to be one of the most important style guides for formal writing. But by lucky coincidence, they use the same abbreviations I do and they note parenthetically "(Within the armed services briefer forms of abbreviations are commonly used, but these have little currency in the civilian world.)" Perhaps when someone creates DoDipedia, different stylistic conventions may be more appropriate. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a quick comment for now (I have guests arriving shortly) but it would be very useful to have general guidance in the Milhist style manual, recommending the usual globally-recognised abbreviations (2nd Lt., Lt., Capt., Maj., Col., Brig., Gen., etc and composites thereof). An appropriate criterion is probably those listed in Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary. The best forum for such a discussion is not here but WT:MILHIST, which is the designed talk page for MILMOS. I'll try to draft something tomorrow. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Whilst not an ACW Taskforce member, I have written a number of military articles, and I've never seen the all-caps version either in a wiki article I've written/edited, or in any history book I've read or used. I support Roger on this point. Skinny87 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see one major problem with this and that is that even within the military branches of the US there is no consensus for the abbreviations of ranks. For example the rank of Captain is abbreviated for the Marine Corps as Capt (no period) the Army, air force and Navy for CPT or Capt. I do admit that most would understand an abbreviation of Capt. to mean captain regardless of the service but I see some arguing over the symantics of whether its right or not.  Personnally as long as the link directs to the correct page rather than a redirect it doesn't really matter. Here is a link for the Marine Corps IRAM see pg 228.  Additionally, the abbreviation CAPT refers to the Cavil Affairs Planning Team in the DOD abbreviations listing--Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI the proper noun title of "President of the United States George W. Bush" applies to him at all times, in all situations, in all publications, in all school books, text books, literature, and Wiki articles. You may abbreviate "President Bush". It is an offical, proper title. It is a rank in our military chain of command. You may not, under any circumstances write it as "Pres. of the U.S. Bush" or "Pres. Bush". Now ... the same principle applies down the chain of command. A Major General So-and-So of the United States Army bears a proper noun title. It is to be spelled as such, exactly, in all literature. It is to be abbreviated by the choosen spelling of the proper noun in all literature as well. The "owner" of a proper noun chooses his, her or its own name. The rock group "Led Zeppelin" is to be spelled that way. There is NO abbreviation for it. If they choose to have one, they get to pick what their own abbreviated form of that is.

A "major general" is a concept. Speaking of that as a concept, you may abbreviate it as "maj. gen." or "m. g." or perhaps "maj. g." or "m. gnl." or any one of a dozen ways. Knock yourself out. But there are four SPECIFIC types of "major generals" in the current U.S. Army. They are Major General, Lieutenant General, General, and Chief of Staff of the Unites States Army. Those four are all proper nouns. Treat them as such. Those names have nothing to do with anything in the Marine Corps, the Air Force or any foreign military service. Their rank equivalency will vary as well. A "General" in a foreign military may be a brigade commander. In the USMC there are no standing Brigades. In the USMC there are Expeditionary Forces which are equivalent ... roughly but not exactly ... to the Corps command found in the Army. While the services of the U.S. work to create logical equivalencies ... bear in mind that each organization is its own entity with its own titles.

So you cannot take general concepts of "major general" or "king" or "prime minister" or "president" and then, willy-nilly, come up with some "readability" excuse to alter, modify, or otherwise create your own lexicon. If you speak of these TYPES of offices in general ways, that's fine. But the minute you speak of LTG George Washington, as discussed on Commanding General of the United States Army, then you'd better be prepared to address our first President properly. (In this last sentence, the term president was a synonymous proper noun referring specifically to George). And do not go modify that last page I just mentioned, making it "Lieut. Gen. George Washington". If you check the history on that page you will see that I, the Gray Ghost, have had nothing to do with that page.

I am speaking in the strongest terms possible to convince you that this topic is not one up for debate. Wiki and anyone else must use proper nouns ... properly.

Most sincerely, The Grayghost01 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You may call a Unites States Ship of the U.S. Navy this:


 * United States Ship Theodore Roosevelt
 * USS Theodore Roosevelt
 * USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)

You may not call it this:
 * Uss Roosevelt
 * Unit. Sts. Shp. Roosevelt
 * U. S. S. Roosevelt
 * Un. Sts. Sp. Ted. Roos.
 * USS Roosevelt
 * Or any other purely made up name

Please observe some natures in the differences, like periods, for instance. Periods are not, never, have never, and never will be used in most proper noun titles or rank abbreviations in the United States Military.

You may call a Private First Class of the United States Marine Corps this:
 * PFC Smith
 * PFC John Smith
 * PFC J. W. Smith
 * Private First Class John Smith

You man not call or address him as:
 * Pfc Smith
 * Priv. Fst. Cls. Smith
 * Pvt. F. Cl. Smith
 * Or any other purely made up name

I can go on and on and provide hundreds of examples. I wonder, for instance, what the proper title is for the Queen of England? Who knows. I certainly wouldn't publish a book without first checking on what THEY say (the British Government) that is should be, abbreviations and all.

Bear in mind that if I'm talking about Admiral Jones and I say that the Admiral stopped by the headquarters building, the word admiral is capitalized in the first two instances and not the third, because the first instance is his title, the second instance is also his title and synonymous use with his last name dropped, but in the third instance I refer to the general rank in nature.

Most Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Military ranks and titles
Here's a quick draft for discussion here before it goes to the main talk page as a formal MILMOS amendment.


 * Ranks are generic and take lowercase. Titles are proper nouns and are capitalised. Examples:
 * "Ulysses S. Grant was promoted to lieutenant general."
 * "Robert E. Lee fought against Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant."
 * Ranks are not abbreviated. For example: not "The platoon was led by a Lt." (incorrect) but "the platoon was led by a lieutenant." (correct).
 * Titles should be written in full on first use and abbreviated thereafter.
 * Abbreviations of titles – and the components in composite titles, such as Lieutenant General – should be those commonly accepted by English speakers and found in good standard English dictionaries. Examples include: Lt. (lieutenant), Capt., (captain), Maj. (major), Col. (colonel), Gen., (general). Composite examples include: Lt. Col., Lt. Gen., and Maj. Gen.

Thoughts? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks good. Thank you for drafting 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>) 16:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, My only hesitation in moving this to another location is that a general military history site must then discuss why or why not they are using all the proper names and abbreviations for all the military ranks of the world. If Germany has a Field Marshall and a Supreme Chancellor, then we will need to wait while people go verify those proper noun titles and abbreviations. We will get into endless discussions. For all future time, as well, you will not be able to prevent thousands of future wiki contributors over the next 30 years from writing "LTG So-and-So" for a Lieutenant General of the United States Army. We will forevermore get contributions on how BGen "Chesty" Puller did such and such, and then some veteran wiki-leader will batter and argue that new contibutor to death on why we "must" follow some made up schema of "Brig. Gen." Puller ... unless leaders in Wiki, like yourself, just simply exercise some good judgment and say "Use proper nouns as issued, written and described by the owners of the proper nouns". Thus we can always call His Royal Highness Prince Philip as HRH Prince Philip in the wiki articles and be done. No more "H. Roy. High. Prince Philip" and other purely made up stuff to follow some made-up wiki convention that is disconnected from reality.

Most sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:MILMOS is a general guideline, which is why the draft is general in tone. It seeks only to confirm the principle that title abbreviations should be easily accessible to the general reader and that this is most easily achieved by consistency. This is what the main Manual of Style says: "The use of abbreviations should be avoided when they would be confusing to the reader, interrupt the flow, or appear informal or lazy." The sub-page on abbreviations adds: "Maintaining consistency will allow Wikipedia to be read, written, edited, navigated, and used more easily by readers and editors alike".
 * There is no wikipedia policy or guideline that I know of that supports your position.
 * There is no advantage is using internal DoD abbreviations throughout US-related articles. They are incomprehensible to the general reader. I note that the DoD uses conventional abbreviations for its external (press) communications:
 * [http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12281 Army Maj. Gen. and Brig. Gen.
 * The US press use conventional, rather than DoD, abbreviations for all militaries, probably because it facilitates comparison:
 * Washington Post search
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of giving example abbreviations rather than specifying the actual list. Use the "commonly accepted by English speakers and found in good standard English dictionaries" as the justification, not the rule itself. Also, I object to the requirement that unabbreviated titles must be used first. Since the premise of this argument is that the abbreviations we select are well-understood by civilian English speakers, rather than the arcane DoD abbreviations, what is the problem with going directly to the abbreviation as long as it is linked for the tiny percentage of people who don't understand it? Would you require other common abbreviations to be spelled out first: etc., Mrs., U.S., km, p.m., Washington, D.C.? I'd leave that detail to the author's discretion. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Point by point: (1) a comprehensive list of all abbreviations in all arms would be rather long and WP:MILMOS usually explains the principle rather than listing the detail. (2) I'm not happy about full form first, then abbreviation included it only because it's what WP:MOS currently asks for. WP:MOS could be changed to exclude military ranks and titles. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are the names and abbreviations for a "one star" and a "light colonel" in four different armed forces. Note that these are all proper nouns. They are not generic universal titles like a married woman (Mrs.) or time of day (p.m.). Again, these are official titles. They are proper noun names for specific ranks. These armed forces publish style guides on this subject, and I've seen pages on the web asking the press to use them properly and correctly. Notice that among the four services I have listed, NONE of them abbreviate the same way. Note the entire absence of "periods".

Also note that a British "one star" rank is not called a general, and a British Brigadier does NOT have the crossed swords on his rank insignia. In this UK newspaper styleguide they remind the audience "that Brigadier-General does not exist in the British Army, though it does, eg, in the American and French". The Marine Corps will recognize a Royal Marine Brigadier as equivalent in terms of ceremonial treatment and courtesies that are extended. But a Brigadier is NOT a general in the British mindset.

This is why terms like "general" and "major general" are not abbreviated when discussing the nature and aspects of those types of ranks independent of being a proper noun title of a person in office. Similarly a "king" or "prime minister" or "prince" are concepts, but are capitalized and written correctly for specific persons such as HRH Prince Philip, or His Royal Highness Prince Philip. The title for HRH Prince Philip is not chosen by a majority-vote popular opinion poll. Nor is it created by a writer, author, or journalist's opinion. If you see an incorrect spelling in print, such as a "Lieut. Col. John Smith" of the British Army ... that is called a "spelling error".

Grayghost01 (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The offical ranks with the links I choose to use
These are the proper rank abbreviations and links for use in all American Civil War articles. You will notice that the U.S. Army ranks are abbreviated differently. Why is that? Well, the Federal or Union Army during the Civil War is the SAME U.S. Army in existence today. The style of abbreviation is controlled by the U.S. Army. See United States Army officer rank insignia. The goofy all-caps thing is their cup of tea, and how the U.S. Army wants their officers addressed. Notice the use of modern abbreviations for the historical Army figures at Commanding General of the United States Army. Now, I think its strange to address LtGen George Washington as LTG George Washington, but that is correct.
 * Some background

What about the Confederate ranks? The abbreviations that I give below for the C.S. Army follow the general abbreviations used in that era. A good guide is to notice that this follows CURRENT U.S. Marine Corps practice. See United States Marine Corps officer rank insignia. Now bear in mind that the USMC page has ARMY graphics, because whoever created that page simply assumed they use the same insignia, when they do not (similar, but not the same, for instance the width of the bars is different, the detailed word in the oak leafs is different, the beveling is not in USMC ranks, and on and on). Anyway, the point is that the USMC abbreviations have not changed in decades, if not a century, and reflect the "old style" abbreviations, and are practically identical to the C.S. Army practice.
 * Confederate ranks

DO NOT USE PERIODS in military rank abbreviations EVER. I see this throughout WIKI, and it is utterly incorrect and improper. No military ettiquette or manual has ever given any example of such a practice. Often the press and journalists ... haters of the military ... use the periods, despite protocol guidance issued from the Services. They do this to be spiteful. Thus in a news article a Navy Lieutenant Commander which should be LCDR is typically abbreviated as "Lt. Cmdr.". Note that in this instance, the U.S. Navy does not recognize that latter term as valid. But wouldn't it be nice if the Navy payed the kindness in return by calling them a "Nws. Jrnlst."?
 * Don't use periods, ever

EXAMPLE OF A BAD ABBREVIATION: In this case, why even bother attempting an abbreviation? Just add the few remaining letters and spell it out. This abbreviation uses 11 characters and spaces. The original words use only 17 letters to begin with. What's the point? This is why this is a bad abbreviation, and why it is not used by the U.S. armed forces.vvOne thing I'd like to point out is that for decades lieutenants in the military have been referred to as "El Tee". Why? Because the abbreviation for 1stLt and 2ndLt have been spelled as such for a very long time. The actual use of "Lieut." as an abbreviation for lieutenant is extremely rare.
 * Examples
 * Lieut. Gen. for Lieutenant General

EXAMPLE OF THE CORRECT ABBREVIATION: In this case, only 5 characters are needed for the CSA or Marine use, and a mere 3 letters for the Army use. I don't know why the USAF adds the space, but the space is the primary difference between the USAF and USMC. Regardless, no periods are ever used in proper military rank abbreviations.
 * LtGen for a CSA Lieutenant General
 * LTG for a USA Lieutenant General
 * Lt Gen for a U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General

My links below to go with the abbreviations are optional, and intended to direct the user to the most appropriate WIKI article about that rank that I can find.

FEDERAL ARMY Ranks in existence during the WBTS:

The Senior Federal General ranks: LTG for Winfield Scott GEN for Ulysses Grant

All other Federal officers, including Grant prior to his promotion: MG BG COL LTC MAJ CPT 1LT 2LT

CONFEDERATE ARMY Ranks:

Gen    applied only to R.E. Lee briefly in 1865 Gen                               (Armies) LtGen                  (Corps) MajGen                      (Divisions) BGen                    (Brigades) Col  (Regiments) LtCol (Battalions) Maj  (Staff positions) Capt (Companies) 1stLt (Asst Company) 2ndLt (Asst Company)

FEDERAL ARMY Ranks
 * List of rank abbreviations
 * GEN for Ulysses Grant
 * LTG for Winfield Scott
 * MG
 * BG
 * COL
 * LTC
 * MAJ
 * CPT
 * 1LT
 * 2LT

CONFEDERATE ARMY Ranks
 * Gen
 * LtGen
 * MajGen
 * BGen
 * Col
 * LtCol
 * Maj
 * Capt
 * 1stLt
 * 2ndLt

These are the rank abbreviations used on military grave markers: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayghost01 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 25 October 2008
 * PVT - Private
 * PVT 1CL - Private First Class
 * QM - Quartermaster
 * QMSGT - Quartermaster Sergeant
 * CSGT - Commissary Sergeant
 * SGT - Sergeant
 * SGM - Sergeant Major
 * WO - Warrant Officer
 * 1 LT - First Lieutenant
 * 2 LT - Second Lieutenant
 * CPT - Captain
 * MAJ - Major
 * LTC - Lieutenant Colonel
 * COL - Colonel
 * BBG - Brevet Brigadier General
 * BGEN - Brigadier General
 * BMG - Brevet Major General
 * MGEN - Major General
 * LGEN - Lieutenant General
 * GEN - General


 * Again, the Marine Corps uses different abbreviations and the above lists does not even mention Navy abbreviations. I recommend if we are going to use rank abbreviations (which I do not agree with anyway) we choose abbreviations that will be meaningful to our readers and is in sync with the appropriate service.--Kumioko (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose, once again, the point is that these are for internal use and are of little relevance in a general encyclopedia (though it might make an interesting standalone article). -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations supporting Roger's draft



 * p. 117 & 359 has examples " Capt. "
 * p. 369 has " Maj. "
 * p. 392 has " Lt. "


 * Recent Official U.S. Army publications filled with titles like "Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan" published at their official website.




 * Arlington National Cemetery professes this styling for ranks as well..


 * ...and NASA...


 * ...and most DoD documents published for the public.


 * ...The Marine Corps Times, too.


 * ...The Official History of the Marine Corps uses the conventions I expect.


 * ...and the Marines Corps official site of course doesn't agree with you. Look at all these guys with what we call the correct styling...on the Marine Corps official site!. (maybe the neo-yanks are in charge of that, too.)


 * ...and the White House uses the correct styling as well (notice it is for a Marine). ...you're not going to argue against them now would you , not after the speech you gave about bucking up and addressing him properly. 8^D <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just curious but how does this prove that these are the appropriate abbreviations. I could offer a couple hundred pages on wikipedia that display different abbreviations and I am sure I could provide several other military sites that do also. Just because the media says something does not make it true.  Even the white house site you give above shows a couple different abbreviations for Lt. General and Lt. Gen. If you read my post above it shows actual military and DOD policy showing the military rank abbreviations. I would take those over a couple of news articles.--Kumioko (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, I didn't list media sources. Every site that I listed except one are the official sites..not media sources (where do you get that?). Those websites are Arlington, NASA, the Marine Corps, the DoD, the Marine Corps Times, etc. and I list the Official Regulations of the Confederate Army (I have actual book copy but I linked to an online version for your benefit). Your posts show how the abbreviations are used internally &mdash; has nothing to do with anything outside that scope. If you read it, you have seen it explained that the elimination of periods was to simplify Morse code communications...we don't have that problem here in Wikipedia. Instead, here is what the DoD actually publish for public use. Notice they are consistent with my other sources which are all the horse's mouth so to speak. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how many instances you may find of some 24 year old DOD civilian web-person or some 19 year old Yeoman not following the style guides ... it does not add up to a hill of beans. Daily, at work, I get emails signed by RDML So-and-So (a Navy Rear Admiral lower half), or RADM So-and-so (a Navy Rear Admiral upper half) or LTC Joe Blow (an Army Lieutenant Colonel). We in the military are well aware of our own ranks, how to spell them, and how to abbreviate them. Furthermore, abbreviations during the Civil War followed no standards. Thirdly, any update in style by either the US Army or US Navy supercedes historical use.

I looked at a few of these links, such as the defenselink.mil. Not surprisingly they have the Army and Navy correct, but the Marines and Air Force incorrect but identical. What they did understand is that the Marines and Air Force are very very close. Unfortunately the goofball who made the web page got it wrong for those two services. In fact, .... he he he ... I'm looking at the graphics on this page which are completely in error. They have taken a graphic of Army collar devices and pasted it into EVERY column. Each of the four services has similar but different collar devices. If a Marine Major walked into the office one day with a goofy looking Army major's collar insignia, he wouldn't make it past his first cup of coffee without someone pulling him aside.

Because we are busy with the current war, there is little time for DOD officials to quality check all this stuff on the websites.

Bottom line: finding errors to support your errors is not the proper course of logic. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and a P.S. on the defenselink page. It says Navy/Coast Guard. Ha. The Coast Guard has little shilds above their stripes, not stars, and their uniforms are a blue color, whily Navy is black (called Navy blue, but is totally black). Plus cover insignias are radically different. Scrambled egg designs in each of the services is different. Marines wear scrambled eggs starting at Major (0-4) but Navy starts wearing them at Commander (0-5) and on and on and on.

What you are not reading here are the actual official PUBs, which I have not found online, and which spell out every detail. The general public just doesn't seem to have much access to this information.

Grayghost01 (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you call Colonel Allan R. Millett USMC (Ret.) "some 24 year old DOD civilian web-person or some 19 year old Yeoman"...He's a two time Marine Corps Historical Foundation trustee, official Marine historian and former president of the Marine Corps Reserve Officers Association. He commanded 3d Battalion, 25th Marines and he served as a staff member of the Marine Corps Command & Staff College....and he doesn't agree with you either..The Official History of the Marine Corps. Trying to pull rank on him? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Table of rank abbreviations
 * If Col Millett, USMC is the one who built that defenselink.mil website ... he needs to brace up. While its rare for a Marine to make an error, it happens.  Again, finding gobs of erroneous information on the internet is both easy to do, and a sheer waste of time.  Here is a table of all the ranks in existence as of the Late Great Unpleasantness, and how I would abbreviate them today in any newly published official DoD literature from the USMC presses in Quantico, if needing to reference a Civil War historical person (below).  Of note, the Navy created a bunch of new ranks in 1862, and was synonymous to the CS Navy prior to that, also making a full Admiral position in 1866 shortly after the war, equivalent to what Grant had been.  Also note that only the CS Army went up to a 5-star Field Marshall type rank, and no other US or CS service went that high.  Perhaps the Confederates thought it might bring them luck to go all-out European? Regards, Grayghost01 (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable" style="background:white; color:black"

! Rank Equivalent !! Rank Title !! US Army !! US Navy !! USMC !! CS Army !! CS Navy !! CSMC
 * + American Civil War Ranks
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | O-11
 * (a Field Marshall equivalent or 5-star)
 * (none)
 * (none)
 * (none)
 * Gen for Lee (1865)
 * (none)
 * (none)
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | O-10
 * General
 * GEN for Grant (1864)
 * (none)
 * (none)
 * Gen
 * (none)
 * (none)
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | O-9
 * Lieutenant General or Vice Admiral
 * LTG for Scott only
 * VADM (21Dec64)
 * (none)
 * LtGen
 * (none)
 * (none)
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | O-8
 * Major General or Rear Admiral
 * MG
 * RADM (16Jul62)
 * (none)
 * MajGen
 * (none)
 * (none)
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | O-7
 * Brigadier General or Commodore
 * BG
 * Commodore (16Jul62)
 * (none)
 * BGen
 * ADML
 * BGen
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | O-6
 * Colonel or Captain
 * COL
 * CAPT
 * Col
 * Col
 * CAPT
 * Col
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | O-5
 * Lieutenant Colonel or Commander
 * LTC
 * CMD
 * LtCol
 * LtCol
 * CMD
 * LtCol
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | O-4
 * Major or Lieutenant Commander
 * MAJ
 * LCDR (16Jul62)
 * Maj
 * Maj
 * (none)
 * Maj
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | O-3
 * Captain or Lieutenant
 * CPT
 * LT
 * Capt
 * Capt
 * LT
 * Capt
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | O-2
 * First Lieutenant or Master
 * 1LT
 * Master
 * 1stLt
 * 1stLt
 * Master
 * 1stLt
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | O-1
 * Second Lieutenant or Ensign
 * 2LT
 * Ensign (16Jul62)
 * 2ndLt
 * 2ndLt
 * Passed Midshipman
 * 2ndLt
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | Cadet/Midn
 * Cadet or Midshipman
 * CDT
 * MIDN
 * (none)
 * (none)
 * MIDN
 * (none)
 * }
 * Passed Midshipman
 * 2ndLt
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | Cadet/Midn
 * Cadet or Midshipman
 * CDT
 * MIDN
 * (none)
 * (none)
 * MIDN
 * (none)
 * }
 * }


 * Confederate States Navy Rank Insignia
 * Today I was checking out the Wiki article on CS ranks, to see if similar gobbledy-gook is being passed off there. It looked okay, amazingly, but I was motivated to create these graphics since the CS Navy always gets diddly-squat for coverage in Wiki.  As you may notice, the CS Navy insignia is extremely similar to the British Royal Navy insignia.  Why?  Well, as we all know, the Southern states defensive war against the invading Hordes and Marxists of the North was really a 2nd round of the English "Civil War" in which the Norman Cavaliers fought the Anglo Roundheads.  The South, of predominant Norman (with Celt mix) culture copied and mimicked their beloved ally Britain as they fought the new version of Roundheads ... the wily Yankees.  The circle-things and tabs, etc, are all found on British Royal Navy uniforms to this day.  They also have no "Ensign" or "Lieutenant Junior Grade", and have a "Sub-Leftenant" as they call it, which is the equivalent to BOTH an Ensign and a LTJG in the U.S. Navy today.  For the Defenders of a Free Sea (the CS Navy) the rank was called a "Master".


 * {| class="wikitable" style="background:white; color:black"

! Insignia location !! Admiral !! Captain !! Commander !! Lieutenant !! Master !! Passed Midshipman !! Midshipman
 * + Confederate States Navy Sea Officers Insignia
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | Sleeves || [[image:Confederate States of America Flag Officer-Navy.png|75px]] || [[image:Confederate States of America Captain-Navy.png|75px]] || [[image:Confederate States of America Commander-Navy.png|75px]] || [[image:Confederate States of America Lieutenant-Navy.png|75px]] || [[image:Confederate States of America Master-Navy.png|75px]] || [[image:Confederate States of America Passed Midshipman-Navy.png|75px]] || [[image:Confederate States of America Midshipman-Navy.png|75px]]
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | Shoulder Straps || [[image:Csn_strap_flag.png|75px]] || [[image:Csn_strap_capt.png|75px]] || [[image:Csn_strap_cmdr.png|75px]] || [[image:Confederate States of America Lieutenant strap-Navy.png|75px]] || [[image:Confederate States of America Master strap-Navy.png|75px]] || [[image:Confederate States of America Passed Midshipman strap-Navy.png|75px]] || (none)
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | Cover || [[image:Csn_cover_flag.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_capt.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_cmdr.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_lieut.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_mast.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_pmid.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_mid.png|100px]]
 * }
 * bgcolor="#B0E0E6" | Cover || [[image:Csn_cover_flag.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_capt.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_cmdr.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_lieut.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_mast.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_pmid.png|100px]] || [[image:Csn_cover_mid.png|100px]]
 * }
 * }

The proposal
First, I'd like to thank User:Kumioko for the support. My position is simple:
 * Use the actual proper nouns, as given by the various Armed Forces
 * A mountain of erroneous web-citations does not support the incorrect abbreviation styles
 * Use spelled out rank names more often
 * Always use rank abbreviations in formal articles (Col Jackson, not Jackson). In the real military, we don't call senior officers by last name without their rank title, e.g.:
 * "Smith attacked" is wrong
 * "LtCol Smith attacked" is right
 * Many of the variety of spellings and abbreviations actually used in the Civil War are invalid today
 * Some Civil War ranks don't exist today, and had no abbreviation then (e.g. Master, Passed Midshipman)

Bottom line is that my brain got slurpee-freeze from reading "Lieut. Gen. So-and-So" too many times about my beloved Stonewall. Egads, either spell it out, or use a proper abbreviation: LtGen (old-style Marine current use) or LTG (Army current use). Since the CS Army is NOT the US Army, I vote to use the old-style that the Air Force (former Army style from 1940's) which is basically the same as the USMC style. Besides, any USMC pub on a Civil War character defaults to using the USMC style anyway. I don't know what they do at Army Command & Staff, nor do I care.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Responses to the proposal

 * In a nutshell, the DoD uses Lt. Gen. in its external communications and we should follow suit. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this going to be a general MILMOS change? Because I've been using 'Maj. Gen' since several users told me to change it, and I use it for all my military articles now, and I'd be extremely annoyed to have to go through and change the titles to this ugly all-caps thing. Skinny87 (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My proposal is to standardize on abbreviations that are found in reputable standard dictionaries (for instance, Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English dictionary). In practice, this means standardizing on Col., Lt. Gen. and Maj. Gen. etc. The problem is that the principle behind Grayghost's usage – MG -v- Maj. Gen. – applies to all arms in all activities the US has been involved in so it has the potential to cause massive upheaval.
 * If we adopt Grayghost's proposal, in an article about an international all-arms operation during WWII, we will end up with four different abbreviations – MG, MajGen, Maj Gen, and Maj. Gen – for major general. This degree of complexity can, in my mind, only cause massive confusion. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry if it needs to be changed I can change it using AWB fairky easily or we can request a bot do it, either wayy its not that hard to change.--Kumioko (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You underestimate the scale of the issue. We have approximately 80,000 articles in Milhist's scope and I guess around a third of them involve the US in one way or another. First, how do you identify the target articles? Second, how do you ensure that a bot applies the correct abbreviation to the right arm or the right nationality? This is a job that can only be done manually. Lastly, what is the net gain to the project? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Counterpoint
FROM THE GRAY GHOST (or Grey Ghost, or perhaps Gr. Ghst.?) My points of debate in response:
 * POINT 1 - The DoD does not use "Lt. Gen." in its external communications. Every calling card, letter issued, and communications issued by a LTG in the U.S. Army uses "LTG".  Its been that way for years ... before Wiki started.
 * POINT 2 - I am not making any proposal to Wiki about the U.S. Army (aka Union Army). I am informing the various contributors that many of you are erroneously "misspeling" what are known as "Proper Nouns" and their formal abbreviations.  Abbreviating anything is a slippery grammatical slope to being with.  But when the British monarchy says that His Royal Highness Prince Philip may be addressed as "HRH Prince Philip" in correspondence, then you are in error if you write of him as "Hs. Roy. High. Prince Philip".  Furthermore it is extremely rare for titles of offices to be abbreviated with periods.  I am informing Wikians commiting these errors that you are making mistakes, and to check yourselves.  I humbly point out to you that if you decided to call the U.S. Army the "Unit. Sts. Arm.", you would be just as within your rights to make an error, and just as wrong.  Also, the Army has been using the abbreviations (LTG, BG, etc) for years.  Why is Wiki using something else to being with?  There is no excuse.
 * RESPONSE A - "Reputability" of a dictionary:
 * If a "reputable" dictionary does not state that LTG is the abbreviation for a Lieutenant General in the United States Army, then it is flat out incorrect.
 * If a "reputable" dictionary states that the abbreviation for an assistant to a general, conceptually a lieutenant general, is "Lieut. Gen." then again it is incorrect because it is capitalized.
 * If a reputable dictionary states that "lieut. gen." is the abbreviation for that same general concept of an assistant general, then that would be just as correct as anyone elses suggestion and one possible standard for Wiki to consider anytime it uses "lieut. gen." to speak of the generic category of assistant generals.
 * RESPONSE B - "MG" is an abbreviation only for a Major General in the United States Army. It applies to no other service, no other armed force, and it applies to all Major Generals that have ever lived or died, active or retired, in the United States Army.  That is true, regardless of anything Wikians choose to do.  See the Wiki article Commanding General of the United States Army to see examples of how other Wikians have properly used the abbrevations: GEN, LTG, MG and BG.  Then notice it cites an old Army document at [] which uses: Gen, Lt Gen, Maj Gen, Bvt Lt Gen, Brig Gen, Bvt Brig Gen.  Once the Army publishes a material it does NOT retroactively reprint and correct old materials.  Note how it does NOT use periods, and matches identically to the modern USAF style, which is really the old army style.

In conclusion on the U.S. Army errors, I really don't give two-cents of a hoot about the U.S. Army. The nonsensical silliness of the U.S. Army calling our first Commander-in-Chief a "LTG" is absolutely rip-roaring funny. In true inter-service rivalry fashion, we (the Marines) get the biggest laugh out of those gents routinely. They went to that new style years and years ago, but they keep coming up with the darndest things. For instance an Army of One? All I care is that they perform their job in combat when supporting joint operations with the Marines and Navy. Secondly, Go Navy, Beat Army.

The point above on old style is to drive home my original point about what the USMC use and the USAF use, and why that old style which is, in fact current for USMC/USAF is the preferred option for the Confederate States Army.
 * PROPOSAL 1 - Therefore one item I DO PROPOSE for ACW TASK FORCE is to use the old style for the Confederate States armed forces, particularly the Confederate Army. The best of the old style is that which the USMC employs, which would be Gen, LtGen, MajGen, BGen, etc.
 * Reason 1 - no Army baloney or publications of style apple to the CSA (or CSN and CSMC for that matter)
 * Reason 2 - the historical preponderance of abbreviations in that era reflect the old style
 * Reason 3 - The US Marines use the old style (their current style) when writing of Civil War CSA figures anyway
 * Reason 4 - The USMC style is superior to the USAF style by eliminating spaces
 * Reason 5 - for readability, addressing the CSA stylistically different is of benefit to the reader

FINAL NOTES:
 * The erroneous U.S. Army spellings apply to all Army figures in history. The inception of Wiki after the adoption of the current abbreviations puts the onus on Wiki to do it right
 * I have not addressed the U.S. Navy (aka Union Navy) nor the CS Navy in all this, and have no proposal, but by instinct and nature would address CAPT Semmes as such by habit. But the same argument applies that the U.S. Navy conventions don't have anything to do with the C.S. Navy.  Therefore Capt Semmes (old style) is equally tasteful, but CAPT Farragut is required.
 * Use of autobot software: I know where there is an issue, it can be solved.  If you addressed HRH Prince Philip incorrectly, out of respect, I'm sure wikians would get it changed.  Since I have no respect for MG Milroy, I am entirely satisfied that many call him "Maj. Gen. Milroy".  I guess the instigators of Unpleasantness weren't able to federalize everything after all?  It would be a lasting memorial to "The Cause" to give them the treatment of utter democracy in their perpetual memory on Wiki.
 * What is the net gain to the project? The net gain is the display of correct, fluent English by its denizens.  Whot deos the wrld thingk of us hoo so obleterate are own lnguage?  Shld. we abbrev. everyth. that we evr. wrte. dwn.?
 * I submit to you that "Lieut. Gen." is so near to Lieutenant General, that it is utterly detracting as a style, and is heinous to the brain for reading. If in doubt, spell it out.

Most Sincerely,

The Grayghost01 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Counter-counterpoint
I think everyone in this discussion needs to get back on their meds. Here is a brief summary of the points for putting this to rest: The editors who have been writing and improving the vast majority of the ACW articles have chosen a style of rank abbreviations that is designed to be understandable by English-language readers who have no formal US military background. This style is used by most dictionaries, civilian style guides for formal writing, military history books (academic and popular), newspapers, and magazines. It is the style generally used by both armies in the Official Records of the war. Style guidelines created by some US government agencies have no normative affect on Wikipedia articles unless we choose to adopt them. Let's leave things the way they are and go on to more productive improvements to the historical content and verifiability of articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the above position. I see lots of herky-jerky energy in this discussion (and a heck of a lot of "I'm quite correct here, thank you for your less worthy opinion" presumption), but I see no compelling case to change every US Armed Services-related biographical article based on the extensive affirmative arguments made. BusterD (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Same here - I'm getting rather tired of being lectured at because I'm apparently 'incorrect'. Skinny87 (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also support the status quo here. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, I do as well. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 13:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Other Wiki articles which clearly corroborate the spelling, style and precedence:
 * General of the Army (United States)
 * United States Army officer rank insignia
 * Commanding General of the United States Army
 * Chief of Staff of the United States Army

Grayghost01 (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Grayghost01, I understand your point, and it has some merit. I don't agree with your points personally. This template demonstrates that even the the U.S. armed forces don't all completely agree to the style you've suggested. Just because some of the branches have adopted a style which they want to be applied retroactively, this doesn't merit our adopting the style. At the risk of sounding humorous, the U.S. Army doesn't have the need to sound encyclopedic (that is, accessible to all, not just specialists). Wikipedia must always sound and read like an encyclopedia, but has no obligation to adopt every aspect of the U.S. Army's MOS. Doesn't look like consensus is going your way here, and the voluminous arguments you've made seemed to have worked against you to some extent. You've made your case, now let others discuss the merits. BusterD (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding "the U.S. armed forces don't all completely agree" ... this is my point. They are all different entities/organizations which have created proper noun titles and names of their ranks.  Historically encyclopedias have used the U.S. Military's names of their ranks, and would not call a U.S. Navy Read Admiral (Lower Half), abbreviated RDML, a Commodore, even though foreign navies call this a Commodore (see Military ranks and insignia of the Sri Lanka Navy or Royal Navy officer rank insignia).  The U.S. Navy is unique and Wiki respects that.  Notice that all of the U.S. maritime services have converged in a universal system with CAPT, ADM, LCDR for example. This makes it even easier for Wiki.  Yet ... the Amer. Civ. Wr. wik. art. Admiral Farragut fls. cmplled. to call him Adm. (sic) David G. Farragut and not ADM David G. Farragut.  So when you say you "don't agree" with my points, I don't quite follow what you mean.  Do you disagree with my point of what the U.S. Military ranks and abbreviations are?  That is public knowledge.  Do you disagree with my point that other wiki articles on the ranks of the U.S. Navy do use the correct title/abbreviations?  Those articles can be read and verified as correct.  Do you disagree with my point that current era articles like John Poindexter correctly use rank names, capitalize them appropriately when used synonymously but alone, and etc?  Or how about ADM Mullen being called "ADM Mullen" on Uniforms of the United States Navy?  Those pages are there for all to see.  Do you disagree with my point that the Amer. Civ. Wr. articles tend to go bezerk on abbreviations and periods in them like with that page on Adm. (sic) Farragut?  Go check it out.
 * I put forth those facts and given those facts I assert that Amer. Civ. Wr. articles are NOT following rank name/abbreviation standards used elsewhere for American armed forces. I assert that Wiki is doing an overall bad job on the spellings, and should be setting the example, and not following bad ones.
 * Grayghost01 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is becoming increasingly apparent that attempting to apply these sources in a Civil War context is original research and, in particular, original synthesis. This is against policy. Moreover, Wikipedia articles may not be used to reference other Wikipedia as this is how mistakes multiply. The preponderance of sources do not use these abbreviations and to use them places undue weight upon them, breaching Wikipedia's neutrality policies. My 2/100. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't plan on making any more comments on this subject because it seems obvious to me that you have already made up your minds and knowone can tell you different but I agree with Grayghost01. I also think that we can throw rules around all day that contradict each other for instance WP:IAR.  Also, the rules state that you cannot reference another WP article in a WP article, it does not say that they cannot follow the same style.--Kumioko (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, the ranks and abbreviations for the United States Army is not a big mystery. The editors for United States Army officer rank insignia miraculously have the whole affair exactly correct. Also the United States Navy officer rank insignia is entirely correct as well. These abbreviations and titles have been in existence for years and years. The Civil War section of Wiki is just kinda off in la-la land doing its own thing. I've lead the horse to water. I've even proposed using a sane old-style for the Confederacy. But the US Army and Navy ranks are what they are, regardless of a 99-to-1 Wiki vote to call it something else. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to counter-counterpoint
A point of debate: I would like to clarify the difference between styling and a proper noun:

STYLING for a U.S. Army Lieutenant General

Correct Styling Options for a LTG in the U.S. Army:
 * LTG Smith
 * LTG J. W. Smith, USA
 * Lieutenant General John W. Smith
 * Lieutenant General John W. Smith, Commanding General, First Infantry Division
 * Lieutenant General John W. Smith, United States Army (Retired)

Incorrect Styling Options for a LTG in the U.S. Army:
 * LTG Smith, United States Army
 * Lieutenant General Smith, U.S.A. (Retired)

PROPER NOUN for a U.S. Army Lieutenant General

Correct proper noun:
 * Lieutenant General John W. Smith (correctly spelled out)
 * LTG Smith (correctly abbreviated)

Incorrect spelling of a proper noun: (If given as an answer on a ranks spelling test at USMC Command & Staff college, the grade would be marked "F" for "Failure")
 * Lieut. Gen. John W. Smith
 * Lt. Genl. John W. Smith
 * Lt.Gen. John W. Smith
 * Lt.Gn. John W. Smith
 * LtGen John W. Smith
 * Lt Gen John W. Smith

The USMC Officers Handbook, for instance, goes into pages and pages of painstaking details on how to write your business cards, letter heads, stationary, etc. Books like this (and for the Army) are possibly available at Amazon.com. They explain all the styling options, and which ones are okay, and which are not. Incorrect and mispelled abbreviations are not an option. In argument by analogy, it is not a "style" option to call HRH Prince Philip as His Roy. High. Prince Philip. Rather, you are incorrect if you choose the latter.

Again ... have at it with the U.S. Army. No love loss there. Eventually, even if it's a few years down the road, new Wikians will take the reigns and wipe out all the "Lieut. Genl." things going here on wiki and utterly replace them with LTG. The Army already notionally solved this years ago and made it simple, LTG. It is out of honor to our service men, really, that you address them properly, and not by "Sarge" or calling a Private as Pte Jones (British style for instance). But regardless of anything that I have to say, again, all Wikians are not immune from addressing people in the U.S. Army correctly. And yes, the press does have many instances of getting it right, by the way. See the article ''LTG Dempsey Testifies.

MY PROPOSAL is the for the much much smaller set of ONLY the CS Army folks, which is a defunct non-existent armed force, lets go by what I call the "old style" used by the USMC and USAF (old Army), and have LtGen "Stonewall" Jackson that way, and not LTG Jackson or Lieut. Gen. (sic) Jackson.

Grayghost01 (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Adjunct: another major issue with the mispellings
All, Let's assume that Wikians continue to mispell the proper titles of various men in the U.S. Army throughout its Military History pages. At what point does Wiki convert to the correct spellings? Do all First Gulf War pages and after contain the correct rank titles? Or do you start with something before or after that? Maybe you go back five years? ten years? At some point you must adhere to the correct proper nouns, as all the current Wiki articles on the U.S. Army properly do.

Grayghost01 (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus that yours are the correct spellings. Also, in the light of this discussion, and the strong opposition to your spellings, an uninvolved admin may well take the view that your future use of them in article space is disruptive editing, which can lead to blocks.-- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this, The Marine Officer's Guide, the book that you have been referring to? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

---
 * Yep, that's it. Mine is in a cardboard box down in the basement somewhere.  The author of this version (6th edition) is also a Naval Academy Graduate and fellow Marine, LtCol Ken Estes (class of 1969), and via the US Naval Institute, of course.  This is not an official Govt publication, rather, it is a book that ALL Marine officers get while at The Basic School, if not before.  It looks like they also have the US Govt issued U.S. Marine Guidebook of Essential Subjects, which is a nifty book to have too, especially if you are Boy Scout of America Scoutmaster.  But I really recommend the Small Wars Manual, which is so good that behold, it has a Wiki article.


 * So, the Army should have one too, and yep, here it is: http://www.amazon.com/Army-Officers-Guide-Keith-Bonn/dp/0811726495 and it is the 49th Edition!!!  No wonder.  They change everything so often, you'd need a stock-ticker to keep up with all their baloney.


 * So there you have it gents; the sources that you've been looking for. Verify everything I've told you, because my memory ain't perfect, I can assure you.


 * The Small Wars Manual is one of the "secret" documents we Southern boys have used to keep alive the knowledge of the art of warfare as passed down from Gen Lee's Second Corps (Jackson's Corps) and Rodes Division. The Second Corps, ANV reincarnated itself after the so-called "USMC" of 1865-1903 finally rid itself of the last of the Yankees.  MajGen Elliott performed the heart-to-heart operation, built the regiments, established Quantico in the old capital state, Virginia, and the "new" USMC (really the 2nd Corps, ANV) got back in business.  The marksmanship training, open-order drill techniques, tactics, and overall mentality of the old "shock troops" of Lee were all revived under the new, but acceptable, USMC Globe and Anchor.  We had a new set of "anglo" armies to go decimate, namely four divisions of German Army that need a butt-whooping in the Belleau Woods to stop what was nearly the Axis win and end of the war in the Kaiser's favor.  From then on a string of Southern boys ran the show again (like MajGen John A. Lejeune, yet another Naval Academy graduate and Southern Boy in the Marines).  Anyway, the SWM is one of the secret books.  There are others.  I digress.

Grayghost01 (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we located the source you were talking about and that you think so highly of him. Estes didn't just write the Officer's Guide, he also wrote the Handbook for Marine NCOs as well...it is available online at Google books...




 * Please check the cover, backcover, pages 13 & 141. He writes it precisely as we have been suggesting to you all along.."Lt. Col. " (front & back covers: The author's own rank styling) and "Maj. Gen. W. S. ('Bigfoot') Brown" (p. 13) and also "Maj. Gen. George Barnett" (p. 141). <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My hardcopy of the USMC officers guidebook doesn't include periods. It's almost 30 years old, so perhaps some unknown event has caused the publisher of your edition to place periods into the rank names on the front and back covers of your book?

Grayghost01 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This entire conversation is, quite frankly, dizzying and distracting. I will continue to write ACW articles in my own style using Hal's general guidelines, and you guys can feel free to edit them away. No changes from this Buckeye historian. 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Table of ACW rank abbreviations
Speaking of dizzying and distracting, the permutations in the US Navy ranks during the war make the US Army look like nothing. The US Navy went through about three phases of sleeve arrangements. Here is my latest best crack at a table of Great Unpleasantness ranks, and I used the 1863 Navy sleeves (the more common seen in photos) with the later sleeves for Farragut's Vice-Admiralness and Admiralness. I noticed today the United States Army section is rife with the correct rank abbreviations. Thus it seems even more wikians are not up to speed on the esoteric "Lieut.Gen." and "Maj.Gen." thing.

Grayghost01 (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to casual readers: an extensive discussion of this issue occurred on the Talk page and no consensus was reached to use any of the modern US military rank abbreviations instead of the common English-language versions used in dictionaries and most history texts and modern publications outside the DOD. This table is interesting for its nice depiction of rank insignia, but its rank abbreviations are not normative or suggestive for Wikipedia ACW articles. And while "Lieut.Gen." and "Maj.Gen." may be esoteric, the abbreviations in widest use here--Lt. Gen. and Maj. Gen.--are not. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)