User talk:Hlj/archive2012

Gettysburg articles[edit]

Thanks for the encouragement. There seems to be support for keeping the streams articles under the Rivers wikiproject. If you could leave a brief comment on the other proposals (like Wheatfield Road or Excelsior Field), it would be appreciated. (And a very happy New Year to you too!). Wild Wolf (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

Monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield[edit]

Thanks for the help. I don't own a copy of that book but will check my local library. Wild Wolf (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam[edit]

Hi Hal, This one's contributions are bordering on outright promotion and spamming. The articles may have value but spamming Grant's bio into a dozen articles is a bit much. I was wanting to get your opinion on the value of these links. Wikipedia currently has 96 links to this site after I removed several this morning. I'm assessing whether or not to pursue blacklisting the link as spam.

thisweekinthecivilwar.com (*|search current)

Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Union Army regiments category discussion[edit]

I have seen you edit ACW articles, so could you comment on the proposal here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 13#Category:Union Army regiments. Thank you for your time. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very interested in category names. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Hlj. You have new messages at Berean Hunter's talk page.
Message added 19:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me with User:Donaldecoho?[edit]

Hi Hal! IMHO, we might be backing Mr. Coho up and teaching him everything he's willing to learn. His 125th PA Vols is quite a nice work, considering how few edits the user has made. I'll be offering him help occasionally and will be running the B-class checklist on the regiment page with another new user. If you see anything the user does which needs attention, please call on me. He looks like a keeper. Not yet skilled, but interested and willing. While his talkpage looks warning-filled*, to my view he's just making a bunch of newbie errors. Senior editors could help. BusterD (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I will keep my eye out for him. Hal Jespersen (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's here, and he's the grgrgrandson of the Sergeant who aided General Joseph King Fenno Mansfield from his stead 'on reversed muskets'--Donaldecoho (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the Generals' lists[edit]

So User:Brightgalrs, without once discussing it with anyone else, looking at the article histories, or bothering to read the talk pages (not to mention Wikipedia:Consensus) has suddenly shown up and made a massive 22,000 character addition to List of American Civil War Generals (Union) and a 307,000 character deletion from List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate), both of which (particularly the latter) drastically change the very nature of both articles. When asked why, the user insisted that her (?) way was "superior" and that she would allow for no discussion on this point from anyone. As another editor of the page, I'm turning to you and a few others to ask assistance in trying to reign in actions that frankly border on vandalism. While some of her changes are more than welcome (additions of photos of Union officers, for example), the wholesale elimination of notations that were being worked on and the changes is format, to say nothing of refusing to discuss it with anyone else - either before or after - are, in my opinion, invasive. May I ask for you to take a look and give your opinion on the matter? IcarusPhoenix (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply; on the Medal of Honor front, I recall having some trepidation about using CMOH at the time, but did so because it was a generally-accepted abbreviation in period writings; in retrospect, I agree with changing it. As for the "Volunteer Army" sentiment, that was what first set off my internal alarms that things had suddenly changed.

I happen to agree with the general opinion that the CSA notes section is too long and redundant, which is why Donner60 was already condensing them to be more in-line with those of the sister article before Brightgalrs came a long and eliminated them entirely. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to be aware of this discussion[edit]

Talk:Confederate States of America#Battle-naming conventions. BusterD (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NYT: New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll[edit]

New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll Ling.Nut3 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fredericksburg[edit]

I apoligize for the length (tried the e-mail route but failed), new to this so bear with me. I studied this battle quite a bit back in the days when I wore a uniform and even conducted a couple of staff rides (with Frank O'Reilly as our supporting NPS Historian) to look at the engineer-specific issues. A few items to consider: 1. The article uses the term "beachhead", when the proper term is "bridgehead" (commonly used in other ACW related publications). This may account for some of the past erroneous attempts to link this event to more modern large scale amphibious operations. This points to a further point--the Union leadership, especially its engineer specialists, failed to use the acceptable doctrine of the day when they executed the first (and numerous subsequent) crossing attempt(s), which Dennis Hart Mahan had adequately outlined some years before (A Treatise on Advanced Guard and Outpost Duty), as had Halleck in his publication. The order published by the AOP Enginner staff officer completely ignored the necessity of seizing a bridgehead, instead relying upon the promise of superior firepower to essentially, using more modern terminology, effect an "assault by fire" operation. This was workable in Franklin's area to the east, where the terrain on the far side of the river (and the lack of Confederate fortifications along the river) lended itself to such an approach, but was completely unworkable in the built-up terrain facing the bridgebuilders within the town. 2. The statement that Burnside "squandered the initiative" when he failed to allow Sumner to cross upon his arrival is not supported by the facts at the time. First, Burnside had to consider the possibility of a rising river cutting off any such advance force, which was mentioned in the article. This reportedly did indeed subsequently happen. Second, while the article mentions Dahlgren's cavalry recon, it fails to mention the egregious error committed by the infamous captain during that mission--he burned the very RF&P bridges that Burnside would be dependent upon for his main LOC from Aquia to Falmouth (see O'Reilly). That necessitated time (and troop labor--15th NY Engrs were detailed to assist Haupt's engineers with this) consuming efforts to rebuild to allow the resupply of the massive force now sitting (unsupplied) around Falmouth. Taking a calculated risk is one thing--doing so while one is also threatened from one's own rear (no adequate supply line) is another completely different issue. Added to this was the questionable abilities of the Federal cavalry forces at this point in the war (and cvavalry forces were the preferred type of force for such an operation). Burnside made the correct decision in this case, and Sumner later admitted that (included in the OR, IIRC). 3. As O'Reilly noted in his work, the crossing attempt at Skinker's Neck was foiled by the uncoordinated early arrival of the Navy flotilla, which caused Early's troops to deploy in -forceinto the area where Burnside wanted to cross. The article makes it sound as if the area was already heavily defended when the flotilla arrived, whereas in reality the flotilla was the cause of that effect. 4. The article does not address what I believe to be one of the key cause-effect events in this battle. As I noted earlier, the failure to follow proper doctrine delayed the crossing within the town. That delay resulted in confusion and delay in assmbling Franklin's forces to the east for their (supposed to be simultaneous)attack. The delay in crossing also allowed Jackson to consolidate his forces--Early's and DH Hill's divisions were still covering the river well below the eventual battle area and were not summoned to return to the west until the crossing attempt began. Early's troops, instrumental in halting Meade's attack, did not arrive back in the battle area until a few hours before their committment. Had the crossing been conducted by doctrine and been executed in a timely manner the battle would most likely have been joined while Jackson was short those two divisions, and the outcome very well could have been quite different.Brooksfrfld (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC) brooksfrfld@aol.com[reply]

EXELLENT!!!!!!!!!![edit]

The major battles and everything else is amazing! im 13 and in 8th grade! I loved it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.255.21 (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WV mess[edit]

Mojoworker needs help from someone who is more knowledgeable than I am; see the thread on my talk page. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response[edit]

Hi Hal,

Sorry to be 1.5 years responding to this! I didn't realize the note was there. I can see the unwisdom of treating conjecture, no matter how compelling, as evidence. (For example, I can't imagine that my great-great-grandmother would have attended a grave marker ceremony in which his name was misspelled, and since there is evidence she was alive in 1878 it seems most unlikely that she would have not have attended.) In any case, I will see what I can come up with.

Meanwhile, this link http://books.google.com/books?id=dI4-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=hortense+rodes&source=bl&ots=d_Giacc9cK&sig=diTuvik75UIca_9y8ZnRbrd-FF0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JFS2T9G3LoeC2wWr1Ly7CQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hortense%20rodes&f=false has the spelling with one t.

Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robtrodes (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Edward Johnson (general).jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Edward Johnson (general).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked IP[edit]

Hi Hal, This IP's contribs may be reverted. He was blocked earlier today for vandalism so you needn't accommodate his edits such as the one on Siege of Vicksburg. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bragg's alleged right flank offensive[edit]

Hello:

You are right, of course, about the incorrect citation. I have fixed it (IMHO)? Page 181 referred only to Grant's discerning that Bragg might be contemplating a strategic change (my parenthetical statement). Woodworth's discussion of the right flank offensive option is, however, detailed thoroughly on page 174-5. I noticed you changed the original Woodworth citation from 178-79 to 176-79. I wasn't sure how to handle my change on top of that, because then it would just be cited as Woodworth 174-179, which you might think is too fuzzy to sustain my claim. I have no problem, though, with changing it to 174-79, if that's what you prefer.

I, too, am a "student" of the war, with a special emphasis, as it happens, on this particular campaign (published). I worked closely with Woodworth on this part of his book and I think he would back me up on my claim, as my work is contributed in part to the conclusions he drew in this section of his book.

I'm not sure what happens now, as I am not an active wiki editor, which you've probably already discerned, but I just wanted to try and set the recored straight for Mr. Bragg, at least as I understand it based on the latest scholarship.

Regards, Ed Franks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edfranks (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bragg's alleged right flank offensive[edit]

I agree with u completely. It should be mentioned earlier, I have just been too busy to address it. I would love it if u could tackle it. Interesting that u heard from Woodworth about a change. Do u remember which issue it concerned? I know that after we worked together back in mid-90s on a couple of projects, his views on this campaign did evolve a bit, especially in relation to point of view in his "Jefferson Davis and his Generals" book (I think that was the title?).

One area that I worked on in detail years ago was the detachment of Longstreet. I was surprised to discover that there was a lot more going on than just Bragg being happy to get rid of Longstreet, per the conventional wisdom. Hallock's book first alerted me to some of these issues, and Woodworth seemed to embrace her concerns as well. Longstreet, it seems, mucked up everything from extending Bragg's left flank along the river, to Brown's Ferry, to Wauhatchie, to the fiasco at Knoxville. And there is no shortage of contemporaneous sources to support these observations, even in the OR.

BTW, I consider myself (humbly?) an historian (PhD Economist by training - financial history), but I think wiki articles are excellent 90% of the time. Even when it comes to the always controversial civil war, most of the articles are surprisingly balance, IMHO.

Ed Franks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edfranks (talk • contribs) 05:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My changes to your changes?[edit]

Thanks for taking on this "little" project. I ended up spending a good deal of time trying smooth things out according to my understanding of events between 10/15 and 11/5/1863. You may find that I've gone too far? If so, no problem. My changes are few and brief, but some are fairly substantial. I have tried to cite them accurately, but the citations start to pile up on each other when various editors are referring to the same few pages. Anyway, I'll await ur assessment. Thank you. Ed Franks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edfranks (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your cleanup and question on RR[edit]

Thanks. The cleanup looks good. U r right about the RR name, but the point of the move for Bragg was to re-open RR lines running from BOTH Virginia and Atlanta. As it was, with Burnside in Knoxville, supplies were only coming, for all intents and purposes, from Atlanta. Bragg could not subsist even the army he had with that single rail line. He had to get another logistics line open. The only feasible way to do it was to move eventually his entire army to knoxville, pushing burnside back on grant, and hopefully both grant and burnside back to nashville to protect their left flanks. I will make a change that I think will clear up the confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edfranks (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Leonidas Polk[edit]

re: his death/who killed him

The wikipedia page currently says that a battery of Indiana Artillery shot him. But Shelby Foote's "authoritative?" history of the Civil War says that Battery I, 1st Ohio Light Artillery, commanded by Capt. Hubert Dilger was responsible. It's a very richly detailed anecdote, that stuck in my mind for many years. (Vol. 3,, p. 356)

I tried to correct the webpage, but it was reverted. As I am not a Wikipedian, that's not surprising, nor, in the scheme of things, even objectionable. But I ask that you fix it, (or read Foote's book yourself). What IS annoying is that the item is footnoted with two source, including Foote. At least, then, if the other source says it was the Indiana artillery, remove the Foote-footnote. :)

Cheers,

Stephen Sherman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.160.36 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you look here to see my reply: I was traveling for 10 days, so excuse the delay. Of all of the adjectives used to describe Foote's work, authoritative would not be a common choice. He does not footnote, so it is unclear how reliable his information might be. But I have clarified the footnote in the article to include his view. The work by Smith, which specializes in the details of the death of officers, is well footnoted. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying format edits in Civil War articles; left note for the user[edit]

Hi Hal: I hope you are doing well. User:Adamdaley has been making a series of formatting changes to some Civil War biographies, mainly newer ones that I have recently put into the main space. I let a couple of them go, figuring I might go back and change the most annoying ones later. He has been around for a number of years and has quite a few edits, although I would not be surprised if they were mainly minor formatting and correction edits. I have seen other editors who do that almost exclusively, if not exclusively, maybe just to run up their edit count. Now, I must say that I have become enogh annoyed about his changing "Notes" to "References" and "References" to "Bibliography", in particular, to leave him the following note. I don't want to make someone mad enough to get into edit wars or disputes or whatnot but this editor is disrupting the pattern that you established and that I have tried to follow (although I have usually used the wrong postbellum section title; bad habit in using the battle "Aftermath" title).

Edits in Civil War Articles

I certainly do not think this should be a source of argument but I do not agree with your changes to section titles in Civil War biography articles and ask you to reconsider the changes you have been making. I have come along more recently that some others but I have tried to follow the Chicago Manual of Style and the conventions adopted by User:Hlj, a very proficient, long-time editor who has written many Civil War articles at a very high level of research, writing and editing. He has a number of pages which discuss the style he has used. You will need to change literally hundreds, maybe into the thousands, of articles if you persist in changing the section titles and other conventions to your satisfaction. Specifically, you have been changing "Notes" to "References" and "References" to "Bibliography". Here is what Hal Jespersen (since User:Hlj does identify himself, there is no reason not to use his name) says about this particular topic:

Refs and Links

I find all the References and External links sections in Wiki are confusing and used inconsistently. I try to follow these guidelines:

Any article or web site that I use to extract facts for the article goes into References (always plural, not Sources or External links). When referring to the National Park Service battle summaries, I point to the specific article, not the URL for the entire list of campaigns and battles. It may not be overall Wiki policy, but I include both books and websites in this list, sorted by author name, if applicable. I never use raw URLs without descriptive text in this list.
'I do not use Bibliography sections because it is unclear which of the works were used to create the article and which are suggested only for Further reading.
I use External links only for web sites that have interesting additional information, or for maps and photographs I cannot guarantee are in the public domain. If the interesting information is not available on a web site, say for a novel or for a book I didn't use for citations, I use the section title Further reading.

Here's a summary:

Type Used as a source for the article, usually footnoted Additional, interesting information

Books, magazine articles References Further reading

Websites, URLs References External links

I rarely use a See also section, but when I do, I do not re-list Wiki links used previously in the article.

The sequence for these trailing sections should be:

Gettysburg Casualties[edit]

Please review my 'cleaned up' case for '3O' and state your reply on the talk page at 'Battle of Gettysburg.'--Donaldecoho (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back at you--Donaldecoho (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald, it is not necessary for you to notify me here of updated article talk page discussions. I check my watchlist on a daily basis, usually, and pick up changes in that way. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com[edit]

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

Not as Definitive as Wikipedia Editors Represent August 16, 2012

Please note above that this book was actually purchased by the reviewer on Amazon.

I purchased this book after an editor at Wikipedia, Hal Jesperson, referred to it as "definitive," "perfect," and "close to reality" to defend the drastically-reduced Confederate casualties at Gettysburg. Wikipedia claims high standards of ethics so you would think you could find this type of superlative somewhere on the dust jacket; as an editor, Jesperson is not authorized to issue original opinions on Wikipedia pages. His representations are contraverted on the first page (xi) of the forward by Busey and Martin:

"Guesses are actually supplied more for the sake of completeness than as definitive answers."

If you're looking for proof that the C.S.A. didn't lose the Battle of Gettysburg this is your book.

If you're looking for historical facts don't go to Wikipedia, Wikipedia might be an organ of the C.S.A. government.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.87.93 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Casualty Figures for 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Suicide Charge of July 2: Proposed Note Block[edit]

The 215 casualty figure is disputed. Morning muster on July 2 for the eight companies (A,B,D,E,G,H,I & K) involved in the suicide attack was 262, and evening muster on the same day was 47. To arrive at the casualty figure of 215, the Regimental Historian (Lt. Wm. Lochren) subtracted the muster figures (262-47=215)(82.1%) and asserted that "[every one of the] 215 [missing men] lay upon the field." Conducting an enumeration by individual names in 1982, Robert Meinhard of Winona State University accounted for only 1XX (69.y%) casualties for the single day of July 2, 1863. Meinhard's and Lochren's conclusions are each (presumably) based upon the Regiment's own handwritten records; accounting for the disputed zz (=215-1xx) soldiers is the prerogative of the reader.

Misc citations:
"lay upon the field," RegHist p. 345
"15 minutes," RegHist p. 346
Don't have Meinhard's precise numbers

The precise wording of the Note Block is completely open for discussion, as is the need for the NB at all. The following could also be added to the previous paragraph after 'of the reader':

Speculative explanations include 'slight wounds' (wounds unworthy of medical treatment or official reporting), concussions, or 'playing possum' on the field.

But the inclusion of the following observation would probably not be helpful:

The most illustrative Civil War casualty figures are always disputed; the truly esoteric ones are ignored.--Donaldecoho (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you speaking about the article whose name is in the title of your note? In any event, you will need to find secondary sources for this analysis before it can be included in an article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mill Springs, Kentucky[edit]

I enjoyed your article on the Mill Springs, Kentucky. I found a reference from Official Records of the War online I think will help, but when I tried to edit the article to include the information, all the notes disappeared so I reverted back. Would you like me to send you the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastwarhorse (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antietam[edit]

According to McClellan's official battle report, the Union casualties were 2,010 killed, 9,416 wounded, 1,043 missing, and 12,469 total. http://antietam.aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=19 KevinLuna83 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mill Springs, Kentucky ref[edit]

http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0007;node=waro0007%3A1;view=image;seq=92;size=100;page=root — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastwarhorse (talk • contribs) 13:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]