Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:39, 7 September 2008

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force

Virginia Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Name of the War

While there is certainly no reason to not note (as the article does) that some folks use the term War Between the States, the Civil War is the most commonly used term and is the title (actually American Civil War) of the wikipedia article on the subject. There is no reason why this article should deviate from standard practice and use a different name in a section heading simply because it is about a southern state's role in that war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is it ... American Civil War or Civil War? So much for your baloney claim of a "standard" practice. We already went through this two years ago. When you hop in your automobile and drive into the Commonwealth of Virginia, you won't see a single highway sign directing you to any "Battle of Bull Run". Such signage does not exist. Rather, the federal highway brown-signs call it by the Manassas name, and it's called Manassas Battlefield. Articles on locales should use the verbage/lingo used in that locale, another Wiki "standard" that you are unfamiliar with. Why don't you go check the Ohio civil war pages, and see what work is needed there? This topic on wiki needs help, and your edits are not helpful, rather, they annoy people unnecessarily and waste time.Grayghost01 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please try to stay on topic. The American Civil War is not a topic particular to any US locale --JimWae (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim, check the page your editing. This topic is VIRGINIA in the American Civil War, and I'm in the Virginia task force. thanks.Grayghost01 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of www.dictionary.com may be helpful for future edits

at :

readmit - To admit again; to give entrance or access to again. rejoin - to join together again; reunite.

admit defined as "entry", so readmit is synonymous with "reentry".

join is "bind", so rejoin is synonymous with "rebind".

Thus, I basically said Virginia "rejoined" or "rebinded". You say that is not NPOV, and your "readmit" or "reentry" is, because it supposedly doesn't imply that Virginia left. However, Virginia MUST have left if they need to be admitted again, or enter again. Whereas I used rejoined to infer the more sublety of binding again, that is to rebind. Thus the word I used means what you say you want it to mean, but you changed it to a word that you accused me of meaning.

Given the lack of fluency demonstrated, here, in the English language ... please consult some dictionaries before you embark upon future harrassment and provoking edits. And if you want the sentence to mean rebind vice reenter, you'll need to go undo your own goofy edit.

Finally, you might want to check the U.S. Congressional language. You seem to be unaware that acts of Congress were involved approving a NEW constitution for Virginia, as well as other things, so your goofy edit that congressmen were merely readmitted to the Congress is completely out-to-lunch compared to what actually happened historically. This historical fact is required learning for school kids in Virginia's Standards of Learning. It helps to have grown up here, because the locales know the history a little better than those from New York.

Please quit editing in your self-made Pseudo-History into the wiki articles, and go do some research first.

Thank you. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• The above may or may not be one correct interpretation of the word "reunion". (I may read the rest of the shout above later). However, "Virginia must have left..." is way off-point.
• Many states have had several new Constitutions. These states neither rejoin nor are they re-admitted with each version.
• There was a period when CSA representatives "withdrew from" and also were not "admitted to" Congress. VA was readmitted to Congress after a period of not being admitted. Being readmitted to Congress is not the same as being readmitted to the USA.
• A perfectly acceptable understanding of "rejoin" is that it means joining together again after a period of not being joined together. Good editors are more than accurate (no assertion of accuracy above intended). Good editors know that the meanings of words can be shaded by the context they are in. Good editors know they need to choose their words carefully so their words are not easily misconstrued. Saying VA "rejoined" the USA is too easily construed as meaning there was a time they were NOT a part of the USA. Whether Southerners "rejoined" in spirit with "Northerners" became an issue for quite some time. However, saying a state rejoined a country implies (or at the very least strongly suggests) that for a time the state was not part of the country -- That is the NPOV issue. Please do not direct any future harangues my way. --JimWae (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim, look. The issue is not what Virginia did or didn't do, or what was legal or not legal, or what was an issue or not an issue. The point is that your editing out "rejoin" for "readmit" is petty, pointless, and a complete waste of time. Per your buddy North Shoreman, secession was declared illegal (of course) after the fact. Thus "restore" would be the proper word, eh? What's clear is the two of you have cut swiss cheese holes in what used to be reasonably good and readable articles. The Confederate States of America article is so bad ... it's terrible, thank to you two, who have made it unbearable to read. My eyes water. It's more of a blog on the issue of Slavery than anything else. Please .... I beg you two ... go open up blog sites and blog away. You're ruining the wiki articles. Grayghost01 (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• We've been through this already. "Go away" is not the wiki-way. It is insertions of Confederate POV by you & others that have become the focus of editors to the article. Several points have been raised against many of your edits which you have not answered. We can only hope the reason for that is that we have persuaded you of a few things & that you have abandoned inserting some of your previous biases (such as that moving US troops through a US state is an invasion of that state.) I and others have been at this NPOV encyclopedia business for several years now. It is really quite remarkable & will probably lead to some improvements in the academic world too--JimWae (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Balance

Incredibly, the article did not mention Fort Sumter and had only one mention of slaves or slavery. I have added information that partially remedies these deficiencies. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not add more trifling minutiae to the Virginia article. This article is about Virginia in the Civil War. Treatment is given regarding Ft. Sumter in the South Carolina article.Grayghost01 (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But, as the material you attempted to censor out shows, the attack on Fort Sumter was very relevant to Virginians. Also, as any number of reliable sources show, slavery was very important to the deliberations of the Virginia convention -- if you consider this "trifling minutiae" then perhaps I need to add additional sourced material to make this point. Is that what you are asking me to do?

You might also want to explain why you want to censor out Lincoln's actual words in calling out the militia and why you want to hide the well known fact that Virginia took aggressive actions against United States facilities even before the final vote for secession by the people. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Grayghost -- You failed to respond to the above and instead simply reverted. To further aggravate the situation you accused me of vandalism even though this is entirely a content issue (or apparently on your part an ownership issue). You have tried to eliminate discussion by, first, a bgus Conflict of Interest complaint and then by attempting to have the page protected from editing -- both attempts failed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to be very clear. This page is about Virginia. It is not about Lincoln, Fort Sumter, the definition of invade, Lincoln's speeches, blogging on slavery, etc. I will ensure this page stays on topic. Furthermore, I have a revamped version of this in work, which will roll out later anyway, so as we have done in the past, we set certain articles aside to await the revamp. Please go put your materials on some page about Secession, or reasons for secession. You are completely off-topic. If you persist in what you are doing, I will persist even more strongly to claim you are intentionally being vandalistic. Vandalism, in your form, may be subtle and not spray paint ... but it has the same intent. You are purely diversionary, and have no true interest in what the history of Virginia is, nor do you care anything about the state and it's various wiki-pages on its history. Your editing track record confirms that perspective. Please refer to the ACW task force page and find some actual historical work to do. Meanwhile, we don't need 1,000 references to Lincoln and Fort Sumter on every ACW page in existence.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Start-Class American Civil War articles
• American Civil War task force articles
• Start-Class Virginia articles
• Unknown-importance Virginia articles
• WikiProject Virginia articles