Talk:American Civil War - Wikipedia
2 people in discussion
Article ImagesThe article at 16,000 words readable prose size is still 1,000 words above the size guideline. It's probably worth cutting down the causes section as there's a whole sub article on that. any help would be greatly appreciated, Tom B (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I can give it a whirl in about a week when I've got more time. It was long on my to do list! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
- thank you! Tom B (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the unverified claim in Eastern Theater. This was supposed to be removed a month ago. Someone add a claim about twice the number of troops or remove it!
{{}} 64.189.18.28 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Link to the talk page thread where this was agreed please. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- what here is the claim what talk page McClellan resisted General-in-Chief Halleck's orders to send reinforcements to John Pope's Union Army of Virginia, which made it easier for Lee's Confederates to defeat twice the number of combined enemy troops.[citation needed] 64.189.18.32 (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Not done. I added a reference instead. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- what here is the claim what talk page McClellan resisted General-in-Chief Halleck's orders to send reinforcements to John Pope's Union Army of Virginia, which made it easier for Lee's Confederates to defeat twice the number of combined enemy troops.[citation needed] 64.189.18.32 (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
remove this senatcne as there is no source to verify it! remve it alredy! McClellan resisted General-in-Chief Halleck's orders to send reinforcements to John Pope's Union Army of Virginia, which made it easier for Lee's Confederates to defeat twice the number of combined enemy troops.[citation needed] 64.189.18.32 (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Not done. I added a reference instead. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The "Origins" section is, I believe, drawn from the lead section in Origins of the American Civil War. Check out Talk:Origins of the American Civil War#WP:WEASEL wording in the first sentence of the lead. and recent changes to the lead over there to make the meaning more clear, and explicitly opposed to "Lost Cause" myths, Rjjiii (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Hello, I am the student editor who will be working on this article over the next couple of weeks. I plan on utilizing the content guide to make sure the article follows the structure of the Military History articles. In addition to the style, I want to help with making the article more concise as it is currently longer than the recommended length. Jessicabreen (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- If you wish to make any major changes it might be a good idea to run them part here first, this is a highly controversial topic, and getting reverted can be discouraging. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Will do! Thank you for letting me know, I do not want to step on any toes and am excited to help out! Jessicabreen (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- LOL (soapbox warning) you are gonna step on someone's toes whatever you do, but if you read wp:consensus and make sure your edits have that, you should be (within policy) fine. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Will do! Thank you for letting me know, I do not want to step on any toes and am excited to help out! Jessicabreen (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- If you wish to make any major changes it might be a good idea to run them part here first, this is a highly controversial topic, and getting reverted can be discouraging. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi there @Remsense,
I wanted to comment on a revert you made. My understanding of WP:DECISIVE is that "See Aftermath (or similar)" can cover both military nuances (i.e. specifics of battles that were previously described as "decisive" or "pyrrhic" victories) and political nuances, as is the case for World War I and World War II, which have their own aftermath articles: Aftermath of World War I and Aftermath of World War II.
In the case of political nuances, some that were previously covered in the Results section as bullet points, such as the abolition of slavery in the immediate aftermath of the war and the reintegration of the former Confederate States are thoroughly covered in the Reconstruction era article, which essentially is the article for the aftermath of the war. Pave Paws (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Sure thing, thanks for asking. I think that neither the military nor political events of Reconstruction significantly nuance the description of "Union victory"—while there is much to say about Reconstruction versus the aims of the war, civil wars generally have to reincorporate the losing side somehow. Does that make sense?
- We could add a link, though. I'll try experimenting with how it could be presented. Remsense ‥ 论 20:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- In lieu of the Reconstruction article I think a link to the American Civil War#Union victory and aftermath section further down might suffice in explaining exactly why/how the Union won. Pave Paws (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I'm not sure I would oppose linking to Reconstruction in lieu of this section, but since it exists I think it's the right move. Adding! Remsense ‥ 论 21:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- In lieu of the Reconstruction article I think a link to the American Civil War#Union victory and aftermath section further down might suffice in explaining exactly why/how the Union won. Pave Paws (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The infox box is a summary of a summery, Nuance is for the body. Slatersteven (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Right—we have the Aftermath setionlink convention for a reason. Remsense ‥ 论 21:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply