User talk:Red Harvest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Red Harvest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Razorflame (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Welcome to the Military history Wikiproject! 2 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008) 3 Thanks for the Missouri Civil War articles 4 Military history WikiProject coordinator elections 5 Award for Help with Johnny Rebel (singer) Article 6 Fuze vs. Fuse for ACW Artillery 7 Categorization by religion 8 Religon Categories 9 SCH 10 Milhist coordinators election has started 11 Which States Seceded from the Union During the American Civil War? 12 Dred 13 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008) 14 CSA Talk 15 Thx 16 Your Graphic Lab request 17 ACW bios 18 RE: Battle of Athens 19 On the CSA article... 20 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008) 21 Confederate States of America 22 Barnstar 23 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008) 24 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history Wikiproject!

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Missouri Civil War articles

Thanks for your work in cleaning up the Missouri Civil War articles. You're doing a great job! Americasroof (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 16:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award for Help with Johnny Rebel (singer) Article

		The Minor Barnstar
		For help in removing a weasel word from the article Johnny Rebel (singer).

[edit] Fuze vs. Fuse for ACW Artillery

I noticed you changed the spelling on this. While my natural inclination is to use "fuse" as well, I read an analysis of this by several of the foremost ACW artillery projectile authors (Jack Melton and Peter George at least) that reached a consensus of "fuze." http://cwpforums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=140 This doesn't necessarily agree with modern parlance or other armies/conflicts, but it appears to have been the appropriate term for the Union and Confederate service orndance literature. The O.R. uses "fuse" mostly but I'm not sure if those transcriptions are accurate reproductions of the (mostly volunteer civilian) officer's own handwritten spellings, or the government typesetters who were accustomed to using "fuse." As one fellow points out, percussion devices are properly termed "fuze" rather than "fuse". He seems to indicate that "fuze" would be inclusive of both burning powder train and other types. Me, I don't really care as long as I know the rules. Red Harvest (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I changed it to match modern usage and the Wikipedia article on that topic. If I sat down and thought about it for a while, I could produce a long list of spellings and grammar that have changed since 1865 that we do not attempt to duplicate in Wikipedia articles, other than in quotations. If you feel strongly about using the older term, since it is mentioned as an alternative in the Wikipedia article, I would not object as long as you maintained the link to the definitional article the first time it is mentioned. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization by religion

The categorization of people guideline explicitly states that living people should only be classified by religion if two conditions are met: a) "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question" and b) "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." In the instances that I removed these, the person's religion had nothing to with their notable activities (and in many cases the person's religion was not mentioned in the article). For people who are not living, the second criteria does not appear to apply, so I have not removed this category from those documents. Karanacs (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The people's bios (Congressional, etc.) actually list the religion, and the religion is also listed in the template. Furthermore, the description for the actual category is "The people listed below have all been members of the Methodist churches of America." And yes, as politicians, their religion is relevant in considering their public life. The category is not judgemental, it is merely a list of members. So it looks to me and others that you have clearly misapplied the criteria and should undo them all. It is absurd to remove people from a category when the same religion is still listed elsewhere on the page! That was the case in all of the ones I checked. Red Harvest (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In many cases, the religion is not mentioned except in the infobox. In many of those cases, it is not cited at all. I also disagree that a person's religion is necessarily relevant to their political career, unless it is stated as such in the article. This may need to be debated on the guideline to get more input. Karanacs (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Debating it in a guideline makes sense, but going and removing all of those without establishing a clear guideline or debating it does not make sense. I'm not Methodist and am not particularly concerned about religious affiliation, but many others are and do consider it relevant. Membership in a church, club, board, etc. is all fair game for discussion/evaluation of a political career or stance. Religion is a basic piece of information (when known) and is in the infobox. More verifiable information is better than less. The guideline appears to be more geared to preventing some sort of slandering of groups, etc. I fail to see how the current construction of the category is such that it will defame someone.Red Harvest (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The current guideline is fairly clear. A simple mention of the religion (so and so is a member of church X), especially when it is uncited, does not meet the guidelines. Some people don't want to advertise their religion because it is private and not part of their public persona. Therefore, unless that person has identified themselves as being a member of a religion, it should not be in the article at all. If the religion is only mentioned in an infobox, it's probably not a part of them being notable, and the category shouldn't be included. If the article discusses the impact their religion had on them (with sources), then that makes it relevant to their notability, and the category should say. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you are not following that guideline. Unless wiki plans on removing religion from bios your argument makes no sense. Red Harvest (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religon Categories

I think you meant your comment for User:Karanacs.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don;t get the impression that User:Karanacs was saying that religion is trivial. My impressionw was that he is more interested in the first criteria "a person must claim to be a member of the religion". For Baker, I simply found a citable source for his religion to prove that he is an active member.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any consistency in Karanacs' actions and statements on this matter. When congressional bios are listing the religion and/or it is discussed in the article (not to mention the infobox) there is no valid justification for removing the information other than Karanacs' apparent blanket assumption that religious categorization is not allowed at all for the living. Furthermore, the proper action would have been to challenge the categorization in some way rather than remove it first. Unless it is causing harm or a likely misrepresentation some time should be allowed for response. These are not after all some sort of categories that carry universal negative connotations (crime, etc.). Therefore there was no need for rash action. It has been an unfortunate waste of our time. Red Harvest (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, if violations of any of the guidelines about living people are found they should be corrected immediately. If you can find sourced information to make the religion relevant to the article (beyond a mention in the infobox), then you can add the category back. Karanacs (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that per WP:BLP ANY unsourced information about a living person can be removed at will, so your reverting my edits on some of these articles is in violation of WP:BLP. As we have a disagreement on the interpretation of the guideline, I've asked for more community input at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#Religion_categories_for_living_people. I will refrain from removing the category from additional edits but ask that you immediately stop reverting my previous edits. Karanacs (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted only those that I found to be in error. The ones that lacked any notation of religion in the infobox or text I left alone. Red Harvest (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of those you reverted had no citations, meaning that under WP:BLP the information was entitled to be removed. Guidelines for biographies of living people are more stringent than for those who are deceased; please respect that. Karanacs (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would believe you except that you didn't edit any of that other text or even check it. Instead it appears that you targeted a specific category and ignored the related content (including references in some cases) of those you did edit. So your argument lacks internal consistency. This looks like a case of trying to retroactively justify overzealous removal of material. Red Harvest (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... a few days late here, just catching up... if you find that Karanacs has reverted religion categories from pages where it was already cited then you need to list specific instances where he did it. Mentioning a page is good and linking to the URL of a diff where he did it is even better. Nobodies going to chack up on generalized statements. Also bear in mind we all make mistakes. I would expect Karanacs to be reaonable if you showed him specifically that he was being overzealous.--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SCH

I've seen a link somewhere to the actual list as awarded by the Confederate Congress, but can not for the life of me remember where. I'm pretty sure it was attached to some individual SCV camp website. Sf46 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which States Seceded from the Union During the American Civil War?

Hi Red Harvest, I've been following some of the discussion on the page for the Confederate States of America, and I wonder if you could assist with something. There is an animated GIF on that page which purports to show the states that seceded from the union. It currently claims that both Kentucky and Missouri seceded from the Union. This contradicts everything I have ever heard about the Civil War, contradicts several Wikipedia pages, and even contradicts the very page in which the image is featured. I've tried to talk to the creator of the image, but he seems to believe the map is an accurate representation of history.

Can you advise on how to address this situation? It bothers me to think that Wikipedia, accessed by thousands of school children, is providing inaccurate information. The animated GIF is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CSA_states_evolution.gif

Thank you for your time, -asx- (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Kentucky & Missouri both had heavy Southerner sympathies and had "rump" governments that did in fact make declarations of secession. Since each of these "rump" governments were not actually in control of their respective states when the declaration was made, it's generally not considered to be legitimate secession. Sf46 (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sf46. Thank you for your response. That's what I understood, too, which is why I am of the opinion that the animated GIF is inaccurate and should be fixed. In its current incarnation, the map makes four statements which contradict other Wikipedia pages, and as far as I can tell, are untrue. Those statements:

— October 31, 1861, Missouri secedes

— November 20, 1861, Kentucky secedes

— November 28, 1861, Missouri joins Confederacy but never under CSA control

— December 10, 1861, Kentucky joins Confederacy, but never under CSA control

This information is so far from the truth that anyone who read it (and didn't know better) would come away with a completely incorrect understanding of what actually happened in those states. While it is true (as you said) that rump governments did secede, they didn't represent or control their states, and had no authority to secede or join the Confederacy. On that basis, I think the map should be corrected.

What do you think?

-asx- (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dred

Thanks for the note on the "my favorite court case is just like Dred Scott" removal - but I don't hang around a lot lately so I think it's best to be bold and nuke the whole bad section, and if somebody's angry about it they can restore it and we can argue about it. Tempshill (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree; it's better to be bold. Tempshill (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not bold. It violates basic civility and consensus. Red Harvest (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? It improved the article. I don't think it's necessary to gingerly ask permission before removing extraneous stuff from an article. Tempshill (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it "improved" the article or not. I do know that it gutted a section with a "needs expansion" tag. So clearly it is contrary to what some others think and what they consider relevant. It was a section actively under discussion. Although I question the relevance of much of the section I wouldn't just delete it without posing the question first. It's just plain rude and uncivil to do that and shows no respect for other editors. You might not see a problem with your actions, but I do. For one, they are proving counterproductive as you've forced me to take the other side on this, a side I am not inclined to take. Furthermore, it is specious to conclude that just deleting material you disagree with is necessarily an improvement. You didn't add any content or references, you took an axe to something. Red Harvest (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, reaching consensus on Wikipedia doesn't mean that consensus has to be reached before changes are made. That's directly against the WP:BOLD guideline. I disagree that it's rude or uncivil. Carefully feeling out an unknown number of anonymous editors before venturing to make changes isn't the way to improve articles, unless it's on some sort of hyper-touchy political article. In this case, the axe was warranted. That section should be expanded, yes; but not by including lists of favorite court cases that some people claim speciously is "the next Dred Scott case". Tempshill (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You probably should have read the … but don't be reckless warning in the guideline. That's how it appears, even to someone like myself who would agree about aspects of the relevance. Being reckless undercut your own argument. Red Harvest (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSA Talk

I just want to give you a friendly "Well Done" for your recent work on the CSA talk page. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thx

For finding the errors .... it shouldn't take a minute to change it. I knew I had two mapped onto Caleb Smith, but I wasn't aware I'd got them mixed up. I will try and include a link in the template so people can see how to fix it. You do need a specialist (but easy and free) tool. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its fixed now... could you check? Victuallers (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Graphic Lab request

Hi Red Harvest,

In case you're not watching the Graphic Lab page anymore, I wanted to let you know that I have created what I think is a suitable CSA map for you. There's a name conflict right now, but see my most recent comment for a link to the commons page. (I have a rename request pending over there.)

I also wanted to explain what it was about your request which confused me personally and caused me to be unsure how to proceed, and that was your mention of the "original image" versus "the one that has been in use." (You also mentioned the "larger" image several times.) From later comments, I believe you meant different revisions of the same (Wikipedia) image. I read that as multiple images that had been uploaded under different names, but then there was only one image in the gallery, and that one had a blank preview. So in my 30 second review, I just decided the situation was confused and I didn't want to spend time making the wrong map. I figured you would clarify (which you arguably did on 20 March, but then there were more questions…). We're not dullards, but we do have lots of tasks to choose from and we tend to choose the fast 'n' easy ones over something where there's perceived confusion.

Anyway, let us know if the new image is correct, or if you want to go with the other svg of this which I found by accident. (See my last comment.) Thanks!— ʞɔıu 16:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ACW bios

Wow!!!!!  ????? I only removed the link for Stoughton (see explanation). Not sure why others disappeared. Very strange. I have no objections whatsoever to these additional names. I merely wanted to get rid of Edward H. Stoughton, an old red link that is really Edwin H. Stoughton, for which an article has existed for some time. Scott Mingus (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Very strange indeed. I went back and wiped out the Stoughton link again, and this time, it's all that disappeared. By the way, keep up the good work, and I look forward to your continued articles! I've been busy writing my next ACW book, which just went to the publisher, so now I will take some time for Wiki again. Scott Mingus (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Battle of Athens

This was one of those articles that is rather iffy on section II. I simply think that the "battle" section needs to be expanded slightly. Do that, and I have absolutely no problems with it passing on criteria II.

Also understand that I'm not an expert on the topic, my primary area being World War I & II. If it was a small-scale battle, then perhaps that's all it needs. If you feel that it has as much as it needs, I have no issues with you changing that to a "pass" in that category.

Assessment in categories II & IV is purely subjective.

Thanks for the note, Cam (Chat) 23:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On the CSA article...

I think, at this point, we may need to ask for arbitration. We are simply going round and round and round in circles, which is doing nothing, essentially, but wasting OUR time, of which could be better spent rewriting the article rather than going back and forth with anonymous quotes trawled from the internet. SiberioS (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree then, to just leave it and revert and modify as needed. I plan on simply doing what happened with the Military History article; updating and re-writing the article with scholarly sources and seeing if the other editor blinks and leaves the page alone. I've been meaning to rewrite the section about international diplomacy anyways. SiberioS (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On more reflection, I disagree, partially. The CSA argument for secession was clearly states rights in the interest of slavery. I don't think there are substantial scholarly argument against that. And I don't think it'd be fair to let people rewrite what they WISHED causation of the war to be, something Davis and other Southerners attempted to do in a raft of memoirs, books, and screeds after the war. SiberioS (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confederate States of America

Next time bub before you undo an edit, discuss it first and btw there is a difference between a legitimate edit and vandalism. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Posting what you did at the top of the page constitutes vandalism. It is not the subject, "bub". Red Harvest (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you are wrong, it provides a link to a similar Wikipedia article, so you knock it off! Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Boy this is gonna hurt, but I have to agree with Red Harvest on this issue. I moved the link to the movie down to the bottom in the external link section, which seems to be a more appropriate place for it. Sf46 (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not "similar" at all. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry book, movie, comic book, etc. shouldn't be posted as the introduction to an article. If you want to put it somewhere in "See Also" etc. I would let others pass judgement on it (at that point it is approaching trivia.) However the way you did it, Simon Bar Sinister, looks and feels like vandalism. I will remove it and tag it as such as often as I see it up there on the masthead. Red Harvest (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Reviewers Award
		For your great work on all the review done on the Battle of Marion article. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 02:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)