Talk:American Civil War

Latest comment: 8 days ago by CaptainEek in topic Lincolns assassination in the lead
Former good articleAmerican Civil War was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 4, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 26, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 22, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
March 28, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
April 21, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 14, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
November 5, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 10, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
March 23, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
July 28, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 30, 2014WikiProject A-class reviewDemoted
December 12, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
May 25, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 20, 2004, December 20, 2005, and December 20, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

"Origins" section

edit

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

Infobox results nuances

edit

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 ‥  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 ‥  21:23, 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 ‥  21:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would think that we should link Reconstruction era as the aftermath of this war, but that is not a substitute or synonym for "Union victory". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
see also next section of talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Union victory and aftermath" is almost entirely historical counterfactuals

edit

The Union victory and aftermath section is almost entirely composed of counterfactual discussions about if the South could have won, whether they could have kept on fighting, whether a Union victory was inevitable, and so on. Is this kind of discussion appropriate for an encyclopedia? I can't find any policy anywhere that specifically forbids it, but I don't recall ever seeing this kind of thing elsewhere in Wikipedia, especially outside of some kind of dedicated historiography article. The section seems well-referenced, but I don't see how any source in the world could be considered reliable enough to make statements on historical events that didn't happen or say whether events that didn't happen could have happened.

On top of that, the section has very little detail on either the Union victory or its aftermath, largely because it's full of speculation about if the South could have won. If counterfactuals are allowed and we wish to keep them in the article then I think this section should be renamed based on that content, otherwise I think a lot of this should be rewritten to actually provide detail on the Union victory and its aftermath. I'd potentially be willing to help with a rewrite but wanted to see what others think first. Any thoughts?

(This is partially related to the above discussion on this same talk page, but unrelated to anything about the infoblox specifically so I figured I'd start a separate topic.) Rovenrat (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be fine to limit it to "Union victory", as this is straightforward and does not require further nuance. Remsense ‥  04:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
To respond to your new concerns: I think this content is pretty over-represented, but this is merely overshooting the mark in this particular context. A lot of ink has been spilled in this vein, so we should represent it to some degree, though cards on the table I don't find much of it particularly illuminating myself. Remsense ‥  04:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well in my mind there are three separate topics here:
  1. Did the South lose the war?
    This obviously belongs in the article as it is a matter of objective historic fact, but is mostly covered by American_Civil_War#End_of_the_war since it's really just a matter of the peace deal and who surrendered to who.
  2. Why did the South lose the war?
    This is hard to answer in a purely objective manner, but as you said it's a topic covered in detail by a lot of reputable historians so it can make sense to include it here as long as it is framed as the opinion of those historians and not as objective fact. These opinions can also be supported with relevant data like what is already there in the "Comparison of Union and Confederacy" table. This is probably what American_Civil_War#Union_victory_and_aftermath is meant to be and to some degree already is, but it's really only half this topic and half the third one I'll mention, and has very little to do with any aftermath of the war.
  3. Could the South have won the war?
    In my opinion this really has no place in an encyclopedia, at least outside of the historiography section where it could be discussed as a topic debated by academic historians and within broader American culture or whatever. Like I said, I can't find any specific policy against this so maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen this kind of thing discussed this explicitly in any other "war" article, and I don't think it's valuable to spend much if any space in an article about any historical event discussing things that did not happen.
Also, I'll go ahead and rename the section to just "Union victory" based on your comment and the changes by Alanscottwalker since it seems like there's some agreement that this section is unrelated to "aftermath" in any way. I might go back later and try to flesh out the "Reconstruction Era" section since that seems like the appropriate place for any detail on aftermath of the war, for obvious reasons. Rovenrat (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
It looks like the section is trying to illuminate the Union victory (and the Confederate defeat), so relative positioning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've taken the aftermath link out of the infobox, as it is not a good link there, which is 'military victory', not aftermath or analyses. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

edit

I found this on CitationHunt and my account isn't old enough to directly edit. I don't care about the Confederates (derogatory) but I did find reputable citations that I'd like to offer:Keslambo (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. After Rosecrans' successful Tullahoma Campaign, Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas.[citation needed]

Encyclopedia Virginia states that this guy's defensive stand in Chickamauga earned him the nickname "the Rock of Chickamauga" which I believe directly addresses the latter part of that section. (https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/thomas-george-h-1816-1870/)

To address the former part of the second sentence, I believe it should be reworded with this section reading:

The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga.

Following Rosecran's successful Tullahoma Campaign[citation exists in article: [1], Rosecran was defeated by Bragg, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas[proposed citation above: https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/thomas-george-h-1816-1870/]. Bragg was reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east)[I can also provide a National Park Service Historical Handbook citation for that: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/hh/25/hh25e.htm]. Keslambo (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Keslambo: Welcome to Wikipedia. Could you summarize this into a "Change X to Y" format, preferably in a reply to this message? — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes of course and I will do that in the future. Thank you for the tip @BerryForPerpetuity!
Please change [The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. After Rosecrans' successful Tullahoma Campaign, Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas.[citation needed]] to [Following Rosecran's successful Tullahoma Campaign[1], Rosecran was defeated by Bragg, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas[2] Bragg was reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east).[3] Keslambo (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is the X next to abraham lincolns name really necessary?

edit

He was only assasinated after the war, so is it needed? Pidger (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

He was assassinated a little over one month before (14 April) the formal end of the war as the article defines it (26 May). AntiDionysius (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

edit

Change "The war left between 620,000 and 750,000 soldiers dead" to "The war left an estimated 698,000 soldiers dead, with the true number likely falling between 647,439 and 748,561"

Reference: Barceló, J., Jensen, J. L., Peisakhin, L., & Zhai, H. (2024). New estimates of US Civil War mortality from full-census records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48), e2414919121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414919121 Academic world 2020 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: It's not clear to me that this formulation is meaningfully more accurate or helpful to a general readership. Remsense ‥  20:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do actually think we should use the new data here; I'd meant to get around to reading the paper and figuring out how to present it. But it's clearly important new data, the NYtimes ran an article about it yesterday. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
"The war resulted in an estimated 698,000 soldier deaths"
This formulation reflects the most accurate figure available to date. This estimate is based on the comprehensive analysis presented in PNAS. Also, the findings have been highlighted in a recent New York Times article.
Barceló, J., Jensen, J. L., Peisakhin, L., & Zhai, H. (2024). New estimates of US Civil War mortality from full-census records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(48), e2414919121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2414919121
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/19/health/civil-war-death-toll.html 5.195.74.110 (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I updated the lead and the casualties section. I didn't end up amending the infobox yet because its a bear, and this new source doesn't actually give precise "this is how many died on each side" numbers. Although with more work it might be possible to divine the number out of it yet...its just very dense. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lincolns assassination in the lead

edit

I didn't mean to cause such chaos by changing a this to a that :P My original wording of that phrase was intended to show that Lincoln lived to see Lee's surrender, which was the death knell of the confederacy. I.e. Lincoln lived to see victory, and then was killed shortly thereafter. It's a way to mention his assassination, which needs a lead level mention for sure, and to make it read in an interesting and helpful manner. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Maurice Magnus @Slatersteven CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply