User talk:Bill the Cat 7

Battle of Gettysburg: Controversies

I'm considering putting together a list of all of the controversies about the Battle of Gettysburg. I've come up with the following outline. If you have the time and inclination, can you please let me know if I'm missing a controversy? I would also appreciate ANY input. Thanks.

I. Mission of Heth: Shoes, or Something Else?

II. Why Did Longstreet Fail to Launch an Early 7/2/1863 Attack?

III. Was Sickles Where He Was Supposed to Be & Did It Make Any Difference?

IV. Did Ewell Err In Not taking Cemetery/Culps Hills?

V. Was Picket’s Charge Supported As Lee Intended?

VI. Who Ordered the Charge of the 20th Maine Regiment: Melcher or Chamberlin?

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting for my reply. I do not think it is a good idea to have a separate article about controversies. At one time I had a section about controversies involving Pickett's Charge, but during a formal review people made me take it out and incorporate the controversial aspects into the main threads of the article. (There are a number of them in there and I suggest you take a look to see how they are handled.) Separating them out gives them the equivalent status of Trivia sections, which are also denigrated in Wikipedia articles.

If you decide that some of these are worth mentioning in the articles, I would suggest a few guidelines to govern your approach: (1) The Battle of Gettysburg article is actually an overview article and there are numerous sub articles that go into the details. Very few of these controversies would warrant space the overview article. (2) Some of the controversies, Sickles or Longstreet for example, which involve the decisions of individuals, would be more appropriate for expansion in the biography articles of those individuals (and are probably in there already). (3) We generally do not spend much effort considering the "what-if" questions of history because that is not encyclopedic. If notable people raising those questions caused substantive historical consequences, such as actions taken by the proponents of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, they are worthy of examination, but as mere exercises in curiosity or "attempting to set the record straight," they would not be. (4) All discussions about these topics need to be in the context of opinions expressed by secondary sources (professional historians writing in books, magazines, or journals), not original research in which the Wikipedia editor attempts to determine an appropriate judgment on the controversy. Hope that helps. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Battlefield results

Hi Hal:

Is there a consensus on how the results of each battle is described? It seems there a several ACW articles on wiki that don't seem to follow any rules. If not, then I propose the following:

I. Simple Results

a. Union victory

b. Union decisive victory

c. Confederate victory

d. Confederate decisive victory

II. Mixed Results

a. Tactical Union victory; Confederate strategic victory

b. Tactical Confederate victory; Union strategic victory

c. Tactically inconclusive; Union strategic victory

d. Tactically inconclusive; Confederate strategic victory

Anyway, what do you think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an argument that I have with people quite frequently. I almost always limit myself to Union victory, Confederate victory, and Inconclusive. The alternative forms are used very infrequently. One specific deviation from this is Antietam because of its unique stature with the ramifications of the Emancipation Proclamation. My thinking on the subject is encapsulated in User:Hlj/Why#Adjectives. I was recently beaten down by a very persistent user and there are now two articles that use the term decisive victory in the infobox, although I insisted on explanatory footnotes. (To be clear, my zeal in regulating this terminology applies only to that box, not the more free-form Aftermath sections at the end of articles, where there is ample room to explain what is meant and give alternative interpretations if required.) However, I will continue in my wily ways to try to prevent this from proliferating because I think it does a disservice to readers. Incidentally, given the most commonly accepted definition of decisive victory, there were no such victories on the Confederate side because they lost the war. If you happen to disagree with that premise, it demonstrates that there is no clear consensus on the meaning of decisive victory, which reinforces my argument that we should not use the term without ample explanation. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Adjectives

Hello Hal:

I was reading the section on the use of adjectives in your article "Why". Although you make some good points, I think the rational conclusion would be to limit ALL battles of the ACW to either "Union Victory" or "Confederate Victory". After all, you said that...

It is best for all concerned that all of these adjectives be omitted and virtually none of the ACW articles use them. In almost all cases, historians do agree on which side achieved a victory of some sort, so limiting it to just "victory" meets everyone's basic requirements without injecting POV concerns.

But then you say:

There is one notable exception that I am aware of that I believe is justified. The Battle of Antietam was indecisive on a tactical level, but it is considered a strategic victory for the Union and the battle box indicates as such. (Bold added.)

Why is this justified??? Be specific, since I'm sure I can come up with at least one other battle that had the same level of significance (which would render the first quote meaningless, and thus open the door to using adjectives in other battle summaries).

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that this is a tactically inconclusive battle and I don't want the casual reader to think it had no strategic significance based on that simple phrase. (If it had been a tactical Union victory, there would be no need for further explanation.) I doubt that you will find any other inconclusive battles with similar significance; Antietam is considered by James M. McPherson as the turning point of the war. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hal. You said, "I doubt that you will find any other inconclusive battles with similar significance...." The Battle of Chancellorville comes to mind. The same tactical results existed at both Chancellorsville and Antietam. The only difference is who withdrew first, yet the strategic implications are undeniable in each case.

At any rate, you said, "The reason is that this [Antietam] is a tactically inconclusive battle and I don't want the casual reader to think it had no strategic significance based on that simple phrase. The key adjective here is "inconclusive". Was Antietam inconclusive?

Two points:

1) The Battle of Antietam was NOT tactically inconclusive. Even in the BOA article itself it says, "Lee withdrew from the battlefield first, the technical definition of the tactical loser in a Civil War battle." Therefore, to say it was inconclusive in the summary box is bizarre.

2) Continuing from point #1 above: If the results in the summary box are anything other than Union Victory or Confederate Victory, then I don't see why other battles, such as the Battle of Atlanta, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, etc., can't have the strategic implications included (and the strategic implications of these battles are clearly huge).

Regarding McPherson: I can't respond to why he said what he said about Antietam, since I have no idea how he defines a "turning point", or even if there was more than one such turning point. According to the article, "Turning Point of the ACW", it defines it as:

The idea of a turning point is an event after which most observers would agree that the eventual outcome was inevitable.

What evidence does he provide? In any event, such evidence should appear in the body of the article and NOT in the battle result summary box.

All I'm arguing for is consistency in how battle results in the summary box are handled. You have (rightly) said in the past that the strategic implications of a particular battle should be handled in the body of the article, yet I don't see that applied uniformly, which suggests a definite POV. If Strategic Victory is acceptable for Antietam, then surely other battles deserve such a label. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill, no serious historian calls Chancellorsville inconclusive. It was a stunning victory for Lee (albeit one at high cost). After I wrote to you, it occurred to me that there is another example like Antietam, which is the Battle of Perryville, where the battle was tactically inconclusive (although it would not have been if it had gone for another day), but it represented the strategic end of Bragg's Kentucky campaign when he withdrew. We can remove the remark from Antietam about the technical victory, because that is actually just a game that Civil War military historians play. (I wrote that sentence and 99% of the article, so I am entitled to have such opinions.)

McPherson's thinking is actually summarized in the Wikipedia article. After Antietam the Emancipation Proclamation was announced, which essentially made it impossible for the European powers to come to the aid of the Confederacy, and which essentially tipped the balance away from them. (It also happened at the same time that the Confederates suffered significant reverses in Kentucky and Tennessee, ending the only coordinated set of strategic offensives they attempted during the war.)

I would not pay much attention to the turning point article. It was the first Wikipedia article I wrote and it is essentially uncited original research that I have never bothered cleaning up. If I could do it without controversy, I would propose the article for deletion because it would be very, very difficult to fix. The quotation that you took from the article is my personal opinion and I have found since then that many historians have completely different definitions. A very poor effort on my part, but that was 300+ articles ago. :-)

I have no great desire to go on a campaign of making the Infobox results entirely consistent because there are always subsequent editors who want to make changes and the inconsistencies creep back in. If I had to clean them all up, I would remove all references to strategic victories (because that really is an undefined term) and leave simply victory or inconclusive. For those articles in which confusion might result, I would use a footnote to explain in detail. After all, the National Park Service battle descriptions that we based all of these articles on originally are content with the very simple victory statements. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how to respond directly on this page (without editing it), so please forgive me if this seems to be a conversation with myself, which may not be far from the truth.  :)

You said,

Bill, no serious historian calls Chancellorsville inconclusive. It was a stunning victory for Lee (albeit one at high cost).

I didn't mean to suggest that Chancellorsville was NOT a victory. Rather, if Antietam was tactically inconclusive, I was assumming that you were going merely on the number of casualties. And if that is the case, then Chancellorville would be Tactically inconclusive, Confederate Strategic Victory, which would be the same sort of summary result as Antietam. In other words, there are only two major military differences between Antietam and Chancellorsville:

1) Hooker retreated at Chancellorsville, while Lee retreated at Antietam

2) Lee lost his (arguably) his best general at Chancellorsville

And if we're going only on the number of men lost (as a % of army size), then Chancellorville's result summary should use the same language as the language used for Antietam.

Once again, I'm NOT arguing about the specific language used in general. I'm arguing for consistency. I think all battle summary results should be Union/Confederate Victory, or Inconclusive, period. But if we are to add strategic results in the summary box for one battle, then we must do so for other battles.

You said,

McPherson's thinking is actually summarized in the Wikipedia article.

And that's where it belongs, but if he is being used as a reason for adding "strategic victory" to the summary box, then, logically, other historians can be used for other battles.

You said,

If I had to clean them all up, I would remove all references to strategic victories (because that really is an undefined term) and leave simply victory or inconclusive.

I'm not so sure that a strategic victory is undefined, but the rest of the sentence is what I'm arguing for. Although we seem to agree on that, then why was the addition of strategic victory added to the Antietam article? Would you mind if I changed it to read merely "Union Victory"?

You said,

For those articles in which confusion might result, I would use a footnote to explain in detail.

I disagree. No footnote is required in the battle summary IF it is explained in detail in the body of the article. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say as much to me in the last 2-3 months?  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You may find it easier to conduct this conversation via e-mail. I have a link in the yellow box at the top of my talk page. Civil War historians do not measure victory by the number of casualties. (For example, Gettysburg had virtually identical casualties on each side, although Confederate casualties were a bit higher proportionately.) You determine the victor by figuring out what the objectives were of each army and see who achieved them. If both, or neither, did then it becomes inconclusive. In the Maryland campaign, McClellan's objective was to destroy Lee's army by attacking it while it was divided. Lee's objective was to influence northern political opinion. So the battle is considered inconclusive because McClellan did not destroy Lee's army, but Lee did not achieve his objective either. (It would be a very controversial move to label the Wikipedia article on Antietam as a Union victory.) At Chancellorsville, Hooker's objective was to crush Lee's Army in a double envelopment and then capture the Confederate capital. Lee's objective was to prevent that. Hooker failed, Lee succeeded in an unambiguous Confederate victory. On the footnote issue, my style is to put the majority of the information into the main text, but a footnote in the box would be a courtesy to the casual reader who only has a few seconds to look at the article. McPherson is only one example of historians who consider Antietam to be a strategic victory for the North. It is not really a controversial issue at that level (only the tactical results are controversial). Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Christ Myth

Hi Bill, it may surprise you to learn that I am not actually a 'Christ myther'. I think there are three possibilities:

• Jesus was a historical figure to whose life story earlier myths (virgin birth, resurrection) have been added
• He is a compound of historical figures whose stories have become intertwined.
• He is a mythical figure like Osiris or Hercules.

I was genuinely asking you for examples of eyewitness and contemporary accounts of Jesus as I do have an open mind on his existence. 'Just look' is not a adequate response to that question. As I have no religious beliefs, unlike the Christian editors on the page I have nothing invested in Jesus' existence: my worldview does not depend on it being proved either way. What I object to is people who believe in the 'myth theory' being bracketed with Nazis and lunatic conspiracy theorists which seems way over the top in order to establish their lack of support in academic circles and to come from those - mainly Christians - whose minds are firmly closed on the subject.Haldraper (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Haldraper, sorry for the delayed response. In order to approach the question in an unbiased manner, there would have to be an additional possibility to the list of three you mentioned above. That is, that JC was an historical figure whose life story is accurately portrayed in the gospels.

At any rate, the reason I said "just look" was not to be in any way snide or rude. The problem is that I honestly don't have the time to list examples of eyewitness and contemporary accounts AND then defend the reliability of the documents I would cite.

If you are really interested, there are plenty of scholarly books (and books written for the layman) that discuss the reliability of the NT. Frankly, I don't even want to suggest a particular book for fear that you might think I'm referring you to Christian-propagandist material. You can easily search the Internet (e.g., Amazon.com) and read recommendations for books on both sides of the issue.

Regarding your statement, "...being bracketed with Nazis and lunatic conspiracy theorists...." Believe me, I understand your concern. However, I honestly don't think that that is what is happening. I think that analogy is this (at least, this is how I read it): the Christ Myth Theory (CMT) is so overwhelmingly rejected by the scholarly community, it is like those who deny the Holocaust.

Now, it is irrelevant whether those who deny the Holocaust are Nazis, or whatever. It's the fact there are otherwise intelligent people, even historians, that deny such a well-attested recent event. It's ludicrous, and that is why the CMT is fringe (i.e., the historicity of JC is well attested).

Or, try to imagine this: there are historians today who deny the Holocaust; what will happen in 2000 years? None of us will be around for it, but I bet you that there will be a whole lot more historians who deny that the Holocaust took place (especially if there is a world-wide cataclysmic event that destroys visual records of the Holocaust).

At any rate, thanks for dropping by. I enjoyed the conversation. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 02:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)