User talk:Hlj

Please click Here to leave me a new message. or Click here to send me a private email

• archive01 – Messages from January 2005 to January 2006
• archive2006 – Messages from January 2006 through December 2006
• archive2007 – Messages from January 2007 through December 2007
• archive2008 – Messages from January 2008 through December 2008
• archive2009 – Messages from January 2009 through December 2009

Portals

I understand that you do not agree with some of the edits that I am making and that you think that they are visually unappealing but I believe that having them in this fashion is better than leaving huge areas of white space or having the portals spilling into other sections. I also understand that you do a lot of good work on the ACW pages but I personally find your sense of ownership as irritating as you find my inconsequential edits. They are not Hlj's American Civil War encyclopedia articles. If you don't like the portals in the see also section then I suggest you recommend a change to the MOS. It is what states they should be there. As for my inconsequential edits, over the past couple of years I have built up the Medal of Honor recipient articles adding structure, portals, categories, persondata templates, infoboxes, content, etc. All in small increments because if you do the small changes the large ones will take care of themselves. I have even adding over a hundred articles and have gotten many to Good or Featured articles status as well as getting dozens more to a state were over the next few months I will be building them up so that by the summer time all of the MOH recipients will have a page, most or all lists will be featured and at least a handful from each conflict will be good or better. Now you obviously enjoy what you do and so do I so lets quite this stupid bickering and work together to build up these articles. --Kumioko (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Valkyrie Red

Has been blocked again for editwarring and disruption. I've been discouraged from calling the user's edits vandalism, but I think some questionable edits were intended to arouse attention, hence pointy, hence actual vandalism. That said, when the user returns, I believe we should seek a content area ban, preventing the user from editing the infoboxes or talk pages of many articles in the ACW content cluster. BusterD (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, ban him. It wasn't vandalism...it was trolling. (No one has discouraged me from stating the truth :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 03:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant GA Review

I got the references from the different articles. Other changes have been made to the article. I tried to put more criticism into the article reading without being overbearing. Grant at Fort Donelson and Shilo had blundered in not being prepared for Confederate onslaughts. I added that other generals and even that Abraham Lincoln was involved with Grant's campaigns. For all the battles discussed I added the casuality numbers, except for luka and Corinth since Grant had limited oversight over the battles. If you like you could review the article again. {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)}

Thanks for all those suggestions! I have already started on a few. I will attempt to edit the article and keep the accuracy, interest, and length to Wikipedia standards. {Cmguy777 (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)}

Hello. I have been trimming down the battle narrations as much as possible without loosing meaning or accuracy. Should the Civil War be another separate section for Ulysses S. Grant with just a summary of his campaigns and battles? {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)}

I am attempting to make more clean ups to the article. I have attempted and outline. It would shorten the outline, however, it might take away some of the emotional appeal to the reader. I believe that it is good to have the Civil War segments as is without reducing the size anymore. The Civil War really is what made Grant who he was. Do you believe the article can get a GA with the current length? McFeely and Smith are both good sources along with Simpson. I also am reading the linked Civil War articles to get matched. I don't want to repeat what they are saying but it is important, like you say, to keep them in agreement with each other. I have gotten the Shiloh to go along with the Shiloh articles. Shiloh was tough because it involved more then just a seige. Also Vann Dorn and Forest constantly harrassed Grant. Maybe that can be put or reput in the article somehow in the Shiloh segment. Getting an FA would also be good. If you believe the Civil War section should be reduced to a summary, please let me know. I appreciate all your advise. {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)}

I agree that the Civil War was the most significant part of Grant's biography -- the only reason he ever became president -- so it is fine to keep it focused here instead of a sub-article. I think that Van Dorn is worth mentioning because he put a big roadblock into Grant's initial Vicksburg plans by destroying his supply base. Grant had to go through the political thought process of deciding how to react to that without appearing to be retreating and to avoid political conflicts with John McClernand. (Grant was remarkably adept at political positioning and in communicating with politicians. His only equal at that during the war was Robert E. Lee.) Forrest on the other hand was the nemesis of every Union general in the Western theater, so I'm not sure he needs special mention in a Grant biography. If you are interested in biographies, Joan Waugh has a new book about how Grant is remembered. During the 19th century, Grant was positively adored and was considered one of the three great men of American history, alongside Washington and Lincoln. That sort of legacy would be useful to explore in this article. My suggestion would be to get the GA before worrying about the FA. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I GA would be good. I believe Grant got lost in history due to political biases from many historians and did not get a fair deal. His faults and his good qualities are both interesting. McFeely was probably the first historian to take Grant seriously and did a real good job with his Presidency as far as behind the scenes go. I agree that the main focus of this article should be the Civil War segments. There is one thing that you can learn from Grant and that is how American politics works and continues to work today. I would like all the Articles to get GA. I have been working on Washington and Jefferson slavery articles. In a sense, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, and Grant are linked through time because of the slavery issue.Cmguy777 (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)}

I made changes to Vicksburg. Could you look at that to see if it is factually correct? Vicksburg is hard to summarize since it was actually two campaigns. That really was a complicated campaign. I looked up the Vicksburg campaign article to make sure things matched. I added the Van Dorn and Forsest information. I found that in order to trim the article I only focused on the military campaign, rather then the politics. I kept the Chattanooga campaign basically as you wrote it.{Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)}

I made a change to the Vicksburg segment putting McClernand's plan at the first paragraph and the start of Grant's Mississippi campaign in the second. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)}

Are you able to review USG? Thanks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)}

Can you recommend anyone to review the USG article? {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)}

Samuel Bookatz

Hi Hal, I don't know if your even getting this. My buddy Pete said your the master. My partner created a wiki. page for the artist Samuel Bookatz. How do you get the stuff at the top to disappear. We own several of his paintings and wanted to place them on the site. It seem's that is a problem. Do we need permissoin from the Bookatz foundation even if we own the work? Were not computer whiz's. We just wanted to get this info. to the public since Mr. Bookatz has died.Any thoughts? Sincerely, Michael Freeman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.32.195 (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Maps

Hal:

I am trying to upgrade the Battle of Piedmont page. I would like to put a nice map on there similar to the New Market map. Scott Mingus said that you might be able to assist.

We met a couple of years ago when I was a guide on the Second Manassas Tour for the Middleburg Mosby seminar.

Scott Shenandoah1864 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenandoah1864 (talk • contribs)

Restored Vicksburg segment

I restored the Vicksburg segement you wrote. I added the details about the McClernand-Grant rivalry and Van Dorn and Bedford Forest. Looks good! I believe the segment is now factually correct. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)}

I deleted the information about McClernand-Grant rivalry since Sherman was not under McClernand's command until after the Battle of Chickasaw Bluffs. Also Halleck had restored Grants control in the West. There was a rivalry between Grant and McClernand, however, I am not sure how to incorporate it the Vicksburg segment.{Cmguy777 (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)}

I reinserted information McClernand-Grant rivalry. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)}

I made the recommendation changes you mentioned. I believe the Vicksburg segment is the central peice to this article. It looks good. I am glad we could get it finished on President's day. Your insights into the article have helped tremendously. Thanks! {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)}

To be honest with you I have read two accounts on Vicksburg, one from McFeely Grant: A Biography and the other from Catton Never Call Retreat. Catton, I believe has the best narrative on Vicksburg, and things seemed to just fall into place, especially the parts about the Van Dorn and Forest raids. Catton also aptly points out Grant's genius in keeping Pemberton guessing. It helped me with understanding the other wikipedia articles, also. McFeely, only in terms of Civil War descriptions, is good, but sometimes hard to follow. Anyway. Thanks for helping. I hope USG can get a GA eventually. I believe it is GA status, however, there are few cleans ups to be done. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)}

Your edits are remarkably clear and really add to the article! The addition of the map really helps. Thanks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)}

March Coordinator elections

I know this is off your beaten path, but I'd like you to consider running for coordinator in the Military History project elections in March. I consider you the natural leader of this content area, Tom and the Jims notwithstanding. Think about it before refusing... BusterD (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We're famous! :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grierson%27s_Raid&action=historysubmit&diff=346532436&oldid=346530773 Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

maybe we can use this to our advantage.... perhaps land a reality show or something! Kresock (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Feature Review for J.E.B. Stuart

I have nominated J.E.B. Stuart for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that this is not a FAR but an FAC. Please opine there if you wish for this to go forward since you are the primary contributor and the nomination appears to be a drive-by nom. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good or A Class Article J.E.B. Stuart?

Hello,

I was wondering if you were ok with me or you nominating J.E.B. Stuart for Good or A Class status. Please reply to my my talk. Thanks and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 15:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the message! :) Have a Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 19:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the advice on Theophilus H. Holmes. I will change up the sources, after I am finished finding references and putting in information. Thanks Again and Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 23:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bull Run / Manassas naming convention

I do not agree with the rationale used for the Bull Run / Manassas, as well as the treatment the name Battle of Manassas is given. Consider the merits of the name Bull Run.

Pro: This is the name of the battle used in Northern school curriculums, although, many texts present both names. Therefore, the name Bull Run is arguably more common.

Con: This name creates confusion. The battlefield is named Manassas by the NPS. Vistors will not find any battlefield in this country called Bull Run. This will create confusion.

Con: The battlefield is located near the present day town of Manassas. Again, common sense leans towards this name.

Con: From a logical standpoint, the name Bull Run is less apt than Manassas. From a military standpoint, the only reason the battle took place here was because of the railroad junction which was located here, as well as the subsequent military depot. Bull Run itself did not even play a role in the second battle, which was fought purely as a result of the depot. Understanding the importance of Manassas to the battle is more important than understanding the tactical significance of the stream.

Further, the treatment of the name Manassas is inappropriate. Manassas is not just the name used by the southern states, it is also the official name of the battle, and the consensus name used by military historians. Both of these points should be included in the article, so as to show full respect for the Manassas name.

A final point on the name Manassas should be made. Those from Northern schools who prefer the name Bull Run should remember the work done by military history buffs and concerned citizens, predominately southern, who saved this battlefield from Disney development. Without their efforts, the park experience today would be very much lessened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.109.238 (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Cavalry in the American Civil War

Completely agree with your point, and thanks for the fix with the pic. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your fix on the second pic as well. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction to the time & place of a historical incident re:Heny Benning

03/25/2010 Hlj-

FYI... I would like to point out a correction that is needed as to the time & place of the incident of BG Henry Benning's rebuke from LtGEN James Longstreet.

The incident took place at the Battle of Chickamauga on Sept 20, 1863 and not at the Second Battle of Bull Run, Manassas, VA (Aug 30, 1862).

Source: verbatim transcript included in "A Biography of GEN James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier by Jeffry D. Wert, Touchstone First Edition 1994, ISBN 0-671-89287-8 (pbk), page 314.

John Roark Burke, VA Net: jer2@cox.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.51.226 (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 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) 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Marmiton River

Hi Hal,

Here is one that I see you haven't visited before and thought that you might have beneficial input/knowledge. Looks minimal at the present. I didn't think there too many ACW articles that you haven't contributed to. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sherman article

Hal: Have you noticed the new first paragraph of the WT Sherman article -- what seems to me to b e over the top commentary on Indian wars? What can/should be done? Thanks for any thoughts. Hartfelt (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hal: Thanks for your thoughts. I hoped someone else would take action against that sentence, but now I have done so, Would appreciate your keping your more experienced eye on things. Hartfelt (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Secession

I agree with both of your ideas regarding the subsection label and the length. The length issue has been resisted but I note that there is a small (at this point) group (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/Operation Brothers at War) that has raising the article to FA as a goal. If that project gets off the ground then these issues will need to be addressed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Translation into french of Gettysburg Campaign  : thanks etc...

Hello Hal ! I am about to edit on WP:fr a big addition from your article on Gettysburg Campaign, the 1st draft of it is now on a sub-page on my french user's page.

Thanks for your good material ( & maps) I took a lot of pleasure to work on. I shunned the officers list, since for french use it looked superfluous to me (I think those who are interested in it can read your article) - & I put the time-table at the end. From the great number of red links, we can see the amount of work which we have yet to do in our WP:fr...

I hope you'll be kind enough to come over to WP:fr & cast a glance on your child. My big issue is about iconos : among the ones I collect in Commons, some come out very well, & some remain a line of red text . Why, but WHY ?

I saw your works list : WOW ! T.y. Arapaima (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• "selection of images" : I try to give french readers a general hint of anglo-saxon culture, along with description of war, which I think rather dreary in itself. About that, did you see my french Arthur Fremantle ?...
• "Iconos"" are ""images"" in (scientific) french, I thought it was widely used, sorry. You'll see if you come back on "Campagne de Gettysburg" that, for exemple : the Steeple-chase for St-Patrick's day - the panorama from Winchester's Old Hospital - the cottage and Meade head-quarters on Cemetery Ridge -... don't come as an icono, but as a simple red line of text, & it tears away my bowells, because I'm not even sure to be able to find them again.
• Punctuation in french ? Example : "well, we use to do it that way, but I may have blundered a lot. See?..."

Thanks again , t.y. ("Campagne de Gettysburg"" is now (yet uncomplete) on WP:fr) Arapaima (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for giving me a key to my icono problems. As for Arthur Fremantle , of course he was just a speck on the surface of earth , but I think his "Diary" is a quite precious piece of observation. And anyway a soldier who managed to become a general in England between 1885 & 1884 while staying in London Tower & guarding the Crown Jewels must have had some wit, no ? T.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Manasass Station Operations

    I understand. I'll move it to the battle of Manasass Station.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regaina (talk • contribs) 01:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC) 

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 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) 21:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Franklin Preservation

That's fine if you can do quickly I didn't really have anything to go by when I did that. Thanks.

Sample USG Civil War segment summary

Thanks Hal. The following was a summary of Ulysses S. Grant's Civil War record to replace the one on USG article. This is done in order to put the information currently on USG Civil War segment on a separate article page. If there are errors in the summary, please let me know. It is important to be accurate. I have been using Smith and McFeely as sources. {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)}

Your insight is valued beyond measure. Thanks again. I am making the neccessary changes and getting rid of the semicolons. The summary is in rough draft stage. I was planning on expanding both the Vicksburg and Chattanooga sections. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)}

Hi Hal. I have gotten as far as Petersburg Campaign. I would appriciate if you could read the USG Civil War summary for accuracy. I have been reading the separate articles on each battle. That really helped. Any input would be appreciated. {Cmguy777 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)}

Hi Hal. That is fine about the retirement from the summary. You have been valuably important. Thanks! Much of the original segment on Grant's civil war career you wrote and started is to be made into a separate article on Wikipedia. In 2011 it will be Grant's 150th Civil War anniversary. I have read different sources and attempt to put them together as best I can. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)}

Hi Hal. I have completed the USG Civil War summary with citations, links, and segment titles. A title is needed for the separate article on Grant's Civil War Carreer. Do you have any suggestions before making the web page.

Some titles I have come up with are:

• American Civil War Career of Ulysses S. Grant
• Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War.
• American Civil War Battles of Ulysses S. Grant

{Cmguy777 (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)}

Yes. I can use the second title. That sounds good. In the main USG article I am putting in his military controversies such as "drunkeness" and "anti-semitism" in the battle segments. That should reduce the size of the USG main article. I put criticism for him being a "butcher" in a Northern resentment segment. Is it best to have just have USG Civil War article or an article on his entire military career? {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)}

OK. Sounds good. Just wanted to make sure before making the Web Page. I need to introduce West Point and the educational military training program at that time. According to McFeely West Point when Grant went there was not the "train soldiers to kill boot camp" environment that it is today. The education was more academic then military. I also believe it is important to mention that Grant knew many if not all of the Generals he fought against, giving him an advantage in the field. He not only observed the Generals, but other cadets and soilders as well in the Mexican-American War. I plan to start out with his West Point education; briefly mention the Mexican-American War service; then add the Civil War section from the current USG bio article. I need to mention his service after the Civil War as General in terms of Reconstruction and Native American policy. I have to look into this, but I believe he put down an Irish invasion of Canada. One other issue is that he was reinstated by Grover Cleveland as General in order to get a much need pension payment for his family. By the time Grant died the nation was finally starting to meld as a nation. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)}

Fourth of July in Vicksburg

Regarding the note about the bottom of the article about Vicksburg's celebration of the Fourth of July, Ken Burns cited in his documentary, that the Fourth was not celebrated until 1944. See Link : http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/facts.html Bully84 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Vicksburg and the Fourth of July

The point I am trying to make is that it appears to me that the text on the page along with the annotation, makes it look like the story that Vicksburg did not celebrate the Fourth of July is merely the stuff of legend, and my opinion is that it is factual. As for your comment regarding Ken Burns, I did not realize that Burns was not considered a scholarly source. However, there are sources other than Burns on the Internet, that also cite this as a fact. Aside from all of that, my late father was born and raised in Vicksburg. My mother, who is still living, visited his family there early one July shortly after they were married in 1943. Many times in my early adulthood, she relayed a rather humorous story how she found out that the Fourth was not to be celebrated there....and this was long before I had ever heard of Ken Burns. Bully84 (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Grant article

Hal: I am curious whether you are supportive of the total overhaul of the Grant page effectuated today. My own reaction, while hasty and superficial, is negative. I think I may turn away from this page for good and hope Sherman doesn't get the same treatment. Hartfelt (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hal, Thank you for your response, as always. Hartfelt (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hal. I apoligize if I have interfered in any way with your writing in the USG bio article. My only goal is get USG bio to GA status. Hartfelt has really made the article good with his edits. I incorporated the military critisism in the USG bio article rather then a separate segment. I also added detail about North Ana and how Lee and other Confederate officers were either sick or injured during this time. I hope that the article has retained your original intent. Respectfully. {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}

I have attempted to incorporate all your original work, ideas, and suggestions into the article as much as possible. You, Hartfelt, and Rjensen are some of the best contributors on Wikipedia. I was trying to get Rjensen involved, but he was (possibly is) on vacation or traveling. His views would have been valuable. That is why the current version may have been appeared "hastily" written. Rjensen could be helpful with any suggestions. {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}

Hi Hal. Rjensen is currently on the road, but has recently made solid edits to the Initial Commissions section. He knows history and is able to make the article accurate, readable, and professional. Please let me know if you believe the article is improving.{Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)}

Robert Emmett Rodes/Robert Emmet Rodes

Hi Hal,

To add to the discussion on the spelling of Rodes' middle name: Rodes's son was named Robert Emmet Rodes, as was his grandson, his great-grandson, and his great-great-grandson (me). All of his descendants have always spelled their name with one t. The understanding of our family is that we are named after the Irish patriot Robert Emmet, whom his father David admired. For these reasons, as well as the spelling on his gravestone and the VMI record, it seems to me unlikely that the correct spelling of the General's name has two t's, biographers notwithstanding. I'm not sure how the discrepancy began, but would be interested to find out. Perhaps there's a signature somewhere?

Best Regards,

Bob Rodes

(Robert Emmet Rodes V) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robtrodes (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi Hal,

Evidence for the spelling Emmet:

1. It is spelled Emmet in his VMI records. 2. It is spelled Emmet on his gravestone. 3. We have all sorts of evidence that my grandfather spelled his name with one t, including a passport, business cards, official letters to the state department, and so on. 4. My father spells his name with one t. 5. I spell my name with one t. 6. There is a family tradition that we were named after the Irish patriot Robert Emmet.

Evidence against is that there are more primary records that use two t's than one. To be fair, there may be more evidence than this.

Nevertheless, it seems to me rather implausible that VMI would have spelled his name wrong. It seems much more implausible that Hortense Rodes would have allowed a misspelling on his gravestone. I also find it unlikely that his son would have inadvertently misspelled his name, and then misspelled his first son's name when naming him. It is certain in my mind that my grandfather would not have taken it upon himself to change the spelling to one t (thereby correcting his father) for any reason. Finally, oral traditions are not always reliable, but this one is plausible.

What is more plausible to me is that an early military record (such as the Brigadier General commission) spelled it wrong, and that he didn't bother to correct it. Rodes's focus was on preparing his troops and fighting battles, and it seems likely that an error of this sort would have been too trivial to care about to him. Such an error might well have propagated from there.

Of course, his own letters are very rare, and he was apparently in the habit of abbreviating his name when he signed it, so we have no "smoking gun" there.

It seems more likely to me that the misspelling occurred somewhere in military records, and it was more trouble than it was worth to try to correct it. Suppose, for example, that his Brigadier General's commission had it misspelled. He might very well have felt that there was too much important work to do to go to the trouble of having it corrected. This seems to me quite plausible.

I don't believe that any of his biographers have researched this one way or the other. Most of his records come from military sources, I believe. I'll email Darrell Collins and see if he has a reason for the misspelling, and write again with anything he might have.

Best Regards,

Bob Rodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robtrodes (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Northrop

Thank you for your changes, which are good ones. Bigturtle (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Signing post

Hi Hal, Just noticed that you forgot to sign your post on Lee's talk page. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

findagrave.com

Hi. I'm a bit curious about your two reverts of my removal of the findagrave.com website. Could you explain how the link is in accordance with WP:EL and, more importantly, how it does not violate WP:ELNO #1? --Conti|✉ 18:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference this archived discussion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the most recent discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Propriety_of_links_to_Findagrave.com. :) --Conti|✉ 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I never have much luck deciphering such enormous back and forth discussion pages, but I will know for sure that a consensus has been reached when the {{Find a Grave}} template is removed. I agree that ELNO #1 implies that we should be driving around and doing our own grave photography, but # 12 allows such collaborative/wiki sites "with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I do not support FaG as a reliable source for citations, but if an article has no gravesite/memorial photography, it is at least temporarily useful, just as IMDB is for unimportant movie/TV cast information. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)