Talk:High-water mark of the Confederacy

Reverted to old version

I reverted this page to an old version due to a couple of issues. Most prominently, there were some major POV additions: "North Carolinians: these men, through their valor and unparalleled fighting skill, drove furthest into the enemy". Also, I think the Shaara quote is appropriate in full. My apologies for any good content that was removed. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Tags in Shaara quote

I am not sure what the point of all the tags (3× verification needed, citation needed, unreliable source?) in the Jeff Shaara quote is. The quote is available here from Google Books. Does anybody mind if I remove them? –CWenger (^ • @) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of a template is improper until the valid point specifically identified within the template's message (e.g., in the "reason" field) has been addressed, which for an inline template can be clearly viewed by using the diff function in "View history" for the edit that added the template. In this case the multiple valid points clearly identified by the template reasons specifically indicate the Jeffrey Shaara quotation is "poorly sourced contentious material". As indicated by the wikiversion before the 1 May revert which the reverting editor admitted violated Wikipedia:Don't throw out the baby with the bath water ("apologies for any good content that was removed"), the small amount of content appropriate from the quoted Shaara info is simply that the few (relative to the Virginians and North Carolinas) of 14 Mississippians reached the spot just a few feet beyond the stone wall of The Angle. However, that claim unfortunately needs a second source for confirmation since Shaara's other claims within the quotation are easily identifiable as embellishments/fabrications. It would seem that the guidebook embellished by the novelist doesn't specifically cite sources for each claim and it would be a waste of time checking the guidebook for a particular citation regarding the 14 Mississippians, especially since the appropriate source would be a record from a participant in the battle, not a 21st century work by a commercial writer. Assuming good faith indicates the reverting editor is not trying to market either Shaara's guidebook or the unnamed Noe book, but the assumption of good faith is becoming somewhat offset by the revert that creates the appearance of edit warring (e.g., restoring to the article Noe's Battle of Perryville hypothesis, which even if it were an accurate characterization, is about neither the event nor the area that are the subjects of the wikiarticle). Instead of additional invalid reverts, perhaps the reverting editor will please consider adding the citations for the lengthy "history" section which has little info about the actual high-water mark, as the template for that section has been in place for quite a while. Likewise, the reverting editor claimed Shaara's guidebook is readable via Google (i.e., available free by public access despite it being a modern commercial work), but there is no url link in that source's citation on the wikipage to assist wikireaders in browsing that commercial work. Best wishes to the reverting editor in hopes that improved wikiediting with good faith will be the case from now on. Target for Today (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, I assure you my edits were in good faith. It just turns out I should have waited another half day for a response. I did see the comments you made but I think the {{citation needed}} and {{verification needed}} tags are not appropriate for your concerns. I think a {{clarify}} tag would be more appropriate, and probably only one is necessary. I have also made screenshots of the Shaara book from Google Books that are available here and here if you are interested. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)