Talk:James Barnes (general)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group.

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Slight expansion

I added the infobox, filled it in some, and added important dates for Barnes with cites. More info is needed about his life before West Point as well as expanding on his life after the Civil War, hence the "no" answers to B-class one and two. Kresock (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Hal Jespersen

Hal asked for specifics regarding V Corps being in rederve or not at Chancellorsville.

Both Sykes' & Humphreys' Divisions of V Corps were engaged at Chancellorsville. On May 1 XII Corps attacked down the Orange Plank Road. V Corps attacked with Sykes' Division down the Orange Turnpike & Giffin's Division leading Humphreys' down the River Road. Sykes met McLaws' Division and was attacked in the flank by Rodes' division and retreated. Hooker ordered all attacking forces back (before any enemy were met on the River Road).

The V corps then held the front line from near to Scott's Dam to near Chancellorsville. This was not a reserve position, it just so happened that the V corps was not attacked here.

On 3 May V corps moved to the west to extend a new line facing Stuart's Corps. Humphreys' Division was attacked here by Colquitt's brigade. Griffin's Division was behind and to the right of Humphreys'.

Again the corps as a whole was not in a reserve position.

Graeme Cook (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my brief edit summary wasn't clear. I was not saying that specifics on the corps are needed, I was saying that a biography of a brigade commander does not need to have a lot of specifics about what other units in the Corps were doing, particularly in a battle in which he played such a minor role. This sort of detail would be fine in the Battle of Chancellorsville article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current construction of the last sentence of the second paragraph of "Civil War service" appears to suggest the Battle of Chancellorsville occurred before December 26th, 1862. And cites Eicher as source. I've seen that author used to justify some high horsehockey in my day, but this is a snafu-paloosa. BusterD (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere along the line that sentence got out of sequence, because the battle being referred to was Fredericksburg. He was in temporary division command from December 26, 1862, until February 1, 1863, and then again May 5 to July 21, 1863. I have adjusted the article to mention only the second of these. You have the possibility with these detailed command history lists from Eicher and other places of really bogging down on temporary assignments and I don't think they are very important. In this case, the second temporary assignment led him to command at Gettysburg, so it is worth mentioning. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hal, I am not suggesting specifics about what other units in the Corps were doing be included in the article but after I changed: "the old pattern returned and the V Corps was left in reserve." to: "Griffin's Division was left in reserve" you changed it to: "the V Corps was once again left in reserve". It seemed you needed some convincing. Has this conspiracy theory of leaving the V Corps in reserve been perpetrated on other articles?

Graeme Cook (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My most recent edit was to say "At the Battle of Chancellorsville in May, Barnes's brigade was not heavily engaged", which omits any reference to V Corps or other divisions. Although I do not think it is relevant to a Barnes biography, V Corps' did not play a giant role in the fighting at Chancellorsville. Their 700 casualties is the second lowest (I Corps had 300) out of 17,000. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, has this conspiracy theory of leaving the V Corps in reserve been perpetrated on other articles?

Graeme Cook (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hal,

The fact that "Barnes's" was used sometime in the past but since not been part of the article has no bearing on the style that new text should use. Your changes to this new text from "Barnes'" to "Barnes's" is for reasons of style alone, which is not allowed by the Wikipedia style guide.

Graeme Cook (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per request as uncontroversial - no discussion needed. - GTBacchus^(talk) 04:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Barnes (General) → James Barnes (general) — per standard

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.