Talk:John Pope (general)

Assessment

With the proper infobox this is a "B-Class" article.--Looper5920 07:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ranks

A great number of the American Civil War biographies use the Eicher reference for basic military career progressions; it is based on a very exhaustive set of military sources. I have reverted some changes in a previous edit that used an antique Harper's Weekly reference. Although it may seem unlikely today, apparently West Point graduates at the time actually had brevet ranks as second lieutenants and were granted the full rank of second lieutenant only at a later date. And Pope's "promotions" for the two Mexican battles were both brevet ranks. Hal Jespersen 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I find that rather dubious, but I'll take your word for it and assume that you have examined the Eicher reference and that the article accurately reflects the source. I am restoring the link to what you call the "antique" Harpers. older ≠ wiser 01:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to seem pejorative, but anything over 100 years old is technically an antique (except for cars, where it's 50, I think). In any event, Harper's is a primary source, written in the style of the time, and can't be relied on for the specifics of ranks and other military details when compared against a secondary source (Eicher, Warner, etc.) that is based on a historian's evaluation of numerous primary sources, including the ORs and US Army personnel records. Hal Jespersen 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is little in this article about his personal life. Was he married? Children? etc.Trucker11 (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Promoted Major General Twice?

It says "and received a brevet promotion to major general in the regular army on March 13, 1865, for his service at Island No. 10." And further below: "John Pope was promoted to major general in 1882 and retired in 1886." 83.255.70.208 (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The article on brevet ranks is linked twice in the article and may provide the explanation you seek. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Pope (military officer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stevietheman (talk · contribs) 17:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not in a position to do a thorough footnote-by-footnote review, but the lead section feels long and any effort to make it more concise would be worthwhile. Also, there are no inline citations in the lead. See WP:LEAD for what's expected for a lead section. The peer reviewer tool also turned up instances of weasel words. See WP:WORDS. Also, as I know a Civil War historian, he warned me about Shelby Foote's works being more about narrative than about proper history, so any material that solely depends on the listed work should be cited with a secondary credible reference. Since there's only one such visible citation, any other credible source that backs up the quote would satisfy WP:VERIFY. If there's any other content that relies on Foote's work, that should be addressed as well. On the positive side, I give high marks for the article's structure and overall content presentation. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To break it down, I won't oppose GA if 1) someone well-acquainted with the subject combs through the lead, makes appropriate changes (possible reduction and/or inline citations), and certifies that it meets WP:LEAD requirements; 2) a second credible reference is supplied for the quote. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Copyedited. (Thanks for reviewing this, Stevie, but note that the PR script isn't very reliable; the "weasel words" it turned up were "it has been" inside a long quotation.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I had understood this limitation, but I was going off of "a few occurrences". But if it can't name them outside of that quote, then this is certainly not an issue. I scratched that point off my review. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, thank you for your ce's from June 10. Am I supposed to see more recent edits, @Dank:? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No, early June was when I copyedited. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look for other sources and try to vary it a bit more. As for the lead, I agree that it's a bit wordy, so i'll shrink that down. Wizardman 21:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead and found a different (and better) source for the quotation that was a concern. Wizardman 03:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, it looks very close to GA-ready to me, except for the sentence beginning with "He achieved initial success against Brig. Gen. Sterling Price in Missouri..." -- It's on the long side and therefore a bit clumsy. If you can break it down into two sentences the way you think it should read, we'll be ready to go in my view. Great work! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That's now split into two and cleaned up a bit as well. Wizardman 22:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This article is now GA-quality as far as I'm concerned. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   The citation review was a matter of deciding that the sources appeared reliable, and after one switch, I believe they are. Now, that doesn't mean I verified the accuracy of the references as applied to the content because I don't have ready access to these references. But after a month and a half of review time (and as long as the references have been there), surely if anyone had a reference objection, they would have chimed in by now. I am depending on WP:AGF for this right now, although I (and I'm sure anybody else) would not settle for this if the article is submitted to be Featured.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Wizardman made updates to my satisfaction per my original review. Also, big thanks go to Dank for his copyedits.

Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Walter Donald Kennedy

He is a neo-confederate and part of the lost cause school. See: Lost Cause of the Confederacy TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on John Pope (military officer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831071227/http://www.city-book.com/Overview/history/history3.htm to http://www.city-book.com/Overview/history/history3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Strategic Turning Movement" ?

I'm not sure I'd consider Jackson's movement "strategic". I think this was more at the operational level of war. 2600:1700:4940:5040:806C:F6A:AB26:26E0 (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"Postbellum Years" Messy references

I am no expert on Pope, but it seems like the references in this section are off. For example, the statement describing Pope's efforts in the 1880s: author Walter Donald Kennedy notes that he also said "It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux" and planned to make a "final settlement with all these Indians" does not cite Kennedy; it cites the Official Records of the Civil War, which would not be relevant to this period. Kennedy does not appear in either the "references" or "further reading" section. I suspect there are similar errors in citations elsewhere in this section, and perhaps elsewhere in this entry.

These may be unintentional, and may not affect the accuracy of the entry, but it is sloppy work. Anyone care to track the actual sources and update the citations (and perhaps the entry) for accuracy? MsTheMug (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 10:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

---

John Pope (general officer) → John Pope (general) – Consistency with other article title. For example: William F. Howe (general) and so on. Footwiks (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. The one-word parenthetical qualifier "(general)" is in use throughout Wikipedia. The main title header had been moved only a week ago from the unnecessarily-extended "John Pope (military officer)" to the more-specific, but still extended "John Pope (general officer)". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is a very obvious one. Standard disambiguator for American generals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.