Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article stats

[edit]

FAC Nominator User:Omnedon

Authorship stats

  1. Wtfiv 78.7%
  2. Omnedon 2%
  3. Lieutcoluseng 1.8%
  4. Therequiembellishere 1.6%
  5. Aza24 1.2%

Top editor stats

  1. Omnedon · 713 (36.8%)
  2. Wtfiv · 631 (32.5%)
  3. Rjensen · 116 (6%)
  4. North Shoreman · 111 (5.7%)
  5. Carlstak · 84 (4.3%)

Stats excerpted as of 22:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award nominations

[edit]

Please set up separate sections for each nomination.

FASA nomination Wtfiv

[edit]

I nominate User:Wtfiv for a Featured Article Save Award for their Herculean effort to restore the bronze star to Jefferson Davis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Wtfiv

[edit]
  1. Support, through an arduous year-long review, Wtfiv kept their cool, responded to queries on FAR, and essentially rewrote Jefferson Davis, accounting now for nearly 80% of what is on the page. Wtfiv should proudly display the bronze star associated with this article on their talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support a mammoth achievement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Whole heartedly --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 11:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely, they did more work than anyone. ——Serial 13:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support great work Wtfiv on a tough subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. A year-long effort should definitely be recognised. FrB.TG (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Apologies if any of this duplicates anything already discussed on the article talk, as I don't remember all of what was discussed there.

  • "Davis, the youngest of ten children, was born in Fairview, Kentucky to a moderately prosperous farmer couple" - I'm not seeing where the body establishes that his family was "moderately prosperous"
  • the clause about a moderate farmer couple has been deleted.
  • Any chance the Thomas Hinds who took Davis to school in Kentucky was Thomas Hinds? I'm seeing some sources that aren't high-quality making the connection (Davis 1991 doesn't seem to make the connection). What do the other source you've consulted say?
  • Replaced out Cooper with four pages of Davis who covers the trip in detail and connects Major Hinds to Jackson. Added link. diff here.
  • I've not over-awed with Fleming 1920 as a source, so I've replaced the last cite to it with a ref to Davis 1991
  • Thanks!
  • I'm not a fan of the linking of the 1841 Mississippi rifle - it's currently piped to percussion rifle, which is a bit of a MOS:EGG situation. I'd think it preferable to link the percussion rifle to Percussion cap#Military firearms and then move the link for the M1841 Mississippi rifle to where the name Mississippi Rifle is introduced.
  • Done.
  • Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo - besides the more territory issue, John S. D. Eisenhower's So Far From God p. 366 also notes that Davis objected to it on the grounds that it was negotiated by a private citizen.

More to come Hog Farm Talk 18:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Pettus appointed him a major general of the Army of Mississippi." - the linked article discusses three armies, neither of which are the ones referred to here. Recommend rephrasing in some way that the appointment was in the army of the state-controlled troops of Mississippi
  • Not changed. Cooper 2000 p. 322 states "the governor issues a proclamation anouncint the appointment of Jefferson Davis as Major General of the Army of Mississippi." I believe Cooper is correct in putting it this way. This was during that strange, brief moment when the states were asserting their sovereignity before the formation of the Confederacy. If you feel uncomfortable with the wording, please feel free to change as you see fit.
Hog Farm, If this stuff interests you, here's a link to Davis's Feb 12, 1861 to Pettus resigning his position as Major General of the Army of Mississippi to become president. (I wish I had access to Rice's more complete Papers of Jefferson Davis) Reflecting that micro-moment when Mississippi was a "nation" on its own.
I just realized what you meant. The link is inappropriate here, so I deleted it. I'll put "...Mississippi's army" (here's the diff) Again, please reword as you see fit.
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I was mainly concerned with the link pointing to the wrong units. Hog Farm Talk 22:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fort surrendered on April 14" - they had the big ceremony on April 14, but Anderson actually surrendered on April 13. I'd recommend hedging the wording a bit "the fort surrendered after a lengthy bombardment" or something (maybe "after over thirty hours of bombardment" per McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pp.273-274
  • Originally followed Potter 1976, p. 526 here, who skips the 13th, and just mentions the day Anderson marched out and the Confederates actually occupied fort. Modified prose, but stayed with Potter who mentions 33 hours and can be accomodated. See diff

Ready for foreign policy, will pick back up later. I've been correcting spelling and punctuation issues as I go along; it may not hurt to get someone who's better with stuff like that than me to take a look over this. Hog Farm Talk 20:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suffering through the prose and grammar. I focus mainly on source and facts in the first round. Take some distance, wait for feedback. Once you are done and we've made changes, I'll go through it again. But it would be nice to have some fresh eyes on it. Carlstak has been checking now and then. Wtfiv (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On May 22, Davis was imprisoned in Fort Monroe, Virginia under the watch of General Nelson A. Miles" - Miles formally had a more specific rank than General - I'll try to look up what the correct one should be.
  • Miles is given as a Major General by Eckert (1987) in his commentary on Craven, 1866.
  • "In September, Miles was replaced by General Henry S. Burton," - ditto with Burton, although I believe Burton's generalship was only an honorary brevet rank. As the brevet was purely honorary and didn't establish Burton as having the authority of a general, I don't think it's best to refer to him as a general, unless we clarify with the brevet.
  • Corrected. I figure since Burton is watching Davis in his capacity of general, we'd honor him the Brevet Brigadier General rank.(In the future, I'll try to stay mindful of hunting down the generals' rank when doing articles related to military figures.)

More to follow. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he returned to the United States in October 1870 to become president of the Carolina Life Insurance Company [...] Davis lived at the Peabody Hotel, leaving his family in England because he was not financially stable" but then "Davis went back to England to get his family in late summer of 1870" - something seems to have gone wrong with the chronology here
  • I've reworked this section to make the chronological flow a bit more clear: After the federal government had dropped its case against him, Davis returned to the United States in October 1870 to become president of the Carolina Life Insurance Company of Memphis, Tennessee, leaving his family in England because he was not financially stable. He moved into the Peabody Hotel and threw himself into work, hiring former friends such as Braxton Bragg to serve as agents.

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hog Farm I'll also go through this again for a second round minor clean up. This will be more casually paced. And I'd like to ask one last question: Once the article is fairly settled and I'm doing minor checking, I like putting the convenience links in each citation point to the actual pages to the archive.org sources. This should be easy, though time consuming, once the article is set. I feel this helps readers verify the information and helps stabilize edits, as it allows quick checking of source-citation integrity. The downside is that it makes each sfn in the code longer as it includes a link. Are you okay with this? If you rather I didn't, please let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last aside: One thing I learned working with Davis is that much of what he stood for is public record. It was a good experience to verify the secondary sources with actual examples of his speeches, and to get a sense of his thinking. I hope readers who study Davis take advantage of the original sources, particularly the major speeches that are linked in the articles. I chose that one picture of him near his writings because he looks like he's inviting readers, who can decide how they ultimately judge him based on his own words. Thank you again! Wtfiv (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Work.

[edit]

Sandy I enjoyed editing this article to address Guerillo's concerns. I think I have been fairly successful at this, while maintaining citation/text integrity. I've addressed to the best of my ability the citations copy edit issues. I hope my contributions will help it retain its FA status. As to issues regarding style and length, I understand these are important as well. Yes, the article grew when I edited it. I thinned a lot of the sections, but I substantially expanded the section describing Davis's role in the Civil War. I think changes in writing style may require other editors, and I'm too close to the material to see what should be cut. I hope other editors may be craft the style, length, and general copy editing. Wtfiv (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we are likely at the stage where an uninvolved editor can probably be effective at trimming; the star will be saved because of your efforts, but we can still make sure the finishing polishes are accomplished-- there is no hurry! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I very much appreciate your understanding. Wtfiv (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender of Black Hawk?

[edit]

I'm thinking we need a rephrasing here. Our article has the text Davis went to Mississippi on furlough in March 1832, missing the outbreak of the Black Hawk War. Davis returned after the capture of Black Hawk and escorted him for detention in St. Louis, which is supported by the cited source, Scanlan 1940. But this is where things get tricky.

  • Scanlan pp. 178-179 indicates that Davis went on leave in March, returned to Fort Crawford on August 18, and that Black Hawk "was brought a prisoner to Fort Crawford" by two Native Americans on August 27, and that Davis then commanded the guard that escorted Black Hawk to St. Louis.
  • William C. Davis pp. 49-51 has a slightly different story - Davis went on leave in March, and formally reported back to duty on August 18, but was likely with his troops informally before then, and that garbled recollections Davis had later in life are evidence that he could well have been present in an informal capacity at the Battle of Bad Axe on August 2. William C. Davis then has Taylor ordering Davis and a "small party" on a scout, in which they stumbled upon Black Hawk and took him back to Davis, instead of to Joseph Street like the chief wanted. Davis and Robert Anderson then escort Black Hawk to St. Louis
  • Our article on Black Hawk himself has While camping near present-day Tomah, Wisconsin, Black Hawk's party was seen by a passing Ho-Chunk man, who alerted his village chief. The village council sent a delegation to Black Hawk's camp and convinced him to surrender to the Americans. On August 27, 1832, Black Hawk and Wabokieshiek surrendered at Prairie du Chien to Indian agent Joseph Street. I can't access the Trask source cited, but the Google books preview of the relevant page of Jung has Black Hawk surrendering to Street and Taylor at Prairie due Chien (the location of Ft. Crawford), accompanied by two other natives, on August 27.

So there's two takeaways here - William C. Davis (historian), who has written a large number of well-regarded books on the Civil War, looks likely to have gone completely off the rails here about the surrender of Black Hawk? (!) Wtfiv, you ended up looking at a large accumulation of Davis scholarship during your rewrite of the article. Does any of it make a similar claim to William C. Davis here about the surrender? And secondly, I don't think that stating that Davis returned after the capture of Black Hawk is particularly accurate. There seems to be no doubt that Davis formally reported back to Fort Crawford on August 18, and even the two sources I looked at that don't have Jeff Davis involved in the capture have Black Hawk surrendering at Fort Crawford/Prairie du Chien on August 27, when Davis would have been back in service. Hog Farm Talk 02:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Cooper's take on pp. 54-55. He is open as about whether Davis fought at the Battle of Bad Axe. Please phrase it however you are comfortable. But yes, it should state Davis returned before the end of the war.
Maybe it is best to just mention that Davis returned before the Battle of Bad Axe and escorted Black Hawk to St. Louis after he was captured? Are you comfortable with the rephrasing? Wtfiv (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave an initial try at rewording using Cooper as the source. I mention the return to duty, but don't mention if Davis had any role in the battle of Bad Axe. Again, please feel free to edit or modify as you see fit. Wtfiv (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm. While hunting down sources on another aspect of Davis, I found some older sources that complicate the narrative of Davis's participation in the Black Hawk War even further. The 1896 edition of the Midland Monthly Magazine loosely records an interview with Davis where he describes his participation in Battle of Wisconsin Heights, (July 21, 1832): Here's the link to the page in the article: Jefferson Davis and Black Hawk. If Davis was here, it shows he was with his unit before the Battle of Bad Axe.

So this leaves a question. How do you think this should be handled? Scanlon, Davis, and Cooper all agree that muster rolls have him rejoining his unit at Fort Crawford on August 19. Scanlan and Cooper argue he couldn't have made it back in time for the Battle of Wisconsin Heights. As you point out, W. C. Davis points out that he may have informally joined his unit earlier and served. Cooper's argument is that Davis was in Woodville on July 9 and steamboats could not have gotten him back to Fort Crawford until July 21 at the earliest. Davis argues that he could have, given that the record is the time of his formally joining the unit, not effectively.

A 1923 article The Northwestern Career of Jefferson Davis from the Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society by Quaife states that Davis didn't take his furlough because the Black Hawk war broke just before he had time to leave. Cooper's evidence of Davis being in Woodville on July 9 shows that to be incorrect, but I think Quaife seems to be reconciling Davis's claim that he was at the Battle of Wisconsin Heights without benefit of access to Davis's letters.

My thought is to add a footnote mentioning that Davis describes being at the Battle of Wisconsin Heights. It goes against Cooper's reasoning on the timeline, but I could leave it without comment or put Cooper as a caveat. Or maybe its best to leave out all together? What do you think? Wtfiv (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a further complication: There is no mention of regular army soldiers at the Battle of Wisconsin Heights, just militia. If Davis was there, he wasn't with his unit yet. (Still, his presence at the battle as recorded by Aldrich (1896) would require a contradiction of Cooper's timeline, requiring that Davis arrived at Ft. Crawford some days before July 21/22 to be able to get to Wisconsin Heights, which is about 85 miles from the fort, by the day of the battle.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wtfiv: - I'd just not mention Wisconsin Heights. Scanlan and Cooper say it's impossible, and W. C. Davis also simply states that Jeff couldn't have been there and blames the claim on Jeff's faulty memory years later. With Cooper and W. C. Davis, two of the stronger modern sources out there saying no, I don't think it's really due weight to mention the claims made in older sources. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Keeps things simple. Thanks for responding! Wtfiv (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Jefferson_Davis/archive1&oldid=1185392773"