Talk:Battle of Saltville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Organization

The article appears to be very informative, but however, I believe it could be much better organized. Right now, it appears like a term paper "The 5th Kentucky Cavalry and the Battle of Saltville." I think the 5th Kentucky deserves their own article, but the war crimes that occurred after the battle should naturally remain with the battle article. I'm glad that the crimes were included, as I never knew about myself until I simply stumbled over them in the OR, while researching my own ancestors role in the war. Unless there is a lot of negative opinion against, or someone else beats me to it, I'll eventually come back and attempt to organize this better. RebelAt 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Note, I've established a new article for the Fifth Kentucky/United States Colored Cavalry at 5th United States Colored Cavalry. Over the next few days, or weeks, depending on schedule, I'll begin the transfer of information to the new article and editing Saltville to be more specific to the topic. RebelAt 05:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved some stuff about the organization itself there, while I admit it makes this article look a little uglier, it seemed to have little to do with the battle itself. 68.39.174.238 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for moving it. As my earlier note indicates, I became wrapped up in other projects and simply did not afford the attention to the article as it deserved. I'd like to say I'll work on cleaning up in the next month, but I'll aim for something more ambiguous like "soon," instead. RebelAt 13:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

After some review, it seems aspects of this article, while not entirely cut and paste, have been plagiarized from the Secondary Source: David E. Brown, “History of the 5th Regiment Cavalry, United States Colored Troops” 8 August 2005 (2005 September 15)

Inside this link is specific addressment of the Battle of Saltville and the ensuing massacre, found here: The Saltville Massacre. The Secondary source is cited as being 2005, which would place it after the article. However, at the bottom of this Massacre link, the page was "updated" back in 1999! That, in turn, predates the article.

What I noticed was similiar topic organization (referenced above in other topic), as well as some sentence fragments, etc. This was a somewhat disappointing discovery, if only because the article seemed very well researched by the source appearances. If time allows, I will go in and offer better paraphrasing to avoid direct plagiarism, as well as shifting about the nature of the article, as discussed above.RebelAt 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This artical in fact is directly Plagiarised from the Emory and Henry College Hospital artical. In fact, they did not even change the order of the sources that they cut and paste.

Perhaps it may be best to simply scrap most of the article and sources, and start a new. At least the photographs can stay. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and OR

The editor of the Enquirer did not explain the discrepancy in the numbers of wounded Whites and Negroes. General Robert E. Lee sent a dispatch to the Secretary of War on October 4, 1864, saying that the enemy was bloodily repulsed, and that all of the troops behaved well.

In fact, it was the black soldiers of the 5th USCC who behaved well following the battle. Colonel Brisbin reported that, “The colored soldiers as fell into the hands of the enemy during the battle were brutally murdered. The negroes did not retaliate, but treated the rebel wounded with great kindness; carrying them water in their canteens and doing all they could do to alleviate the sufferings of those whom the fortunes of war had placed in their hands.”

This all seems very POV, and none of it is sourced, so I tagged it with {{NPOV}} and {{OR}}. Aplomado ^talk 22:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Let me add that although I see there are references at the bottom of the article, I think that it would be far more helpful to the reader if particularly controversial assertions are sourced directly in the article. Aplomado ^talk 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In honest truth, the entirety of the article probably could use a good scrubbing so to speak. As parts of it seemed to be lifted from another source, as I noted before. I'll look into it as soon as my time allows, if no one else does prior.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)