User:Hlj/Why

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains boilerplate rationale for why I revert certain changes, allowing me to point here, rather than trying to explain in the one-line editing summary. Please note that this is simply a convenience for me and I am not using this mechanism as a means of cutting off debate on issues.

By the way, please do not edit or post comments into this page itself. Use my Talk page or the Talk page for the article in question. Hal Jespersen 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adjectives

From time to time, editors propose changing the summary battle boxes to indicate an American Civil War battle was "decisive." This section describes my rationale for removing adjectives such as decisive, major, minor, clear, or Pyrrhic.

First, these battle box summaries provide only scant information and cannot be expected to substitute for the text of the article. The place to describe the details of the aftermath is in the article, not the box, so that a full treatment of the information can be provided.

Second, most of these terms have no explicit military definition without further explanation. Many of them (major, minor, ...) merely represent POV and that POV would have to be justified, difficult to do in a single phrase. (See WP:NPOV.)

"Pyrrhic" is particularly subjective POV; there is no objective measurement that describes it and the percentage of loss required to trigger Pyrrhic status for a single battle is arguable. Furthermore, it could be argued that almost every large battle Robert E. Lee won was a Pyrrhic victory because he took heavy casualties that he could not, in the long run of the war, afford.

For "decisive," the word means that something was decided, but without additional text the reader does not know what was decided:

• The campaign (as in the case of Gettysburg)
• The war. I would argue that there are no such examples in the Civil War, although there are some battles that are considered turning points. However, since the identification of turning points has no historical consensus, it is POV to designate them as such.
• The fate of one of the armies (as in the case of Nashville, although a POV case can also be made that the truly decisive point in that campaign was Franklin).

Since all of these uses of "decisive" represent POV and have to be explained, they are inappropriate for a one-phrase battle box entry. (That is not to say that there are not decisive moments within battles. For instance, Pickett's Charge would probably be considered the decisive event within the Battle of Gettysburg because it clearly decided the outcome of the battle and all historians ought to agree on that point. But the battle boxes do not include such information.)

It is best for all concerned that all of these adjectives be omitted.

There is one notable exception that I am aware of that I believe is justified. The Battle of Antietam was indecisive on a tactical level, but it is considered a strategic victory for the Union and the battle box indicates as such. This situation is described in detail in the text of the article, but it is a disservice to the reader who reads only the box to let the final result be listed as "indecisive." So, you might ask, why is this acceptable, but it is not for, say, Gettysburg. Well, Gettysburg was an unambiguous Union victory, both on a tactical and strategic level, so leaving it as "Union victory" is entirely correct, whereas Antietam listed as "indecisive" would be completely misleading.

[edit] Names

One of the minor controversial subjects in editing American Civil War articles is the selection of battle names. Some editors wish to make a point by selecting alternative names for battles, perhaps to show their solidarity with either the North or South. This is a disservice to the general reader of Wikipedia and we have attempted to link to battle articles using the actual name of the article, not one of its alternative forms. For instance, when referring to the Battle of Stones River, we do not use the term Battle of Murfreesboro (the name the Confederates used for the battle) in links from other articles, even from those articles about Confederate generals. (For those who might object to this, and suggest that an article about Braxton Bragg ought to use the name Bragg himself would use, I would point out that Franz Sigel probably referred to battles with their German names and no one would suggest doing that in the article about him.)

The collective consensus of Wikipedia Civil War editors has been to adhere generally to the National Park Service names for battles. See [1]. Although for strong Southern partisans it may seem unfair to allow the United States federal government to name the battles, this is the way we have chosen to do it and consistency across the articles benefits from this approach.

There are two deviations from this rule, one minor and one major:

• Battle of Sayler's Creek. The NPS uses the more modern spelling, Sailors, but as explained in the article itself, most Civil War historians use the historic name.
• Manassas. The NPS refers to the First Battle of Bull Run and the Second Battle of Bull Run by their Southern names, First and Second Manassas. The consensus of Wikipedia editors has been that Bull Run is a name more commonly used by the general public, so we have deliberately deviated from the NPS model. Discussions about changing this decision should be conducted on the Talk page for First Battle of Bull Run. However, pending any consensus change, there is no justification for widespread editing to explain in other articles that the battles had two names. That is explained adequately in the battle articles themselves.

[edit] Flags

There are some military history articles in which the information boxes have tiny flag icons. To my knowledge, none of the military boxes about the American Civil War use these icons, for a few reasons:

1. The Wikipedia military history task force recommends that they not be used: see WP:MIL#Infobox templates. If you agree that a common style guide is important, you can quit reading now.
2. There could be minor intellectual justification for using them in some wars, and violating the task force guideline, but only in multiparty wars in which numerous nationalities were involved in the fighting. For wars that have only two combatants, it is silly to attempt to differentiate the sides using tiny icons that are barely distinguishable. It is even sillier to duplicate those icons for each of the commanders on each side, once again unless there is a multinational aspect of the battle, in which commanders of one nationality are commanding troops of another.
3. The American Civil War saw multiple versions of flags used. On the Confederate side, there were three national flags in use, two on the Union side. It is a waste of editorial time to ensure that the correct version of the flag is shown. Furthermore, due to the political and social ramifications of the Confederate battle flag in modern America there is no compelling reason to add this symbol to literally hundreds of articles.
4. Compounding the previous item, there will undoubtedly be desires to show state affiliations, particularly since some still consider this to be the "War between the States." (For instance, at the beginning of the war, Robert E. Lee might have insisted that the Virginia flag be shown.)Then the whole thing gets out of hand.
5. Please review item 1 in this list.