Talk:Siege of Vicksburg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force

The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

This page now describes loser just battle/siege of Vicksburg, not the entire Vicksburg Campaign. This 'page' started out as eight separate articles. The material in those eight is now in here, the Vicksburg Campaign, and the Battle of Champion Hill. Once people have had time to digest this change, I intend to REDIRECT the remaining 7 of the 8 articles (the "sub-pages") to the main campaign article. They don't fit into the overall encyclopedia style anyway. They are long-winded, colloquial, seem to have section headers for every few sentences, and are packed with quotations from popular historians. And they include too much biographical commentary on Grant. It's more like a very long magazine article than an encyclopedia article. Hal Jespersen 20:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 POV? 2 Date?? 3 I expect a date, too 4 How do I cite this? 5 ??? 6 Siege 7 When was the last post or revision???

[edit] POV?

There seems to be an awful lot of "dramatic language" and theatre in this article. Sometimes it reads like an excited movie plot. "...shells rained upon the rebels...," "...backs against the mighty river....," "...soldiers full of meat and vegetables..." "Grant's soldiers were well-fed,"I think gets the point across clearly and conscisely without over dramatizing.

I think the author got a little carried away with the glory of war. I think the content is mostly good though. I am not a Civil War buff but I think the section on the reprecussions of this battle could be expanded. It seems too brief. co94 Nov 19, 2005

Seems OK to me, although you are invited to make edits appropriate to calm down any language too "dramatic" for your sensibilities. "Shells raining down" does not seem to express a POV to me, but perhaps you can reword it. I was not the original author of this material, although I did a huge amount of reorganizing and pruning. The reason the Aftermath section is brief is because this is simply one article in a Campaign series. BTW, you ought to reserve plastering on the POV warning for those occasions when edits you've offered are rejected and you want to object to the lack of respect for minority opinion, which is not the case here. Hal Jespersen 16:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Im not going to argue with you here, but if you think this dramatic narrative is worthy of an encyclopedia entry, then so be it. This article contains far too much dramatic language. Plain and simple. Phrases like, "odors assaulting rebel noses," are not appropriate in an encyclopedia entry. It is expository writing. An encyclopedia entry is not an essay. I dont want to change anything because, like I said, I am not an expert on Vicksburg. I came to this page to read up on it, but instead of reading a description of the battle, I read a colorful essay. Whoever this author is, he or she brought too many theatrics to this article. It isnt badly written per se; it is just inappropriate for an encylopedia. I dont understand how you cant see that.

As an example, compare this article to the article on the Battle of Bunker Hill. In that one, there is no dramatic language, no colorful imagery, or etc. It presents the facts in a descriptive and clear way. I think it is a better example of an encyclopedic entry for a battle.

OK, since you are reluctant to edit it yourself, I have taken a stab at it. Comments? Hal Jespersen 18:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It's much better. I might make a few subtle changes but it reads more imformatively now. On a side note, I read the link to the Vicksburg Campaign. I think that article is well-written.

One other thing, you included a lot of specifics in the article. Anecdotes, figures, etc. There are no references listed however. From where did all this information come from?

I wrote the Campaign article myself, so thanks. You have caught me in an oversight. When I reorganized these articles, I neglected a Refs section and will add it tomorrow. Hal Jespersen 01:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Date??

Someone needs to put a dat in the first sentence, the very top. Lots of other Civil War articles have it.

[edit] I expect a date, too

I'm doing an essay that's due tomorrow, and I really need the date. Thanks!

[edit] How do I cite this?

How can i properly cite this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.150.185 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I added the date on the second paragraph. In other words in on May 16- July 18, 1863!

[edit]  ???

Apparently 30,000 confederate soldiers set out. about 10,000 died. yet somehow, 30,000 were paroled??? were dead people paroled? --Pogs 12:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the figures with some references. It is actually very difficult to make the comparison you are asking about because this was a six-week siege in which the size of the Confederate Army changed over time. At the very beginning of the siege, Pemberton had only about 7,000 men in the trenches and the army gradually grew to about 30,000, who all surrendered at the end. One of the problem with these summary battle boxes is that it is difficult to depict this sort of information in a single figure. Hal Jespersen 00:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Siege

I have just spent a week in Vicksburg and find that the National Park Service and local historians do not use the name Battle of Vicksburg, instead referring to the Campaign and Siege. I would like to rename this article Siege of Vicksburg unless anyone objects. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I entirely agree that this article should be retitled "Siege of Vicksburg". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.206.227 (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When was the last post or revision???

I need to know for my paper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.167.229.49 (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

To what? The article? Click the 'history' tab on the top of the page. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)