Talk:Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies

Military history: Historiography / North America / United States / American Civil War B‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

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 and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

IMHO State Prisoners deserves a separate article, to distinguish from POW and Politicals.

Okay, now I'm somewhat pleased.

Thanks to Hlj for feedback. BusterD 01:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Rebellion[edit]

I use the War of the Rebellion a lot, hitting Cornell's site to do so. Cornell scanned the pages and posted them online, and if you check title pages you'll find that it isn't a simple case of Cornell saying the offical title is "The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies." That's the title listed on the title pages. Volume 1 Title page,Volume 4 Title Page, Volume 9 Title Page.

By contrast, the Union and Navy version is listed as "Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion" on the title pages. - annonymous 4/18/11 5:17 AM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.3.99 (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title as given on Wikipedia is incorrect. All the scanned facsimiles give the title, The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies. The title reversion was done with the editor stating that the name was the one used by the U.S. National Archives. However, the National Archives actually gives the title as printed on the title page of every book in the four series: Civil War Records: Basic Research Sources, Publications.— ★Parsa ☞ talk 23:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official Records of the American Civil War ?[edit]

The book is called Official Records of the War of the Rebellion. Why does wikipedia call it something else? Are we in the business of re-naming books here? We should not be. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The books are named that, but they are commonly called just the "Official Records". The title of the article was selected to represent the description that would be recognized (or searched for) most frequently by the average reader, which is Wikipedia policy for article naming. The most common example I can offer is the article Jimmy Carter, which is about a U.S. president whose name is actually James Earl Carter, Junior. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Official reports" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Official reports. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3#Official reports until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 20:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the OR ok to cite for Wiki?[edit]

I've seen the OR listed as a primary source, which I could see as it includes contemporary letters and reports, but since it was compiled after the fact, doesn't that make it a secondary source? Anyways, just looking for input from other editors as I've already used the OR for a couple articles and would like to continue using it if it's considered appropriate. Amscheip (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've raised an obvious and important question. I think everybody would agree properly attributed quotes from the OR might prove healthy additions to certain biography, unit, or action pages. There are many facts inside such well-provenanced documents which may prove useful; citing for that reason I heartily endorse. My concern is that we don't use the OR in Wikipedia's voice. We might refrain from using such material to support pagespace assertions. Inattentive editorial control may tend to put contributors somewhere in the realm of synthesis and that is a risky place to be, few of us being trained historians. I'd be fascinated to hear what others would opine on this subject. BusterD (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: There are many facts inside such well-provenanced documents which may prove useful; citing for that reason I heartily endorse. My concern is that we don't use the OR in Wikipedia's voice. Right on (I typed "right om" at first, but that works too.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]