Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/William Tecumseh Sherman/archive1

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

Article stats[edit]

Article stats as of 9 December
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
FAC Nominator User:Eb.hoop

Authorship stats

  1. Eb.hoop 20.9%
  2. Hartfelt 18.9%
  3. Eb.hoop2 16.6%

Top editor stats

  1. Eb.hoop · 367 (34.2%)
  2. Hartfelt · 245 (22.8%)
  3. Eb.hoop2 · 146 (13.6%)

Stats excerpted as of 9 December, 2021, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF comments[edit]

  • "Sherman and Ord reached the town of Yerba Buena, in California, two days before its name was changed to San Francisco" - source actually says that they arrived in Monterey two days before Yerba Buena was renamed
Fixed. -Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1848, Sherman accompanied the military governor of California, Col. Richard Barnes Mason, in the inspection that officially confirmed that gold had been discovered in the region, thus inaugurating the California Gold Rush" - source doesn't actually seem to say the second part in here about it confirming the discovery and starting the rush
Fixed by introducing a new ref and some minor re-writing. -Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sherman embarked from New York City on the 198-day journey around Cape Horn" - neither source seems to specify that it was a 198-day trip
Fixed with a new ref. -Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus, he was living in the border state of Missouri as the secession crisis reached its climax." - sourced to Sherman's memoirs, needs a better source for this conclusion
This does not appear to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this has since been fixed. Hog Farm Talk 06:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for Vicksburg. Hog Farm Talk 03:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't Sherman's role in the Vicksburg campaign be explicitly stated to be a corps commander?
This has been fixed
  • Shouldn't the outcome of the Meridian expedition be mentioned
Fixed. Added a couple of sentences about the Meridian expedition, with ref. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite this mixed record, Sherman enjoyed Grant's confidence and friendship. When Lincoln called Grant east in the spring of 1864 to take command of all the Union armies, Grant appointed Sherman (by then known to his soldiers as "Uncle Billy") to succeed him as head of the Military Division of the Mississippi, which entailed command of Union troops in the Western Theater of the war. As Grant took overall command of the armies of the United States, Sherman wrote to him outlining his strategy to bring the war to an end: "If you can whip Lee and I can march to the Atlantic I think ol' Uncle Abe [Lincoln] will give us twenty days leave to see the young folks" - sourced to Sherman's memoirs, at least the first part needs a secondary source
Added ref to Holden Reid about relationship with Grant. I also tried to improve the transition at the start of the section. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He led a lengthy campaign of maneuver through mountainous terrain against Confederate general Joseph E. Johnston's Army of Tennessee, attempting a direct assault only at the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain. In July, the cautious Johnston was replaced by the more aggressive John Bell Hood, who played to Sherman's strength by challenging him to direct battles on open ground." - sourced to Sherman's memoirs, a general source about the war such as McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom ought to be easy to source this to and be a much better source
Added ref about Kennesaw Mountain, as well as a bit of explanation about what it meant in the context of the Atlanta expedition. Added ref for Hood's mistake in attacking Sherman directly. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some uncited text in the Carolinas section
    I can’t locate this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A small bit - "having been second from last to secede from the Union, ahead only of Tennessee." Still uncited. Hog Farm Talk 06:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the context is often overlooked, and the quotation usually chopped off, one of Sherman's statements about his hard-war views arose in part from the racial attitudes summarized above" - cited to the memoirs, possible original research
I never liked this commentary, which I thought was both unnecessary and confusing. I've now taken it out. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for strategies. Hog Farm Talk 05:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "One of the most serious accusations against Sherman was that he allowed his troops to burn the city of Columbia. In 1867, Oliver Otis Howard, commander of Sherman's 15th Corps, reportedly said, "It is useless to deny that our troops burnt Columbia, for I saw them in the act."" - an 1884 memoir by a Mr. Scott and then the writings of Hampton are not a good source for this
    Not addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankfully, this has been fixed
  • Uncited material in the Indian Wars section
I think this is fixed now. In fact, the "citation needed" tag wasn't necessary, because the source already given at the end of the paragraph covered it. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of Sherman's main concerns in postbellum service was to protect the construction and operation of the railroads from attack by hostile Indians. Sherman's views on Indian matters were often strongly expressed." - better source needed, the references for this paragraph all appear to be referring to direct quotes by Sherman
    Unaddressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not done.

Hog Farm Talk 06:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His two-time receipt of the Thanks of Congress should be incorporated into the body of the article instead of shunted off to the infobox. Hog Farm Talk 18:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still not done. Hog Farm Talk 06:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SG comments[edit]

  • There are still citation needed tags.
Not anymore. The one that was in there was actually uncalled for (see above) - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this image caption cited in the article? " The black ribbon of mourning on his left arm is for Abraham Lincoln."
No. Please feel free to address this. Here are a couple of possible sources: [1] and [2] - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave that to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is everything in the infobox cited ? For example, the date of the death of his wife does not seem to be.
  • I don't believe Works (or Publications or Writings in this case) should contain external links.
  • Re It was one of the four brigades in the division commanded by General Daniel Tyler, which was in turn one of the five divisions in the Army of Northeastern Virginia under General Irvin McDowell (see First Bull Run Union order of battle) this seems to be an accurate reflection of the source, but should not the information after see be incorporated as a wikilink or a hatnote?
  • Re this edit followed by this edit, I do not have access to Kennett, and the TSHA Handbook won't let me through a gynormous pop-up ad. Specifically what text where verifies the expanded content?
I don't have access to Kennett. In terms of content, the difference between the two edits rests on something easily verifiable: that before Grant became full (i.e., four-star) general and Sherman lieutenant (i.e., three-star) general on July 25, 1866, there had never been a full general in the US Army and Grant had been the only lieutenant general since Washington. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kennett only covers Sherman's promotion, not the background detail. Hog Farm Talk 18:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed this. The official minutes of the Savannah meeting, also available online, do identify Frazier by his full name and indicate that he was a retired Baptist minister. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the done items from my section, but am out of time for now. Please ping me when the rest is addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sherman was distantly related to American founding father Roger Sherman and grew to admire him. I don't mind citing that W.T. came to admire Roger Sherman to W.T's own Memoirs, but people often make mistaken claims about distant relations, so that should have either an independent source, or be attributed to W.T. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are books listed in External links which would be more correctly listed as Further reading. Are all of the External links needed (that is, is there some unnecessary overlap there)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have re-done all the appendices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The books listed in Further reading do not have a consistent citation style, and don't follow (whatever) style is used in the other sources.
    Some understanding of why the books listed in Further reading are not used as sources would be helpful, in terms of whether they should be there at all (what do they add)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not very familiar with these works, Eb.hoop2 might be better familiar. Miers and Johnson both look dated enough that they can probably be removed, while Detzler would probably be useful as a source if someone can track it down (the religion section is currently overreliant on quotes or otherwise poorer sources). Hog Farm Talk 18:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Nervous breakdown” and marriage[edit]

  • The term nervous breakdown is ill-defined, and shouldn’t be used in the lead. What precisely do the sources (that is, more modern ones) call this “breakdown”? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This NYT book review of McDonough claims depression; what does McDonough say ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kennett p. 145 says Dr. Paul Steiner, whose study of Sherman has been cited earlier, went over the relative documentary evidence and prepared a "Neuropsychiatric Record" offering this conclusion: "Today the diagnosis would be that of a mild "anxiety attack". and then goes on to discuss a similar and poorly document incident that had occurred in California in 1856. Hog Farm Talk 04:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And this source says Holden-Reid mentions severe depression. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This talk about decades of failure and depression; we don’t get that sense from the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Miller p. 65 calls it "incapacitating depression" and pp.68-69 says when Sherman was in St. Louis, that Halleck had an army doctor perform an evaluation of his mental health and that Sherman was ruled "unfit for command", and that he was later cleared for field service again in February. Hog Farm Talk 04:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This WSJ book review of Holden-Reid mentions depression and anxiety, so presumably Holden-Reid does as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Summary: would it be satisfactory to switch nervous breakdown in the lead to mental health crisis, and then better explore his overall mental health (anxiety and depression) in that section of the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eb.hoop2 I disagree; we haven’t yet fixed the lead, nor covered this in the body of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence makes no sense; what do secondary sources say about his asthma attacks? Sherman suffered from stress-related asthma because of the city's aggressive business culture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kennett p. 74 says that the asthma had not troubled him much during his first stay in California but that it got bad in his second time living their (having trouble fitting that into the article chronology) and relates that it was especially bad in 1854, keeping him from sleeping and rendering unable to go to the bank some days. Kennett does not mention stress or business culture as a potential cause, but says He [Sherman] suspected at various times the sea air he was breathing, moisture in walls, or "carbonic acid" emitted by trees during the night, but he was never able to fix on the cause. The latter part suggests that we are too strongly phrasing this in saying that it was due to business culture. Hog Farm Talk 05:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source talks about marital issues that we don’t cover at all (I’ve seen that elsewhere but lost track). What do our secondary sources say? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Miller hints at it, but doesn't go into much detail (pp. 66-67) Throughout their long and passionless marriage, Ellen Ewing Sherman never broke from her Ohio home, feeling more secure in the bosom of the Ewing family than she did with her footloose husband Hog Farm Talk 04:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So he was moving around all those years without her and the kiddos? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In trying to figure out how he had all these kids while having a “passionless” marriage (with her living alone??), I realized that the “St. Louis interlude” section is presumably all set in 1861, but never says that (we leave the reader to sort it out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "never broke from her Ohio home" seems to be figurative - Kennett p. 71 notes that the couple lived together for all but 7 months of Sherman's time in SF. Kennett pp. 72-73 then discusses Sherman not liking the arrangement because it was too expensive to have a wife and kids in California, and that Ellen wanted to go home with the kids to Ohio every spring because she preferred to be there but only took that one 7 month trip by herself because of fears of the hazards of travel from CA to OH. Kennett p. 73 also says about Ellen Ellen was a semi-invalid, probably housebound much of the time and was on tincture of opium, and that all of this annoyed Sherman and In later years he [Sherman] would tell her flatly that her illnesses were imaginary Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kennett p. 75 notes that during the California time, "the partners sometimes worked at cross purposes" and also says "She in turn was endlessly supportive as his confidante, occasionally his counselor, and - though Sherman would have bridled at the term - his confessor" Hog Farm Talk 05:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it becomes more confusing. When we say “On February 19, a funeral service was held at his home”, do we mean New York City, or was there a family home elsewhere? Why was he buried in St. Louis? Did the family live there at that point? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kennett p. 339 says the funeral was held in NYC, doesn't say anything about if the family was living there or not (might be elsewhere in Kennett), and says his body was taken by train to St. Louis for burial, but doesn't say why. Hog Farm Talk 05:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Charles Celestine (1864–1864)
    Philemon Tecumseh (1867–1941)
    What caused Charles’s death, and presumably WTS hooked up with his wife again to have Philemon? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something else we don't seem to mention here - per Kennett p. 100 says that Sherman had an incredible memory and also says that "In temperament he would be classified as mercurial, with discernable 'highs' and 'lows'" Hog Farm Talk 05:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I came across sources claiming he was bipolar, but they don’t make it past my WP:MEDRS radar, so don’t want to go there. I can’t find anything that rises to the level of Samuel Johnson’s Tourette’s, which is my post-humous diagnosis standard. At any rate, this is his bio, and we need to do a better job of exploring the man and his personal life here, possibly by more tightly summarizing some of the battles and campaigns (if that can be done without sacrificing the essence of the bio). Several of the book reviews I’ve mentioned on this page have much to say about his personality that we haven’t covered; this is the article where we do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Nervous breakdown" is not a diagnosis. It's just an everyday, colloquial phrase used to refer to an episode in which a person can longer function in their everyday life due to emotional disturbance. Trying to replace it in the lead with a more medically precise term would inevitably take us into either original research or else into giving undue weight to some specific and controversial modern theory about Sherman's psychological condition. Trust me, I know the secondary literature on Sherman, and you won't be able to come up with a diagnosis that would be acceptable to include here by Wikipedia standards. Also, please bear in mind that Sherman died well over a century ago, long before the growth of modern psychology and psychiatry, and that he's only notable for his role as a military commander in the US Civil War. Going down the road of delving into Sherman's emotional life is going to be a wild-goose chase. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have secondary sources discussing his mental illness(es). We can't leave an ill-defined colloquialism in the lead, and need to find a way to solve that, using secondary sources. We have not at all adequately covered what secondary sources reveal about his mental health. Otherwise, we might attribute the term nervous breakdown by saying something like "described by author X as a nervous breakdown" (which only partially gets us off the hook). Regardless of what he was notable for, his bio should cover his life (eg, he is not notable for his marrage, notable for his children, etc., but those are included). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the secondary sources don't agree on a diagnosis (bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety attacks, something else), nor do I see how they possibly could. The facts as we have them are adequately summarized in the body of the article. The risk of OR or NPOV seems to me rather severe if we try to substitute "nervous breakdown" with a diagnosis. Moreover, it's one thing to mention Sherman's wife and children in the article, quite another to reduce the coverage of his role the Civil War in order to go into extensive detail of his personal or emotional life (most of which will have to speculative), as you seem to be suggesting. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, we now have the bipolar source added to the lead, which is quite iffy; this should be solved. Either deal directly with what the better sources do say about his mental health, or explain the the meaningless euphemism of nervous breakdown was what it was called at the time, if sources allow for that. Having a speculative post-humous bipolar source in the lead is not where we should end up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming[edit]

I agree with Sandy that it looks like there's been some stuff uncovered indicating a need for further discussion of those topics, and where trimming is going to wind up will probably have to be the military stuff. A possible idea would be to use some subarticles here, such as Military career of William Tecumseh Sherman - we have Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Military career of Stonewall Jackson, etc. I think the comparison to the Jackson article here is interesting - both are figures from the same time period mainly known for military service, who are considered in modern secondary sources to be complex and interesting personalities. Hog Farm Talk 05:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • While the Sherman-Grant interchange on the field at the first day of Shiloh is significant, we are probably giving it a little too much space right now
  • "Sherman offered Grant an example from his own life: "Before the battle of Shiloh, I was cast down by a mere newspaper assertion of 'crazy', but that single battle gave me new life, and I'm now in high feather." He told Grant that, if he remained in the army, "some happy accident might restore you to favor and your true place"" - can be condensed to save space. We're going to have to fight the urge to quote the highly quotable Sherman
  • Not sure that the Winters quote needs to be that extensive?
  • "During the long and complicated maneuvers against Vicksburg, one newspaper complained that the "army was being ruined in mud-turtle expeditions, under the leadership of a drunkard [Grant], whose confidential adviser [Sherman] was a lunatic"." - not sure that this particular primary-sourced quote is due weight? The same effect can be accomplished by a brief secondary source reference that a sizable chunk of the public thought Grant was drunk and Sherman was crazy
  • " Meanwhile, in August, Sherman "learned that I had been commissioned a major-general in the regular army, which was unexpected, and not desired until successful in the capture of Atlanta"" - not sure this quote adds much, can be said more succinctly

It's getting late in my time zone, so I need to stop here so that I can go to bed to get to church in the morning. Hog Farm Talk 05:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to bury my head all day tomorrow (and maybe more) in the CCI check for Tornado, which will require full concentration. I suspect I’ve done all I can here, but will try to check back in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent citation style[edit]

List of citation inconsistencies followed by discussion to convert to sfns
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am moving the following comments to their own section, as there is still considerable work to be done to conform with WIAFA 2c, consistent citation style. I'll continue as time permits ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are we using spaces after p. and pp. or not?
    • What are these? 1864, 1865 Fully formatted citations needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • All citations should be fully formatted (publisher, etc), eg 43. Sherman at the Virtual Museum of San Francisco Archived May 9, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Also, missing publisher … these are samples only … all should be checked … 162. See History of LSU. Archived March 10, 2009, at the Wayback Machine SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no consistent citation style; use of p and pp for single or plural pages was mixed, some have spaces some not, some citations end in periods, others not … I have attempted cleanup here, please check carefully. Is Smith 434n a typo ??
It's not a typo. The "n" at the end indicates that the reference is to a note and not to the main text. I found that reference in the article on Ulysses S. Grant. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incomplete citation: Bust of Sherman, from SIRIS.
  • Citation not formatted: "SHERMAN, William Tecumseh: Monument (ca. 1903) in Sherman Square near the Treasury Dept. in Washington, D.C. by Carl Rohl-Smith located in James M. Goode's The Ellipse area".
    • Another: Letter to Thomas Ewing Sherman, Jan. 21, 1865
  • This sort of citation presents bigger issues (and there is similar throughout):
    • See, for instance, Woodward
      That is used to cite all of this:
      Sherman lived most of the rest of his life in New York City. He was devoted to the theater and to amateur painting and was much in demand as a colorful speaker at dinners and banquets, in which he indulged a fondness for quoting Shakespeare.
      The first problem is the "for instance"; is all of that factual or not; living the rest of his life in NYC is not a "for instance", although his quoting of Shakespeare may be. The next problem is, what are we citing with this "Woodward"? Are we citing the book or a review of the book? If it's the book, we need page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency: Sherman, Memoirs, pp. 131–134, 166. ... but later ... Memoirs, chronology, p. 1093. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the ? and are we using p. or page ? See Edwin J. Scott, Random Recollections of a Long Life, p. 185; Wade Hampton [?], The Burning of Columbia, Charleston, SC, 1888, page 11. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tagged this for better source needed. Scott's autobiography and the writings of the Confederate general Hampton are not anywhere close to sufficient citations for content about the burning of Columbia, which is debated in modern sources. Hog Farm Talk 15:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this series of edits, final punctuation is added after some p. x and not after others; above I indicated that I had switch them to all having final punctuation (as most did). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete and inconsistent style: W. Fletcher Johnson, Life of Wm. Tecumseh Sherman, Late General, U.S.A. (1891) Useful 19th century biography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed this. It doesn't seem to be directly used, and is the same as one of the works appearing in the further reading. Hog Farm Talk 18:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be listed as a source but not used ?? Hanson, Victor D., The Soul of Battle, Anchor Books, 1999, ISBN 978-0-385-72059-5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is the publisher? Letter Archived 2011-10-11 at the Wayback Machine by Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman, USA, to the Mayor and City Council of Atlanta, September 12, 1864 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eb.hoop2 I am finding that the way the citations are written are making verification harder than it need be. Standards of citation have evolved a bit since the mid-2000s, when this article was initially written, and some of the newer methods are quite an improvement (an acknowledgement I came to begrudgingly and belatedly). While I can't ask you to change the citation style per WP:WIAFA, it does strike me that it would be easier to meet WP:V, easier to maintain the article, and easier to impose a consistent citation style if you moved to a different citation style.
For *many* years, I railed against and did not support the use of sfns ... until I had an article at FAC in 2020 that reviewers rightfully insisted needed page numbers. So, I reluctantly (at first) decided to switch DLB to sfns right in the middle of its FAC, and found that:
a) I was able to complete the considerable effort on a very long and densely cited article within a day;
b) the final product was cleaner and better met WP:V;
c) I could take advantage of scripts that identify errors (something that is now *very* hard in this article);
d) sfns automatically handle repeat (named refs), so you don't have to name refs or worry about repeat citations to the same page no;
e) readers don't have to try to decipher which source you are referring to as the link to the source is done automatically by the sfn;
f) the loc= parameter can be used in place of p= or pp= when you need to add an extended note to the citation; and
g) maintenance is *far* easier, as the style is so much easier to implement than I realized before using it.

I hope you will have a look at Dementia with Lewy bodies#References and consider switching to sfns; if you do, I'll be glad to help in the conversion. I am finding it very hard to work through this article and list more important items as I am derailed by the sourcing and citation style. My suggestion is that the citations in this article are now so muddled that the amount of work needed to convert to sfns will actually be no more work than the amount needed to get a consistent style here anyway. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did much of the sfn conversions at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Blenheim/archive1 last year, and would be willing to help with that here as well. Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have the time, resources or skills to deal with any large-scale adjustment of the formatting for the refs. I must leave this for others to implement. Please don't wait for me to act if you consider this worth doing. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hog Farm and I can handle it, but would not want to undertake this effort without your agreement. And, I would prefer to start after Christmas, as I have guests coming ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this a start, I'll see how much I can get done before Christmas (I do not have guests coming). Hog Farm Talk 22:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are in the process of converting to sfns, and repairing all citations. Most books are done, but all of Sherman Memoirs need to be checked for which volume (1 or 2). I still have to look at most of the web citations, and anything else not already corrected during sfn conversion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Web citations[edit]

Hog Farm my convention is to leave webpages that are only cited once in the References, rather than adding them to the Works cited; is that OK with you? For example, I would not move this to Works cited: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; I generally only use sfns for books or paginated journal articles when I'm writing content. Hog Farm Talk 14:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable source (the content is a quote, so maybe passable??).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot get either this or this to load, so cannot add an accessdate to indicate verified text. Also, the documents seem to be in 7 pages, so we need a page number to verify this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Besides which, this page lists him as an "honorary member", so did he actually join? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And Boone and Crockett Club says only that it was founded by Roosevelt, but that is uncited, and the organization's website is silent on the matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of that now deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable citations[edit]

  • As an adult, Sherman signed all his correspondence —including to his wife— "W. T. Sherman" is sourced to "See, e.g., the many Civil War letters reproduced in Brooks D. Simpson and Jean V. Berlin, Sherman's Civil War: Selected Correspondence of William T. Sherman (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1999)." So do Simpson and Berlin make this claim that all were signed this way, or is this conclusion being drawn from a sample of reproduced letters, like the citation implies? If it's the latter, that's not sufficient support. Hog Farm Talk 16:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He left his widow, Mary Hoyt Sherman, with eleven children and no inheritance. After his father's death, the nine-year-old Sherman was raised by a Lancaster neighbor and family friend, attorney Thomas Ewing. Ewing was a prominent member of the Whig Party who became U.S. senator for Ohio and the first Secretary of the Interior. Sherman was distantly related to American founding father Roger Sherman and grew to admire him. - This is sourced to Sherman's personal papers about Roger Sherman's watch. Is all of this really supported well by those papers? Hog Farm Talk 22:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • His problems were compounded when the Cincinnati Commercial described him as "insane" - Is citing the original newspaper publication here necessary? Hog Farm Talk 02:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the Civil War, Sherman declined to employ black troops in his armies - Better sourced needed than a single message from Sherman to General Halleck Hog Farm Talk 04:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sherman was not an abolitionist before the war and, like others of his time and background, he did not believe in "Negro equality" - appears to be sourced to two letters here, secondary source needed Hog Farm Talk 04:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The maneuver warfare section - Liddell Hart at times supported the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht and the Rommel myth; we need to be careful citing WWII content to him. Hog Farm Talk 04:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco a reliable source, or a high-quality source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting[edit]

There is a considerable amount of quoting in the article; I am wondering if others feel it excessive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One example:

Sherman sent a written response in which he sought to articulate his conviction that a lasting peace would be possible only if the Union were restored, and that he was therefore prepared to do all he could do to quash the rebellion:

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war ... I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for anything. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter."

While I understand that many of the quotes give the flavor of the man, I nonetheless suggest it would not be difficult to paraphrase more of this in our own voice, while retaining the crucial bits. For example (recognizing that others can improve upon my prose):

Sherman sent a written response in which he sought to articulate his conviction that a lasting peace would be possible only if the Union were restored. He stated that if the US "submit[ted] to a division", the result would be "eternal war" similar to Mexico, and that he was therefore prepared to do all he could do to quash the rebellion.

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. ... I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success."

While affirming his commitment to a lasting peace, he added that, although he "hand no hand in making this war", he would "make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace" and offered his support to "shield your homes and families against danger" once peace was achieved.

This reduces the direct quote from seven sentences to two sentences, and paraphrases the remainder with snippets. Not that my verion need be adapted, but just an example that we don't need to use such lengthy quotes to deliver the essence of Sherman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand myself why others have objected to the abundance of quotes in this article. Perhaps there's a Wikipedia policy about this of which I'm unaware, but I really don't see the quotes as they now stand as a problem. A couple could, in a pinch, be eliminated or reduced, but I think that as they stand they're a net plus and certainly not a problem for the article's quality or readability. A long quote can, when appropriate and interesting, be a welcome change of pace for the reader. And the quote from Sherman's letter to the Atlanta City Council seems to me particularly valuable. I get a shiver down my spine every time I read that phrase about reaping "the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war". That letter made a strong impression on Captain Liddell Hart and Robert McNamara. A similarly interesting and important long quote is the one earlier about Sherman's rant to David French Boyd when news reached them of South Carolina's secession. Anyway, my vote is against undertaking a substantial reduction of the quoting. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queries from HF while converting references to sfn[edit]

Some of these I won't be able to swap over to sfns without further details, so posting the questions here in case anyone knows the answer

Similarly, some of the queries I raised above in #Consistent citation style will need to be answered in order to convert. Sheesh, Hog Farm, aren't you the speed demon! Ed.hoop2, if you could focus on whichever citation questions I raised above that need resolution, we can convert accordingly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarke 1969 - is cited in text as Sherman, Memoirs, pp. 150–161. For details about Sherman's banking career, see Dwight L. Clarke, William Tecumseh Sherman: Gold Rush Banker (San Francisco: California Historical Society, 1969). So is Clarke actually supporting the content here, or just being used as further reading? If it's the latter, Clarke can just be removed. Hog Farm Talk 22:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Smith, Grant, p. 212: Schenker, "Ulysses in His Tent," passim." - There are two Schenkers, not clear which one this is referring to. Also, while Sandy may know better on this, I've never seen passim used in references before on Wikipedia, it may be like ibid and is a normal referencing practice not desired here. Hog Farm Talk 14:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I apparently missed the title part of here, so I can tell which one it is now, but the long citation says p. 175. So are we citing p. 175 or the whole work via passim? Hog Farm Talk 15:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do these references that say "See, for instance" support the entire material in front of them, or are they just designed to support/illustrate specific points? I can't really tell. Hog Farm Talk 14:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " For more detailed discussion of this overall period, see Marszalek, Sherman, pp. 154–167; Hirshson, White Tecumseh, pp. 95–105; Kennett, Sherman, pp. 127–149." - is this a citation, or just pointing to sources that are generally related to this as further reading? Because I don't want to convert this to sfns if it isn't actually a citation. Hog Farm Talk 14:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One 19th-century source, for example, states that "General Sherman, we believe, is the only eminent American named from an Indian chief". Howe's Historical Collections of Ohio (Columbus, 1890), I:595. - is this suppose to source the preceding sentence, or is it just an example as it appears to me to be? If it's just an example, I'm not sure that it's due weight. Hog Farm Talk 21:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, what is the I:595? Page no? Volume? Is this the same source? W. T. Sherman to Ellen Ewing, April 7, 1842, in Howe, Home Letters, pp. 17–20. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, I guess that's this instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But we don't know which publisher, which version, which ISBN, and if page nos are correct: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While the other is this, so it must be Volume 1, page 595 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Has this been sorted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Memoirs Volume 1 vs. Volume 2[edit]

Citation formatting resolved, question of overuse of Memoirs remains SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • We have Sherman's memoirs split into two volumes in the sources section. Because they're separate, we'll need to know which volume is which in order to prevent a bunch of harv/sfn errors. How can we tell which volume is being cited? Hog Farm Talk 22:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From this (1890a) and this (1890b) each page number has to be checked to determine volume. <sigh> I am wondering, with so much written about him, how much self-sourcing is really necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, ideally we shouldn't be using Sherman himself more than necessary. Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked up one (page 11 of volume 1), but don’t know how to make the sfn work. HF, unless you do, we can ping DrKay to ask him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: - This was my fault - I'd been a little rusty on the code to set up the ref name. I used |ref=CITEREFSherman_1890a when the proper text should have been |ref=CITEREFSherman1890a and after correcting in the long citations, it looks like it works now. Hog Farm Talk 05:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eb.hoop2: not knowing which Memoirs citations are from Volume 1 and which are from Volume 2 is going to slow us down considerably here, as each one now has to be looked up. (The article is not fully cited without that, regardless of the citation method used.) Would you have time to take on that portion of the work? If so, here is a sample of how to convert the citations to sfns, but you use 1890b when it is Volume 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: I wasn't the one who introduced the references to Sherman's Memoirs, but I strongly suspect that the page numbers used refer to the modern and authoritative Library of America edition, which comes as a single tome with continuous pagination. This is certainly the way that it should be done. Note that, in that edition, vol. II starts on page 459. I can try to check the page numbers after the holidays. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the archived versions now listed in the sources are fine because a) they are freely accessible; and b) they have matched the correct page nos in both of the Volume 1 and Volume 2 checks I have done so far. If you start over with different pagination, you’ll be looking up every citation, rather than going to the page in the archived link to verify each citation. Ideally, though, many of these citations to self would be eliminated anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe not. I was just trying to verify the text Sherman called this strategy "hard war". At the end of this campaign, known as Sherman's March to the Sea, his troops took Savannah on December 21, 1864. to p. 693, which matches neither volume. But in trying to find it, I did come up with Foster (2006), p. 178 making an argument whether Sherman invented the term hard war, which seems to be something the article should address. [6]. At any rate, per what we have in the article now, I cannot verify that passage cited to p. 693 of Memoirs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness[edit]

Why are Moody, and Caudill/Ashdown, used only once? Do they contain more recent scholarship that should be given more weight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that if it can be tracked down, the Detzler source in the further reading should be consulted. The religious views section currently is heavily based on quotes, while Detzler appears to be a secondary source directly examining the subject. Hog Farm Talk 19:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, at last (all of this is confirming my concerns that the haphazard citation style in this article has compromised the content). By the way, I am focusing on working through "Writings" and "Further reading", as well as webpages, starting from the bottom of the article, so I won't get in your way of working on books, starting from the top. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detzler, Jack J (Winter 1966). "The Religion of William Tecumseh Sherman". Ohio History Journal. 75 (1): 26–34.

Also unclear why these are not used: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m concerned that we may be swinging from overuse of Sherman’s own Memoirs, to over-reliance on Holden-Reid, at the expense of Kennett, McDonough, Moody, O’Donnell and others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When this article was promoted to FA in 2006, Holden-Reid's book lay 14 years in the future. One of the objections raised when this was sent for review was that the article didn't use H-R at all. Since I seemed to be the only one of the editors involved in the original FA who was still around, I decided to buy H-R's book and read it. As I've pointed out elsewhere, I was encouraged and reassured by the consistency between the narrative of this article and the contents of H-R's biography. I therefore proceeded to use it heavily to supply needed citations, which seemed to me to address two objections simultaneously (need for dense secondary citations and incorporation of H-R into refs). But I should underline that the contents of the article (both when it was first promoted and now) are not really heavily reliant on H-R. It's just a modern and respected secondary reference that was at hand to document various factual points and judgments, most of them already in the article before H-R was even published. For most purposes the current refs. to H-R could be replaced by refs. to another modern bio.
Beyond this, I should say that I don't think it's realistic to expect that all of the many modern biographies and studies on Sherman are going to be read, digested, and used as refs here. That seems to me to be both effectively impossible and unnecessary. Most of the citations are on matters of fact which could be equally well covered using any reliable secondary source. On important matters of interpretation, there's a dialogue between the modern secondary sources and (usually) a consensus that I think is consistent with this article's current contents. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Writings" section[edit]

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This section needs to be completely reformatted to use a consistent style, but some of the entries there have so little information that I don't know where to start. Will make a list here: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is this and where can it be found ? We have only a title and a year; where is it published ?
    • General Sherman's Official Account of His Great March to Georgia and the Carolinas, from His Departure from Chattanooga to the Surrender of General Joseph E. Johnston and Confederate Forces under His Command (1865)
  • I don't know what to make of this. Is Ohio Historical Society the same as Ohio History Connection? I don't know what all the abbreviations are here and have no idea how to go about looking this up.
    • "Autobiography, 1828–1861" (c. 1868), Mss. 57, WTS Papers, Ohio Historical Society. Private recollections for Sherman's children.
      • Apparently Ohio History Connection is the Ohio History Journal <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I'm thinking that two of these inclusions in the writings (basically Sherman's bibliography) ought to be removed. The private recollections for Sherman's children doesn't really count as a published work, and the Report on Inspections appears to be a fairly standard production as party of this Army job. I'm not convinced that those two are of enough significance to warrant listing there. Hog Farm Talk 20:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm OK, I just finished that cleanup, and did not see your message earlier. What do you think of what I've done now? HIS actual publications are listed as Publications. I added published collections of his letters under Further reading, and everything else (misc archives and collections) at External links. Please re-jig as you think best, and delete anything you feel is not needed-- there was a lot of duplication, and a general mess, but you know best what we should keep and lose. Again, without having properly cited info, it was unclear what we actually had ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery and emanciplation[edit]

To test the sfns, I was attempting to source Volume 2 of the Memoirs. Which led me to look at how the section is built. Sherman chose 20 black leaders for an interview with the Secretary of War to answer questions about his condult. Not independent. And almost everything in that section, although cited to many different places, relies on those interviews or Sherman’s own words. It needs a complete rewrite; it is extremely reliant on Sherman’s own accounts, and gathering together 20 black leaders chosen by him to represent views of him … well. And nailing down the citations in this article reveals that many of the sources are just repeating what Sherman’s own memoirs say. When there is so much written about Sherman, I am becoming more and more concerned that this article’s bones are not fixable without a complete rewrite to newer and better sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, after re-reading the section, it seems to be excessively based on 1) Sherman's own writings or primary source accounts where Sherman was strongly connected to the writing and 2) essentially two or three instances during 1864-1865, which may not be representative. Will dig into a couple sources I have further. Hog Farm Talk 06:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is passed off as a newspaper source when it came from “ Consolidated Correspondence File, series 225, Central Records, Quartermaster General, Record Group 92, National Archives.” What are the chances in 1865 of these 20 hand-picked leaders saying anything unfavorable under these circumstances? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a NY Times blog opinion piece by Thom Bassett; while this is a reliable source, we should be able to do better in terms of high quality. Where is the book the NYT piece says Bassett is writing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, Bassett is basically positioning Sherman as a white supremacist, which our article downplays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eb.hoop2, which essay is this, and should we not be citing it as well? he published an essay in the North American Review defending the full civil rights of black citizens in the former Confederacy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, the reference provided by Holden-Reid is: W. T. Sherman, "Camp Fires of the GAR," North American Review 147, no. 384 (November 1888): 497–502. I haven't seen the text myself. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, sorry, that was the wrong essay. It's actually: W. T. Sherman, "Old Shady, with a Moral," North American Review 147, no. 383 (October 1888): 362, 366. I see now that this is available on JSTOR: [7]. Time permitting I will read it and see if it can be incorporated in the article. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are two WTS articles in 1888, you have to do this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources on this topic[edit]

  • Miller 2019, p. 67. Miller himself writes Sherman served to save the Union, not to end slavery and then quotes letters from Sherman that said [Southern] Negroes ... must of necessity be slaves ... All the congresses on the earth can't make the negro anything else than he is. He must be subject to the white man, or he must amalgamate or be destroyed (verbatim from Miller, the [Southern] and ... are found in the source). I suspect some of the usage of Sherman's letters/writings may be cherry-picked here
  • From Sherman's March by Burke Davis (1980)
    • pages 32-33 As a counterpoint to the discussion of freed slaves following him and his army like they were Moses in Aaron in our article, Davis notes that Sherman generally only permitted the fit ones who could aid his army to accompany it, and discouraged others from following, with quotes such as This decision may have been rooted in Sherman's own ideas of white supremacy - as some of his more enlightened officers were to charge
    • pages 135-136 also refer to the interview of the 20. Davis frames this as part of an ongoing conflict between Stanton and Sherman, which had gotten pretty bad after one of Sherman's subordinate officers was in charge of the incident described at Ebenezer_Creek#Abandonment_at_Ebenezer_Creek. It agrees that when Stanton asked for 20 leaders to interview, Sherman hand-selected them
    • page 300 - this could be used to clarify what is meant by "Sherman's conservative politics was attractive to many white Southerners" - The South respected and admired Sherman because of his resistance to Negro voting rights and a harsh Reconstruction although Davis notes that he became hated in the south after his memoirs were published.
    • Our article states "On June 19, 1879, Sherman delivered an address to the graduating class of the Michigan Military Academy, in which he may have uttered the famous phrase "War is Hell"", but Davis says that this was uttered to an 1880 veterans group meeting?

I think this is a much more complex topic than the current treatment is giving it credit for. Hog Farm Talk 07:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Holden-Reid's 2020 biography, published by Oxford University Press, which is certainly a reliable and modern secondary source. What Holden-Reid has to say on the subject certainly supports the take in the take in the current article, and I personally disagree that any major rewriting is called for, although one can always extend the discussion or introduce other sources. And I strongly advise against going down the (potentially original-research) rabbit hole of questioning the reliability of the participants in the Savannah interview.
It's extremely unlikely that Sherman would have been able to "hand pick" 20 black leaders to serve his purposes. That meeting was convened largely at the behest of the US Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton. Sherman and Stanton hated each other, and Stanton was trying to use the issue of Sherman not doing enough for the freedmen to discredit him. I see no reason (nor have I seen any suggestion of it in the secondary literature) why Sherman would have been in a better position than Stanton to control the outcome of the meeting. You may also notice from the account of the meeting that Garrison Frazier gave the opinion currently quoted in the article after Sherman had been ordered to depart so that the interviewees could speak freely.
Moreover, I think it's clear that the really essential point is that Sherman went on to issue the Special Field Orders No. 15, which constitute the single greatest attempt of the Civil War to benefit the newly free black population by settling them as landowners in three southern states. Sherman appointed a longstanding abolitionist, Gen. Rufus Saxton, to implement that plan, which turned out to be far too radical for the powers in Washington under the new President Andrew Johnson. This, more than anything else, should be weighed against the racist views that Sherman had expressed earlier.
The article already mentions and documents the fact that Sherman was not an abolitionist before the war, that he did not encourage slaves to escape during the war, or use black troops. To dwell on this much further would serve only a polemical point (as some authors have indeed done). Of course, more material can be introduced to try to paint a fuller picture, but this is already a very long article. And, as I said before, the gist of what is currently in the article is supported by the latest scholarship published about Sherman. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are Sherman's own words:

Mr. Stanton seemed desirous of coming into contact with the negroes to confer with them, and he asked me to arrange an interview for him. I accordingly sent out and invited the most intelligent of the negroes, mostly Baptist and Methodist preachers, to come to my room to meet the Secretary of War. Twenty responded, and were received in my room up-stairs in Mr. Green's house, where Mr. Stanton and adjutant-General Townsend took down the conversation in the form questions and answers. Each of the twenty gave his name and partial history, and then selected Garrison Frazier as their spokesman:

I suggest that we should take Sherman at his word. Those "negroes" that he hand-selected where those he deemed to be "the most intelligent of the negroes". This leaves ample room for selection bias, as naturally, Sherman might deem the "most intelligent" to be those who supported Sherman. In other words, this is text we must use cautiously, particularly when we have other sources presenting other views. We have basically constructed the entire section around a biased source, rather than building it from other sources. This is the very definition of WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of secondary literature on the Savannah meeting (see, e.g., the first chapter of Eric Foner's Forever Free (2006)), and no need for us to "take Sherman at his word", much less engage in speculation or original research about the selection of the black representatives. The meeting was Stanton's idea, and Stanton was, if anything, biased against Sherman on the subject of his treatment of black people. It's really quite implausible that Sherman would've been able on short notice to find twenty educated black people prepared to dupe Stanton. I think that we really shouldn't get off track on this subject. The focus should be simply to improve the secondary references. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we have secondary literature, we should be using it. I can only by what is on the page, as I am not a student of Military History. That could save all of us a lot of time. I have done as much as I can do at this point on citation cleanup, so will pause for a while. Hog Farm, I don't pretend that I have caught everything, so you may want to make another pass, but we are kinda stalled until the Memoirs are sorted, and all of the other questions above are worked out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style[edit]

The article is approaching 10,000 words, and there is territory yet to be explored in this biography. Is it possible to more tightly summarize some of the battles and campaigns? Almost all of them have sub-articles. Shaving even 500 words here and there would leave more room to explore the man apart from the General. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liddell Hart[edit]

To keep everything together, talk page query about Liddell Hart from user:GraemeLeggett. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I noted in the questionable sources section above, Liddell Hart endorsed the Myth of the clean Wehrmacht and the Rommel myth. We need to be very careful about citing anything related to Nazi leaders to him. Hog Farm Talk 21:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now he’s in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New HarvRef errors[edit]

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I wasn’t following the individual edits, so I missed where they crept in, but the citations are now filling with HarvRef errors. Sherman 1890 sfns need to be specified as 1890a or 1890b for Volume I or Volume 2.

Errors now are, for example:

  • Sherman 1890, pp. 194–196. Harv error: link from CITEREFSherman1890 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Sherman 1890, pp. 197–199. Harv error: link from CITEREFSherman1890 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Sherman 1890, pp. 221, 227. Harv error: link from CITEREFSherman1890 doesn't point to any citation.

And there are more. Every time an sfn to Sherman 1890 is used, it needs to be specified as 1890a or 1890b; that is, we need to know which volume we are citing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. I think that in every case the problem was that I forgot to put an "a" after the date in a ref. to vol. I of Sherman's Memoirs. Hopefully that's now fixed. I should say that I've now gone through all of the refs. to those memoirs in the article. They used to give the page numbers for the one-volume Library of America 1990 edition by Royster. I've now checked all of them and changed the page numbers to those of the public-domain 1890 edition in two separate volumes. There were a few cases in which reference was made to editorial material in the LoA edition, so I added that edition to the "Works cited" and marked those refs. appropriately. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/William_Tecumseh_Sherman/archive1&oldid=1068005007"