Bad Agendas written in to this article
Hello folks, I'm not a wiki-writer.  I just use it from time to time.  But I am familiar with problems when some pages have points of view and agendas written in to them, and the American Civil War articles are rife with these problems.  You'd think the war was still on.  This article on the 43rd Battalion is generally very good, but someone has done their best to wreck the ship, nevertheless.  A paragraph in this article goes off-track and attempts to paint a picture that these soldiers were "guerillas".  Anyone familiar with the writings of the war knows this word was used extensively and daily in newspapers, official US Army reports and accounts to refer to not just uniformed soldiers of the CS Army, but to any and all people of the South.  To discuss the use of this term in this article is a coy trick to insert an agenda, intended to disparage, vice simply communicate good Wiki information about this topic.  "Guerilla" was so commonly used as a term in this war, that it cannot be said, at all, that this term applied to, or was used more commonly for any one unit or group in the war, than any other.  If editors continue to keep this slant and bias in the article, and contiue deleting other fair contributions which are neutral, then my comment here serves as a marker to future editors of the proof of the problem in this page, and the particular set of self-chosen watch-guards who intend to keep it here, while pretending they are not the root cause of the problem.