Talk:Virginia in the American Civil War

message: While there is certainly no reason to not note (as the article does) that some folks use the term War Between the States, the Civil War is the most commonly used term and is the title (actually American Civil War) of the wikipedia article on the subject.  There is no reason why this article should deviate from standard practice and use a different name in a section heading simply because it is about a southern state's role in that war. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is it ... American Civil War or Civil War?  So much for your baloney claim of a "standard" practice.  We already went through this two years ago.  When you hop in your automobile and drive into the Commonwealth of Virginia, you won't see a single highway sign directing you to any "Battle of Bull Run".  Such signage does not exist.  Rather, the federal highway brown-signs call it by the Manassas name, and it's called Manassas Battlefield.  Articles on locales should use the verbage/lingo used in that locale, another Wiki "standard" that you are unfamiliar with.  Why don't you go check the Ohio civil war pages, and see what work is needed there?  This topic on wiki needs help, and your edits are not helpful, rather, they annoy people unnecessarily and waste time.Grayghost01 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

text: * Please try to stay on topic. The American Civil War is not a topic particular to any US locale --JimWae (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jim, check the page your editing.  This topic is VIRGINIA in the American Civil War, and I'm in the Virginia task force.  thanks.Grayghost01 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the War

message: at [www.dictionary.com]:
readmit - To admit again; to give entrance or access to again.
rejoin - to join together again; reunite.
admit defined as "entry", so readmit is synonymous with "reentry".
join is "bind", so rejoin is synonymous with "rebind".
Thus, I basically said Virginia "rejoined" or "rebinded".  You say that is not NPOV, and your "readmit" or "reentry" is, because it supposedly doesn't imply that Virginia left.  However, Virginia MUST have left if they need to be admitted again, or enter again.  Whereas I used rejoined to infer the more sublety of binding again, that is to rebind.  Thus the word I used means what you say you want it to mean, but you changed it to a word that you accused me of meaning.
Given the lack of fluency demonstrated, here, in the English language ... please consult some dictionaries before you embark upon future harrassment and provoking edits.  And if you want the sentence to mean rebind vice reenter, you'll need to go undo your own goofy edit.
Finally, you might want to check the U.S. Congressional language.  You seem to be unaware that acts of Congress were involved approving a NEW constitution for Virginia, as well as other things, so your goofy edit that congressmen were merely readmitted to the Congress is completely out-to-lunch compared to what actually happened historically.  This historical fact is required learning for school kids in Virginia's Standards of Learning.  It helps to have grown up here, because the locales know the history a little better than those from New York.
Please quit editing in your self-made Pseudo-History into the wiki articles, and go do some research first.
Thank you.
Grayghost01 (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of www.dictionary.com may be helpful for future edits 

message: I have expanded this section to add reaction to the single greatest immediate source of tension -- the election of Abraham Lincoln (which was not mentioned at all).  I also provided details on the nature of the split in the Democratic Party since without this split there never would have been a convention in Richmond. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The election of Lincoln was a significant event to Virginians, and the Lincoln admistration was a significant topic of debate at the Virginia convention. When I expand the convention section it will be necessary to add more references -- especially the direct contacts with Lincoln by representatives from the convention and by unionists hoping to reach an agreement.  There is little in your above response that deals with either the current or future content of this article. Perhaps you should drop all the personal invective, stop your crusade against fellow editors, and start discussing specfic content and specific sources.  I don't need to justify my interest in this subject to you or anybody else. What should be apparent to anybody is that I am quite familiar with the subject and have not added anything here, or anywhere else on wikipedia, that is not supported by solid, reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Per your usual, high on personal invective and low on substance.  I and others have addressed the use of "invasion" on numerous occasions. You have failed to address the specific explanations presented to you, preferring to avoid (in fact trying to censor out) what Lincoln actually called for.  As for the material added being "germane, in context, and true", this is exactly what it is.  Since I am using very easily accessible works that you, as an allegedly highly interested party in Virginia and the Civil War, should already be familiar with, why don't you demonstrate where ANYTHING I've written fails to meet those standards.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War.  Nor is it Abraham Lincoln on slavery.  Nor Abraham Lincoln.  Nor is it Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln.  Neither is it Abraham Lincoln and religion.  But it sure seems to be Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln.  Let's assume I am low on substance, and you have great substance.  Your substance has ZERO to do with this article.  What you've written fails to meet the standards of what qualifies to be in an already full-length article on WINCHESTER in the American Civil War.  Nor does this page have the offensive-to-you words like "invasion", the same word contained in scholarly articles like Invasion of Normandy.  So I think should move your POV and this talk section to a Lincoln page, perhaps the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum page or Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln.  That's my advice.  And it is you, sir, that has failed to address any specifics.  Again ... take the Lincoln discussion elsewhere.Grayghost01 (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Prewar Tensions

message: I added a paragraph to the start of this section to start fleshing out some details.  The existing article was over-simplistic in its failure to demonstrate the shifting opinions over the course of the debate --there was much more to it than on April 4 they voted against secession and then on April 17 they voted for it.  The material I just added takes the debate to the early part of March.  The next paragraph or two that needs to be added will describe the report of the Federal Relations Committee and its fourteen proposals -- proposals that were generally understood to be requirements in order for Virginia to remain in the Union. 
The decisions made by Virginia in early 1861 were some of the most significant in shaping the way the war would play out. The statement in the existing article that"The strong pro-Union sentiment in Virginia began to alter after the April 12..." is very misleading -- the unionist sentiment expressed in the original election of delegates had been eroding for about seven weeks before the attack on Fort Sumter. The material is relevant, and this article is the most logical place to locate this material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A second paragraph has been added along with a sidebar that summarizes the conditions approved by the convention in order to avoid secession. It seems clear from this material that if the CSA had not opened the shooting war there would still have been a conflict with the Lincoln administration over these proposals further on down the line.  Still need to make the next paragraph consistent with the first two -- this remains a work in process. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Secession Convention

message: Thanks, Scott Mingus, for restoring the lead; I was about to post a message that this article needs a lead!  Would somebody please disambiguate the link in this part "The first being the Battle of Manassas and the last being..." in the 2nd paragraph of the section [[Virginia in the American Civil War#Virginia during the war|Virginia during the war; the link from "Battle of Manassas" here goes to a disambiguation page; please change it to go directly to the page for the appropriate battle (the first battle of Bull Run?) Thanks.  Actually, since that disambiguation page has only two links on it, I suggest making it a redirect to one of the two battles, and just having a hatnote at the top of that page saying "Battle of Bull Run and Battle of Manassas redirect here.  For the second battle, see Second Battle of Bull Run." In that way, the article itself acts as a disambiguation page.  I think it's normal to do it that way when there are only two items, so that about half the readers will get to the page they want immediately rather than getting to a disambiguation page first. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance of the proposals approved by the convention are clear.  While Grayghost chose to totally ignore the significance of slavery to ALL Virginians and claim that the Unionists dominated the convention right up to April 17, the facts show that slavery was significant (in fact it dominated the debate) and the Unonists had very clear demands, beyond simply non-coercion, if Lincoln wanted them to remain Unionists. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead, disambiguation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Virginia in the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/civil-war-overview/why-non-slaveholding.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The #West Virginia Splits section has a couple of misstatements sourced to Richard Orr Curry’s “A House Divided: a study of statehood politics and the Copperhead movement in West Virginia” (1964) at the University of Pittsburg Press, . First of all, Congress did seat the Restored government of Virginia Representatives and U.S. Senators in the 37th United States Congress. Then in the 38th United States Congress Congress sat Virginia Senators, but not Representatives when it no longer represented 30-40% of the Virginian population of 1860, but was more nearly 10% in the remnant following the creation of West Virginia. My 1913 edition of the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress includes them for the 37th Congress on page 224. Martis, Kenneth C.; et al. (1989). The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.  includes them.
Additionally, articles can be found currently online in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress for the following Virginia delegation in the 37th Congress 1861-1863 elected under the Restored Virginia Government: U.S. Senator Waitman T. Willey, U.S. Senator John S. Carlile, and Representatives William G. Brown, Jacob B. Blair, Kellian V. Whaley. 
Charles H. Upton, from Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, served almost a year1861-1862 before Congress determined he was not entitled to his seat on being appointed consul to Switzerland, replaced by elected Lewis McKenzie, and  Joseph E. Segar was also elected for the 37th Congress, though Segar from the Eastern Shore was initially not seated. 
Without objection, I will correct the errors. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error at West Virginia splits section 

message: David Farragut made his home as an adult  in Norfolk, Virginia prior to the American Civil War, having married a Virginian. He believed secession to be treason, as did many in Norfolk, but that does not exclude him from admission to the Article gallery of Notable Civil War leaders (Union) from Virginia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Farragut 

message: Is there a reason why the Battle of Brandy Station is not mentioned in section 5?
--Couprie (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good eye. Would you like to do the honors? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Brandy Station 

message: Is that quote even necessary from William Thompson. I don’t see how it aids the entry at all. I think it would be relevant only if it had been stated by a government official at the convention. 
A letter from a random citizen to his family member seems like a poor source. Woodlanddog (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree so I dropped the quote. Rjensen (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from random school teacher about secession 

message: It says something like:
Capital: Richmond
Largest City: Richmond
So, why not change it into:
Capital and largest city: Richmond 2605:8D80:327:A9A:E8E4:EE4A:F0D2:536 (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a templated format to how these sorts of pages look. You'd likely be well served to go to one of the wikiprojects and see about gaining consensus around that change over a single article based on personal preference. TY — Moops ⋠T⋡ 22:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital and largest city