Talk:Red River campaign

message: Great length, great detail. I'm afraid I have no expertise to guide me on the accuracy or completeness of this article, but it seems good. Could benefit from an infobox, picture, or map, though. Also, maybe a disambig warning at the top, distinguishing it from Red River War and anything involving the SE Asian Red River. LordAmeth 11:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: Some might argue that the inclusion of reference links to regimental histories and personal narratives is not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry as it makes the entry too long.  I have tried to minimize the potential impact of the article length problem by separating the references into two sections - General, and Regimental Histories and Personal Narratives.  However, even with that work-around, concern about article length, as well as deviance from reference style guides, is certainly a valid one. A potential counter argument is that providing links to such original sources is valuable to those readers who wish to learn more and/or who wish to gain a more personal sense of the events.  However, if someone feels so strongly about article brevity that they wish to delete these references, have at it.  I would certainly not gainsay that action.  But, before doing so, perhaps another option to consider would be to create a new article (Wikipedia entry) that is a list of such regimental histories and personal narratives for the Red River Campaign?  Just a thought, and best wishes from  JuniperisCommunis (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References Section(s)

message: 2. District of Arkansas, commanded by Sterling Price, contained approximately 11,000 men consiting of three infantry divisions and a cavalry division. As the campaign began, Smith ordered two of Price's infantry divisions to move to Louisiana.
The two divisions ordered to Louisiana were Churchill's and Parson's. Are you sure that there was a third division of infantry in Arkansas? And according to  Price had not only one, but at least two divisions of cavalry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.254.112 (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forces in Arkansas 

message: A campaign is not a series of battles.  A better description in the first sentence is in order, although I'm not sure what exactly to put. john k (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought that a campaign was exactly a 'series of battles', or possibly a 'sequence of battles'. What else could it be? Valetude (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  a series of battles? 

message: Shouldn't the Campaign include the Campden Expedition? It was all part of the same Union Plan. While the two Union forces never succesfully linked up, that was the orgional intent.  Should the Artile embrace both parts of the Union plan?  Aleutian06 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camden Expedition 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved to Red River campaign. Per Colin M, "In the absence of consistent capitalization in RS, default to lowercase."  No such user (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Red River Campaign →  – Lowercase campaign, like in the cited sources and other such articles; the capped title has not been previously discussed. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

text: This is a contested technical request (permalink). ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 16 April 2021 

message: While we're at this, if anyone can get ahold of Winters 1963, they may want to check these additions, as there's some edit history from one of the most prolific copyright violators in enwiki history in the Pleasant Hill article. Hog Farm  Talk 03:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , assuming you can verify the quote, I wouldn't use it as a quote but would summarise what it is saying.  The Union army retreated in disarray, leaving a trail of discarded equipment and burning wagons.  However, (as I read it) the wagons were attacked and, I would also see this as a significant loss to Banks and a reason to withdraw to the river. What do the sources say on this?  Cinderella157 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

text: First, I just want to thank each of you for your insights and collegiality. I believe these articles will ultimately end up being so much better because of the questions that are being raised and answered as you continue to bounce ideas off one another. Second, I'm providing a link here to Banks' Red River Campaign reports. (I realize this is a primary source and that these reports were Banks presenting "Banks' view," but I'm hoping that Banks' detailing of events as he saw them unfold (or was told of how they unfolded by Emory, et. al.) might be helpful in determining which sources might present the most accurate and balanced presentation by providing more of a chronological view. (The first group of reports, which were written by Banks from approx. mid-March 1864 to mid-May 1864, may be found on pp. 0177 through 0193 of The War of the Rebellion: Official Records of the Civil War (Serial 061 Introduction): Chapter XLVI. "The Red River Campaign". The second is Banks' longer recap, which was written on April 6, 1865 for a report to Edwin Stanton and the War Deprtment. That one begins on p. 0194.) Again, many thanks for your hard work. This past week was an incredibly busy one for me, but I hope to have some time this weekend to review and thoughtfully respond to those queries of yours which asked for my input. 47thPennVols (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that opinion. It is true that all sources don't need to be online. It could be argued that they only need be "published" by RSs and available for verification. An official state park historical museum normally would have little reason to offer inaccurate information to visitors and I have zero reason to think that this museum deliberately fails to provide precise and verified facts about their tightly-focused subject matter. Indeed my discussion of the subject with park rangers during my visit impressed me with their knowledge of sourcing, both the older and the newest ones. All that said, I agree sources published and widely available are preferred. I've offered some names of books I saw at the museum. As time allows and these questions persist I may end up purchasing and adding some to my personal collection. There are sufficient recent RSs available from which to produce reasonably accurate statistics until better are produced. BusterD (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd break

message: Shreveport’s location is marked incorrectly on the first map near the top. 104.8.140.235 (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Error