Talk:Jackson's operations against the B&O Railroad (1861)

message: This long section and equally long chart has all been created to serve as a rebuttal to the arguments made by Robertson and others.  Unfortunately, this is all simply a rehash of the entire body of the article -- making the entire section repetitious and redundant.  Ghost has thrown in his own analysis and evaluation (SYNTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH) of the sources to bolster his argument.  While Robertson’s argument covers ONLY events that occurred before May 24, most of the material in Ghost’s rebuttal occurs weeks or months after this date.  
The article should present the main argument in the body of the article, followed by Robertson.  This long section added serves no encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted.  Comments on whether you SUPPORT or OPPOSE this deletion are requested. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support -- Certainly any negative critique in a book review or elsewhere of Robertson's view by a reliable, secondary source should be included.  However in the decade+ since the book was published it appears that his conclusion on the alleged raid has not been directly challenged. The section in question now is simply an often off-point rehash of the first part of this article with no source directly and specifically addressing Robertson. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Support -- The chart is out of place in an article since it was derived from original research. Recommend moving the chart to this talk page for posterity (in a collapsible table set to "collapse") which would allow it to be referenced in the future if the need arises without digging for diffs. It should be labeled clearly as a derived work in contention and not let the reader think it is status quo.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Support -- The article needs to be pruned of all original research. I agree that, given the prominence of Robertson and his book, which is arguably the definitive 20th century biography of Jackson, at least one secondary source should have published post-1997 to dispute a controversial assertion such as this. There are 5 or 6 widely circulated monthly magazines about the ACW, and numerous scholarly journals, giving ample opportunities for professional historians to dispute Bud if he's off base. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Support All the original research should go forthwith. Next, the article needs to be neutralised: which includes removing images whose sole purpose appears to be to bolster one side of the argument. Next, the sources need cleaning up – in particular, the Candenquist Tour Guide stuff (which is not published by a reliable source) – and page numbers added to all acceptable stuff. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: I'll archive most of this page later today. It serves no purpose now other than to daunt other interested editors. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry to barge in here, but Support. There's no point in having the table, it just creates drama and serves no good purpose in the article. Best to remove OR stuff. Skinny87 (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Support The biggest issue I see here is that because Grayghost01 believes his position has more merit, he chooses to ignore his utter isolation in holding his positions. All herky-jerky energy aside, the user seems to forget that wikipedia resolves disputes through the use of page consensus. I assert that the user has wasted way too much project energy in this matter. User seems to make every disagreement a personal dispute, and seems to often reply by "flooding the zone", that is, utilizing his seemingly unlimited energy to expand every argument past reason. Lastly, in the long history of his contribs in wikipedia, user has announced on his user page and through his actions that he is not only an American partisan, but a Confederate partisan; he has exactly no standing to complain about other who have opposing or neutral POVs. All these are simply inappropriate social behaviors in this wikipedia context. I'm ready to take this user up the chain of dispute resolution, perhaps to arbitration. Lately, this user has become a hazard to the project, and that's truly unfortunate, given the user's ability and motivation. BusterD (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that the pagespace itself has blossomed under this heated dispute. I love a lively, well-informed discussion, and value disagreement in the service of a higher purpose. This discussion is just getting unproductive, and I thought I should say how I was seeing it. BusterD (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

text: --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Search for Consensus -- Elimination of Section “ List of historians believing the locomotive raid true”

message: Based on the above discussion (Dealing with the tags), I am proposing eliminating from the article the subsections B&O main stem remains closed May 25 onward and B&O President acknowledges the loss by 28 May and replacing them with a single subsection as follows:
===Closure of the railroad===
Historian Angus James Johnston, II, "To make sure the trains stayed trapped and to prevent Union armies under George B. McClellan and Robert Patterson from using the road, the Confederates [still officially Virginia Militia] began destroying bridges and track on May 25," taking down seventeen bridges over the next thirty day periodJohnston, p.23 The main stem of the B&O which ran mostly in or near Virgina was severed and cut off from the rest of the line by blasting a "massive rock formation onto the track at Point of Rocks."Johnston, p.23Johnston made the determination that in fact no rail traffic passed the B&O main stem west of Point of Rocks after the end of May, and west of Opequon Creek Bridge two miles east of Martinsburg after June 2.  
Historian John F. Stover notes that John W. Garrett, President of the B&O Railroad, acknowledged that by May 28 the Virginia forces (called Confederate by Garrett) had taken control of 100 miles of the main stem from Point of Rocks westward.Stover p. 106 However, Stover indicates that the destruction of the railroad did not begin until "early June", culminating in the destruction of the "800-foot combined highway-railroad bridge at Harpers Ferry" on June 14. Stover writes, "With this dramatic action, the main line of the B&O was to be effectively closed down for nearly ten months."Stover p.105  
    
Historian Thomas Weber also indicates that the trains continued to run from May 28 for another 17 days until June 14, and gives his account of the raid by Jackson as occurring coincidentally with his view of a June 14 shutdown:
William Prescott Smith, master of transportation for the railroad and the “good man Friday” to Garrett, who notes that at least through June 2 the railroad was still operating through the Virginia stretch:
''
===Notes===
The changes I am proposing:
*Eliminate discussions (Original Research) of the merits of Johnston over other historians.
*Eliminate discussions (more Original Research) of the weaknesses of other historians and explanations of why they maybe didn’t understand the full picture (i.e. “fogs of war”)
*Separate the views of Stover and Johnston into separate paragraphs. As the article exists it was made to seem as if the two were largely in agreement, however Stover, in fact, has major differences with Johnston. For example, Stover's quoting of Garrett that the railroad was in control of the railroads is not the same as saying that the railroad was totally closed by that date. 
Please provide you comments on whether the above section should replace the existing section. I expect to proceed with similar proposals on other sections in the near future. This seems the more orderly way to do it.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support for Tom's proposal. The number of primary sources consulted is immaterial to the discussion. The only legitimate sources for Wikipedia articles are secondary sources and the citations of primaries should be removed, along with original research that attempts to evaluate the credibility of those primary sources. Hal Jespersen (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Support per Hal. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Support. I do believe primary sources may be used per WP:RS but only when they are given prima facie without any attempt to "help" derive what it means for the reader..you have to let them make up their own mind. That aside, there does not appear to be agreement between the sources & this article and we need to get it resolved.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact remains that Robertson is probably the most authoritative source here. Using sources that pre-date him to contradict his subsequent assertions, when the earlier sources were unaware of his argument and thefore unable to weigh the substance of it, is relying on what lawyers call "the fruit of the rotten bough". The article can always be updated in the future to reflect significant new scholarship supporting or contradicting Robertson. The fact also remains that many military events do develop their own mythical folklore (cf. English casualties at the Battle of Agincourt and the Angel of Mons) perhaps because the hopes and dreams of so many people rest upon them. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I implemented the proposed change based on the above discussion as well as the discussion in the following section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've invited Grayghost01 to hold fire for a time to see how the pagespace evolves without his contributions. Meanwhile, he's userfied his own copy so as to develop a better approach to make his case in pagespace. I'm not counting him out; I still think the Robertson view should be treated as minority view, no matter how scholarly. It would interesting to see how the temporary data fork might improve the article long-term. For my part, I think Tom and some other editors have been treated unkindly of late by User:Grayghost01, but I don't think the ghost means any harm, and I think we're writing about blood between brothers way thicker than any we'll ever spill in this arena. I hope we can all keep that in mind. BusterD (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure of the railroad -- Comments requested

message: The changes I am proposing:
*Eliminate discussions (Original Research) of the merits of Johnston over other historians.
*Eliminate discussions (more Original Research) of the weaknesses of other historians and explanations of why they maybe didn’t understand the full picture (i.e. “fogs of war”)
*Separate the views of Stover and Johnston into separate paragraphs. As the article exists it was made to seem as if the two were largely in agreement, however Stover, in fact, has major differences with Johnston. For example, Stover's quoting of Garrett that the railroad was in control of the railroads is not the same as saying that the railroad was totally closed by that date. 
Please provide you comments on whether the above section should replace the existing section. I expect to proceed with similar proposals on other sections in the near future. This seems the more orderly way to do it.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support for Tom's proposal. The number of primary sources consulted is immaterial to the discussion. The only legitimate sources for Wikipedia articles are secondary sources and the citations of primaries should be removed, along with original research that attempts to evaluate the credibility of those primary sources. Hal Jespersen (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Support per Hal. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Support. I do believe primary sources may be used per WP:RS but only when they are given prima facie without any attempt to "help" derive what it means for the reader..you have to let them make up their own mind. That aside, there does not appear to be agreement between the sources & this article and we need to get it resolved.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The fact remains that Robertson is probably the most authoritative source here. Using sources that pre-date him to contradict his subsequent assertions, when the earlier sources were unaware of his argument and thefore unable to weigh the substance of it, is relying on what lawyers call "the fruit of the rotten bough". The article can always be updated in the future to reflect significant new scholarship supporting or contradicting Robertson. The fact also remains that many military events do develop their own mythical folklore (cf. English casualties at the Battle of Agincourt and the Angel of Mons) perhaps because the hopes and dreams of so many people rest upon them. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I implemented the proposed change based on the above discussion as well as the discussion in the following section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've invited Grayghost01 to hold fire for a time to see how the pagespace evolves without his contributions. Meanwhile, he's userfied his own copy so as to develop a better approach to make his case in pagespace. I'm not counting him out; I still think the Robertson view should be treated as minority view, no matter how scholarly. It would interesting to see how the temporary data fork might improve the article long-term. For my part, I think Tom and some other editors have been treated unkindly of late by User:Grayghost01, but I don't think the ghost means any harm, and I think we're writing about blood between brothers way thicker than any we'll ever spill in this arena. I hope we can all keep that in mind. BusterD (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Notes''

message: Uninvolved long-time pedia editor User:Gwen Gale (who does not live in the USA) has offered to participate in informal mediation. Gwen happens to be an adminstrator, but I requested Gwen because while we have disagreed in the past I still trusted her enough to support her second run for the mop. Gwen's initial response is here. Based on her initial reading, she has warned User:Grayghost01 against original synthesis and has requested that all original research be "skived" from the pagespace. "Skived " must be a Swiss term meaning removed. BusterD (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Skive is English (probably more common in the UK than the US) meaning to cut away or to shirk. I don't think the second meaning applies here :) Oh, and incidentally, just for the record, I'm neither American nor a US resident. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One more definition request (to Gwen or whomever can answer)...what does skeinish mean? That one is new to me.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skein. Cheers :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks..⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Gwen reminds me that behaviors such as those discussed above are "blockable", that is, any uninvolved administrator can begin placing blocks (each escalating in severity) on a user dedicated to inserting OR and advocacy into any article. I urge all involved parties to be aware that uninvolved eyes will solve this problem for us if we can't solve it ourselves. BusterD (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have requested informal mediation; I am willing to take this all the way to ArbCom if necessary 

message: During my entire discussion, when I have said "primary sources", what I have meant are the "main" or "most important" of the multi-hundred page history books which focus the most on this topic.  Thus a "secondary work" as one might call it.  Then again, anyone reading the article and looking up citations would know that.  But I see much written above about "primary sources" not being able to be used.  If these are diaries, news, etc, then if or when they appear in this article, it is through a SECONDARY work.  Sometimes, it is enhancing to the article to quote such things, like a diary saying "I saw a locomotive go down the street today" as it has been used and discussed in one of those SECONDARY works.  Those points are fascinating, and I think good in the article, particularly for affairs called "totally fiction" by one SECONDARY work, when dozens of other SECONDARY works treat the same affair as real. Elsewhere in the American Civil War, there are disupted accounts of things, but I've never seen an entire affair tossed out with the bathwater like this.  In reading Robertson's section on May of 1861, you get absolutely no thought or idea, whatsoever, that anything is happening on the B&O railroad at all, until one day the Harpers bridge gets dropped.  Thus Roberston has cut out all PRIMARY and SECONDARY works on this, entirely.  For that reason, and because of all the other SECONDARY works which disagree with him, I assert that Robertson's account has tarnished value for use in this article, beyond explaining that one of the later biographers on Jackson, in a huge book, simply lists in footnotes why he chose not to talk about this in the main chapter.  And the historian Johnston is the primary historian for all Virginia railroads in the Civil War, and I know of no other historian who eclipses Johnston for that (if there is another, please let me know).  Regards, Grayghost01 (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources 

message: Question 1: One policy, or suggestion, that I would like someone to explain is the logic and reasoning behind the argument that since Robertson wrote a book in 1997, that any and all secondary sources written for the 100 years before that are considered of little value.  Does this hold true for all material, of all types and categories in the biography of Jackson?  In other words, are all other secondary sources on all other points and aspects of Jackson's now null and void relative to Robertson, and Robertson's work considered an Ace-of-Spades of some sort?  And if someone writes merely a new book on Jackson, and asserts new things, does that, then, automatically become the latest "main" secondary source, then trumping Robertson?
Question 2: In reviewing what Robertson actually wrote, his sole argument against the affair in its entirety is his distrust of Imboden.  Yet, only a mere and extremely minor fraction of the information of the affair comes from Imboden.  Even then, one source (Hungerford) has an actual quote of a message relayed to Garrett from Jackson, which foils Robertson's position (a quoted message for a supposedly fictional communication exchange).  Would this restrict the use of Robertson merely to the material that he questions (Imbodens), or is the use of Robertson extrapolatable to all types and manners of other non-Imobden information?
Question 3: Why does Roberston say on p.229 that the events of a taking of 56 locomotives and 300 rail cars is "totally fictional" ... and then on p.245 relates an extremely similar affair that took 56 locomotives and tenders and 305 cars as factual historical truth?  He mentions no date with the former affair.  How are these two parts of his book reconciled?  Is this coincidental?
Question 4: When Robertson talks about Hungerford, Johnston and Weber, he only talks about Imboden and the use of Imboden.  Yet these three historians, in reading their books, use an impressive array of sources, the vast majority of which is not Imboden.  In their thoroughness they all capture Imboden's comments, but it comprises only a mere fraction of what they relate.  Is Robertson only questioning the small parts of information of Imboden that are touched upon by these other historians, and are we too assume that the rest of their research is valid?  And as a corollary, if Robertson is speaking to all of their information about the taking of locomotives does this imply that Robertson is now a more authoritative source on railroad history in Virginia, and on B&O railroad history?  Should Robertson become a main secondary source on other railroad articles as a result?
These questions form my premise for challenging the value of Robertson as a secondary source for this article.  I assert that Johnston and Hungerford are the two best secondary sources for not just this article, but for all articles touching on use and actions involving the B&O and other railroads throughout Virginia in the Civil War.  I also assert that Weber, Stover, Black, Barringer, Browne, Burns, Delagrange, and Lash (that I've read through so far) all offer new items of information, the majority of which is not information from Imboden either.  Thus, if Robertson is upheld as a main secondary source above all others for this article, I would like to see how this is supposed to address the majority of the information in the article. Grayghost01 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A secondary source is "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." Unless a newspaper article is a "news analysis" (to use a modern term) it is probably a primary source, just dumping out information gathered by a reporter that day. A news article saying that "no trains arrived today" is a primary source. (A news article that said something like "An investigation of railroad records over the month and interviews with three railroad engineers and the company president reveals that Jackson destroyed 87 trains" would probably be considered a secondary source.) Records of train movements at the railroad company office are primary sources. Diaries, orders, letters, and memoirs of participants are primary. The Official Records are certainly a primary source, making no attempt whatsoever to analyze or interpret the raw data presented. A good, although not without exceptions, rule of thumb is that a reliable secondary source will have footnotes (or at least a bibliography) citing the (usually published) primary sources it is evaluating. In the field of history, most reliable secondary sources will be written by published historians. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Hal, it appears that you have a major 180-degree-out difference of opinion from Berean Hunter above?  In the meantime, I have used citations of secondary sources, citing a page number, and if appropriate noting their citation of another primary source if that happened to be the case.  However, help me out.  I'm still trying to trace the logic of the contributing editor that has placed all the SYNTHESIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH tags.  Again, is this due to my page-specific citations of secondary sources, where I have directly quoted a phrase or sentence?  Did I "synthesize" and "originally research" a 23rd of May start of events by directly citing secondary sources in that manner?  And another thing, I've noticed that the other contributing editor (who is able to keep his generally uncited edits per the 3-person "support" ruling) has chosen ... of all the secondary sources ... to overlook Johnston, the most specialized historian on this topic ... and use Weber, apparantly because he describes the raid, but without a date, and so that, albeit in a twisted manner, can haphazardly be used to attempt to support Robertson's equally undated discussion of "totally fiction" for the event which he never tells us of when (what date) it was that is supposedly did not happen.  Now, keep in mind it did happen 16 pages later in Robertson on page 245 (or at least an extremely similar raid, which just so happens to involve the same number of locomotives and just 5 more railcars than the previous "fictional" event).  Despite my Jacob Marley chain-like burden of dozens of POV type tags ... I still strongly suspect my ~125 or more direct citations and use of 34 references virtually eliminates any POV possibility, and that a POV is certainly carrying the day in this article, which is not from my keyboard. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Sources 

message: This page: Wikipedia:No original research says this:
*Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
Well, I guess I can totally check that box.
*In short, stick to the sources.
Yep, I've nailed that one.
*In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.
This is interesting.  It seems to contradict what Hal was saying, and seems to support Berean Hunter's view.  But it doesn't define a "mainstream" newspaper.  Would that be a circulation size?  What is the criteria?
How about this?:
*Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research.
Am I stringing together all the sources which say the affair started on 23 May, such that connected together they say 23 May in a way that constitutes original research?  Or ... are other contributing editors stringing together just two references which give no date at all, in order to string together a conclusion of proving a negative, that 23 May was not the day?  It seems to be that the latter is the "original research", per the definition given.  But that's okay.  I don't think we need to put any tags on the article.  If we modify the previous 3-way "support" insertion, such that it removes the original research that was synthesized, that should be good enough.  And ... is the stem-to-stern chain of events given in the Northwestern University, published for the Virginia Historical Society book by Johnston also not enough to establish the credibility of a whole chain of dated events, as he gives them, since it is a university-level press, with Virginia Historical Society backing, and by itself presenting the overall view and flow of things?  Please, folks, read these sources in this article, so that we can sift the real synthesis and original research stringing together undated "chains" of events from the real dated chains of events in the better sources.   Grayghost01 (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:No original research 

message: I have noticed a couple of geographical errors in this section, which I describe below.  I did not want to directly edit the page to make corrections for a couple of reasons.  First of all, it is clear that these errors occur in sections that are already the subject of debate, and the errors might best be corrected in conjunction with other changes in those sections - I do not wish to add to the debate or confusion by making changes in these areas.  Secondly, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in the history involved here to be certain my changes would be correct in some cases, thus I feel it is better to point out the potential problems so that those who are more knowledgeable may either confirm and correct the problem or dismiss my suggestion as inaccurate.  It is clear that there are several people actively working to improve this page, and I hope you find these notes helpful.
In the third paragraph of the section "May 23, 1861 Raid", Cherry Run is described as being at a bridge 32 miles east of Harper's Ferry.  Cherry Run is west of both Harper's Ferry and Martinsburg.  (32 miles east of Harper's Ferry along the Potomac is in the vicinity of Broad run near Ashburn, and the easternmost crossing of the Potomac by the B&O is at Harper's Ferry.)  This appears to be just a typo.
In the second paragraph of the section "Jackson moves to Martinsburg", it is indicated that Jeb Stewart was in Martinsburg, "20 miles south" of Winchester.  Martinsburg is 20 miles north of Winchester.  Because of the historical context here, I cannot determine whether it is the city names that are transposed or the direction.
MarkINFD (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical Errors 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jackson's operations against the B&O Railroad (1861). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517112359/http://www.cwea.net/2008%20tours/Jackson_Train_Raid_WEB.htm to http://www.cwea.net/2008%20tours/Jackson_Train_Raid_WEB.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517112359/http://www.cwea.net/2008%20tours/Jackson_Train_Raid_WEB.htm to http://www.cwea.net/2008%20tours/Jackson_Train_Raid_WEB.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified