Talk:West Virginia in the American Civil War

message: I just deleted a section of what appeared to be an opinion piece of some sort (Wikipedia is not a soapbox) from the "Political background" section. This is certainly pertinent to the discussion of the role of WV in the Civil War, but not in the manner previously presented. Just thought I'd explain myself, since I did delete a pretty large section of the article. Also, the article could stand a good wikification. Burndownthedisco talk 04:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Background

message: to be original research, despite the references in the text and the easily verified historical references. Randall's "Civil War and Reconstruction" is one of the most highly regarded references on the War, even according to the Amazon page on the book.
:a) Even if the source was verifiable, your section wasn't very encyclopaedic. in fact, it read like a rant of sorts. Which leads to b) your section was extremely POV. If it were rewritten to reflect the NPOV policy, it could be an acceptable part of the article. As it stands, however, the piece that you contributed was extremely biased, and not written according to Wikipedia standards. Therefore, I removed it. Burndownthedisco talk 04:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You deleted what "seems" 

message: you go to your high school library, get a copy of Randall's "Civil War and Reconstruction", read the section on the creation of West Virginia.
:Meanwhile, *I* suggest that you stop ignoring the REASON why I deleted the section that you contributed, and fix the problem, rather than reiterate the supposed credentials of the source that you cited. Burndownthedisco talk 04:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest 

message: I added new text, some of which was in the History of West Virginia article. I focused on the troops, battles, leaders, and major actions, and steered relatively clear of the past controversies that accompanied early versions of this article. Scott Mingus 23:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworked text 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: This para refers to battles which took place both before and after the new state broke away from the Confederacy:
'A Confederate brigade of cavalry under antebellum U.S. Congressman Albert G. Jenkins saw considerable action during the Gettysburg Campaign, as well as other major campaigns. A number of West Virginia regiments were distinguished for their war records, including the 7th West Virginia Infantry which assaulted the Sunken Road at Antietam and rushed onto Cemetery Hill in the twilight at the Battle of Gettysburg to help push back the famed Louisiana Tigers. The 3rd West Virginia Cavalry also fought well at Gettysburg as a part of John Buford's veteran cavalry division that defended McPherson's Ridge on the first day of the battle.'
Can you state which of these units were on the Confederate side and which were on the Union side? No doubt many local regiments were raised on both sides. It might be useful to compare the troop-numbers. 86.184.142.75 (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: PS  -  As the Louisiana Tigers were Confederates, the 7th West Virginia Infantry who pushed them back must have been Union troops. Valetude (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locally raised units  -  fighting on which side? 

message: I heard that the Union was not especially pleased to receive this gift of a new state. Any confirmation of this? Valetude (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , you heard from where? If you have a reference or source for this information, it can be incorporated. -- Caponer (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not universally welcomed?