Talk:A. P. Hill

message: Shouldn't this article renamed (moved to) Ambrose Powell Hill?  I know most historical texts refer to A. P. Hill, but it seems un-encyclopedic to use initials in titles for articles.  
Second, it seems odd that there is no space between A. and P.  Is that some standard I'm not aware of?
I know that historical military articles don't get much attention in Wikipedia.  If no one comments for a week or so, I'm going to move the article and leave redirects for the other versions of his name.
-- A D Monroe III 02:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full name in title? 

message: The following text in the article is inaccurate:
When Virginia seceded, he was made colonel of a Virginia infantry regiment, winning promotion to the rank of brigadier general on the field of Bull Run.
A.P. Hill’s regiment (13th Virginia) arrived on the Manassas Battlefield by train with Arnold Elzey’s Brigade about 12:30 p.m. on July 21, 1862. The battle raged in the distance and Elzey’s Brigade hurried in the direction of the firing. Before reaching the battle Elzey detached the 13th Virginia to the lower Bull Run fords. The 13th Virginia and A. P. Hill participated very little in the Battle of First Manassas or Bull Run. Hill felt again that he had been cheated of an opportunity to display his merits and he remained Colonel of the 13th Virginia until February 1862. 
A. P. Hill was promoted to Brigadier-general upon the recommendation of General Joseph E. Johnston and assumed command of James Longstreet’s former brigade (1st, 7th, 11th and 17th Virginia infantry plus Loudoun artillery). With this brigade he distinguished himself at the Battle of Williamsburg on May 5, 1862 and about one month later was promoted to Major-general in command of a division of six brigades which Hill termed the “Light Division.”      
The article seems very sketchy. There is a great deal of interesting material regarding his engagement to Ellen Marcy and the serious personal controversy with both Generals Longstreet and Jackson. That he suffered from gonorrhoea as a West Point cadet is reported but the other far more interesting facts are omitted.  
Please have the inaccurate statements corrected and review the other very interesting facts regarding A. P. Hill’s life. 
Thomas Miller —84.157.80.105 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate text

message: The mention of "...complications of veneral[sic] disease, possibly gonorrhea...", without citing sources leaves the article open to criticism.  I would think that it may be an issue with his descendants. Elementary school teachers may also take issue with it when their students cut and paste that section (without even understanding) into a biography.  Citing "Some historians believe..." seems more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia.
Nevertheless, it apparently was 'common knowledge' at the time that upon his appointment to the United States Military Academy and subsequent journey north from Virginia, that A.P. Hill's father had explicitly instructed him to travel up the west side of the Hudson to West Point and not to go by way of New York City.  He ignored this advice and went to the City where he contracted a STD; specifically "syphilis" and not gonorrhea.   There was no cure then or throughout the Civil War and treatment was arcane, archaic, and even somewhat barbaric to a point of itself rendering victims incapacitated.  The disease unchecked, there seems little doubt that this painful affliction had or may have on many occasions throughout his life and military career debilitated him to a point of being bed-ridden and fully unable to perform his duties. 173.59.145.219 (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See if the changes I just made are satisfactory. I don't think "Medical" is a good heading because the condition had a direct effect on how his generalship was evaluated. I once heard a Gettysburg LBG say that "Hill spent a night with Venus and a lifetime with Mercury" although I don't think that was a treatment for gonorrhea. More accurate jokes are needed. :-) Hal Jespersen 00:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you went over and above on the changes... well done.  I understand that his recurring illness affected his performance and warranted mention.  I'm new to this.  Now that the issue is resolved, do I delete my comments or does one leave it intact for future electronic archeologists to ponder..?  --Dogfish 02:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Leave the interchange as-is. Eventually, if the Talk page gets too full, we may archive old comments. But we generally only remove vandalism. Hal Jespersen 16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My thoughts: AP Hill was a distinctive leader in the Civil War. The issues of possible gonorrhea are significant - but one must remember it was a common disease then. Not sure how to incorporate that opinion into the article. But it ought to be included.... Engr105th 06:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The way to include the thought is to find a secondary source (professional historian writing in a published work) about Hill and footnote it. In my readings about APH, I have not found such an opinion. The guy performed poorly in the war's biggest battle due to illness, so it's an illness of note. Hal Jespersen 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with you Jespersen...If we can't isolate the disease as an STD, then leave it as "disease". I must admit, I can't find anything referencing any original source for gonorrhea other than second hand jokes (if thats what they are). Could be anything - drank some bad water 2 days before... ???? Engr105th 06:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't understand your comment. The article clearly documents the disease as gonorrhea, citing Robertson's bio as a source. What we were discussing is whether to edit in a comment that says "Please don't think poorly of Little Powell because gonorrhea was very common in that era." My view is that opinion should be included only if we quote a secondary source saying it about Hill in this context. Hal Jespersen 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: "Nevertheless, Hill was one of the war's most highly regarded generals on either side." looks PoV to me. Opinions of Hill varied at the time and among historians ever since. 
My PoV is that he was nuts and should have been left in charge of a regiment or maybe a brigade under a very strong division commander. I think there is evidence both ways but I wouldn't dream of putting my PoV in the article. Frankly, I think the red shirt is enough to show that I am right. I know that lots of officers did things like that in the ACW but I think they were nuts also. 71.234.37.99 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, it is a POV. This is one of the older Wikipedia articles that has not been full cited, which an opinion like that certainly should be. The following sentences provide some context to the claim, but it needs a citation. I'll add a flag. In the meantime, there were a number of successful but eccentric generals in the war, Stonewall Jackson among them. Their personal habits do not usually affect their martial reputations in any significant way. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides ammo concerns, Jackson also liked the idea of pikemen because throughout history they were the soldiers used to deal with cavalry. At the early stages of the ACW quite a few horsemen only carried their saber, and not firing a pistol/carbine at enemies. As for the general officers my POV is that any participants of a civil war must be a little nuts to fire on their former comrades & fellow countrymen, even if they considered themselves from a separate nation anyway. Is there wording in this article that still bothers you? Kresock (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly regarded? 

message: I did some minor rewording to a recent edit, but could not understand what the following sentence meant (up to the first footnote):
* Hill had been given either charges for lack of duty by his commanding officerHassler, Appendix. and he had repeatedly requested to Lee to set up a court of inquiry, but the commanding general did not wish to lose the effective teamwork of his two experienced lieutenants.Hassler, pp. 112–14, 128–31. 
Feel free to reword and place it back into the article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted sentence, July 22, 2011 

message: Under the analysis section it mentions that A.P Hill, "was omitted from Stephen Vincent Benet's poem, "The Army of Northern Virginia" even though all other generals of his rank were present.[28]"
However, I just read the poem online and found mention of A.P. Hill about 3 paragraphs in:
http://allpoetry.com/poem/8513609-Army_Of_Northern_Virginia-by-Stephen_Vincent_Benet
"A. P. Hill leads the van. He is small and spare,
His short, clipped beard is red as his battleshirt,
Jackson and Lee are to call him in their death-hours."
Am I missing something? It *clearly* appears AP Hill's name is mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmazeika (talk • contribs) 14:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army of Northern Virginia Poem 

message: Lee also called for Hill in his final moments ("Tell Hill he must come up."), although current medical opinion is that Lee was unable to speak during his last illness.
:These could still have been Lee's last words  -  before losing his power of speech. Also he could have been referring to D.H.Hill. Valetude (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee's last words 

message: Substituted at 05:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on A. P. Hill. 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/20120426055444/http://www.aphill.army.mil/sites/local/ to http://www.aphill.army.mil/sites/local/
*Added  tag to http://www.aphillcsa.goellnitz.org/narrative.html
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) 18:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed that your article lists Ambrose Powell Hill as Junior, however his father is named Thomas Hill.  Your article says he was named after his Uncle.  In that instance shouldn't he be named "II" and not "Jr."?  
I did some research on name etiquette and it states "Junior is used to distinguish a son with the same name as his father. The following conditions apply:
    The Junior must be a son of the father, not a grandson.
    The names must be exactly the same, including the middle name.
    The father must still be living.
'II' is used whenever any close relative, including for example a grandfather or a great-uncle, shares the same name as the child." 
<ref>Powell, Kimberly. "The Difference Between the Suffixes "Jr." or "II"." ThoughtCo, Aug. 27, 2020, thoughtco.com/jr-or-ii-suffix-3972347.
2600:6C54:507F:D033:5DF6:3D5E:B25B:E7F9 (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junior or II 

message: The article states: "Robertson's biography of Hill quotes his wife Kitty as saying her husband, "never owned slaves and never approved of the institution of slavery." In the 1850 census, Thomas Hill (Hill's father) owned 20 slaves in Culpeper County. Ten years later, Thomas Hill Jr. owned at least 38 slaves in Culpeper County. Hill's uncle (also named Ambrose P. Hill) farmed in Culpeper County, Virginia, using enslaved labor. In the 1840 census Ambrose P. Hill owned 32 slaves, and 30 slaves in the 1850 census."
I think this should be clarified such that it is clear whether A.P. Hill owned slaves or not. The way it is written it sounds like his wife said that he never owned slaves, but the census states he did. I think what the section (might?) be trying to say is that he never owned slaves but his family (father, brother and uncle) all owned slaves, as evidenced by the census. 69.125.82.78 (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's confusing.  I found one of the census references, it lists 30 slaves 1850 on pg 17-18.  I don't know which person that is, though.  The other might be https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GYTT-4SN, though that's page 30, not 32, and seems to say 34 slaves, not 32. — Omegatron (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to take his wife's statement at face value. The 1860 record I saw (via familysearch) are for his uncle, not him. Unless we can find records showing on the 1860 census for him in other states, (Ilooked and couldn't find any) we should let the paragraph put forth the point that while his family owned slaves, he might not have owned any - which was the original intention. The fact that he died supporting a rebellion to permanently safeguard slavery? Might that be left to a reader's inferrence? Or should that be mentioned? I reworded it and joined with the next paragraph to hopefully make it clearer. Boo Boo (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slave Ownership 

message: Adding OR is not valid, and you are 3RR violation Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey IP address