Talk:Winchester, Virginia, in the American Civil War

message: You should probably think twice about who you accuse of vandalism.  Simple disagreement with the non-scholarly neo-confederate version of history is not vandalism.  You cannot invade your own country -- to claim that the USA invaded Virginia reflects a particular point of view that assumes the legitimacy of secession.  Lincoln certainly did not use the word "invasion" in his call for 75,000 volunteers, did he?  Neutral language that implies neither the acceptance or rejection of the legality of secesion is available and should be used. Or would you prefer that we use Lincoln's actual language on the purpose of the call for troops?  A far as Winchester being your home town, that gives you abolutely no ownership over the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalizing My Talk Page 

message: Dear Northshoreman, I reviewed your user page. We wiki's often list pages we create and work on, and your list includes:
*Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln
*Historical revisionism
*Lost Cause of the Confederacy
*Neo-Confederate
This causes me to wonder greatly as to your motivations.  Such topics are ignited by ill-will, enflamed by unkind intentions, provoking and arguably twisted.  Hopefully an administrator will see to it that one or more of these is promptly removed.  If ever there was a lost cause ... such a list would seem to be one.  Good grief.
Grayghost01 (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to my actual edits of these articles you will find that I have a consistent approach -- a reliance on reliable sources and efforts to correct folks that bring a clear POV to what should be objective history.  On the Lincoln article I found the same thing that modern defenders of the CSA's goals demonstrate -- a reliance on dubious sources and a distortion of the writings of legitimate historians in order to promote a current political/social position. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Issues of Neutrality

message: Northshoreman your views that life in the CSA were rough are true but not really the point of this article.  The page on Germany with pointer to Nazy Germany does not go into how rough life was internally due to hardships.  I think the points made above with your neoconfederate and secuality of lincoln contributions shows that you are anything but neutral in your views.  you seem very harrasing to me.  I think you are out of line and have added nothing of value to this page.  my 2-cents from a fellow Virginia resident from Ohio, who thinks this state is real nice and friendly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.18 (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you are fine with all of the language in the article regarding hardships caused by the United States, but absolutely draw the line at pointing out that the CSA also inflicted hardships on the same population. Interesting point. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: You dodge the issue.  Why are you presenting only one side of the issue IN THIS ARTICLE? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Still with the personal invective.  In fact, details are important and it is not up to you to independently delete properly sourced material.  I suggest you discuss any proposed alterations on existing material before you resume your edit warring.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled since you are independently deleting material and editing in off-topic maaterials without prior discussion on the talk page?  Do you always make such major changes totally alone without attempting to reach any consensus?  And why do you insist on spending so much time on the Winchester article with discusssion of Lincoln, Slavery and other topics which have multiple articles on all the varying facets already dedicated to that?  Perhaps you can contribute in a manner like User:Scott Mingus, instead of in the manner in which you are doing so now? Grayghost01 (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still with the personal invective.  The material under discussion here is entirely material I have added -- nothing has been deleted by me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes from a reader in No. Va. 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: I thought that several issues might need to be addressed on this article. Before making any changes, I wanted to put them out for discussion. First, the discussion on Winchester's strategic location needs to be reassessed. The B and O RR goes through Martinsburg 23 miles north of Winchester. The C and O Canal is is 37 miles north of Winchester in Maryland. Also, the Manassas Gap Railroad passed through Strasburg, 21 miles south of Winchester. The inclusion of these transportation arteries with Winchester is a stretch.
Also need to look at the inclusion of Julia Chase as a "Devil Diarist." That names was given to Secessionist women of Winchester because of vociferous hatred of the occupying US forces. Ms. Chase was quite pleased with US occupations, her only lament being that they generally did not last. Also, the modern flag of Winchester is not relevant to Winchester in the War. Was there a city flag during the war? It would be more appropriate. Also there is an assumption that Fort Jackson = the main fort which was actually expanded greatly beyond the original confines of Ft. Jackson.
The article also states Winchester served as a "base of operations for several Confederate incursions into the Northern United States." I think we need a list of what "incursions" are being referenced and documentation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenandoah1864 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructive Conversation on Content