Ohthatkyle

Civil War article edits

Hi Ohthatkyle. I'm concerned about your recent edits. First, it is excessive to say that units were "enemies of the United States". It is fine to clarify that they were on the Confederate side when it's ambiguous, but no need to be hyperbolic about it, particularly repeating it multiple times in an article. Second, 'Union' is the term almost universally used in reliable sources, not 'US Army'. Third, in a few cases your edit summaries are 'fixed typo' for things that are clearly not typos. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi CWenger, thanks for the help I’m a new editor here and I am mostly concerned with adding clarity for non-American English speaking readers of civil war articles. As you know much of the language around the confederacy is fraught with small obfuscations that originated in the immediate post reconstruction area. Calling confederate forces “enemies of the United States” is accurate because in forming their own country the nation against which they fought was the United States. Union is the cause for which the soldiers of the US Army fought they were not members of the Union Army. That term along with the term Federal Troops, though used during the civil war, causes confusion. The United States was not dissolved into 2 separate nations during the civil war a confederate nation and a Union nation. In the post reconstruction era education materials and veterans materials used the term UNION to refer to US Army soldiers in order to preserve a common national identity and not tie “US Army” to either cause during the war. Ohthatkyle (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned, clarifying that forces were on the Confederate side is useful when it's ambiguous. But we define people by the side they fought for, not the side they fought against. Would articles about the American Revolutionary War describe units as part of the Continental Army or as "enemies of Great Britain"? Readers will know what the Union and Confederate sides were, and if not, there are wikilinks where they can learn more. On the US Army aspect, we follow reliable sources which almost universally refer to it as the Union Army, regardless of the reasons. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi again and thank you for engaging on this topic. I do believe that where unclear it would be appropriate to characterize the continental army as “Enemies of Great Britain.” In the case of the American Civil War, when describing soldiers from the confederate state, it is equally clarifying to describe those soldiers who fought for or against the United States. For example when article is describing a confederate unit from Georgia it should be clarified if they fought for the confederate states against the United States or for the United States against the confederate states. I fully concede the point “as enemies of the United States” is an American-centric phrase that is too harsh. However identifying that the confederate states army was engaged in was against the [[US Army]] is critical for those unfamiliar with the American Civil War. Modern Scholarship as well as the US Army eschew the term Union Army when describing US involvement in the ACW. Union was the cause for which the soldiers of the US Army fought. It is confusing because confederate army describes both the cause and, confederate states of America, the nation for which they fought. From an American point of view it is implied that confederate soldiers fought as enemies of the United States against the US Army but to foreign readers, clarifying which sides were opposed is immensely valuable; it is uncomfortable for American readers who are used to the narrative of Union/confederate conflict. Common or typical sources from 1896-1960s use these terms first as a way of distancing the contemporary US Army from American civil war and later to support Jim Crow era narratives about the war. Though those sources are common they are hardly reliable which is why I aim toward the more modern usage.

CWenger, I am immensely grateful that you are engaging on this topic, I am a new editor and I absolutely in no way mean any offense. Are there terms or a method of clarifying the Union/United States distinction that would be better? I Would like to build consensus around language that would replace some of the older usage in many articles about the civil war. Ohthatkyle (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said, readers of Civil War articles will know what the Union and Confederate sides were and who they fought against. In the rare event that they don't, they can follow wikilinks and learn.

I disagree with your assessment that the use of Union rather than U.S. is outdated. See for example, the American Battlefield Trust and the National Park Service, which both use Union frequently. These are the kinds of sources that Wikipedia is built on.

If you're committed to these changes I recommend you start a discussion at one of the more popular Civil War articles like American Civil War or Battle of Gettysburg, so others interested can weigh in.

–CWenger (^ • @) 16:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi CWenger, Readers of civil war articles not previously familiar with the material or culturally American often find the term "Union" confusing. Our own Wikipedia:Manual of Style demands clarity in all language. Though I appreciate the National Parks Service and American Battlefield Trust, the US Army, through the Army University Press has provided the following:

" In light of this, the reader will discover that the word “Union” will be largely replaced by the more historically accurate “Federal Government” or “U.S. Government.” “Union forces” or “Union army” will largely be replaced by the terms “U.S. Army,” “Federals,” or “Federal Army.”

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/publishers-note-on-use-of-civil-war-terms.pdf Ohthatkyle (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

If a majority (or even sizable minority) of reliable sources start using "U.S." instead of "Union", then Wikipedia will consider it. Your concern about people not understanding the term "Union" is more appropriate for something like Simple Wikipedia. At regular Wikipedia a certain level of knowledge is assumed, and if readers don't have that, they can follow wikilinks for background.

I'm not sure if continuing this discussion will be productive, so as I said, if you feel strongly about these changes, I encourage you to raise them in the talk page of a prominent Civil War article.

–CWenger (^ • @) 15:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

CWenger clearly didn't mean for you to post a note in Talk:Georgia State Defense Force, an article only edited half a dozen times by 2 editors in the past year and a half. Try Talk:American Civil War instead. If you get consensus, feel free to make as many such applicable edits as you wish. Buffs (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Please be advised about what we term tendentious editing, specifically Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_great_wrongs. Buffs (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. I understand the point you're trying to make, but making such wide sweeping changes to a mess of articles (along with misleading summaries like "typo") are inherently disruptive. It is not necessary to note that units (whose loyalty was to their STATE first and foremost and the side they fought for secondarily, though certainly by exception) should not be labeled "as enemies of the United States" at every opportunity. We are a UNITED States now. CWenger is correct that WP:CONSENSUS is not on your side. Buffs (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)