Talk:Stonewall Jackson

Childhood bio seems very pollyannish

Does anyone have sources for the childhood part of the bio? All that "self-taught by the flickering of knotwood" is all very well, and may well be true, but it would be good to have sources.

Is Thomas Stonewall Jackson really the right name for this article? It strikes me as an uneasy compromise - either Thomas J. Jackson or Stonewall Jackson would be better. Or even Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. —Paul A 02:03, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking that too. I'd name him Thomas J. Jackson, because it is his proper name... should I move it? ugen64 14:51, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

Be bold in updating pages. Except that you can't in this case, because I have already.  :)
—Paul A 03:40, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To me, it seems POV to suggest that Jackson is only a great Southerner, and not a great American. I think the end of the article should reflect the respect Jackson has in the North as well. What do you guys think? Triped 18:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't change ANYTHING. Everybody knows who Stonewall Jackson was. He was probably the greatest soldier America ever produced.

Uh, what the hell kind of comment is that? If everyone knows who he is, then we don't need this article.

touché. The man was far from perfect. However, I do think the article is under the correct listing as Stonewall Jackson. Vaoverland 13:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The idea that Stonewall Jackson was self taught under the 'flickering fire' blah bla, is questionable, as no source is able to confirm it, becuase he is no longer living. Only old records would be able confirm these reports rendering what I have just typed, useless.

By the way, Kermit the frog is the greatest soldier that ever lived. And no one, I say, no one, can prove me wrong!!!!

But no one can prove Kermit was even a soldier in the first place, much less the "best". But we're not talking about Kermit the frog. I agree with Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. ---Anonymous Contributor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.26.112 (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Distracting links

1. Year pages are of low value. Links are used for full dates as part of user preferences; there is no similar issue with years on their own.
2. The message on the first line is for the benefit of readers who type “Stonewall Jackson” on the address bar and want to learn about the singer. Surplus links can trick people into going to 1960s or country music instead of Stonewall Jackson (musician), which they actually want.

Susvolans ⇔ 15:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Year links should only be noted once, on their first occurrance. I agree with the point on the disambiguation link, only the other stonewall Jackson page should be linked. AllanHainey 16:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, first, I believe that it is general practive here that people tolerate links in articles, even if they don't consider them very valuable. (I would delete a lot of links that don't interest me if that were not the case.) At least that seems to be the case in the American Civil War pages, if not for the rest of the universe. I understand that dates can be reformatted as part of preferences, but don't understand your point regarding date links and prefs. I agree with your concern about poorly formatted disambiguation lines in the front of the article and don't claim credit for that line. However, concerns about that line should not govern the full article. As to multiple occurences of dates, I agree in general that links should not be duplicated, but in the case of dates, I treat them as a unit and always tag the year if the month/date that precedes it is tagged. Just looks more consistent. Hal Jespersen 17:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual_of_Style covers date links. Rather than debating policy in each article, a debate about policy might be better at talk page of Manual of Style. Bobblewik 19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Lee speech

(put new comment at end of file)
Has anyone noticed the following sentence under Chancellorsville? "What happened next is given in Lee's own words, in an 1879 address to the Association of the Army of Northern Virginia:" The only problem with it is that Robert E. Lee died in 1870.

It was Fitzhugh Lee, as indicated a few sentences earlier in the paragraph. Hal Jespersen 21:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Revered by slaves?

From the article:

He became Professor of Natural and Experimental Philosophy and Instructor of Artillery. Jackson's teachings are still used at VMI today because they are military essentials that are timeless, to wit: discipline, mobility, assessing the enemy's strength and intentions while attempting to conceal your own, and the efficacy of artillery combined with an infantry assault. However, despite the quality of his work, he was not popular as a teacher. The students mocked his apparently stern, religious nature and his eccentric traits. Little as he was known to the white inhabitants of Lexington, he was revered by the slaves, to whom he showed uniform kindness, and for whose moral instruction he worked unceasingly.

The whole "faithful and humble servant" routine is hard to swallow and more than a bit too hagiographic for my taste. It is also entirely unsourced. --Saforrest 18:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how haigiographic it is, it probably could be worded better. I can't source the uniform kindness bit but he did teach a Sunday School for slaves which is probably where the moral instruction bit comes in. AllanHainey 07:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the section. See if the additional detail and footnotes addresses this adequately. Hal Jespersen 15:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplication

Dxadxda I removed the following, as it is for the most part restated in other sections. Clarityfiend 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Youth and education

Although his parents were of good lineage, and his father was an attorney, the boy who would grow up to be known as Stonewall Jackson had an early life filled with tragedy and adversity. He had lost his father and a sister to death, been rejected by a stepfather, and then orphaned when his mother also died, all by the time he was only seven years old. He apparently learned to work hard at an early age, helping his mother and later working for his uncle. There is evidence that he valued both reading and keeping promises.

Death at Chancellorsville

I've always heard that there was some question on whether or not the death was accidental or not, as there had been previous attempts on his life. Can anyone clear that up for me? Ratwar 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Find some reputable sources who claim that and we can discuss. This is not a mainstream theory, AFAIK. Hal Jespersen 14:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A quick google/yahoo shows multiple articles discussing whether Jackson was shot intentionally or accidentally, e.g. Was General “Stonewall” Jackson Fragged? by James E.T. Lange and Katherine De Witt, Jr. North and South vol 2 #4. For thirty years a veteran of the Army of Northern Virginia claimed that he deliberately caused Jackson's death. Did he really fire the fatal shot?

It is a statement of fact that Jackson was shot by his own troops. Whether it was accidental is not given. Allegations from a Confederate veteran claiming to have shot Jackson could be included in the article. I do not think that any so-called reputable sources will flatly assert that shooting Jackson was intentional, because they do not know. But it may be at least worth considering in the article. AaronCBurke 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It is rather irresponsible to elevate a fringe theory to credibility by adding the weasel word "perhaps" without any explanation or citation. There are many conspiracy theories around, and sometimes Wikipedia needs to cover them as part of its WP:NPOV policy, but that is not to say that they need prominence within the introductory paragraph of an article. In this case, if anyone's POV believes there is doubt, that POV should be discussed way down in the article, after the wounding is described, not in the introduction. And we need some serious citations from secondary sources. I do not have access to that magazine article you refer to, but Krick refers to it in his book "The Smoothbore Volley That Doomed the Confederacy" and skewers the authors' premise, as did Stephen Sears in a later issue of the magazine. I would be in favor of dropping the entire subject, but if you can include citations from credible secondary sources, go ahead. Hal Jespersen 20:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. AaronCBurke 21:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article seems to get more than its share of purile vandalism. What would attract vandals to a site like this? I just don't get it.Jerry picker 02:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

im guessing that it is because he was an opposing general in the civil war

Treason against the ligitamate government of the United States, especially when done in the name of terrible opression tends to be unpopular. Not encouraging vandalism, but he was a leader of the insurgents, as much of a traitor as John Brown, but a traitor fighting for opression instead of fighting for liberty.24.94.232.13 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Martin

He was fighting for Liberty, SOUTHERN Liberty. He was no more a traitor to the U.S. than Washington was to Britain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.106 (talk) 04:49, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems like vandal attacks on this article are history, so you can relax now. BTW, I agree with the previous comment, nice said. Jackson fought to free the South, that was his aim, and so he was and remains a military hero of the Southern States, a hero of the movement for Southern liberty and independence, that's why everyone should feel some respect for him. Asharidu 07:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh, I was wrong about the vandal attacks. We need to ban the user nicknamed '208.155.92.194' for vandalism, he's definitely of no help here.Asharidu 16:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheese??

Whats up with the line that says "His favorite food was Cheese" Even if this is true, I dont see how this belongs under westpoint.

A whiff of vandalism befouled the air, but went unsmelled until your discerning nostrils reported for duty. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 15:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead section on "most famous"

The lead section says Jackson is "most famous for his audacious Valley Campaign of 1862..." I think most historians point to Chancellorsville as his most famous; in his bio on Jackson, James Robertson titles the chapter on Chancellorsville "The Greatest March," and Shelby Foote said that as a victory for the South "it was perhaps in terms of glory the greatest of them all." I suggest a sentence like this:

"He is most famous for his audacious Valley Campaign of 1862, and especially for leading the surprise attack in the Battle of Chancellorsville and as a corps commander in the Army of Northern Virginia under General Robert E. Lee."

I don't want to just horn myself into the lead section of a very nicely done article, so I'm suggesting this to the group of contributors here.... Rgfolsom 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't saying "Most famous for..." a matter of opinion? Some might know nothing about Chancellorsville but know everything about the Valley Campaign. Or the other way around.Wikimichael22 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Wikimichael22

I would say the Valley is more known today as it is still studied and taught in military classes, at least in the U.S. Or we could sum it up like "known for his exploits in the rebellion with the Second Corps..." and such. As far his as greatest march (from above), I would point to Romney, or maybe his movements prior to Second Manassas drawing out Pope. Kresock (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Origin of nickname

In a college text I read for my major, it reports the origin of Jackson's nickname a little differently than what is displayed in the current version. I edited the First Bull Run article to match what I read, and cited the book. I've done the same for this article, but if anyone can show me a reference to the origin of the name "Stonewall" that counters what I have, I'd like to know if there IS a definite source of the name. Bob the Joker 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Confused over ancestry

1. The article says that Stonewall Jackson was the great-grandson of a John Jackson of Londonderry, but the way the article reads it suggest the John Jackson was his grandfather, not his great grandfather. Clarification please?

2. Scots-Irish descent: if it's his great grandfather that was from County Londonderry, then that accounts for one side of the family, what about the other side? was he 1/8 Scots Irish and 7/8 American?

cheers! --mgaved 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the article, John was his great-grandfather, Edward his grandfather, and Jonathan his father. What additional clarification you need? His most comprehensive biographer, Bud Robertson, says that John Jackson was of Scots-Irish descent and Elizabeth Cummins was born in either England or Ireland. It would be possible to trace the ancestry of the wives of Edward and Jonathan, but what would be the point?

As an interesting aside, the article's description of John and Elizabeth's immigration to America is significantly at odds with Robertson's account. He claims that both were indentured servants who achieved that status by convictions for crimes in England. I'll do some more research on that and update the article one of these days. Hal Jespersen 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So who was this Shane Archambault in the first sentence of the section? A different ancestor?81.102.15.200 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking back, it seems to have been some vandalism on 11 April. I have changed it back to John Jackson.81.102.15.200 (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

War Criminal: Massacre of Mexicans?

The “Popularity with Christian fundamentalists” section refers his massacre of Mexican civilians* but the main article does not mention that he fought in the Mexican-American War at all! Instead it jumps from West Point straight to his appointment at VMI. Totally omitting the five critical years during which he gained his only pre-civil war combat experience. During which he took part in what seems to be (under modern International Law) a war crime. Is this a “white wash”??

• Quote: Jackson received orders to turn his guns on Mexico City residents attempting to flee the oncoming U.S. army. He did so without hesitation—mowing them down as they sought to surrender.

Jalipa 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No white wash that I can tell. This article is the subject of a lot of vandalism and sometimes substantive changes are overlooked in the blizzard of reversions that have to take place. The entire section on the Mexican War was deleted somehow. I have restored it. Hal Jespersen 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I came to this page to point out the weasel words in the "although some may view...in relation to Jesus Christ" part...but then I started wondering which historian had written that account, if it was contemporary, etc. I came to find out it was written by a journalist whose main expertise appears to be writing opinionated articles about religion. This made me wonder if that quote, or the entire section for that matter, belong in this article...the "fundamentalist" angle seems rather obscure to me. Any thoughts? 63.250.85.186 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. This is one of those common instances where someone reads a magazine article and immediately wants to edit Wikipedia to mention it. I would prefer to see it removed, but chose merely to edit it into a format that makes it clear it is the opinion of this one journalist. (Check out the edit history to see its original format.) If someone would like to delete the section, I would not object, but I do not wish to get into an edit war on the subject. Hal Jespersen 15:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been three days with no disagreements. Unless anyone objects by this weekend, I'm just going to remove the section.63.250.85.186 12:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with your assessment. Sharlet's article isn't about Stonewall Jackson, and in my opinion nothing in that magazine article is "history" that merits mention in this encyclopedia article.

Rgfolsom 13:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm...DennyColt? Why did you revert my deletion of that section as vandalism? I thought we'd agreed it didn't really belong here. I'm going to go ahead and remove it again and hope you see this section.74.130.23.77 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious fervor

In re the above, the article appears to have done all it can to diminish any connection of Jackson to religion when just the exact opposite was true--religion drove him in all he did, devotion to Virginia, to his troops, to battle and war. There is, for example, twice as much space devoted to the lemons, and also to his sleep quirk. While those are his most well-known eccentricities, they hardly define the man. His most basic assumption as a general was that divine intervention would win battles if the situation merited it, beginning with Kernstown. It was not a transient, ethereal, or symbolic part of him--it was his basic nature. God-Jackson-and Virginia were all integrated to Jackson. Armies throughout history pay lip service to "God is on our side" but Jackson generaled according to his belief--yet app. we daren't mention it.--Buckboard 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think if you'll look at the reversion history, the deleted portion was less a highlighting of Jackson's beliefs, and more a highlighting of Jackson's importance to modern day fundamentalist Christians. It was a fairly lengthy section that didn't contribute very much.65.27.147.47 (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal hit this page 21 March 2007

I was looking up this page and found if vandalized today This page was last modified 16:44, 21 March 2007

12.155.157.110 17:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Robertson quote

You can't attribute a quote before and after--it's redundant.

Wrong:

Joe Blow said:

"My name's Joe."

--Joe Blow

Right:

Joe Blow said:

"My name's Joe."

-or-

"My name's Joe."

--Joe Blow

Given that the Robertson quote is part of a narrative text, the first form is preferable.

The box around the quote makes it look like it's not part of the text, but that's not as strange as attributing the quote twice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nareek (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

West Point

The section on West Point is completely void of citations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stev0supreemo (talk • contribs) 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Current Doctrine - End State

The claim that the command relationship between Jackson and Lee would, using modern doctrine, would be described as 'end state' I believe to be a misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘end state’. The term 'end state' is more often used to describe strategic aims for a campaign or war rather than what a commander is attempting to achieve in a single engagement or battle. 'End state’ sets the strategic objectives for a campaign it does not describe a command relationship. I would suggest a more accurate description of the command relationship between Lee and Jackson would be 'mission command'. A text book example of mission command is undoubtedly Jackson's flanking manoeuvre at Chancellorsville where Lee told him what effect he wanted from his corps but then left Jackson to plan and get on with it. Ewell's failure to take Cemetery Hill was just as much a failure by Lee to recognise that the notion of mission command did not sit easily with Ewell. I suspect Ewell would have performed much better if he had been given a direct order without any equivocations. A reasonably good definition of the term mission command is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Command. --Jrmg 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

reverence for Jackson

In addition to the source at the top of the page that verifies that Jackson is revered by many Americans there is also a holiday, Lee-Jackson day, that honors him. Does anybody know why Jackson is honored by so many Americans? Do we have any sources that might discuss which of his actions these Americans admire and how those actions were of benefit to themselves or others? Is there perhaps a source that might shed some light on the discussions that led to a decision to honor Jackson with a holiday? Is he seen as a kind of role model people should look up to?Zebulin (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Jackson is revered for reasons similar to George S. Patton: he was an audacious and gifted general with an ample compliment of character eccentricities that make him more interesting and seem more human and approachable. Unlike Patton, however, Jackson was shot down in his prime and so there are entire cottage industries that argue the various ways that Jackson could have won the war if he had survived. All of this positive speculation obviously adds to his reputation. For those in the military (US and elsewhere) he is admired primarily for his tactical brilliance. For some civilians in the South today, there is an affection for the great men of the Confederacy that derives from their sense of history and regional patriotism, which overlooks some of the [ahem] negative aspects of the era. Whether Jackson should be held up as a role model for anyone is not the subject of an encyclopedia article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lt General

I just broke up Jackson's ranks by army, Major for his service in the USA and Lt. General for the CSA. This was to correct a red link made by a previous edit for Lt. General (CSA), and I made it go to the explanation on the History of United States Generals page for the relevant section describing the Confederacy's use of the rank. Hopefully this will clear up any confusion. Let me know if there's a better solution out there.

Kresock (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rank History

Moved to Talk:Military career of Stonewall Jackson

creation of toys.

the toys are first manufactured by the utmost people that cleanse themselfs and know the biomechanics of engeering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.92.13 (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggest move

I would suggest moving this article to the existing Thomas Jonathan Jackson and using the existing page as a redirect. That would comply more with Wikipedia common practice. 65.54.154.48 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting that here first, before actually implementing the move, as most people would do. The Wikipedia naming policy is to select the most commonly known version of a person's name for the primary name of an article. That is why you see articles named Robert E. Lee, George W. Bush, etc., rather than spelling out their middle names. (For people who are generally known with their middle name, such as George Armstrong Custer, John Wilkes Booth, or Lee Harvey Oswald, that form is the most common and sets the name of the articles.) We have discussed this name quite a long time ago and the consensus was that the vast majority of people who are not Civil War historians would not be able to identify the name Thomas Jonathan Jackson, but virtually 100% of them have heard of Stonewall Jackson. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lemons or Peaches????

Since there needs to be better concensus on whether Jackson ate lemons or peaches, I have placed a dispute tag on the section. I have also noticed that most of the entire article cites a single author, and although anything added should include citations, I belive there needs to be more to help improve this article.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bud Robertson's book is the current definitive bio of Jackson, massive in scope and meticulously researched. He addresses the common stories about eating lemons as being apocryphal and says that Jackson liked all fruits, particularly peaches. Replacing 'peaches' with 'lemons' in the context of this paragraph makes no sense. This article is admittedly under-cited at present. As controversies have come up, I have been using Robertson as a means of citing specific facts and opinions on a case-by-case basis. Unless you can find a modern Jackson bio with comparable pedigree that disagrees with the Robertson cite, I don't think any 'dispute' tag is warranted. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the community should accept your interpretation of one man's book based on what YOU believe it says? If so, perhaps you should read WP:OWN before you declare a dispute over. That particular author may have come to that conclusion, but perhaps a few more citations would help your cause. I once read a book that says that John Wilkes Booth did not break his leg while falling from the balcony, but rather later that night when he fell from his horse. Should I add that as fact to Booth's article or should I wait to find a concensus? Please be more careful in the future when reverting edits, especially dispute tags.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the tag only after explaining the move here on the talk page. I am not asking anyone to accept an "interpretation" of a book but to provide a specific citation of information in that book. I could turn the citation into a direct quotation from the author if that would make you feel better. I will repeat my statement that if you have current secondary sources that dispute Robertson, those can be offered as alternative POVs, but since it is the most recent and most scholarly biography of Jackson, I think you we'll have difficulty coming up with some. In the meantime there is no reason to cast aspersions on the entire section over this one very minor issue. I have no opinion on the Booth article or the credibility of the unnamed source you once read. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I must add my two cents on the relative of my grandmother (whose maiden name was Jackson). My cousin ate lemons, and Robertson has some historical accuracy issues (my personal opinion only). The criticism of Jojhutton hits the nail on the head, and ironically I was just thinking the same thing about this article a week or two ago: It's a Robertson-centric article. Robertson's book is nice, but it's not the end-all on Stonewall. All sources must be weighed, and the original authority is:

• Henderson, G.F.R., Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War, Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, 1898.

Now, to add to my personal opinion of why Robertson continues to stir controversies: Stonewall was seen eating lemons, and this is odd to most people, enough to mention it. His loving wife isn't going to give a hoot, and so of course she'll say nothing of it. Robertson is likely correct in that Stonewall probably liked all fruits, just like my G-grandfather Jackson. But the observation of oddity by people was that he ate some lemons. He was probably able to get them because most soldiers rummaging the fruit trees in the valley took apples, pears and peaches first, and so lemons could be more easily had, and Jackson had no druthers about it. The researchers in Gods-n-Generals put in the lemon scene as well.

Also, why not ask wiki?

• http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_Stonewall_Jackson_eat_so_many_lemons-_did_he_have_a_lot_of_health_problems
• http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Stonewall_Jackson_really_like_lemons

Or how about Stonewall Jackson, by Henry Alexander White on page 147: "After a contemplative suck at a lemon, 'thoughtless fellow for serious work' came forth. I expressed a hope that the work would not be less well done because of the gaiety. A return to the lemon gave me opportunity to retire. Where Jackson got his lemons 'no fellow could find out,' but he was rarely without one. To have lived twelve miles from that fruit would have disturbed him as much as it did the witty Dean." - Richard Taylor, son of President Zachary Taylor

My conclusion is that an appetite of too much Robertson will lead you in the wrong direction. Reading Roberston's book certainly won't lead you to photographing the old homestead of Charles Keeler, whose house is shown on one of Hotchkiss' maps, and sits in that very spot to this day.

Homestead of wagoneer Joseph Keeler off Old Charles Town Road near Stephenson, Virginia

According to Roberston, this house is purely fictional. Yet ... I've stood right in front of it with a camera.

I suggest we reference H. A. White, p.147 for the lemons, citing Richard Taylor the son of a US President and eye-witness.

Grayghost01 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. I was afraid that I was the only one who thought that there was a problem. I added the Dispute tag because I noticed that an editor had changed it to lemons, but User:Hlj changed it back to peaches. To me this constitutes a dispute. I added the tag, but User:Hlj immediatly removed it without even a good discussion. Claiming to add a comment and then removing a dispute tag is against WP:Dispute and possibly WP:Own. We must have WP:concensus. Also look up WP:Weight.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And thank you as well. In defense of Hal, he is a legitimate contributor and generally reasonable (except on naming the battles by the names from the National Park service, like Manassas). He just happens to use what I personally consider to be revisionistic or novelty-book-selling authors at times, like Roberston, whom I think made the anti-lemon note to get noticed and sell books (just a personal opinion). But Hal is nice. And Semper Fi, my good friend.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I also must clarify, I was not questioning the facts, I was only trying to point out that the information is in dispute. I am aware that User:Hlj has contributed much to wikipedia, but no editor should declare a dispute over without a full discussion, not even an Admin. I am not trying to make waves, I am trying to help the validity of the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(Thanks for the kind words, Grayghost. I enjoy jousting with you.) First off, this is not an ownership issue. Anyone can revert anything in Wikipedia, as I'm sure Jojhutton knows. I often jump into disputes here because I wrote the majority of the article and have been watching over it for 3-4 years now. And Wikipedia does not make judgments about what a "good discussion" is before changes can be made. Writing a paragraph in a Talk page is more discussion than precedes 99.99% of all changes, in my experience of this space. And if you don't agree with a change I make, argue the merits of the subject matter, not procedural issues.

This is not a "Robertson-centric" article. I wrote most of it from other sources before obtaining that book. However, since Robertson is so superbly indexed, I often create footnotes citing it when people ask for cites or there are disputes about details. It's simply easy to find info in there. Bud is a respected modern CW scholar with a distinctly Southern orientation so it is odd to hear him called "revisionistic or novelty-book-selling." The notion that he would falsify a minor story about lemons--and this is hardly an important life detail, folks--to "get noticed and sell books" is really pretty silly. He was the technical consultant for Gods and Generals, but apparently a colorful popular myth meant more to the moviemakers than to him.

Henderson's book simply reprints the Taylor story from Taylor's book (without even acknowledging it as a lengthy direct quotation, a sloppy practice for a modern author). Based on your H.A. White ref, it appears he did the same. Robertson specifically cites this quotation as well and discounts it with multiple sources over three lengthy paragraphs, which I won't bother typing in here, but you can search on 'lemons' in the Amazon.com page for this book and find the Frontmatter page I cited. I can expand this section and include the alternative views if you guys want, but spending 2-3 paragraphs on differing views about a minor, harmless personal habit does not seem appropriate for an article of this length.

By the way, those answers.com links you found have no info that would be considered WP:RS. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you consider "centric", but 54% of the citations are from Robertson. I seems rather centric to me.

I wonder if you read my comment about the origin of this article. It was written prior to my obtaining Robertson's book, so it could hardly be considered Robertson-centric. Since that time, 54% of the footnotes added to the pre-existing text were verified by the Robertson book because it is usually easier to find information in his index than in other references. For an article of this length, if it had been written to current Wikipedia standards, it would probably have 100+ footnotes from a number of different sources.

As for the ownership comment, I too have articles that I have helped to make better as you have. I also sometimes get a bit choosey on what information goes in and goes out, but we must be frugal in our attempts to revert Good faith edits, even when we think that they are wrong. Wikipedia does not have policy on how long discussions should go before declaring a dispute over. See WP:consensus. As an aside, I am not taking sides in the dispute. I am only trying to document that information and facts may be in dispute. That is all. I have no stake in the issue either way, except to make sure that their is a consensus. --Jojhutton (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to explain the genesis of this 'dispute'. The text of the article (which had maintained the consensus of the community for over a year until you came along) said that there is a story that Jackson was always eating lemons (making it seem as if it were some mad obsession) but that recent research has determined that that story is an exaggeration and that Jackson liked all fruits, particularly peaches. You changed peaches to be lemons, a change that made no sense in the context of the sentence. ("Stonewall Jackson was thought to have loved cats more than any other animal, but recent research has found that this is incorrect and he loved all animals, particularly cats.") Reversing a change of this type does not rise to the level of a dispute that needs to be displayed as a warning box in the article--let's reserve those boxes for important, controversial issues, OK? Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Now lets look at some facts. I did not change anything in the article. I only added the dispute header. Next, you don't have a "community consensus" for over a year, if you change every good faith edit that comes your way. If you feel so strongly on the subject, then please add more citations since a large portion of this article seems to favor the Robertson interpretation of Jackson's life. Third, Just because Robertson is the latest book, does not mean that it is the most informative and factual.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

2-more cents from the Gray Ghost. The lemon story is trivial, and simply deserves about one sentence. Jackson and lemons are mentioned by lots of folks, with even Robertson saying he considered them a rare treat. By the way ... by "rare" does Jackson mean of unusual quality... or hardly ever getting them? I took it to be the former. There are three definitions of that word, and Robertson chooses one to apply, without much of a cause. Plus, I gave my reasons for why he ate lemons enough to get mentioned ... but since "sucking lemons" is considered a denigrating thing, out of respect, or lack of care, most people aren't going to say anything. Do we have the history of JEB Stuart's favorite foods? No.

But ... Robertson takes it upon himself to prove a negative, that the amount of mention or lack of mention of the lemons is somehow proof in-and-of-itself of something. All history needs, usually, is one mention of a item of this triviality to base the fact. That it is even mentioned at all, is overwhelming proof of Jackson having SOME kind of lemon fetish. How many people eat lemons directly, like an apple? Very few. So if Taylor saw him eating them, and Jackson called them a "rare" (unusual quality) treat ... then he was a lemon-eating hound I'd say. But not Robertson.

Elsewhere, despite overwhelming evidence also (diaries, letters, company records, official reports) Robertson takes it upon himself to not just doubt ... but to state that the Great Train Raid by Jackson was a myth of some sort. Any historian has to lend credence where credence is due, and I think Robertson has violated basic rules of historical research on a minor ... and a major point in Jackson's life. This crossing of a line is a touch different than simply not being aware of facts or details, or omitting or editing items for sake of keeping a book to a certain length, or on a certain topic. Denying the lemon-eating and denying the train-raid are therefore intentional revisions. They are not negative revisions per se, but revisionary nonetheless. I think the purpose (at least inadvertent) is to cause novel (no pun intended) dispute and bring attention to the book, which then increases sales.

Let's compare. Only nine manuscripts exist on planet Earth which speak of a Julius Caesar, yet no one doubts any of the exploits of Julius Caesar from 2,100 years ago. On the other hand there are just as many or more references to Jackson's Train Raid of only 148 years ago, as well as physical evidences. Yet it is relegated to the status of a myth by Robertson. So the question is begged ... by "The Man, the Soldier, the Legend" ... does Robertson mean:

• Merriam-Webster 1a: LEGEND - [a story] popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable
• Merriam-Webster 1b: LEGEND - a popular myth
• Merriam-Webster 1d: LEGEND - a person or thing that inspires

I submit to you that we are forced to assume he must mean definition 1a or 1b, given his nit-picking denial of lemons and trains. So, in conclusion, I try not to fill my head reading these kinds of books. The are worth scanning or looking up specific points, but not reading. Therefore I do understand Hal's use of the book, and I have done the same to fend-off the citation-tag hound-dogs (any reference beats the best reference). But the 1898 book by Henderson, Jedediah Hotchkiss' diary, Official Records, and other such items are much superior in content, and if you have all that ... you have no need to buy a new book researching on peaches and denying train raids.

Just my 2-cents.Grayghost01 (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, nice comment. That is more than 2 cents. That was about Twenty bucks. Do you need change? As for the lemon or peaches dispute, I think that if multiple authors come to the same conclusion, then perhaps we should follow the majority lead on this point, rather than just use the latest book on the market.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not plan to get into an argument about Robertson's work and whether there are scattered errors. The purpose of citations in Wikipedia is for the reader of the article to weigh the merits of the citations provided. I can tell you that his book has been well reviewed and received the 1997 Douglas Southall Freeman Prize for History. The well-regarded Civil War historian Dennis Frye wrote a review that concluded "Robertson’s 950-page tome on Jackson will stand alone for the next 40 years–and perhaps into eternity. It is a superior model of research, writing, and analysis. It is a book every student of the war should read and every chronicler should emulate. Like Stonewall’s Shenandoah Valley Campaign, it is a masterpiece for the ages." I think the meaning of the word "rare" is apparent from the context that Robertson quotes and that he correctly interprets it. Since the quotation is included in the article, the reader can judge for himself.

My apologies to Jojhutton if I misinterpreted the editing history of the article. The initial spurious edit was done from an anonymous IP address and since you immediately reacted to my reversion, I naturally assumed that it was you doing the original edit. By the way, the gist of this argument is not whether his favorite fruit was lemons or peaches, or whether he ever ate lemons, it is whether he had a notable, unusual obsession with lemons. All Robertson is saying is that he did not have an unusual obsession and that stories without evidence that he did were embellishments meant to portray him as a more unusual character than he actually was.

Since both points of view--the original stories and a refutation--are now covered in the article, I hope all concerned will consider this matter closed. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As the section stands now, I believe that it is well written except for two problems that "jumped out" at me right away. There are possible problems with weasel words. The first was in the very first sentence "Jackson is considered...." and later when it says, "It has been hypothesized...."

The article in itself is well written but may need more clean-up if you wish for a WP:GA review. Keep up the good work and I will be watching the page for any future improvements--Jojhutton (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done some light editing to address the two concerns you just raised. Please feel free to make improvements. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Hal's edits are fine. As far as Robertson goes, I maintain that the emporer has no clothes. Henderson, in his 1898 book, captured both the Great Train Raid and the later Martinsburg Train Burning. Much evidence exists for these events beyond Imboden alone, and Imboden is sufficient in itself. A work on Stonewall, denying the events which shut down the B&O from May of 1861 to March of 1862 ... calling it a myth ... is no prize work. I remain critical. And his book, since contradicted by so many other sources, must ALWAYS remain the minor opinion, unless a few dozen more books are written which make the same conclusions as Robertson. Therefore, it would be best to cite it on the non-disputed points, if referencing the article is the goal. That he like lemons, the "rare" treat is sufficient. To add that he likes peaches, watermelons, lemons or even pork rinds is simply too much for the article.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)