Talk:James Longstreet

Well-sourced material being forcibly excluded from this article

Under the guise of objections about trivial style and format objections, an editor is attempting to prevent the following well-sourced material from being added to the article:

• Longstreet had started buying property there in 1875 – including a farm with vineyard and orchard and a newly built hotel, which would be run by his son, Garland.

• He served briefly as deputy collector of internal revenue for Georgia and Florida, and as postmaster of Gainesville.

• Longstreet was appointed by President James Garfield as U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of Georgia, an office he held from June 1881 until he was asked to resign by Chester A. Arthur due to Republican Party factional politics. He stepped down in July 1884, but not before he vigorously defended his administration of the office to a Department of Justice committee investigating charges of corruption and malfeasance brought up by his political opponents.

• interrupted his political career – he continued to seek public office but did not succeed in doing so

• In 1897, at the age of 76, in a ceremony at the governor's mansion in Atlanta, Longstreet married 34-year-old librarian and journalist Helen Dortch.

• Longstreet is remembered in his adopted hometown of Gainesville, Georgia, {Longstreet was neither born nor grew up in Gainesville, he moved there as a adult, after living in New Orleans after the war]

Other grammatical and stylistic adjustments, which improved the writing were also rejected by thus editor, were also reverted. It is my opinion, based on their editing history, that they are expressing WP:Ownership feelings by blocking material that they did not add, based on a source they are apparently unfamiliar with (Elizabeth R. Varon (2023) Longstreet: The Confederate General Who Defied the South).

Their editor's latest edit reverting this material is here. This information is obviously relevant, and the source -- which was written by an academic historian and which won the American Battlefield Trust Prize for History, is clearly an WP:RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I've said this now on multiple places, but I'll say it here in the hope that maybe you'll listen. You adding sourced content to the article is not my main concern, even though I view some of the content as unnecessary. Here are the primary problems. You have been adding new citations in the middle of text cited to other sources while not adjusting the original citations, therefore destroying source to text integrity. In one place, you added content that was not backed up by the citations in the article while not adding a new citation. After I called your attention to this error, you added a new citation, but placed it in the middle of text already cited to the other two sources, thereby corrupting the original citations. You altered a perfectly fine reference section and have refused to explain your reasons, which goes against MOS:STYLEVAR. You adjusted paragraphs in a way that leaves numerous one-sentence paragraphs alongside much longer paragraphs, which I find aesthetically and stylistically problematic. Some of your edits have also been sloppy. You moving citations around and breaking up paragraphs caused the final sentence of one paragraph to be without a citation, whereas it previously had one. (You have since fixed that issue after I pointed it out.) I was wrong. You didn't fix it. The final sentence of the third paragraph under "Reconstruction era" is still missing a citation due to your careless editing. Display name 99 (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC) A more recent edit refers to "Teddy Roosevelt," but that was not his actual name and there is no link. You also left two spaces between paragraphs at one point. It is not clear what the reason for most of these changes is, and you have continued to revert rather than stop and explain them.

The correct path forward, in my view, would be to restore the article as it was before you began editing and from there re-add some of the content that you want included while respecting the integrity of the citations already in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

References

• Let me re-state the obvious: if the style questions are your concern, then do not delete legitimate well-sourced material from the article. Instead, focus on those "problems" (which they are not) and leave the new material alone until you have a consensus from discussion on this page to delete it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Once more, you refuse to address my criticisms, which have now been clearly articulated on the article talk page. I do not question that the material that you added was well-sourced, but even that had problems insofar as the placement of the citations, as I explained. It is not my job to seek consensus. Rather, per BRD, if an editor makes changes that are reverted, they are the one who are required to have consensus before restoring their content to the article. Furthermore, it is not my job to pick apart your changes to separate the 5% good from the 95% bad. Because of all this, and because you have once again not attempted to address my concerns, I will be changing the article to its previous version. I am willing to begin from there on working to restore some of the content, but as you continue to refuse to justify your other changes, then you need to commit to not reverting me again. Display name 99 (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The improvement of articles by the addition of sourced information is what we're all about. The complaints you raise about style and format are purely incidental. Your deletion of sourced material for any reason except that a consensus of editors feels that it is not pertinent, or badly sourced, is not helpful to improving Wikipedia. Please address the issue in question, and not your personal bete noirs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

[1] Trivial. No evidence that Andrew Montgomery is an important figure. Also, a stylistic problem. McKinley's name should be spelled out in full and linked. This mostly looks okay, but could use some copyediting. Roosevelt's name should also be linked. This seems fine, but we don't need to say the title of Varon's book and we could probably shorten the text by summarizing rather than using the quote. This addition also seems rather trivial, but I'm not vehemently opposed to it. However, this is one of the places where your careless placement of citations interrupted source to text integrity. If the content is going to be restored, that needs to be fixed.

That's all for now. As I said, I am willing to work with you to restore some of the content, but you need to stop edit warring and stonewalling to force your unexplained and damaging stylistic changes into the article. Display name 99 (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

McKinley's name is already linked in the article. There is no need for his first name, as no other Mckinley is mentioned in the article. Roosevelt is also linked previously, I believe. If I'm mistaken about that, go ahead and link him. Remvoing the title of Varon's books is unnecessary, but unobjectionable, go ahead and remove it if it bothers you. The quote is short enough that summarizing is not necessary, and she makes a cogent point in opposition to Piston's view.

These are the kind of trivial objections which caused you to cause a tremendous stink and file an ANI report? Unbelievable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You know fully well that these content additions are not why I made an ANI report. Display name 99 (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Repeating here what I said in my edit summary for revert - you said - There is clear consensus here for the restoration of the original formatting for the references, so I have restored it - but you didn't, you restored your version, and you can count me as the 4th editor to quote ONUS to you - The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, you do not have consensus to include the disputed content.
  Also highlighting this edit summary - editor re-adding the wrong page cite of Varon for the "only 5 of Longstreet's children survived to adulthood" info says it all. And here is the ref you restored - {{sfn|Varon|2023|p=156}}. A snippet view from Google books shows the page number to be 152. Can you explain the discrepancy? Do you own a different version of the book? Was it a typo, a honest mistake, or do you consider that well-sourced material? Isaidnoway (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Retaining existing styles

Per MOS:STYLEVAR – When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, seek consensus by discussing this at the article's talk page.

I'm not seeing any edit summary explaining why the Notes/References/Further reading sections were changed. I don't see any discussion on the talk page either where consensus was achieved for changing the established style. In absence of any compelling reason given for why the established style was changed, those changes were inappropriate and should be reverted back to the consensus version seen here. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. Display name 99 (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, I believe the change in style is preferable, but if a consensus here disagrees, I'm not going to buck it. However, "fixing" a style dispute should not entail the removal without a consensus discussion of added well-sourced information. They are two totally different things. In any case, my preference is, again, obviously, for the more efficient current state of the References. MoS is not a policy, nor is it mandatory, and each and every MoS page makes clear in the header, so the curremt dispute is primarily an argument from familiarity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If you think our manual of style doesn't have community consensus in this case of retaining existing styles, you can challenge that consensus, otherwise, like it says in the heading: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply. You haven't presented a compelling argument as to why your preferred version should be an exception, so your change to the existing style is generally considered inappropriate, and you should change it back. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Weighing in here because I was heavily involved in the FAC. I agree with Isaidnoway and DN99 above that the existing citation format should be retained. Beyond My Ken - as to the removal without a consensus discussion of added well-sourced information see WP:ONUS. It's your responsibility to get consensus to include information, not somebody else's job to get consensus to exclude the information. And yes, edit summaries are not strictly necessary, but if you're in a position where you know your behavior is likely to be controversial, you 100% should be using edit summaries. As another question - on edits like this, are you verifying that you aren't breaking the integrity between the sources and the text? For instance, did you verify that Varon 2023 p. 243 supports the text "Longstreet applied for various jobs through the Rutherford B. Hayes administration of 1877–1881 and was briefly considered for Secretary of the Navy."? Hog Farm _Talk 01:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is clear consensus here for the restoration of the original formatting for the references, so I have restored it. Note, howver, that contrary to what was state by an admin on ANI, there is absolutely no accessibilty problem with using colons to create pseudoheadings, the problems come in when using semi-colons to create pseudo-headings. I do wish people would get that straight.
  Also, as there is absolutely NO consensus on this talk page for the removal of the sourced information I added, which the editor has once again removed without consensus (that discussion is directly above this one), I have restored it. Contrary to arguments made at ANI, sourced information may not be removed from articles without a consensus on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You have been told many times with links to policy pages, not only at ANI but here by Hog Farm, that it is your job to gain consensus to include information, not mine to exclude it. You haven't included any citations to policy yourself to justify this distortion of Wikipedia rules; you seem to think that I will simply accept it uncritically because you are saying it. By restoring edits that damage the integrity of the citations and include other formatting and stylistic issues while ignoring the objections both of myself and of Hog Farm about those problems, you continue to edit disruptively. Display name 99 (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beyond My Ken - where is the policy citation from your assertion above that "source information may not be removed from articles without a consensus on the talk page"? WP:ONUS reads The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content which runs quite counter to that. I'm not diametrically opposed to the inclusion of some of the information, but trying to stonewall your preferred version into this article is not appropriate. You also are yet to respond to my concern above about your verification of citation placement, which is important as well. Hog Farm _Talk 19:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Everyone should read ONUS more carefully. It says that disputed new material is subject to consensus. I began that consensus discussion just above this one, and no consensus has been reached yet. It does NOT say that the disputed material can be deleted at will. That is determined by usual Wikipedia policies concerning added information, i.e. unsourced information may be deleted at will at any time, but sourced information is subject to consensus discussion before it is deleted. Please see WP:V. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

When no consensus is reached, the content stays out. Any other interpretation flatly contradicts the quotes with which you were presented here and at ANI. You are also once again ignoring Hog Farm's concern about your placement of citations. I have lost count now of how many times that problem has been brought to your attention, and yet you continue to restore your changes without addressing it. As I have said, your edits are damaging to the article. You have no interest in explaining them but are trying to ram them into the article by force. It's amazing that you have the nerve to say that I am the one acting like I own the article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Seven Pines mini section needs clarifying

This sentence is confusing. We also have no other reference to Magruder anywhere else in the article according to a word search:

At the Battle of Malvern Hill the next day, Longstreet surrendered A.P. Hill's entire division to Magruder, and marched his remaining troops toward the Union positions on the Confederate extreme right.

Does surrender here mean "gave control of," rather than putting up a white flag? Magruder certainly needs to expound upon as a possible linked article. From this reference I can't exactly tell what side he's on, which would certainly clarify meaning. Deliusfan (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I added his full name with a link. That defect has been in the article for years. Thank you for catching it. Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)