![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IMHO State Prisoners deserves a separate article, to distinguish from POW and Politicals.
Okay, now I'm somewhat pleased.
Thanks to Hlj for feedback. BusterD 01:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I use the War of the Rebellion a lot, hitting Cornell's site to do so. Cornell scanned the pages and posted them online, and if you check title pages you'll find that it isn't a simple case of Cornell saying the offical title is "The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies." That's the title listed on the title pages. Volume 1 Title page, Volume 4 Title Page, Volume 9 Title Page.
By contrast, the Union and Navy version is listed as "Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion" on the title pages. - annonymous 4/18/11 5:17 AM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.3.99 ( talk) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The book is called Official Records of the War of the Rebellion. Why does wikipedia call it something else? Are we in the business of re-naming books here? We should not be. 155.213.224.59 ( talk) 13:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Official reports. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3#Official reports until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
20:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I've seen the OR listed as a primary source, which I could see as it includes contemporary letters and reports, but since it was compiled after the fact, doesn't that make it a secondary source? Anyways, just looking for input from other editors as I've already used the OR for a couple articles and would like to continue using it if it's considered appropriate. Amscheip ( talk) 18:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
There are many facts inside such well-provenanced documents which may prove useful; citing for that reason I heartily endorse. My concern is that we don't use the OR in Wikipedia's voice.Right on (I typed "right om" at first, but that works too.;-) Carlstak ( talk) 01:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IMHO State Prisoners deserves a separate article, to distinguish from POW and Politicals.
Okay, now I'm somewhat pleased.
Thanks to Hlj for feedback. BusterD 01:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I use the War of the Rebellion a lot, hitting Cornell's site to do so. Cornell scanned the pages and posted them online, and if you check title pages you'll find that it isn't a simple case of Cornell saying the offical title is "The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies." That's the title listed on the title pages. Volume 1 Title page, Volume 4 Title Page, Volume 9 Title Page.
By contrast, the Union and Navy version is listed as "Official records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion" on the title pages. - annonymous 4/18/11 5:17 AM EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.3.99 ( talk) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The book is called Official Records of the War of the Rebellion. Why does wikipedia call it something else? Are we in the business of re-naming books here? We should not be. 155.213.224.59 ( talk) 13:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Official reports. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3#Official reports until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Talk
20:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I've seen the OR listed as a primary source, which I could see as it includes contemporary letters and reports, but since it was compiled after the fact, doesn't that make it a secondary source? Anyways, just looking for input from other editors as I've already used the OR for a couple articles and would like to continue using it if it's considered appropriate. Amscheip ( talk) 18:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
There are many facts inside such well-provenanced documents which may prove useful; citing for that reason I heartily endorse. My concern is that we don't use the OR in Wikipedia's voice.Right on (I typed "right om" at first, but that works too.;-) Carlstak ( talk) 01:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)