Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.


Stuff on the page before it was reviewed

Inline citations are almost complete. 'A brief note' has been relocated. Several images have been enlarged using the 'double image' format versus gallery.
Images can be further enhanced by use of a table format as Gwillhickers has suggested as a possibility elsewhere, but that would necessitate placing all the text together instead of alongside the images. Descriptive text has been expanded to more nearly balance most images using Keegan for military context, Strauss for generational and Webster for cultural. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice article! Since Civil War themes have been one of the predominate topics for U.S. Postage, this article sums them up nicely. However I have minor reservations about the numerous 'placeholders'. I think in most cases no stamps exist for these. If the U.S. doesn't have a stamp for e.g.The Battle of Vicksburg I seriously doubt any other country has ever issued a commemorative for this battle. In any case, a great effort, deserving of a barnstar when the article hits the mainspace. (haven't made up my mind which one). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the placeholder stamps can be cited in Scott's Specialized catalogue, which I will put in. I wanted to encourage others to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons. I'll get the specific Scott's catalogue numbers for each... Vicksburg and Gettysburg were issued on May 23, 2013 in the Civil War Sesquicentennial series, but they are not in my copy of the catalogue. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I haven't been very active with my stamp collecting in the last couple of years (it's all Jefferson's fault) so I'm not up to date on the latest U.S. stamp issues and I don't collect most modern stamps, which for the most part are printed like wall paper to sell to children. Not too long ago only prominent figures were found on postage stamps. Today we have 'Bart Simpson' on a stamp. Anyways, as I think you know by now, uploaded images of stamps issued after 1978 must meet 'fair use rationale' guidelines and any given image can only be used on one designated page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. An argument could be made for "ACW history on stamps" to get the Vicksburg image to complete the historical events represented, then the companion 2013 Gettysburg stamp is available for another page use for postal illustration purposes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an awesome start on a cool article. I'm thinking the article name will need to be changed to meet WP:NAMING. My first thought is Postage stamps in the American Civil War. My second thought is that this ought to be a list-class article, with subsections like the ones you've already established. That way we could assemble the material into a table, like List of Apple printers. BusterD (talk) 6:33 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5) from User talk:BusterD.
With the addition of O.W. Holmes quote and narrative from Strauss and Howe's "Generations", I wonder if the article should be retitled "American Civil War generation on stamps". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Postage stamps in the American Civil War" more than suggests that the article is about stamps used in the Civil War and doesn't mention history, the central theme to this article -- while the name "American Civil War generation on stamps" seems a bit ambiguous and doesn't relate the idea of history either. I believe the existing name is the best. It's definitive and inclusive. As lists vs articles go, the page is no longer a list as soon as you begin adding paragraphs of information, (with the exception of the lede), even though there may be segments of the article that seem to resemble a list. A phone book is a list. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "American Civil War history on stamps" as definitive and inclusive. My goal is to qualify for an article as suggested by others featuring the civil war at the time in stamps and covers comparatively for both sides, and as it was remembered on stamps. The story is history as biography, emphasizing each life in the Civil War as that generation of notable persons lived it, and chronicling major events. These as recalled on stamps as the criteria for wp:significance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is emerging as a very strong, much needed article. Rjensen (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC #1,3,8

At WP:NFCC

  • 1. requires "No free equivalent." Here, there is no USPS image that is free, but where there are free stamp equivalents for Fort Sumter, Shiloh, Gettysburg, they are used.
  • 3. requires "Minimal usage. minimal number of items." of the twenty-odd civil war commemoratives, two battles were selected for waterborne combat, and two for first half of the war years.
  • 8. "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The picturing of waterborne combat and the important first half of the war shows that the USPS has more comprehensively commemorated the American Civil War than previous issues.

If there is a dispute, it should be resolved at a dispute resolution, not by deletion disruption without discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheVirginiaHistorian: do not re-add the files or you will be blocked. Werieth (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • what critical commentary exists for File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg? Werieth (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "First Bull Run (First Manassas). The Bull Run stamp commemorates the first major battle near Manassas, Virginia. It reproduces a 1964 painting by Sidney E. King, “The Capture of Rickett's Battery,” showing the fighting on Henry Hill over an important Union battery. The Union troops are shown fleeing their position in a rout back to Washington DC.[57] Union advance onto Richmond was repelled with losses larger than any in the Mexican War, steeling both sides for a long conflict. Tellingly, Confederates could not follow up on their victory and the Union did not withdraw from its occupation.[58] 2011 issue.[59]" TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statehood stamps

I'm wondering how the stamps for California statehood, which occurred in 1850, and Oregon statehood, 1859, tie in with the commemoration of Civil War. There are some others. It's understood that various issues in these states contributed and led to the Civil War, but the state/stamps themselves are not a commemoration of the Civil War. I would recommend removing these. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The unbroken string of free-soil states is one of the contributing factors to the ACW. They break the rapprochement between North and South to balance entry of free-soil states and slave-holding states in the Senate, allowing a de facto veto to the slave power. In the short run, both Senators from all states west of the Mississippi were not Whig but Democratic on the issue of Native-American policies, and they voted party line for slavery interests; their being free-soil did not contribute to crisis. But the westernmost and northern states all went Republican in the 1860 elections on the issues of Homestead Act, the intercontinental railroad and Union. Democrats lost in California, Oregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
The unbroken string of free-soil states is the reason for the frantic extremes by the pro-slavery interests to making Kansas a slave state in Bleeding Kansas. Kansas admission as a free soil was said to be the reason for Virginia's second secession convention voting for secession. In the event I have not been persuasive to include all, the literature is pretty solid for including Kansas Territory and Kansas Statehood stamp as principle causes of the ACW, and their contribution could be sourced and placed chronologically before the stamps 1861-1866.
West Virginia and Nevada might be included in the Reconstruction section since they contributed to narrowly making the three-forths states required for the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Or they could all remain in the last section together with the others in the unbroken string of free-soil states as written with expanded narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone with your extensive education in history may appreciate the related history but I fear the average reader and stamp collector is going to wonder how these particular stamps actually commemorate the Civil War. Again, I would recommend keeping the scope of this article more in line with its title. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also slavery expansionists objected to California extending south of the Missouri Compromise line, the southern border of Missouri, sealing off the southern route for a transcontinental railroad through the Gadsden Purchase to San Diego.
Deleting the section would still allow for inclusion of "during the civil war" states of West Virginia and Nevada in the Culture section, don't you think? And the "onset of civil war" stamps for Kansas territory and Kansas statehood is pretty clear. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your idea that these things can be explained, but they still don't fall within the idea of commemorating the Civil War. Perhaps if we changed the name of the page back to your original title. American Civil War history on stamps. This way we're not confined to the idea of 'commemorating' THE Civil War, allowing for history contributing and leading up to and following the Civil War itself. Another page move (renaming) is not out of the question. We could also have subsections that read Pre Civil War and Aftermath of the Civil War or something to this effect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to change the article name. I have agreed to deletion of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and California, since you believe them to be too far afield from THE Civil War. Four remaining stamps nominated still should be under consideration: KS Terr. and KS, WV and NV.
West Virginia Jun 1863, and Nevada Oct 1864, are new states entering during the ACW, so their statehood commemoratives should be included as events in the Civil War.
Kansas Territory, "Bleeding Kansas", is generally known by American high schoolers as "preliminary" or "dress rehearsal" civil war skirmishing over slaves, slavery, and slave territory, the fighting financed by the Abolitionists and Slavery-expansionists. After SC secession in December 1860, Kansas attains statehood as a free-soil state January 1861. That information is required at least in National U.S. History, Virginia, South Carolina and Texas state curriculum standards.
I propose deleting the offending section but including the four immediately relevant commemoratives generally known to be connected to the ACW: a) KS Terr. and KS at the top of the "Culture' section; and b) WV and NV at the end of the 'culture' section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Was just concerned that someone else will come along and simply make the various deletions and edits with no discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I'll ping brother-in-law to train me on the Mac so I can help out on the statehood commemorative images. The statehood flags of 1976 and the state birds and flowers of 1982 are too recent unless they would be for a dedicated gallery, am I correct?
Finding the years for statehood commemoratives at 50, 100 and 150-year commemorative dates can be expedited by the alphabetical listing in the Scott's Specialized Catalogue of U.S. stamps and covers, "Subject Index on page 77A.
Carl Shurz and Dorthea Dix with Civil War careers are found on a U.S. commemorative of Famous Americans in the 1980 series. Since you did the upload of the earlier series of 1940, did you have any thoughts on how to treat those under copyright? Do you think an editorial warning concerning the restriction could be placed on the wikimedia commons image page, then police the one-use-only rule with a bot? Is there somewhere editors can request bot coders to code a specialized bot for recent issue U.S. postage stamps? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Statehood flag stamps of 1976 can be uploaded in the normal fashion, with no copyright issues. Any image of a U.S. stamp issued after 1978 must follow fair use guidelines and the given stamp image can only be used on one designated page. Here is an example of the fair use rationale used for a post 1978 stamp image. To upload such an image go to the Wiki' main page (or any article) and click on 'Upload file' on the side bar to your left. Then click on the large bold lettering which reads Click here to Start the Upload Form which will bring you to this page. After completing steps 1 and 2 continue with step 3 where you will have three choices. Select This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use, and go from there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Commemoration_of_the_American_Civil_War_on_postage_stamps