Battle of Backbone Mountain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Good articleBrooks–Baxter War has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 21, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
October 8, 2009Good article nomineeListed
October 17, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 17, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Refs

This article is lacking reference. There are now plenty of online sources to reference in google books. Here are a few I've found:

http://books.google.com/books?id=H80eQweo0V4C&pg=PA103&dq=brooks+baxter+war&ei=4acqSoPNCYXeNZeXkP4G#PPA104,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=o7sRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA327&dq=brooks+baxter+war&ei=4acqSoPNCYXeNZeXkP4G
http://books.google.com/books?id=jIEQr2ZLLhoC&pg=PA24&dq=brooks+baxter+war&ei=4acqSoPNCYXeNZeXkP4G
http://books.google.com/books?id=6Aej-sXoQLYC&pg=PA261&dq=brooks+baxter+war&ei=4acqSoPNCYXeNZeXkP4G
http://books.google.com/books?id=eenSh9eVjw8C&pg=PA35&dq=brooks+baxter+war&lr=&ei=LK8qSpOTCJC8M4Cy9IUH
http://books.google.com/books?id=DnnnYn-qD4sC&pg=PA23&dq=brooks+baxter+war&lr=&ei=LK8qSpOTCJC8M4Cy9IUH
http://books.google.com/books?id=eAYuAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=brooks+baxter+war&lr=&ei=LK8qSpOTCJC8M4Cy9IUH#PPA208,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=wXxFBMArgRUC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=%22Joseph+Brooks%22+Arkansas&source=bl&ots=ID8kbnmHL0&sig=IJlcWQ2AxLQfzST37-WZRxfWBqs&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22Joseph%20Brooks%22%20Arkansas&f=false http://www.archive.org/stream/letushavepeace00root/letushavepeace00root_djvu.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.48.64 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Need: 1868 Arkansas constitution


--The_stuart (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

older entries

I noticed that there was nothing in the article about the state being forbidden from deficit spending due partially to the conflict, so I added the last paragraph. --206.255.185.237 03:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're incorrect. There has NEVER been a provision in the Arkansas Constitution of 1874 banning deficit spending by the STATE (though Amendment 1 repudiated the Holford Bonds in the 1880's). Although the 1874 Constitution DID try to ban deficit spending by cities and counties, even that was ineffective until Amendment 10 in 1924 expressly banned local deficits. State deficit spending IS banned by law, however, though it was ignored until the first Revenue Stabilization Law was passed in 1945; those laws have effectively ended deficit spending by cutting cash flow to state agencies during budgetary shortfalls. --70.232.40.250 05:32, January 27, 2006 (UTC)

I have added a lot of stuff to this article. I used large portion of a research paper I did on the war for one of my college courses. You can read that paper here. --The_stuart 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

GA Review

At the moment, this article has no chance. Below is a list of the more obvious problems. Once these are fixed, bring it back to GA and renominate it, but don't come back without having them done as the article will just fail all over again.

  1. The lead is a mess. Please edit it into two tight paragraphs explaining as simply as possible the context and effects this incident had and indicate whay it is exceptional or notable.
  2. Sources. Here is the biggest problem. Swathes of the article, including whole paragraphs, are unsourced. For a GA, there should be at least one inline citation per paragraph and more on any controversial statements or statistics. This article is not only grossly undercited, but many of the citations are presented in raw URLs which must be changed (see WP:CITE). There are {{Fact}} tags and a clean-up tag at the top.
  3. The text is scattered by weasel words and poor grammar, although there is good use of images and quotes.

Please give this article a thorough copyedit and clean up the sourcing before bringing it back to GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need improvement

The article relies heavily on only a couple of sources and period journalism; some third-party scholarly sources would be useful for perspective.--Parkwells (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Based on reading even AR Encyclopedia articles, the reliance on Gazette makes this seriously flawed and POV. I've started to rewrite it with additional material and cites, but it needs more work. --Parkwells (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

I was messing with the references and something weird happened. It appears to have captured one of the old quotes I pulled out of microfilm. I've played with it a while and can't figure out what the problem is, may be someone else can. --The_stuart (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brooks–Baxter War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • The lead is too short for an article of this length. It should be 3-4 paragraphs long and give a good summary of the entire article, while including no new information.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The placement of references needs to be standardized. They should be placed either immediately before or after the punctuation (most editors prefer after), with no space in between.
    • I have added a few fact tags where references are needed. Please note that when the tag is at the end of a paragraph in which there are no references, generally the entire paragraph needs referencing, not just the last sentence.
    • The formatting of the references needs some work. Bare urls need to have more information added, especially when they are books. Books should include title, author, publisher, publication date and isbn at the least, and page numbers if possible.
    • Why has the decision been made to split out some of the Arkansas Gazette references into short refs in the numbered notes and more information bulleted later in the references section? There is not much information on these references, and all of the information could easily be included in the in-line references.
    • Reference #4 should include the title of the exact article that is being referred to within the publication, and the url should be linked to the title, rather than being a bare reference.
    • Reference #5 should have the url linked through the title, as well.
    • Reference #23 needs a publisher.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This article has quite a few issues with referencing that need to be addressed. Because of this, I have not yet thoroughly examined the article for prose, POV or coverage. When the referencing issues have been mostly taken care of, I will begin my review of the remaining issues. I will be watchlisting this page, and please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a lot of the ref needed tags placed were actually for paragraphs that summarized the information directly proceeding them. I have gone through and added refs where I felt like they were necessary. This is a difficult topic to reference because of so much conflicting evidence, if more specific references or clarification is needed I need to know specifically what the discrepancies are, who? what? when? where? etc. I believe the article is reasonably free of WP:weasel words. What I need the most help with is prose, since this is a pretty complicated topic that has hardly any thorough contemporary sources. --The_stuart (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the work you've done so far on the article. I'm sorry I haven't had time to conduct a thorough prose review so far - I will attempt to get to that within the next few days. In the meantime, could you please work on the remaining fact tag and the other reference formatting/information that I have requested above. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page numbers needed: 

FALSE:
== References ==
Driggs, Orval (1943). Issues of the Clayton Regime. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas.  

CORRECT:
==References==
===Citations===
Driggs 1943, p. 29
Driggs 1943, pp. 54–55
===Bibliography ===
Driggs, Orval (1943). Issues of the Clayton Regime. Fayetteville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas.

Another thing, please try to find a parallel source for these: "The Daily Arkansas Gazette. #101. March 19, 1871". Since these old newspapers are impossible to verify. Peltimikko (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, not exactly Peltimikko. Page numbers are not required for GA status, just FA status. It is nice if the authors include them, and you'll see I noted this in my initial review above, but they are not insisted upon. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the old newspaper sources being "impossible to verify". I'm sure they would be quite easy to verify if you went to the same library or newspaper headquarters that the author of this article did to gather this information. They are, of course, more difficult to verify than web sources, but there is nothing on Wikipedia that emphasizes web sources over print sources. In fact, there is actually starting to be a trend at FAC (which I realize, this is not) to emphasize print over web sources on historical or very broad topics.
The stuart, my apologies for not starting the prose review of this article sooner. I was planning to do it this weekend, then got knocked down by a nasty little illness. I'm still only able to be upright and focused on a computer for short amounts of time. I'm hoping that by this weekend I will be able to concentrate for long enough to finish the prose review of this article, so that we can get it passed! Again, my sincerest apologies :( Dana boomer (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at it at all, I have had some difficulty just generating interest in it. I want to eventually get this article featured so I will try and put in some page numbers for Driggs, so much of this article comes from that source, it's a masters thesis I found and there is probably only one copy of it in existence, and I have had it in my backpack now for months. I have a lot more research to do, I still need to read Claytons autobiography, of which I think there might only be two copies, while I'm still a student and can check it out of the library. There are also quite a few newspaper articles I need to read. --The_stuart (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final Comments

Sorry for taking so long, here are my final comments on this article to make it ready for GA status.

  • The lead needs to be longer. An article of this length should have a lead of three to four paragraphs. It should be a summary of the article, without including new information.
  • References need to be placed consistently around punctuation. References are generally placed directly after punctuation, but it just needs to be consistent. I have fixed a few instances as I was copyediting, but there are still a few more that need to be fixed.
  • In the section "Brooks' Legal Battle", you use the name "Judge Wm. M. Harrison". I assume that "Wm" stands for William - this should be spelled out.
    • Not sure, that is how his name was presented in the literature, which was a very old book, so that is how I wrote it. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Brooks loses favor" section, you say "The President often expressed annoyance with Southern governors who requested help from federal troops to combat regular waves of election year violence, with little understanding of the issues they faced." Do you mean that the President had little understanding of the issues the governors faced? Please clarify this.
    • I changed "understanding" to "compassion", I think that better reflects what I was trying to say. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of my initial comments on the references still apply, so I am copying them here:
    • The formatting of the references needs some work. Bare urls need to have more information added, especially when they are books. Books should include title, author, publisher, publication date and isbn at the least, and page numbers if possible.
      • Fixed, I have page numbers where I could get them, and direct URLs for books that are online. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why has the decision been made to split out some of the Arkansas Gazette references into short refs in the numbered notes and more information billeted later in the references section? There is not much information on these references, and all of the information could easily be included in the in-line references.
      • Agreed. I beleive these were from a very early version of the article, I have gone through and fixed them. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference #4 should include the title of the exact article that is being referred to within the publication, and the url should be linked to the title, rather than being a bare reference.
      • I think this has already been fixed, page number is there. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference #5 should have the url linked through the title, as well.
  • I have removed several instances of "It is important to note that" and like phrasings. These are lecturing the reader and are unencylopedic.

Once these things have been taken care of, this article should be good to go for GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the main editor still interested in this article? If no work progresses on this article within the next couple of days, I'm going to be forced to fail it, which would be a shame, considering how close it is to GA status. Please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully everything has been fixed to satisfaction, let me know if there is anything else. --The_stuart (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above look good. It looks like the only thing left is the one fact tag at the very end of the article. After this is taken care of, I'll promote the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --The_stuart (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, everything looks good, so I'm promoting this article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

continuing issues

As I was going through the bibliography, Sandy archived the thread. The article has merit, it is just not up to snuff yet. The citations were difficult to follow, although i fixed the Appleton's cites. The newspaper articles need proper citation (paper (location), article, date, page). See the MOS for specific citation styles. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

I suspect that the clear POV running through this article merely reflects the POV of the sources; really, one should not write on Reconstruction with sources dating only up to 1922. For more, see my comments at FAC. If one must use contemporary sources, at least balance them; isn't the Chicago Tribune available on line? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a Chicago Tribune article on the Brooks-Baxter War I would be more than happy to consider it. http://www.chicagotribune.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=brooks-baxter+war&target=article&sortby=display_time+descending

--The_stuart (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Composition of Forces

The article states that "Baxter's forces, all white Democrats, continued to grow steadily during the conflict..." There's an interesting primary source contradicting this in the Work Project Administration's "Slave Narratives: a Folk History of Slavery in the United States", in the interview of R.B. Anderson, cf. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11255/11255-h/11255-h.htm#AndersonRB where he (as a contemporary witness to events) describes African-Americans fighting on both sides of the conflict, and seems (on my reading) to take Baxter's side: "I remember the King White fooled a lot of niggers and armed them and brought them up here. The niggers and Republicans here fought them and run them back where they come from." -- Benjamin Rosenbaum, 16:36, 29. August 212 (UTC)

Rockefeller

If he is relevant at all it should be mentioned that Republicans both supported and voted for the 1965 voting rights act, and that he wasn't a segregationist; far from it he defeated the segregationist James Johnson. Many people even consider the democratic nominee who faced Rockefeller to have been one of the last viable segregationist politicians; his defeat was the end of an era and start of a new one; not an endorsement of segregation.

I will edit it right now to reflect historical accuracy, the defeat of one of the last segregationists was not a victory for segregation and the article shouldn't pretend it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.186.182 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Brooks–Baxter War/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I've made some corrections of my own, but I haven't the time nor interest to give this article proper attention. That and I can say I had no knowledge of the event in question before seeing this article today. Anyway, I don't think it's quite up to A-class par yet. It's very well developed content-wise, though it needs more copy-editing. I noted and corrected a half-dozen typos and grammatical quirks in the opening paragraph alone. Can't say as far as references go, though at the very least there appeared to be frequent citations for the most part. Lastly, it probably needs someone more familiar with the manual of style guidelines to go through it.


Anyway, I see that it is currently a GA candidate. I suppose based on the outcome of that assessment the WikiProject Arkansas rating can adjust accordingly.

— Yadyn (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 16:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brooks–Baxter War. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brooks–Baxter War. 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) 05:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brooks–Baxter War. 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) 13:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brooks–Baxter War. 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) 01:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

We really need to reconsider some of the highly biased and derogatory terms in this article. Especially since these rhetorical terms were developed by those using the political machinery to exclude African-Americans from voting and the terms exist to justify and normalize this exclusion of African-Americans from political participation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brooks%E2%80%93Baxter_War