Talk:Nathaniel P. Banks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Erm, the article title is Nathaniel Prentiss Banks, but the article text claims this spelling is incorrect. Google searches for Nathaniel Prentiss Banks and Nathaniel Prentice Banks do not resolve the situation, though the former seems to be more frequent. Can anyone come up with an authoritative spelling? --Saforrest 15:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving it to Nathaniel PRENTICE Banks. The US Congress Biographical Database has that spelling, so we should probably go with that. --ScottyBoy900Q 04:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference tag[edit]

I removed the refimprove tag. When an article gets to a certain stage, and has references, the Wikipedia practice is not to apply a vague blanket tag but to address an issue or issues. If there are particular issues please use [citation needed] or this talk page so particular improvements can be addressed. Otr500 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vague writing[edit]

Under the section Siege of Port Hudson there is vague and confusing writing. There may be some use of time specific language but any attempted interpretation would simply be conjecture. "When the Confederates reduced their garrison at Port Hudson, Louisiana, on the Mississippi, he invested that place in May 1863. Two attempts to carry the works by storm during the Siege of Port Hudson, as at Vicksburg, were dismal failures."

  • The information, "..he invested that place.." may be a misspelling to mean invaded? I have no idea what, "Two attempts to carry the works by storm..." actually means. If the contributing editor can not respond, with meaning and clarification, this will have to be removed. Otr500 (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add the material in question, but Investment is in fact a military term, meaning to blockade and/or lay siege to. "Carry by storm", similarly, refers to an attempt to end the siege by assault. That whole paragraph is written with sufficient archaicism that it may have been copied from a 19th century source. Magic♪piano 14:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nathaniel P. Banks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 10:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. My knowledge of US politics and the ACW is a bit limited, but this looks to be in very good shape from the off. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done some minor c/e here and there, feel free to revert if I have changed meaning in any way.
  • It isn't clear about what mill he worked at. It says he took a job in "the" mill, which seems to be a reference to the Boston Manufacturing Company, then says he worked for another company. Perhaps "a" mill would be better? Changed to "a mill job". Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a little assumed knowledge here. Manifest Destiny and Know Nothing could do with a short sentence explaining what they were. The links do not suffice, IMO. Done. Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest one of the leaders of the Know Nothing movement, if that is what is intended? Done Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gardner is mentioned as the "incumbent Henry Gardner", at this point, Gardner should suffice, per WP:SURNAME Done Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, Judge Loring should just be Loring, and Governor Gardner should just be Gardner, later John Andrew should just be Andrew. Done Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an example of Known Nothing rather than Know Nothing. Fixed Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The amendment was repealed in 1863.) should probably be in a note or plain text rather then parentheses. Done Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done down to Civil War, will get on with that tomorrow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maj. Gen. should be properly linked first, with an abbreviation in parentheses, then Maj. Gen. thereafter. Done Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest First Battle of Kernstown on March 23, similarly Battle of Front Royal on May 23. and Battle of Cedar Mountain on August 9 Done Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest to prevent Jacksonhim Done Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest Banks was criticized for mishandling his troops and performing inadequate reconnaissance in the campaign Done Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Flanking maneuver Done Magic♪piano 20:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the combination of quotes in the couple of sentences beginning "Welles's opinion of the military abilities..." needs some attention. Edited. Less quotation, more straightforward. Magic♪piano 19:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Down to the Siege of Port Hudson. More later. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • ascending a river seems incongruous. Perhaps "advance up" instead? Fixed Magic♪piano 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest leaving out the parentheses after Battle of Galveston, and just say "on January 1, 1863." Done Magic♪piano 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest Halleck also encouraged Banks to undertake the Red River Campaign Done Magic♪piano 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second mention of David Porter should just be Porter Done Magic♪piano 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • should "blacks" be African Americans? Done Magic♪piano 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • if radicals is being used as a title here and there, perhaps it should have an initial capital? eg dominated by Radicals
    • I've updated references to "radical" that post-date the beginning of the war that seem relevant to this question. Magic♪piano 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flaw of poor reconnaissance appears to be a pattern in his military endeavours, I wonder if it might be included in the lead? Done Magic♪piano 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images
    • File:Nathaniel Prentice Banks.jpg PD-Brady-Handy licensing is OK
    • File:Nathaniel Prentice Banks - Southworth and Hawes.jpg was taken in 1852, but I understand that it needs to have been published before 1923 to use that licence, and it wasn't donated until 1943 (at which point is was probably technically published by being made available for display outside family and friends, if it hadn't been before that), so may not have been effectively published until 1943.
      • I've updated the license information on this file to encapsulate its publication ambiguity Magic♪piano 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:John Albion Andrew by Darius Cobb.jpg pre-1923 licensing is ok, as Cobb published it by giving it to Harvard in 1898.
    • File:Currier & Ives - The champions of the Union 1861.jpg licensing is ok according to the Library of Congress.
    • File:GenNPBanks.jpg should probably be PD-Brady-Handy Done Magic♪piano 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Siege of Port Hudson.jpg, File:Richard Taylor.jpg, File:Edward Canby.png, File:Nathaniel Prentice Banks - Brady-Handy.jpg - licensing is OK
    • File:Nathaniel Prentice Banks statue, Waltham, MA - 2.JPG is also ok, as it was installed before 1923.
    • I don't think you need to state (in the captions) who the work was by, but that is a personal preference, no action needed.
  • The article prose (except regarding the above comments) is very good, the MOS has been followed, the sources appear reliable and the article is well cited, the article is stable, and has no apparent plagiarism concerns or original research. Once the above points have been addressed, this article should easily pass. Placing on hold for seven days for the above points to be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review this. I will get to work on addressing your issues. Magic♪piano 16:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed your issues -- let me know if I missed anything! Magic♪piano 19:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Great work, by the way. I reckon this is very close to FA if you want to take it that far. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Party affiliation[edit]

SamWinchester000, if in 1855 Banks chaired the Republican National Convention, and in 1856 supported Fremont for president, couldn't we say that by 1855 he was no longer a Know Nothing? Thus, the dates for him as a Know Nothing would be given as (1854-1855).

Also, many Know Nothings, in fact probably the majority, never became Republicans. In the 1856 election Fillmore, the Know Nothing candidate, received most of his votes from the South, where the Republican Party was virtually nonexistent. A great many former Know Nothings supported Bell in 1860. By Reconstruction, they were nearly all Democrats. The Republicans picked off a few Know Nothings, like Banks and Thaddeus Stevens-but the rest generally considered the party too radical on abolitionism. Display name 99 (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This explanations are right but do not change the fact that in Banks' case a Know Nothing did become a Republican. ;) And the sourced phrase "When Know Nothing Governor Henry Gardner refused to join in the fusion, Banks carefully kept his options open, passively supporting the Republican effort but also avoiding criticism of Gardner in his speeches. Gardner was reelected." makes it impossible to say that he would not have been a Know Nothing anymore. He was a Know Nothing at least until 1856 and a potential Know Nothing presidential nominee, as well, just increasing his support for the Republicans and Frémont in the forefront of the presidential election in 1856.
Also, the 34th United States Congress from 1855 until 1857, the Congress which made Banks famous by electing him as the Speaker in 1856, shows a House with a total of 0 Republicans at the beginning and 1 at the end. So, I really don't think that Banks (stated as "Speaker: Nathaniel P. Banks (A)") could be exclusively put as a Republican – not while he "was, along with Wilson and Governor Henry J. Gardner, considered one of the political leaders of the Know Nothing movement", which does not seem realistic for only a short time from 1854 to 1855. I did not chose the year 1857, but as long as the article does not contradict it, I would not change this information from a previous editor. Finally, parties have not been what they are today, and both parties (American and Republican) had been absolutely new and loose, having been founded in 1855 and 1854 respectively. The example of the American party even shows it pretty well: It had been a loose movement since 1844, but only began to get political in 1855. The Republican had been a loose movement, as well. So, I don't see any problem in Banks supporting both and not having a clear party in that time. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could have had it easier, actually. The List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives also states him as Speaker from the American Party between 1855 and 1857. So it really should be wrong to change the year of his "American" affiliation. It is absolutely correct, as far as I can see it. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I'll leave it alone. Display name 99 (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I only wanted to correct the dates in order to fit with the article. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something About Book Citation[edit]

Excuse me, What is book citation "Harris" refer to? I can't find any author has last name "Harris" in section References. --金色黎明 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nathaniel_P._Banks&oldid=1205704377"