Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Marmaduke–Walker duel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

« Return to A-Class review list

Marmaduke–Walker duel[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Marmaduke–Walker duel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A shorter, but I think thorough, article about the worst case of dysfunction in a frequently dysfunctional Confederate high command. Walker and Marmaduke don't like each other, a third general who should have known better makes Marmaduke serve directly under Walker, tensions rise, friends make things worse, and the whole thing culminates with Marmaduke killing Walker in an illegal duel during the middle of an active campaign. Somehow, Marmaduke managed to avoid any serious consequences. Hog Farm Talk 15:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review licensing looks acceptable (t · c) buidhe 17:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I'll get to this. (Nudge me if I don't) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Marmaduke was arrested, but later released, and Union forces captured Little Rock." Are these events so connected that they should be in the same sentence? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, split.
  • "a date of rank". Is there a way of expressing this so that non-milhist aficionados wil know what it means?
    • rephrased, is the new version likely to be more understandable
      I think that what "seniority" is needs explaining somewhere. Perhaps in a footnote?
      Footnoted a general explanation of how date of rank was used for seniority in the CSA
  • "After running afoul of Braxton Bragg". What, how, when? Who was Bragg?
    • Details are kinda vague (it was super easy to get on Bragg's bad side), I've tried to flesh things out a little bit. Date isn't exactly clear at all
  • Out of five sentences, four begin with "After".
    • Down to one
  • "supposed to protect Marmaduke's left flank". Suggest 'supposed to protect left flank of Marmaduke's cavalry brigade' or similar.
    • Done
  • "These events led to animosity between the two officers." Three officers are mentioned in the previous two sentences and it is not clear to be which other Walker fell out with. I assume not Holmes for his damning report? But perhaps this could be made clear.
    • Clarified
  • "as he had seniority". And "seniority" would be what?
    • Is changing it to Walker took command as he was above Marmaduke on the seniority lists be an improvement? Hog Farm Talk 19:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Davidson drove Marmaduke". I don't insist, but I am not sure that this type of expression is encyclopedic language. You don't mean what you write. You mean 'Davidson's unit [or the men of his unit] drove the unit commanded by Marmaduke [or the men of this unit]'. It would, IMO, be clearer for a reader to say as much.
    • Done.
  • "The terms of the duel specified that both men would be accompanied by". Do you mean 'each man', not "both men"?
    • Done
      "each man would be accompanied by ... two doctors". So four doctors in all, yes?
      Correct
  • What if anything was special about a "round ball"?
    • Clarified - the weapon of choice could fire two types of ammo
  • "all of the rounds had been fired". How many was this? Eg, did each carry a bandolier of 200 rounds?
    • Clarified that it was all of the loaded rounds and then footnoted that the weapon had six shots
  • "Marmaduke simply ignored it". Why "simply"?
    • Removed
  • "The duel and its results deteriorated Confederate morale". This (at least for non-US readers) reads oddly. Perhaps 'The duel and its results caused Confederate morale to deteriorate'?
    • Works in AmEng, but I've changed this.
  • "may have been a net benefit for the Union troops". Again this seems odd. How might a senior enemy officer being killed not have benefited the Union side?
    • Source couches it in those terms. My original research explanation follows - Arkansas/Missouri were notorious dumping grounds for officers who underperformed elsewhere, for both sides. Some of the generals were so bad that they made their own armies worse. For instance, the Confederates probably would've benefitted from the death/incapacitation of Holmes. Hog Farm Talk 15:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I get it, but it reads really oddly, without that background. And the source simply says "which may have aided the Federal campaign." No kidding? I think you are over analysing these seven words.
      @Gog the Mild: - Would it be best just to remove the phrase? Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      IMO, yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Gog the Mild: - It's gone. Hog Farm Talk 03:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aftermath": perhaps move the first two sentences to the end of "The duel".
    • Done
  • "The duel": delete "The".
    • Done (assuming you're referring to the section head)
  • "a railroad commission". What was that? Similar to a military commission?
    • I've directly named the thing - the Missouri Railway Commission. I can't find much that directly explains what this is, I assume the literal explanation of railroad-related oversight is probably what it is

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: - I've replied to all items above, although some of them involve some queries. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some responses above.

Comment Support from CactiStaccingCrane (talk)[edit]

Alright, here's my formatting review:

  • Add ISBN/ISSN in sources
    • Added
  • Clarify these for general people, such as:
    • line → troop line? (sorry, I'm not really into military)
      • Went with position. troop line isn't a commonly-used term
    • many instances of "men" → "troops"
      • It's actually okay with this context - women weren't allowed to serve in the CSA armed forces
    • Union movements → Union troops' movement [maybe my rookie mistake]
      • Either one works, I have a slight preference for the current one as more concise, but I'll change it if this is felt strongly about
    • ran afoul → go against (idiom?)
      • Changed to "developed a poor relationship with", as "go against" isn't super great phrasing for this
    • ...
  • "where he reported in March 1863" is a bit ambiguous
    • Clarified to "reported for duty", does this help
  • Passive voice are used extensively. While this isn't a bad thing, it can make the article tricky for people to read. Some includes:
    • "Assigned to command a cavalry brigade, he fought in the Battle of Helena." → "He fought in the Battle of Helena, commanding a cavalry brigade."
      • Done
    • "Missing Shiloh due to illness, he served at the Siege of Corinth and the Battle of Farmington, Mississippi" → "After missing Shiloh due to illness, he served at the Siege of Corinth and the Battle of Farmington, Mississippi"
    • Done
  • Some sentences can be shorten for brevity:
    • "During the fighting at Helena, which took place on July 4, 1863" → "During the fighting at Helena on July 4, 1863"
      • Done
    • "Marmaduke's report blamed Walker for his failure to capture his objective" → "Marmaduke's blamed Walker for not achieving his objective"
      • Removed "report" as suggested, but kept in "his failure" because I'm worried that it could be read to suggest that the lack of achieving was Walker's objective
    • "Marmaduke decided not to inform Walker when the Confederates retreated" → "Marmaduke then not informed Walker the retreat of the Confederates"
      • Went with "did not inform"
  • Wikilink "A Colt 1861 Navy Revolver, the type of weapon used during..." in caption; Kent State University Press, Louisiana State University Press in source
    • Done for those three, as well as the UArk Press publisher for DeBlack Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is currently orphaned, so linking it to related articles may be helpful
  • Choppy sentences:
    • "Marmaduke was arrested, but later released. Union forces captured Little Rock later in the campaign. Surviving the war, Marmaduke was later Governor of Missouri."
      • I've tried to improve this
    • "[...] he wrote that Walker failed to protect Marmaduke's flank and did not provide a good reason for this.[10] Marmaduke's report blamed Walker for his failure to capture his objective.[11] These events led to animosity between Walker and Marmaduke.[9]"
      • I've made an attempt at fixing this, is it better?
  • Sourcing: Pretty good, although [6] and [23] raise my eyebrow for sourcing an encyclopedia. It is a ternary source, which is depreciated in Wikipedia. I cannot review much about other sources because I'm not a MILHIST nerd :(
    • Per WP:TERTIARY, these sources can still be used. I've used the Encyclopedia of Arkansas before at Battle of St. Charles and [[8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)], which went through A-Class. I think this is okay for the two minimal bits its supporting. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah thanks! Sorry if I made some mistakes during the review, I'm new here :) I supported the nomination as well, I cannot find a lot more thing to nitpick about. Would you like to review my A-Class nomination as well? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @CactiStaccingCrane: - Thanks for the review! It was helpful in improving phrasing and comprhensibility. MILHIST nerds tend to write in specific ways that aren't always very readable. I'll try to get to the SpaceX Starship nomination, although it'll likely have to wait until after Thanksgiving weekend. Hog Farm Talk 06:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

Because it wasn't enough to have the Union trying to kill them. My comments:

  • Walker, who was concerned about the safety of his own left flank, did not move to support Marmaduke's. In turn, Marmaduke did not inform Walker when the Confederates retreated. Did Marmaduke fail to inform Walker because Walker hadn't supported his flank?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • Price had Marmaduke and both officers' seconds arrested. For dueling? Murder? Violation of military codes?
    • Murder, which I've added.
  • Seems worthwhile to mentioned someone put a historical marker down to commemorate the event.
    • That source isn't RS, but I'll look for another one to use
      • This is a full size photo of the marker, which shows when it was placed (2015) and what organizations sponsored it, which might help if those organizations have their own online databases or postings.
        • I've been able to cite the existence to a news article and the date placed to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas
  • This source notes that the duel was not known in detail until the 1880s, when Crockett wrote about it for a publication. Seems worthy of mention.
    • @Indy beetle: - Are you able to get the gbooks preview for that page? I can't access it, and I want to make sure that I get it exactly right and not accidentally close paraphrase it. Hog Farm Talk 00:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Page 185 says, verbatim "The duel was not fully rptd. by eyewitness until the late 1880s, when a participant, Col. Robert H. Crockett, published his version in the Arkansas Gazette." It also talks about how Crocket maintained that "the duel was set in motion two days after Reed's Bridge, when certain words were spoken after dinner at Walker's hdq." Do you know what this is referring too?
        • I'm not entirely sure what the latter part is referencing - the other sources strongly suggest that the alleged slights uttered by Marmaduke about Walker's character were not said in Walker's presence, and the communication that led to it seems to have been primarily by notes. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's hard to fully explain here, but basically its was a conversation between aides which included a claim that Marmaduke had "won the fight at Reed's bridge" and an accusation of cowardice against Walker. It might be best if you get your hands on the material. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Per Worldcat, nearest publicly-held copy is in Tahlequah, Oklahoma; looks like SEMO has a copy, so I'll get into contact with a friend who is still in college to see if they can interlibrary loan me the SEMO copy using their university library. Might not be able to get it until the spring college semester resumes, though, will have to wait and see. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've emailed the SEMO library to see if I can get scans of the relevant pages. Hog Farm Talk 21:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source notes that the duel led to bitterness between Price and Marmaduke.
    • Cited to my print copy of Castel

-Indy beetle (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Marmaduke–Walker_duel&oldid=1066081022"