Talk:Battle of Newton

A question for anyone who knows...

In doing the research for this article, I gained access (through a pay site called "Fold 3") to Sander's records for both the Confederate and Union armies. One thing that fascinates me about this guy is that in his Federal records, he's stated to have been recruited and commissioned "from civil life;" no mention whatsoever is made of his former Confederate service. It boggles my mind that the Federals, had they known that this guy had not only fought for the other side, but accepted an officer's commission in the 'Rebel' army to boot, would (or legally could, absent a pardon from President Lincoln) have ever commissioned him as a Federal officer!! Furthermore, the Federal records indicate that Sanders was named as a deserter at one point during his four-month absence (which included his attack on Newton); yet no mention is made of his former 'Rebel' service, which we might have suspected would have been the first thing his superiors would have thought of, once Sanders went missing...

In essence, our friend LT Sanders was a double traitor: first, he commits treason against the United States by joining a rebellion and taking an officer's commission in the 'Rebel' army; then, having thus initially declared for the South, he commits treason again—this time, by joining the Federal army and waging war on his former neighbors and fellow-Confederates!

Does anyone out there know anything about this guy, and if so, whether he ever told the Federals about his previous career as a Confederate officer? I've been told that some kind of scholarly article was authored about Sanders, but I haven't been able to find a copy of it. If anyone can assist with this, or offer any further info on the Battle of Newton, by all means, please contact me--or just jump right in, and insert it into the article itself. Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Battle of Newton (Alabama) → Battle of Newton – There is no other article of the same name. The proposed name is of currently a disambiguation page, but the dab page has only this article and the other article Battle of Newtown. I recently added hatnotes on both articles, rendering the dab page useless. When the article first appeared on the Main Page, the Main Page mistakenly displayed "Battle of Newtown". However, that was quickly resolved as seen in this page, changing to "Battle of Newton". Edit: There are other cities and towns of Newton, like Newton, Massachusetts, but there is only one Battle of Newton. If you want to keep "Alabama", how about Battle of Newton, Alabama? George Ho (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. (But there's no reason to change it to "Battle of Newton, Alabama", so I'd oppose that. Battle names are not place names, and the convention of adding state names after commas doesn't extend to them in general usage.) —innotata 18:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Doesn't matter, to me. - Ecjmartin (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment the disambiguation page could be converted into a battle set index and moved to "Battle of New Town"; potentially listing Battle of Newton's Station, Battle of Newtonia -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment on Comment I would not favor the proposal to use "Battle of New Town" as a DAB for Newton's Station, Newtonia and Newton. DAB pages, if I understand correctly, only refer to multiple articles using the exact same name. But please correct me if I'm wrong. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It's why I said convert it to a set index. A dab page would indicate subjects that are known by the title of the dab page, with see also sections for subjects that can be confused with the title. A set index can be used to indicate topics that the title can be easily confused with (such as the Newtonia battles, which occur in Newton County) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps read WP:DAB for your second thoughts. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
        • If you convert it to a set index, it would be a list of articles with similar topics of a specific type, the type would be battle, the similarity would be Newto(w)n (the location of battle) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
          • For a quick shortcut, here is WP:NOTDAB. Battles from different wars are not related to each other, and set index should be for topics related to a similar topic. Also, different spellings are distinctive enough by a naked eye. For the record, the Newtown battle took place at New York in 1779, and Newton battle took place at Alabama in 1865. --George Ho (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
            • Battles from different wars are not related to each other as being part of the same war. That does not mean that they are not battles. See how ship set indices are built, where the ships are not of the same war or navy or country, but are related by being all ships having similar naming. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
              • Battles are not ships or battleships. And the idea of battle set index seems bizarre, in contrast to a ship set index. --George Ho (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support proposed move; the topics are not ambiguous within the meaning of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. They do not share a title, so there's no reason to disambiguate, index, or otherwise distinguish them any more than there is a need to do so between Battle of New Market and Battle of New Bern. bd2412 T 18:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. This disambiguator is unnecessary. kennethaw88 • talk 03:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. No need for unnecessary disambiguation. Zarcadia (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Calidum 15:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Newton. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090527022037/http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ga/topic/news/Alabama/alabamaletters.htm to http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ga/topic/news/Alabama/alabamaletters.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225062435/http://history-sites.com/~kjones/15emstr.html to http://history-sites.com/~kjones/15emstr.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)