Talk:United States Congressional Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War

Tap?

I do not currently have the energy to edit this myself, but the recent additions about Bruce Tap read more like a review of his book than a series of well integrated comments about the committee itself. Hal Jespersen 17:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Tap book is the only scholarly study in 100 years, so it deserves pride of place as a reference. There is no evaluation of the book whatever, just a summary of his conclusions. Rjensen 18:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the style of writing, not the selection of the reference. Hal Jespersen 19:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no major disagreement with Tap, but don't see a reason those direct quotes belong in this article. Out of context, I'm not sure what they add. In any case, Tap doesn't deserve one third of the article space as is. Do we all agree this subject deserves some future attention? BusterD 01:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think if you read Russell Beatie's Army of the Potomac series, particularly "McClellan Takes Command", you'd get a very different view of the CCW. I think this article, as it stands now, is awfully biased in favor of the CWW. 155.219.241.12 17:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am just reading that material now, and have long held your view, but haven't worked this in. I especially resent the (IMHO) inaccurate summary of Tap's position, but just haven't mustered the energy to get to this. I encourage you to be bold, and cite changes, being specific abount intention so that fewer misunderstandings vis-a-vis POV arise. BusterD 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

The article has References and Notes, but needs inline citations to meet Wiki standards. (btw, that may help resolve some of the above discussion)...Engr105th (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutral tone?

The opening paragraph of the article, within each of its three sentences, has a decided prejudicial tone not in keeping with the notions of neutrality that I understood to be Wiki standard. As valid as some criticisms may be, they are better proven by annotated evidence than by unsubstantiated opinion and they are better made mention only by conjecture in an introductory paragraph with conclusions reserved for a more detailed discussion with appropriate citations. I make no direct edit at this time but am willing to suggest substitute language. - Zanski (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, three years later, little has changed. I've added an NPOV tag to the article, because I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to improve the article myself. HamartiaProsciuttoPharos (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I've slightly toned-down the lede in line with these comments. But I'm not clear what the neutrality tag is driving at. Are you wanting more mention of the other functions, such as treatment of black prisoners and suppression of cross-border trading? There is no question that the Committee's inquests did encourage mistrust between commanders, and generally poisoned the atmosphere. Valetude (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm the page creator and am very unimpressed myself with the way this lede reads. Based on my reading of Williams and Tap, the committee was most notorious for its non-standard and inquisitorial processes and for attempting to move the Lincoln administration's soldiers towards the Radical Republican position by politicizing actions of military commanders (getting the generals in line with the radicals)[1]. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see how the lede conflicts with any of your claims. Valetude (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)