Talk:James Shields (politician, born 1806)

James Shields (politician, born 1806) has been listed as one of the History 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. Review: May 17, 2018. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Military / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Minnesota Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Business: Accounting Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Accounting task force. Missouri Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / North America / United States / American Civil War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force Northern Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've read (on this site actually) that the duel between Shields and Lincoln was abandoned by Shields when Lincoln chose cavalry broadswords as a weapon, as his height would allow him a reach advantage. Here it says they were talked out of it by their seconds. Which is more accurate? Doom Music 14:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same story I heard. Lincoln chose swords, however Shields backed out after Lincoln cut off the large branch of a nearly tree in one swipe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was the story told in the documentary Lincoln: Prelude to the Presidency [1] which I saw today. It also mentioned that the "seconds" of the two men stepped in and discussed halting the duel after Lincoln's shot felled that branch, and that the duel was called off due to the fact that the articles (other than the first one) were NOT written by Lincoln. Nhprman 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some old books in Google"james+shields"+"freehold+academy"#q=%22james+shields%22+%22freehold+academy%22&tbm=bks say so, though it's hard to fit into the biography offered here. Wareh (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two James Shields who served in the US Congress, this one served as Senator in three states, the other James Shields was a one term Representative from Ohio, and the uncle of this one (according to that page). Wouldn't it be easier and better aesthetically just to rename them James Shields (Senator) and James Shields (Representative) respectively? --Nofix (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea Rjensen (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested this in the section directly above this one. Kraxler (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I skimmed right over that. So, with no dissent so far should we change it or not until there is more of a debate on it?--Nofix (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but are the targets that Kraxler proposed better? Ivanvector (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so? Why not.--Nofix (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Shields (politician, born 1806)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs) 12:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References 3 and 17 appear to be duplicates and should be combined. GMG^talk 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Y Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   You're probably not gonna be happy with it, but the Henry Castle source is gonna need some form of page numbers. You can do this without major changes in the referencing formatting by using Template:rp. But that's a 700 page book cited seven different times for a pretty wide variety of information. Any one of these could take the reader an hour or more to find where in the book the information actually comes from. GMG^talk 13:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   Early life and career

   First three sentences need page numbers for verification.

   Accident, Seminole war, time in Quebec, founding a fencing school, speaking and teaching French...none of this is in the cited source. In fact, the only thing from this passage that is in the cited source seems to be that he studied and practiced law in Kaskaskia.

   Last passage needs pages for verification. GMG^talk 16:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Duel with Abraham Lincoln

   The name of the journal appears to be wrong.

    Not done as far as I can ascertain, it is right.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   The Panic, choosing Whiteside as a second, and the background of the island as a dueling ground do not appear to be in the cited source.

   The source indicates that the account of his slicing the branch is a bit conflicted, but the article treats it as uncontroversial fact.

   Y removed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   One source doesn't discuss any details at all about how the duel really ended, the other attributes it to Hardin and English who "sped" to the scene, and did so as mutual friends of the two, but it doesn't say anything about them having been appointed seconds, so it's not clear where this information is coming from. GMG^talk 16:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Y names given, claim of being seconds removed.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Subsequent career

   This needs page numbers for verification. Similar to before, it's a 400 page book and even having spent about ten minutes poking around and trying to see where the information comes from exactly, I still don't have an exact page number I could add for clarity. GMG^talk

   Y page numbers added. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Senator from Minnesota

   Same as before, needs page numbers. GMG^talk 16:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   American Civil War

   Mary Carr only appears to have been mentioned once in the source, and it states that they were married, but nothing I see about them having been married in California.

   Lander does not appear to be mentioned at all in the source.

   Source only mentions the Potomac once, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Shields.

   Source doesn't seem to mention Kernstown at all.

   The passage about Stonewall Jackson is taking quite a bit of liberty with the source. It doesn't say Jackson was given a tactical defeat; it says (p. 121) that others introduced Shields as the only one to conquer Jackson, but that Shields himself denied it. GMG^talk 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Senator from Missouri

   Similar to above, needs page numbers. Can't really cite 16 years of biography to nowhere in particular among 700 pages. Incidentally, it looks like the full text newspaper article is located here. GMG^talk 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Partly done Page numbers for that book will be added soon. It should be noted that what I believe is the same thing is [2] here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Automated copyvio get two hits (1, 2). Both appear to be copying from Wikipedia, and not the other way round.

   Manual checks:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:James Shields - Brady-Handy.jpg - Prior to 1923, both cited authors dies >70 years ago. GMG^talk 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   File:James Shields Brigadier General.jpg - Updated info. Copyright is good. This causes problematic MOS:SANDWICHING issues though on pretty much every screen resolution other than mobile and mobile app. This can be solved in a number of ways, but should be resolved. Options include using Template:Multiple image to combine with the below image, removing the image outright, and possibly collapsing portions of the infobox. GMG^talk 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Y Removed image.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   File:Gen. James Shields - NARA - 528282.jpg - Copyright is good. Cropped out most of the degradation, upright formatting for portrait oriented image added, added circa date per image information. GMG^talk 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   File:Major General James Shields.JPG - Modern image. Searches find no preexisting versions online. Upright formatting added for portrait oriented image. GMG^talk 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Regarding the publication, I meant the publication Lincoln published the letter in, which was previously Sangamon Journal, rather than Sangamo Journal. As to the rest, I'm gonna stand fast for now until the sourcing issues are fixed, because for example, it's difficult to tell if an article is comprehensive in its coverage when it's not totally clear where all the information is coming from. GMG^talk 11:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • GreenMeansGo:I added page numbers. In respect to Stonewall Jackson, I left the statement, because the source I just added, which has much more of a historical perspective, and bias, says "Shields bragged that he was the only Union general to defeat Jackson in an open battle." ABTEddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just leaving some notes as I go through, although checking everything, I'll likely be looking at this well into tomorrow morning. I'm still not totally sure where the bit about the bishop comes from, that's the only bit hanging out there that I see from the first section. The newspaper doesn't seem to mention anything similar, and the Castle source says (p. 712, end of first para) it was a clergyman from Maynooth College who was a relative of Shields' mother. If it was a bishop then that is probably something we want to include with a good source, since AFAIK, having a fatherless boy of no particularly important social standing tutored by a bishop would be kindof a big deal. GMG^talk 14:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm...it looks like the Historical Society source does mention a bishop on page 115, but not in any way that seems to indicate the bishop was instrumental in Shields' early education. It does however corroborate the story about the fellow from Maynooth College. GMG^talk 17:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We still need a source that directly connects Shields' service as auditor directly to the Panic of 1837. Although this may be inferred by a knowledgeable reader, we need a source for us to say it directly in WP's voice. GMG^talk 15:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second LOC link under Senator from Illinois is broken, and archive.org does not seem to have a working version saved. GMG^talk 16:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. I'm confused. Regarding the ship he took over when the officers are disabled, this source p. 718 says it occurred "many years later", but this source puts is squarely at 40 years later on a trip with his wife, who obviously he didn't marry until 1861. But if you read the first section, it makes it sound like this was something that happened to him while he was a young man. GMG^talk 17:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • GreenMeansGo: I have cited everything, and replaced the dead link with a working one. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awesome. That's pretty much got the first half of the article then. I kinda stopped because I didn't want to leave you like ten comments all at once. I've got some real life work that needs done this weekend, but I'll do a detailed comb over the second half of the article at the latest on Monday, if I can't get to it today or tomorrow. Good job so far though. I think the article is in a much better shape than it was a few weeks ago for sure. GMG^talk 12:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't worry about taking time. I've got that in loads. I'll be here whenever you can get to it. Thanks for taking on the review.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, picking this back up. The wording on the ship wreck bit is still a little awkward, and I'm not entirely sure how to fix it without more coffee. But we have Sentence that takes place in the chronology of the article. Sentence that takes place many years later. Third sentence that starts "After a time"... When it's not entirely clear without already knowing, whether "after a time" points back to the timeline in the first sentence, or the timeline in the second sentence. I'm thinking we should reword "after a time" to not make it dependent chronologically on the ambiguity of the previous two sentences, or move the second sentence to a foot note. GMG^talk 10:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phew. Ok. Reading through the Historical Society source now, round about the bottom of page 114 into 115, it seems in the more detailed account the officers weren't necessarily "disabled", but were turned around in a storm and in a disagreement about what to do. But the HistSoc source also seems to disagree with quite a few other sources on quite a few other details. So not sure which should be preferred without a modern source of book-quality to mediate between them. GMG^talk 13:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to footnote.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The only thing I'm seeing amiss in the Mexican American War section in the bit about him commanding two brigades. It's possible or even likely this was based on a source other than Castle or Tucker, but it doesn't seem to be in either of the two, at least not in the ~3 and ~1 pages they respectively commit to the war. GMG^talk 13:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Condon, P. 80 and 87 Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. Gotcha. Condon is a little strange though ain't he? He sings Shields praises so loudly at times that, if it were a different era, one might wonder if he harbored a secret affection for him. GMG^talk 14:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• So... when HistSoc (p. 120) and Condon (p. 175) refer to the Battle of Winchester, are they referring to the First Battle of Kernstown which took place near Winchester...right? And not one of the battles of Winchester proper? Condon does specify March 23 which matches Kernstown, but with no year. So it's a difference in naming conventions right? GMG^talk 15:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure. See, for example this map of the battle of kernstown, titled "The Battle of Winchester" Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah. I think it has to be actually. Castle has him returning to duty on April 1862 after being wounded in the battle (p. 723). The First Battle of Winchester didn't take place until May 1862.
    • Alright, I think I've reached a stopping point. So here's what I've got:
      1. It has been suggested that Lincoln was considering Shields as the next commander Army of the Potomac. It seems I've exhausted the number of times I can view this source. But we need to attribute the "has been suggested by whom" or reword it as a fact maybe. Castle (p. 724) seems to simply state is as a bare fact but that goes back to Shield's hostility with Stanton (addressed also below).
      2. The lead needs updating. It really only covers his political service, and we've got up to four paragraphs to work with per MoS, so we really should touch on everything: birth in Ireland, emigration to America, work as a lawyer, duel with Lincoln, service in the Supreme Court, military service, death, and commemoration, all of which are currently missing. Honestly, Shields could have lived a third of his life and still been notable. So we should at least try to cover everything at least in passing.
      3. We're probably in better MOS:DATEUNIFY territory of we standardize access dates. The ones used are consistent, but they're not consistently used. Currently only in six sources, when literally every source used is accessible online.
      4. It could benefit from more modern sourcing, but I don't think it's a make or break. There's pretty good agreement on most things, with often the biggest outlier being the amount of attention Condon pays to every tiny detail that few or no other sources do. For example, pages worth about Shields duel with the veteran while in Ireland, that AFAIK, most don't cover at all, even in passing, and others like HistSoc cover in exactly two sentence (p. 114).
      5. I'm not totally sure the best way to do it, but I feel like the description of his resignation leaves a lot to be desired. The battlefields.org source doesn't mention his resignation at all. Neither the HistSoc nor Castle seem to mention his poor performance being a major factor in his resignation. They both seem to imply that it had to do with Stanton and his public opposition to his promotion...maybe something to do with his injury. There's nothing about the War Department either that I see. So overall, I think this bit probably need rewritten, or it needs other sources to support what is written. GMG^talk 17:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah. Here's what I got. " Shields resigned when the Senate refused to confirm his promotion to major general. " The same thing here. I will add that he was railroad commissioner of California until 1866. [3]. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Shields promotion as commander of army of potomac is verified in the wyoming post herald, Castle sources and Condon. Castle and Condon both agree it was an informal deal. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The resigning over the slight regarding the promotion seems to make more sense with his character anyway. As to the Potomac, the current wording seems to work much better. State a fact simply as a fact in line with the sources. And I think that's all from me for tonight. GMG^talk 01:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I'm feeling pretty good about it. I'll probably read over it a couple more times and request a second opinion, since I've edited it myself so extensively. I did some looking around for more modern sources.

• There's this which is not really evidently reliable. Doesn't look like a peer reviewed journal, but rather a once annual publication from local historical society, and even then, it cites things like this, which is just painfully self published. It's interesting, but I don't know that it's usable.
• Even the Senate themselves base their entire bio on Castle.
• There is this interesting recollection from Mary Carr, but it's behind a paywall, and from 1928 anyway.
• Metric tons of sources that deal very narrowly with Kernstown, but are probably better off in the Kernstown article really.
• Metric tons of sources that deal narrowly with the duel, but the duel could probably have it's own article too.
• There is some information out there about the Lincoln-Shields Recreation Area, named after the duel, but it seems a little too TRIVIA, and might be more appropriate to a main duel article.

• But yeah, over all I'm feeling pretty good. GMG^talk 17:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whomever answers this. We've been at this right at a week. I'm confident at this point that everything has been checked and double checked, and that it fairly easily meets GA. However, I have also at this point edited the article pretty extensively myself, and so for the sake of propriety I'm asking for someone to at least do a read over and spot check to verify my assessment, so I'm not more-or-less unilaterally promoting an article that I've significantly contributed to. GMG^talk 14:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to chime in with a 2nd opinion. The article does look to be in good shape and clearly passes or surpasses most criteria. I made a couple small tweaks I'd encourage you two to check. Additionally I think there are a few small things in the Early Life I'd encourage be changed in the interest of criteria 1:

• Can the information about Uncle James being a professor be merged into the end of the first paragraph, rather than as a long parenthetical where it is?
• This would then allow the second reference to "the younger Shields" to just be Shields.
• Think about merging the second and third paragraphs.
• This was done, at times, through practices that proved unpopular, especially with political rivals It seems like most things would prove unpopular with one's rivals. Seems like some piece of context is missing. Did the rivals give special attention to this? Did these practices CAUSE some to become his rivals?

After reading that section I was worried there was going to be more, but I think the rest of the article is in great shape and I really enjoyed learning about the only person to be a Senator from 3 states. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • Barkeep49

I think I got it all. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I have gone ahead and passed it. Thanks to Eddie891 and GreenMeansGo for bringing this article on a unique figure in American history up to GA status.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]