Discussion:Histoire militaire des Afro-Américains pendant la guerre de Sécession

Question posée au Reference Desk de WP en : "Casualties among USCT during ACW (regarding casualties among white troops)"

"Hello learned people ! I am translating for WP french "Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War" (since the role of Negro troops during ACW is here quite unknown - & BTW thanks for the text) and I wonder if Herbert Aptheker has expressed correctly (in terms of statistics) the fact that losses have been far more important among the Black than among the White troops ... ...

That « mortality rate 35 % greater among Black troops » bothers me. Is it statistically correct ?

Thanks beforehand for your answers, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• The mathematics in the section you quote above are correct, so it will only be wrong if the casualty figures themselves are incorrect (or the passage has been quoted inaccurately). Many more people fought (and died) than the Regular Army and US Colored Troops figures given, so care would have to be taken with other sources over who was and was not being counted. That said, the original historian cited would surely have been pulled up for inaccuracy (or deliberate distortion) long before now if that had been the case. I don't find the figure surprising, and actually would have expected it to be somewhat higher, since to my very limited knowledge of this (to me) distant foreign conflict the Colored Troops were generally much more poorly armed and equipped, and were often utilised somewhat as "cannon fodder" by White officers. I'm sure more knowledgeable US Refdeskers will be able to address your query more pertinently once they're up and about (it still being early in the morning for them). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.13 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• While the issues of late salary, late and poor supplies, and use as cannon fodder existed for both black and white, but were perhaps more severe among black troops, we also have to "Remember Fort Pillow!" and the selective maltreatment of blacks who attempted to surrender). Rmhermen (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Those stats do look suspicious to me. Why are some 7/8 of the total troops not included in the stats ? Maybe those were state militias ? Unless a good explanation is given for this, I would be disinclined to use such statistics. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes the vast majority were state troops, not regulars. US Volunteers (although a few were drafted, 2%). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks a lot to all, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)".

Interrogation

Salut ! Le plan (actuel) de cet article me semble, comment dire, manquer d'une certaine clarté, voire logique. Mais le principal rédacteur a probablement déjà une version adaptée dans ses cartons. Auquel cas cette interrogation n'a plus de sens. Voilà. Hop ! --Alcide Talon ^blabla ? 2 janvier 2012 à 10:22 (CET)

remarques

Déjà très beau travail de traduction sur un sujet assez difficile. Mais j'ai quelques remarques sur la forme... pour le fond cela viendra plus tard.

• il est déconseillé d'avoir des notes dans les titres comme la section Le raid sur Combahee Ferry
• il n'est pas utile d'avoir une référence pointant (avec [[:en:Raid at Combahee Ferry]] => en:Raid at Combahee Ferry) ou mentionnant un article d'une autre Wikipédia. A moins d'utiliser {{Traduction/Référence}}

  Cette information peut servir pour la page de discussion sous la forme d'un bandeau du type {{Traduit de}}

• il serait bien de réduire les description dans les images, la légende doit être quelque chose de bref...
• il serait bien d'utiliser la syntaxe wiki comme les listes à puces : voir Aide:liste
• la typographie est à revoir (majuscule en début des phrases et paragraphes, points après les références,...)

Voilà on y verra déjà un peu plus clair --GdGourou - Talk to °o° 2 janvier 2012 à 12:11 (CET)