Talk:American Civil War reenactment

how long has this been going on?

It would be interesting if the article said when the first recorded reenactment(s) took place, and when it got popular, etc. — Coelacan | talk 01:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There were sham battles actually being played out DURING the Civil War by actual troops, although this would not count as battle reenactments per se. Photographers poased several soldiers in mock battle action (including pretend dead bodies). The postbellum reenactment craze took off during the Centennial in the early 1960s. Scott Mingus 12:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I was told by a few old timer reenactors that the first known 'reenactment' (as in, of the type we know it today) was staged during the 100th anniversary of one of the battle in 1962. I cannot recall the battle, or where it was (I beleive it was in the south, Georgia perhaps) but I reenact WW2 so CV is not my specialty. I do recall reading that it was done with 1903 Springfields though :P user:Pzg Ratzinger

It got really popular in the sixties (the centinnial) though I have seen pictures of reenactors in the fifties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.165.19 (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul Needed

As a reenactor, I find this article somewhat lacking and (while not generally wrong persay) somewhat misleading to an average reader. I'll do my best to make the article appear better for individuals who don't know about the hobby. A lot of this information is "common sense" or "second nature" to any old salt reenactor, and that's what makes this article so hard to figure out what to write without doing an insane amount of research. For example, there's a portion of the article that claims the Confederates are almost always "outnumbered", yet I know from personal experience that the Union is almost invariably outnumbered by Confederate troops - yet I doubt I will find citation for this knowledge. I'll be adding to the article when I can and when sources come to light.Thelettuceman 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This depends on your geographic location, (in mississippi, the confederates generally have more, in new england, there are ususally more union troops, etc.)

Verb problem in opening sentence

The opening sentence said that reenactment "recreates" battles. I am confident that that is not true, otherwise lots of people would get hurt. I changed it to "reenact." I know that some people will not be happy with saying "reenactment reenacts", but I think it is better than "recreates." If anyone can think of a better word please use that. Thanks, Redddogg (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is now "attempt to recreate the appearance." I think that is by far the best of the three. BTW although the article is a little rough it contains a lot of good information and I learned some stuff from it. Redddogg (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Very silly unsourced claims

Admittedly I don't know of any "hardcore" reenactors from the Civil War, but it sounds perfectly idiotic to declare that there are people who are so obsessed with the idea of the Civil War that they refuse to take part in a battle re-enactment because they perceive a lack of accuracy in no live fire and no real casualties. This presumes that these individuals WOULD participate in them if there was live ammunition being used- which implies that they have the moral abandon to participate in a battle reenactment where people are killed just for the sake of indulging nostalgia, and a mind so insanely fixated on history that they can actually hold the cause of the Union or Confederate Army near enough in their hearts to restart the Civil War in the year 2008. I'm frankly shocked that such a statement is present here, and I would like someone who knows more about Civil War reenactment than myself, to address and find citations for this claim, or to replace it with something accurate. Chaparral2J (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... No citations Per Se, But the a few units in the southern guard LH association refuse to take place in battles for that same reason. 65.5.165.19 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mein Gott!

Is it okay if I remove the image of the exeptionally overweight confederate reenactor? I would like to replace it with a more accurate image, as many of us are quite a bit fatter than the real soldiers would have been, but this is just overboard. User:mmuroya —Preceding comment was added at 08:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe move it down to the Farb section, with an explanatory comment? Cmadler (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We need pictures of authentic reenactors and reenactments, instead of all the farbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.165.19 (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good to include pictures of reenactors representing the whole spectrum of authenticity, as long as farbiness is marked as such. Farb is (unfortunately) a part of reenacting. Cmadler (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Point Taken. Well... I guess the Freggin' Farbs are indeed a part of the reenacting community (even though It sickens me to admit that) and they need to be adressed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.165.19 (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations

As a first step toward improving the citations in this article, I've marked specific claims/statements that probably should have citations. Cmadler (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Subculture of reenactors hurts this article

Way too much on the farbs, hardcores, etc. — that is subculture and slang terminology that is known within the reenactment community but doesn't really offer anything to the reader; it seems somewhat POV as well. Sometimes less is more! An analogy would be editing the high school article and going so far as creating categories of students: Geeks, Freaks, Jocks, etc....It does not look good and it really isn't necessary for this to become a better article. I recommend the omission of reenactor categories.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

True, but you'll see that high school links to youth subculture, which in turn leads a reader to the subculture groups. (Personally, I disagree with this; the subculture is suffiently a part of high school that it should have more mention in the main article, but that's another issue.) In a smaller article, such as this, it's reasonable to include those subcultures in the main article. I agree that they are not written or sourced as well as they should be, but they are a critical part of understanding what ACW reenactment is all about. Cmadler (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This section is duplicated in the historical reenactment article. Since it describes participants in all reenactments, perhaps this section should be removed, and link to the appropriate section in the Historical Reenactment page instead. Eternally777 (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they were originally in this article, and I expanded them here and then copied to historical reenactment. I'd be fine with either editing them to be more specific to ACW reenactment, or just removing them altogether, since they are now in the "parent" article, and we also have Farb (reenactment). cmadler (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This subculture category could use some work on its NPOV. I have no background in any of this, yet I can clearly see that these are a "progressive's" thoughts on each particular approach to American Civil War reenactment. I recommend each subculture get one remark on why those particular members would choose to associate with that particular group. That, or leave out the color commentary. A statement such as "Mainstreams strictly aim to achieve an externally authentic appearance, while progressives seek to fully immerse themselves in the reenactment experience," conveys the idea without making it sound like the mainstreams are failures and the progressives are persecuted. Hey, if this article is meant to teach the uninitiated, you might simply say Mainstream:actor::Progressive:method actor (and Farb:movie quoter). BananaKing2015 (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Progressive, Mainstream, Farbs... Incorrect

Hello

 I am one of the originators of what is called the "Progressive" movement in the reenacting community. 

You have it all wrong on this page. The true definition in ACW reenacting of progressive is in between "mainstream" and "hardcore". The term used mostly for a "hardcore" is "Campaigners" where as a "Progressive" Rides the rail in between mainstreamers and "campaigners" hence the term progressive.

Also there is a statement about "inacurracies" such as buttoning only the top button and so forth, has the person who wrote that ever seen a Winslow Homer painting, specifically one called "Home Sweet Home", it shows 2 federals with what the previous statement claims to be inaccurate to be doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.32.4 (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What about the ladies?

I came to this article hoping to read about the role of women in Civil Role re-enactments. How many re-enactors are women? How often do they take on soldiers' roles vs women's roles? For those who come in hoop skirts, what activities do they participate in while the men are fighting? Are they mostly "Southern Belles," or are there yankee women too? Do many women participate by creating their partner's uniforms? I was surprised that the word "woman" (or "women" "girl" "female" etc) did not even appear in the article, when I know so many women are involved in reenactments! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.250.222 (talk) 04:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm starting a section on civilian reenactors right now (need sources though). There's also a bit in the "Criticism" section of Historical reenactment that mentions women portraying ACW soldiers -- it probably belongs in this article also, but I'm not sure where to put it. Please add to this if you can! cmadler (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Australia?

The link that says that people in Australia perform reenactments mentions only Sydney, but doesn't specify that it is Sydney Australia. I would be highly surprised to find any Australian's outside of a history class having enough enthusiasm to reenact the US civil war. Does anyone have an idea as to whether or not there is a Sydney in the US that this could be referring to? Kimdimsim (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That link is not adequate (the more so since Tripod is not exactly a reliable source!), but Historical reenactment in Australia also mentions ACW reenactment (unsourced), with reasons including "no conventional land battles and few protracted civil disturbances" in Australia's own history and Australia's role in the ACW. I find it plausible, and I suspect that someone willing to spend some time looking (i.e. not me right now) could find a suitable source for this statement. cmadler (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The link is to the 62nd New York, of which I was a member for two years while living in Australia. I currently live in Pennsylvania and am a member of two groups, but I have many fond memories of our events. They usually gathered between 20-30 Civil War reenactors, but one event I attended had well over 100.Mmuroya (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's still not a reliable secondary source, nor does it indicate that it's in Australia. But since you were involved, maybe you can recall an occassion where an American Civil War reenactment was covered by news media, and add that as a source to this article? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation of Master's thesis

After taking a good long look at WP:RS and the reliable sources noticeboard, it is clear to me that Wikipedia consensus holds that Master's theses are generally not considered "reliable sources", although they can be in limited circumstances (the thesis itself becomes notable, the thesis is repeatedly cited in peer-reviewed works, the author is or becomes recognized as a subject-matter expert, the thesis or a version of it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, etc.). It appears to me that the following Master's thesis does not meet these standards, so I am removing it from the article; however, if another editor thinks it is appropriate, let's discuss that here. (As an aside, I am not personally disputing anything stated in the thesis, and it would make a great addition to this article, but I just don't think it meets Wikipedia's standard in this regard. Please show me that I'm wrong!) [1] [2] [3] Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed it again, per above. If you disagree, let's talk about it here. cmadler (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

http://newamericandimensions.com/drupal/content/are-civil-war-reenactments-inherently-racist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.246.3 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Tactical Battles

As currently written, the text seems to indicate that tactical battles always involve judges and have winners. Sometimes that is so, but I've participated in reenactments which were free flowing tactical battles over a day (the day before a reenacted battle) where there were no judges and the governing rules prevented any side from winning (on one occasion we would have overrun the reb camp if not for the rules). The public could view it, but it was mainly for the fun of the participants. Basically, I think the range of types of tactical battles is larger than the section indicates, but I haven't actively participated in a reenactment in over a decade, so my experience may no longer be accurate. Could someone still active address this section? 11-13-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.126.178 (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the 150th anniversary battle of Gettysburg far exceeded the numbers quoted in this article. An article on the 150th Gettysburg would be worth entry. Somebody get writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.59.201 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Natecedarcreek.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Racism

? 108.28.122.6 (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is another failure of WP NPOV. How many of these cosplayers are racists getting their jollies for the Lost Cause one wonders? Do the Confederates falsely outnumber the Union in these events? The criticism section is buried at the bottom. 2600:1700:5B20:CAA0:5CB3:1FBA:E79F:450A (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

The Criticism section appears to be a complete copy of the same section at the Historical reenactment article, so this is unnecessary duplication. PatGallacher (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)