Jump to content

Talk:Military forces of the Confederate States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK nomination of Military of the Confederate States of America

[edit]

Hello! Your article Military of the Confederate States of America was recently nominated at Did you know to be featured on the main page. The nomination has now been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Politizer talk/contribs 02:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this flag racist?

[edit]

I just bought a black t-shirt with this flag and people start calling me nazi. I don't understand, since I live in Brazil I see no problem hearring this t-shirt but the history teacher (marxist) insuflated my collegues to pursuit me and insult me. I don't know what to do now, is there a argument I can use in my defense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.154.127 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your teacher snorted your colleagues? That's wild. 2600:1700:7100:1E90:CB7F:E21D:E6E3:640F (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ridiculous entry in "see also"

[edit]

I removed the link to the Commemorative Air Force (formerly called the "Confederate Air Force") from the "See also" section because there is absolutely no relationship between the CSA and the CAF. Another editor has reverted my removal of the spurious link and challenged me to gain consensus here for the change. The former name of the CAF was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and the organization has long ago distanced themselves from the former name. The CAF, which was started in Texas, now has chapters in every region of the United States. The aircraft that they fly are mainly from WWII and have no connection to the American Civil War. There is nothing encyclopedic about linking to this article from here.--rogerd (talk) 03:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's no direct relationship between the CSA and the CAF, but there is an indirect one. Texas used to be part of the Confederacy, and so there is historical significance, which many readers in other parts of the world may be unaware of. Having the link in the See also section doesn't imply any official connection. The CAF bowed to political correctness and changed the name, a decision many members still oppose, but that doesn't erase its previous history. - BilCat (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am being silly, eh? The original name was a joke, and the CAF has no connection to the CSA. Your PC claim is your opinion, and has no relevance here. The CSA ceased to exist in 1865, and the CAF was formed in 1957. The CAF is not an actual military organization, nor is it populated by a bunch of neo-confederate sympathizers, In fact, the CAF has African-American members and the Minnesota Wing of the CAF has a P-51 that commemorates the Tuskegee Airmen. The CAF commemorates a time when the entire nation was fighting a common enemy together, not an earlier rebellion of the southern states. There are a lot of modern organizations/companies that were started in the states that previously were in the rebellion, that doesn't make them relevant to the CSA. Again, this is un-encyclopedic. Why don't you link the Army of Northern Virginia to the Virginia Army National Guard, or the First Corps, Army of Northern Virginia to the First Army Corps (Spanish–American War)? Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --rogerd (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for calling your objections silly. As you have called the link ridiculous, I thought you could handle some comments in kind. I didn't realize you were too thin skinned to take back what you give out. Your comments about the Tuskegee Airmen and African CAF members are irrelevant, as African Americans did voluntarily serve in the Confederate military too. The links you mentioned are covered in the service articles, or in other linked articles. I still don't see how a link to an organization with a similar historical name, and a humorous name connection to the Confederate military, is "unencyclopedic", as the CAF article is in the encyclopedia! - BilCat (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this point we should step back and allow others to review and decide what is best. --rogerd (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea, but so far no one else has commented. We'll see what happens then. - BilCat (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the first outside user to comment on this, I am personally of the opinion that as the CAF has no connection to the CSA, leaving the article in its current state would serve mainly to confuse readers. As such, I would support either removing the CAF as a link, or leaving the link in place but adding a brief annotation to the link (as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#See_also_section) explaining that the CAF was founded a century after the CSA's existence, named primarily in jest, and had no actual connection with the CSA. Would the second option serve as a reasonable compromise for the two of you? Reyne2 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd be fine with the second option. - BilCat (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My proposed change would then be something like "The Commemorative Air Force, formerly known as the Confederate Air Force. Founded a century after the U.S. Civil War, the organization was named in jest and had no relation to the Confederate States." Does this seem reasonable? Reyne2 (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it belongs at all, but I am tired of arguing over this minor point (see Sayre's law), so go ahead. --rogerd (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military of the Confederate States of America. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Military of the Confederate States of America. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Union vs. US.

[edit]

@Garuda28: per your recent edits, I think this merits discussion. I *think* Union is the overall generally accepted term and not "United States" to use on these Civil War articles, so for now I will revert pending talk page discussion on this to confirm the stance regarding this. Shaded0 (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_forces_of_the_Confederate_States&oldid=1209063450"