This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What does this have to do with the Museum of the Confederacy? - Willmcw 01:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
As long as the interview itself is relevant, the context of that interview is relevant as well. That context includes a very well known controversy due to McPherson's similar smears against the SCV and UDC in the same brush stroke where he labelled the museum. That fact is neither extraneous nor unrelated, and excluding it serves to promote the POV espoused by McPherson. Rangerdude 07:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
==Highly Unscholarly Article==The museum article needs to be reviewed and rewritten. Most of the second half of the article needs to be relegated to to the discussion page. Put in some information on the museum for Pete's sake. Is the Confederate White House open to the public? One would not learn much of value from this article as it is written. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to contribute anything other than to say this kind of article "cheapens" Wikipedia. That is something that I truly dislike.
The [criticism section] represents some one's personal opinion and does not belong with a wikipage about the Museum of the Confederacy and it's past. I myself have debated some of these people and because of that I learned of their personal agendas -- one being keeping their name in the spotlight. While I see the word, neo-confederate, I know from debates that Neo-damnedyankee has also been used although not by me since neo-yank is shorter. But nobody mentions this so the article on that point and many others shows personal agendas by the original posters.--Maury
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MAURY ( talk • contribs)
Since the previous discussion, the relevant pieces of criticism have been removed. What remains in the "Criticism" section of the article really isn't criticism at all; not in the conventional sense, at least, as it is almost entirely positive. Does anyone disagree that the section should either be removed or expanded? -- BDD 08:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
A list of a number of notable historians and their scholarly or board governance connections to the Museum was added at one point, in place of the McPherson criticism. This entire section was removed, at some point recently, and a number of largely negative comments have been added to several sections. One presumes that these edits were made by folks who have an axe to grind with the current administration, and seek to use this public encyclopedic article as a platform for their diatribes.
Perhaps we should separate the White House article from the museum article – giving independent articles to each. Further, I would suggest that ongoing commentary about the museum’s management be directed elsewhere besides the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B93 ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition, while their criticisms have not been removed, all positive mentions and developments of the Museum's latest plans were removed by users Kar98 and 76.123.23.222. This left only the negative commentary in place. I have restored the positive comments back into the article, in an attempt at fairness to all positions.
In the section about proximity to the Capitol, the so-called "heritage" defenders allege that the Museum sold its own property cheap, and caused its own problems. The deeds to the property in question are on file with the City of Richmond as well as the Brockenbrough Library at the Museum of the Confederacy. I added some text about it, but this whole section was removed by the above users, presumably to keep the facts out of their allegations. Evidently, they are more interested in spewing their diatribes than allowing the article to be a straight forward, fact-filled entry about the Museum and White House of the Confederacy.
I maintain that the articles are supposed to be fact based and objective - meaning that they should be largely devoid of commentary. It is disappointing that some persist in this intentionally divisive rhetoric.
Perhaps Wikipedia should just lock or remove the entire entry until more responsible “contributors” can participate.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by B93 ( talk • contribs) 9:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:WHC & Bed Tower 3 -- 1-4-07.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
Shouldn't the article be renamed American Civil War Museum? 155.213.224.59 ( talk) 18:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The article on the Lost Cause of the Confederacy includes this bit:
The CMLS founded the Confederate Museum to document and defend the Confederate cause and to recall the antebellum mores that the new South's business ethos was thought to be displacing. By focusing on military sacrifice, rather than grievances regarding the North, the Confederate Museum aided the process of sectional reconciliation, according to Hillyer. By depicting slavery as benevolent, the museum's exhibits reinforced the notion that Jim Crow laws were a proper solution to racial tensions that had escalated during Reconstruction. Lastly, by glorifying the common soldier and portraying the South as "solid," the museum promoted acceptance of industrial capitalism. Thus, the Confederate Museum both critiqued and eased the economic transformations of the New South, and enabled Richmond to reconcile its memory of the past with its hopes for the future, leaving the past behind as it developed new industrial and financial roles.
If I'm correct in assuming the museum referenced here is the same one in this article, then we need to expand this article to include info on how the museum dealt with and the Lost Cause of the Confederacy narrative, both in past and how it deals with it in the present. Does it currently downplay or deny slavery's role in the civil war? How does it currently address "Jim Crow laws" and segregation. Based on this passage from the other article it seems did at one time that it downplayed slavery role in the civil war while defending Jim Crow, in which case this should be added to this article. Also, since surely at least one modern notable historian likely has looked into the modern version of the museum and critique it for historical accuracy this should be sought out and included in the article. -- Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 11:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What does this have to do with the Museum of the Confederacy? - Willmcw 01:59, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
As long as the interview itself is relevant, the context of that interview is relevant as well. That context includes a very well known controversy due to McPherson's similar smears against the SCV and UDC in the same brush stroke where he labelled the museum. That fact is neither extraneous nor unrelated, and excluding it serves to promote the POV espoused by McPherson. Rangerdude 07:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
==Highly Unscholarly Article==The museum article needs to be reviewed and rewritten. Most of the second half of the article needs to be relegated to to the discussion page. Put in some information on the museum for Pete's sake. Is the Confederate White House open to the public? One would not learn much of value from this article as it is written. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to contribute anything other than to say this kind of article "cheapens" Wikipedia. That is something that I truly dislike.
The [criticism section] represents some one's personal opinion and does not belong with a wikipage about the Museum of the Confederacy and it's past. I myself have debated some of these people and because of that I learned of their personal agendas -- one being keeping their name in the spotlight. While I see the word, neo-confederate, I know from debates that Neo-damnedyankee has also been used although not by me since neo-yank is shorter. But nobody mentions this so the article on that point and many others shows personal agendas by the original posters.--Maury
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MAURY ( talk • contribs)
Since the previous discussion, the relevant pieces of criticism have been removed. What remains in the "Criticism" section of the article really isn't criticism at all; not in the conventional sense, at least, as it is almost entirely positive. Does anyone disagree that the section should either be removed or expanded? -- BDD 08:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
A list of a number of notable historians and their scholarly or board governance connections to the Museum was added at one point, in place of the McPherson criticism. This entire section was removed, at some point recently, and a number of largely negative comments have been added to several sections. One presumes that these edits were made by folks who have an axe to grind with the current administration, and seek to use this public encyclopedic article as a platform for their diatribes.
Perhaps we should separate the White House article from the museum article – giving independent articles to each. Further, I would suggest that ongoing commentary about the museum’s management be directed elsewhere besides the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B93 ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition, while their criticisms have not been removed, all positive mentions and developments of the Museum's latest plans were removed by users Kar98 and 76.123.23.222. This left only the negative commentary in place. I have restored the positive comments back into the article, in an attempt at fairness to all positions.
In the section about proximity to the Capitol, the so-called "heritage" defenders allege that the Museum sold its own property cheap, and caused its own problems. The deeds to the property in question are on file with the City of Richmond as well as the Brockenbrough Library at the Museum of the Confederacy. I added some text about it, but this whole section was removed by the above users, presumably to keep the facts out of their allegations. Evidently, they are more interested in spewing their diatribes than allowing the article to be a straight forward, fact-filled entry about the Museum and White House of the Confederacy.
I maintain that the articles are supposed to be fact based and objective - meaning that they should be largely devoid of commentary. It is disappointing that some persist in this intentionally divisive rhetoric.
Perhaps Wikipedia should just lock or remove the entire entry until more responsible “contributors” can participate.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by B93 ( talk • contribs) 9:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
An image used in this article, File:WHC & Bed Tower 3 -- 1-4-07.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC) |
Shouldn't the article be renamed American Civil War Museum? 155.213.224.59 ( talk) 18:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The article on the Lost Cause of the Confederacy includes this bit:
The CMLS founded the Confederate Museum to document and defend the Confederate cause and to recall the antebellum mores that the new South's business ethos was thought to be displacing. By focusing on military sacrifice, rather than grievances regarding the North, the Confederate Museum aided the process of sectional reconciliation, according to Hillyer. By depicting slavery as benevolent, the museum's exhibits reinforced the notion that Jim Crow laws were a proper solution to racial tensions that had escalated during Reconstruction. Lastly, by glorifying the common soldier and portraying the South as "solid," the museum promoted acceptance of industrial capitalism. Thus, the Confederate Museum both critiqued and eased the economic transformations of the New South, and enabled Richmond to reconcile its memory of the past with its hopes for the future, leaving the past behind as it developed new industrial and financial roles.
If I'm correct in assuming the museum referenced here is the same one in this article, then we need to expand this article to include info on how the museum dealt with and the Lost Cause of the Confederacy narrative, both in past and how it deals with it in the present. Does it currently downplay or deny slavery's role in the civil war? How does it currently address "Jim Crow laws" and segregation. Based on this passage from the other article it seems did at one time that it downplayed slavery role in the civil war while defending Jim Crow, in which case this should be added to this article. Also, since surely at least one modern notable historian likely has looked into the modern version of the museum and critique it for historical accuracy this should be sought out and included in the article. -- Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 11:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)