This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Notwithstanding that conclusion, I want to highlight David Fuchs's comment about clarity/wordiness and Whatamidoing's comment about these terms being used 194 times on this page, and a varied vocabulary being a feature of good writing. Since there's not really any actual discussion of particular usages, I don't think this RfC can be used to replace every single instance of the term in this article. There could well be individual cases where a particular phrasing is more suitable, and those should be discussed on a per-usage basis if there is a dispute, rather than forceful standardisation being assumed per this general RfC result. In other words, I see the consensus here as being for a guideline on this article, not a hard rule.
I'll also note Fowler&fowler's suggestion of using "enslaved Africans" on first usage, and "slaves" thereafter. It received some support after it was made, but the proposal was made later in the discussion (and so an insufficient amount of editors participating commented on it), so it's not clear whether there's a consensus for it. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Should the article use the terms "slaves" / "African slaves", or should it use the terms "enslaved people" / "enslaved Africans"? — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
"Enslavement was something that was done to people, it was not their basic identity". A review of sources will include older sources that still refer to people as "slaves", but it's rare in modern usage. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
It's WP:TOOSOON to change, per others. Usage of "enslaved" may be increasing, but it has not yet been established as the primary, and certainly not the only acceptable term. Present terminogy accurately describes the legal and economic status and the relations between people. Of course the term does not fully describe the whole human identity of those who were subjected to this 'state of being', but neither do other basic legal and economic terms. A "worker" may have rich, unexplored human depth or complexity while a "master" may be weak and useless, but, in context, the only relevant info may be either person's economic/legal status. Pincrete ( talk) 11:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Let's look at some data. In a topic with a huge amount of scholarship available, such as the American Confederacy and the Civil War, it's trivial to come up with sources to support any point of view, including views held by only a tiny fraction. In order to present a neutral point of view in the article, we must avoid cherry-picking sources and instead try to determine what the majority view is, if there is one, and all significant minority views, and represent them in due proportion to their appearance in reliable sources. One way to do this, is by search queries of reliable sources that avoid bias in favor of one result or another.
Here are three such searches, in Google Ngrams, Books, and Scholar; all show that the terms slaves or African slaves are used much more often in reliable sources than the term "enslaved Africans" or "enslaved people":
Even a cherry-picked search in Books for "enslaved Africans" OR "enslaved people" does not do very well and fails to return many results.
These searches show that expressions like enslaved Africans or enslaved people are only found in a tiny fraction of reliable sources compared to more commonly used terms. Mathglot ( talk) 03:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
("enslaved" OR "slaves")
. If it's picking up "slaves", it will automatically pick up "African slaves". In Google Scholar during the last decade, the snippets show me 23/50 uses of "enslaved" (not counting one in which it was used as a verb), including "enslaved women and men", "enslaved and free people of color", " enslaved women and girls", and "enslaved persons" – all of which are missed when you search only for ("enslaved Africans" OR "African slaves" OR "slaves")
.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
01:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Some comments in the #Survey section make an appeal on non policy-based humanistic grounds to support their vote, including that some terms, in their opinion, are "disrespectful" or "dehumanizing". Let's see if that holds up, by looking at what Black genealogy and ancestry sites use:
This shows that while some are basing votes on opinion, these opinions are apparently not shared by some of the major Black genealogy and ancestry sites. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Questions or suggestions were raised in the #Survey section about possibly moving the venue of this Rfc to a broader one such as MOS. This first occurred, I believe, in Nosebagbear's !Vote ( here: "Keep status quo, defer future discussion to MOS", ), and was subsequently echoed by Doug Weller. Springee then asked about transferring the discussion to a more general location.
Let's use this section to discuss this. We're less than 48 hours into the Rfc, and if it's moved, sooner is probably better than later. I don't believe that WP:Requests for comment has specific recommendations about how to move an ongoing discussion, but WP:RFCCLOSE (bullet #2) does say that "RfC participants can agree to end it at any time" and there's nothing to stop us from doing that, and then opening another per RFCOPEN. Also, per bullet #1, Mudwater could withdraw it if he chose to, (but if you do, my advice would be to wait a bit for some feedback here, first, to get a sense of how that would be received). Mathglot ( talk) 21:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Legobot has closed this Request for Comment, because it's been open for more than 30 days. But, I'm not sure if we have reached any conclusions about what to do. In my opinion, after reading other editors' comments, the article should first say "enslaved people" and then, after that, use either "enslaved people" or "slaves", whichever best suits that part of the prose. — Mudwater ( Talk) 16:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Notes
References
I'm considering opening an RM for this page. IMHO, it should be called "Confederate States", as we've got United States (without the "of America"). GoodDay ( talk) 16:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Could someone please edit the government section in the infobox to remove reference to a German ideology that didn't even exist at the time the CSA did? Especially without citation, this is pure original research silliness.
2601:405:4400:9420:CC83:2896:A95F:31DA ( talk) 12:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the term "herrenvolk" being used to describe the Confederacy. Firstly, it wasn't a commonly used term during the time period. Secondly, there were Native American Confederates. Namely Stand Watie, the last Confederate States Army general to surrender to Union Forces. "Herrenvolk republic" is not an accurate descriptive term in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbovia ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn’t it be using the latest flag? (The Blood-Stained Banner) [Flag will go under this text]
Kxeon ( talk) 23:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Please create a Wikilink to explain the concept of a rump state (third paragraph(. It's useful for understanding Missouri & Kentucky participation in the Confederacy. 143.147.174.90 ( talk) 13:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the Transnistria article, I noticed that it can be done. Why not put all the 3 flags with the corresponding period? 93.45.229.98 ( talk) 12:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
In this section the New Orleans link leads to the article about the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812 instead of the Capture of New Orleans. Could someone please fix this? The Path to Talmor ( talk) 10:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Confederate States of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the opening paragraph it says "they states" this should read "the state's" 82.7.191.251 ( talk) 19:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The Confederate Naval Jack as shown on this page was only such from the adoption of the 2nd National Flag in 1863 until the end of the war. Jacks are an adaptaion of the Naval Ensign, usually using the canton of the flag as their inspiration. In essence the X flag is the "Second Naval Jack". The First Naval Jack would be an interpretation of the canton of the provisional First National Flag of the CSA, the Stars and Bars and as such would be a blue flag with white stars in a circle. Jacks are minor flags flown from the bow of a Naval vessel usually only when anchored or when fully "dressed" for events and such. 66.69.211.54 ( talk) 20:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The sentence read: The Confederate States were fairly "self-determining" and regional or specific state identities often prevailed in government and society over views of a truly unified nation.
I think that it is trying to say something to the effect that the states of the Confederacy had a significant degree of independence from the Confederacy. But here are the problems I see: (1) Capitalizing "states" results in "The Confederate States" meaning the Confederacy, not the individual states of the Confederacy. (2) "Self-determining" has no meaning, which is probably why it is in scare quotes. How do states determine themselves? I suspect that "independent" is meant. (3) "regional or specific state identities" has no meaning. If the sentence is discussing the states' independence, where does "regional" come in? And what are "state identities," specific or otherwise? (4) If "regional or specific state identities" had any meaning, what would it mean for them to "prevail in government" or "prevail in society"? (5) What views of a truly unified nation are meant? How can "identities" (whatever they are) prevail over "views"? I do not have access to the cited source, but, as an editor (not just of Wikipedia) I find that some writers mistakenly think that quoting is somehow cheating, and therefore they paraphrase is a manner that is less clear than the quotation. Perhaps that's what occurred here. Maurice Magnus ( talk) 22:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
"During the four years of its existence under trial by war, the Confederate States of America asserted its independence and appointed dozens of diplomatic agents abroad."
"trial by war"; this reads like admiration, not a statement of fact.
"A string of eloquent and sometimes well-educated Negro abolitionist speakers crisscrossed England, Scotland, and Ireland. In addition to exposing the reality of America's shameful and sinful chattel slavery—some were fugitive slaves—they rebutted the Confederate position that negroes were "unintellectual, timid, and dependent""
"Negro speakers"? Am I missing something, or is this just highly inappropriate? This is not a quote or citation; this is flat out using "Negro" instead of "black"; similar, "negroes were "unintellectual, timid, and dependent"" would excuse the use of negroes if it as a quote, but it isn't - again, it feels inappropriate to not use "black" or whatever other modern term is deemed appropriate.
In general, this just reads *weird* - "eloquent and sometimes well-educated Negro(s)" does not read like an impartial statement of fact, even though it might very well be, technically, but like something somebody living in the Confederacy would say; expressing surprise that negroes can be eloquent, and indeed, sometimes even well educated. "Shameful and sinful chattel slavery" is just about as PoV as it gets; use a quote if you want to use loaded language like this. And it goes on like this. This article needs a revision badly, I'd argue. 2A04:6EC0:20F:A9D0:B53B:C48:1540:E06C ( talk) 09:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Confederate States of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to add {{ Confederate states in the American Civil War}}.
223.25.74.34 ( talk) 11:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
Spintendo
22:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)The Confederacy ended on June 23,1865 when the last Confederate General surrendered his Army. The claim that the confederacy ended on May 9,1965 is ridiculous as nearly 100,000 rebel troops were still fighting at that time. 75.244.119.96 ( talk) 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Remove text and condense through more subeheadingd. 64.189.18.30 ( talk) 04:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
the term depicting the border states as "Northern" is wrong and should be redacted. At no point were the border states considered Northern. They were by all means still Southern, in Kentucky's case in particular which had both a Unionist and Confederate state governments and was by all respects no different than North Carolina or Tennessee culturally, geographically, or demographically, and having a Southern plantation economy, and was considered an equal member state by the CSA, multiple sources confirm KY as Southern throughout. Missouri is also another case of having a Unionist and Confederate state government and still considered Southern as done so in Lloyd's map. At the very worst they were the Border South. RIII98 ( talk) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Confederate States of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding the sentence "The Modern display of the Confederate battle flag primarily started during the 1948 presidential election, when the battle flag was used by the Dixiecrats."
Change "Modern" to "modern". It should not be capitalized. HertzDonuts ( talk) 05:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Confederate States of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding the paragraph:
Confederate conscription was not universal; it was a selective service. The First Conscription Act of April 1862 exempted occupations related to transportation, communication, industry, ministers, teaching and physical fitness. The Second Conscription Act of October 1862 expanded exemptions in industry, agriculture and conscientious objection. Exemption fraud proliferated in medical examinations, army furloughs, churches, schools, apothecaries and newspapers.
Add links to Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864.
I suggest changing it to this:
Confederate conscription was not universal; it was a selective service. The [[Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864|First Conscription Act]] of April 1862 exempted occupations related to transportation, communication, industry, ministers, teaching and physical fitness. The [[Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864|Second Conscription Act]] of October 1862 expanded exemptions in industry, agriculture and conscientious objection. Exemption fraud proliferated in medical examinations, army furloughs, churches, schools, apothecaries and newspapers.
HertzDonuts ( talk) 00:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The top infobox image for the CSA uses incorrect terminology in its caption and all in all seems pointless, remove it. At least change the caption to read something like "Map of the United States with states that joined the C.S.A. shaded." 50.205.215.149 ( talk) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Confederate States of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the map labels, make the ‘West Virginia’ lead to the page of said state. Hiyabud ( talk) 00:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Remove words and divide up the text so it is readable. 64.189.18.34 ( talk) 08:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 |
Notwithstanding that conclusion, I want to highlight David Fuchs's comment about clarity/wordiness and Whatamidoing's comment about these terms being used 194 times on this page, and a varied vocabulary being a feature of good writing. Since there's not really any actual discussion of particular usages, I don't think this RfC can be used to replace every single instance of the term in this article. There could well be individual cases where a particular phrasing is more suitable, and those should be discussed on a per-usage basis if there is a dispute, rather than forceful standardisation being assumed per this general RfC result. In other words, I see the consensus here as being for a guideline on this article, not a hard rule.
I'll also note Fowler&fowler's suggestion of using "enslaved Africans" on first usage, and "slaves" thereafter. It received some support after it was made, but the proposal was made later in the discussion (and so an insufficient amount of editors participating commented on it), so it's not clear whether there's a consensus for it. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Should the article use the terms "slaves" / "African slaves", or should it use the terms "enslaved people" / "enslaved Africans"? — Mudwater ( Talk) 01:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
"Enslavement was something that was done to people, it was not their basic identity". A review of sources will include older sources that still refer to people as "slaves", but it's rare in modern usage. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
It's WP:TOOSOON to change, per others. Usage of "enslaved" may be increasing, but it has not yet been established as the primary, and certainly not the only acceptable term. Present terminogy accurately describes the legal and economic status and the relations between people. Of course the term does not fully describe the whole human identity of those who were subjected to this 'state of being', but neither do other basic legal and economic terms. A "worker" may have rich, unexplored human depth or complexity while a "master" may be weak and useless, but, in context, the only relevant info may be either person's economic/legal status. Pincrete ( talk) 11:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Let's look at some data. In a topic with a huge amount of scholarship available, such as the American Confederacy and the Civil War, it's trivial to come up with sources to support any point of view, including views held by only a tiny fraction. In order to present a neutral point of view in the article, we must avoid cherry-picking sources and instead try to determine what the majority view is, if there is one, and all significant minority views, and represent them in due proportion to their appearance in reliable sources. One way to do this, is by search queries of reliable sources that avoid bias in favor of one result or another.
Here are three such searches, in Google Ngrams, Books, and Scholar; all show that the terms slaves or African slaves are used much more often in reliable sources than the term "enslaved Africans" or "enslaved people":
Even a cherry-picked search in Books for "enslaved Africans" OR "enslaved people" does not do very well and fails to return many results.
These searches show that expressions like enslaved Africans or enslaved people are only found in a tiny fraction of reliable sources compared to more commonly used terms. Mathglot ( talk) 03:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
("enslaved" OR "slaves")
. If it's picking up "slaves", it will automatically pick up "African slaves". In Google Scholar during the last decade, the snippets show me 23/50 uses of "enslaved" (not counting one in which it was used as a verb), including "enslaved women and men", "enslaved and free people of color", " enslaved women and girls", and "enslaved persons" – all of which are missed when you search only for ("enslaved Africans" OR "African slaves" OR "slaves")
.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
01:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Some comments in the #Survey section make an appeal on non policy-based humanistic grounds to support their vote, including that some terms, in their opinion, are "disrespectful" or "dehumanizing". Let's see if that holds up, by looking at what Black genealogy and ancestry sites use:
This shows that while some are basing votes on opinion, these opinions are apparently not shared by some of the major Black genealogy and ancestry sites. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 04:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Questions or suggestions were raised in the #Survey section about possibly moving the venue of this Rfc to a broader one such as MOS. This first occurred, I believe, in Nosebagbear's !Vote ( here: "Keep status quo, defer future discussion to MOS", ), and was subsequently echoed by Doug Weller. Springee then asked about transferring the discussion to a more general location.
Let's use this section to discuss this. We're less than 48 hours into the Rfc, and if it's moved, sooner is probably better than later. I don't believe that WP:Requests for comment has specific recommendations about how to move an ongoing discussion, but WP:RFCCLOSE (bullet #2) does say that "RfC participants can agree to end it at any time" and there's nothing to stop us from doing that, and then opening another per RFCOPEN. Also, per bullet #1, Mudwater could withdraw it if he chose to, (but if you do, my advice would be to wait a bit for some feedback here, first, to get a sense of how that would be received). Mathglot ( talk) 21:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Legobot has closed this Request for Comment, because it's been open for more than 30 days. But, I'm not sure if we have reached any conclusions about what to do. In my opinion, after reading other editors' comments, the article should first say "enslaved people" and then, after that, use either "enslaved people" or "slaves", whichever best suits that part of the prose. — Mudwater ( Talk) 16:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Notes
References
I'm considering opening an RM for this page. IMHO, it should be called "Confederate States", as we've got United States (without the "of America"). GoodDay ( talk) 16:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Could someone please edit the government section in the infobox to remove reference to a German ideology that didn't even exist at the time the CSA did? Especially without citation, this is pure original research silliness.
2601:405:4400:9420:CC83:2896:A95F:31DA ( talk) 12:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the term "herrenvolk" being used to describe the Confederacy. Firstly, it wasn't a commonly used term during the time period. Secondly, there were Native American Confederates. Namely Stand Watie, the last Confederate States Army general to surrender to Union Forces. "Herrenvolk republic" is not an accurate descriptive term in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbovia ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn’t it be using the latest flag? (The Blood-Stained Banner) [Flag will go under this text]
Kxeon ( talk) 23:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Please create a Wikilink to explain the concept of a rump state (third paragraph(. It's useful for understanding Missouri & Kentucky participation in the Confederacy. 143.147.174.90 ( talk) 13:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the Transnistria article, I noticed that it can be done. Why not put all the 3 flags with the corresponding period? 93.45.229.98 ( talk) 12:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
In this section the New Orleans link leads to the article about the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812 instead of the Capture of New Orleans. Could someone please fix this? The Path to Talmor ( talk) 10:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Confederate States of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the opening paragraph it says "they states" this should read "the state's" 82.7.191.251 ( talk) 19:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The Confederate Naval Jack as shown on this page was only such from the adoption of the 2nd National Flag in 1863 until the end of the war. Jacks are an adaptaion of the Naval Ensign, usually using the canton of the flag as their inspiration. In essence the X flag is the "Second Naval Jack". The First Naval Jack would be an interpretation of the canton of the provisional First National Flag of the CSA, the Stars and Bars and as such would be a blue flag with white stars in a circle. Jacks are minor flags flown from the bow of a Naval vessel usually only when anchored or when fully "dressed" for events and such. 66.69.211.54 ( talk) 20:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The sentence read: The Confederate States were fairly "self-determining" and regional or specific state identities often prevailed in government and society over views of a truly unified nation.
I think that it is trying to say something to the effect that the states of the Confederacy had a significant degree of independence from the Confederacy. But here are the problems I see: (1) Capitalizing "states" results in "The Confederate States" meaning the Confederacy, not the individual states of the Confederacy. (2) "Self-determining" has no meaning, which is probably why it is in scare quotes. How do states determine themselves? I suspect that "independent" is meant. (3) "regional or specific state identities" has no meaning. If the sentence is discussing the states' independence, where does "regional" come in? And what are "state identities," specific or otherwise? (4) If "regional or specific state identities" had any meaning, what would it mean for them to "prevail in government" or "prevail in society"? (5) What views of a truly unified nation are meant? How can "identities" (whatever they are) prevail over "views"? I do not have access to the cited source, but, as an editor (not just of Wikipedia) I find that some writers mistakenly think that quoting is somehow cheating, and therefore they paraphrase is a manner that is less clear than the quotation. Perhaps that's what occurred here. Maurice Magnus ( talk) 22:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
"During the four years of its existence under trial by war, the Confederate States of America asserted its independence and appointed dozens of diplomatic agents abroad."
"trial by war"; this reads like admiration, not a statement of fact.
"A string of eloquent and sometimes well-educated Negro abolitionist speakers crisscrossed England, Scotland, and Ireland. In addition to exposing the reality of America's shameful and sinful chattel slavery—some were fugitive slaves—they rebutted the Confederate position that negroes were "unintellectual, timid, and dependent""
"Negro speakers"? Am I missing something, or is this just highly inappropriate? This is not a quote or citation; this is flat out using "Negro" instead of "black"; similar, "negroes were "unintellectual, timid, and dependent"" would excuse the use of negroes if it as a quote, but it isn't - again, it feels inappropriate to not use "black" or whatever other modern term is deemed appropriate.
In general, this just reads *weird* - "eloquent and sometimes well-educated Negro(s)" does not read like an impartial statement of fact, even though it might very well be, technically, but like something somebody living in the Confederacy would say; expressing surprise that negroes can be eloquent, and indeed, sometimes even well educated. "Shameful and sinful chattel slavery" is just about as PoV as it gets; use a quote if you want to use loaded language like this. And it goes on like this. This article needs a revision badly, I'd argue. 2A04:6EC0:20F:A9D0:B53B:C48:1540:E06C ( talk) 09:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Confederate States of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to add {{ Confederate states in the American Civil War}}.
223.25.74.34 ( talk) 11:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
Edit semi-protected}}
template.
Spintendo
22:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)The Confederacy ended on June 23,1865 when the last Confederate General surrendered his Army. The claim that the confederacy ended on May 9,1965 is ridiculous as nearly 100,000 rebel troops were still fighting at that time. 75.244.119.96 ( talk) 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Remove text and condense through more subeheadingd. 64.189.18.30 ( talk) 04:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
the term depicting the border states as "Northern" is wrong and should be redacted. At no point were the border states considered Northern. They were by all means still Southern, in Kentucky's case in particular which had both a Unionist and Confederate state governments and was by all respects no different than North Carolina or Tennessee culturally, geographically, or demographically, and having a Southern plantation economy, and was considered an equal member state by the CSA, multiple sources confirm KY as Southern throughout. Missouri is also another case of having a Unionist and Confederate state government and still considered Southern as done so in Lloyd's map. At the very worst they were the Border South. RIII98 ( talk) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Confederate States of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding the sentence "The Modern display of the Confederate battle flag primarily started during the 1948 presidential election, when the battle flag was used by the Dixiecrats."
Change "Modern" to "modern". It should not be capitalized. HertzDonuts ( talk) 05:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Confederate States of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding the paragraph:
Confederate conscription was not universal; it was a selective service. The First Conscription Act of April 1862 exempted occupations related to transportation, communication, industry, ministers, teaching and physical fitness. The Second Conscription Act of October 1862 expanded exemptions in industry, agriculture and conscientious objection. Exemption fraud proliferated in medical examinations, army furloughs, churches, schools, apothecaries and newspapers.
Add links to Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864.
I suggest changing it to this:
Confederate conscription was not universal; it was a selective service. The [[Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864|First Conscription Act]] of April 1862 exempted occupations related to transportation, communication, industry, ministers, teaching and physical fitness. The [[Confederate Conscription Acts 1862–1864|Second Conscription Act]] of October 1862 expanded exemptions in industry, agriculture and conscientious objection. Exemption fraud proliferated in medical examinations, army furloughs, churches, schools, apothecaries and newspapers.
HertzDonuts ( talk) 00:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The top infobox image for the CSA uses incorrect terminology in its caption and all in all seems pointless, remove it. At least change the caption to read something like "Map of the United States with states that joined the C.S.A. shaded." 50.205.215.149 ( talk) 03:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Confederate States of America has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the map labels, make the ‘West Virginia’ lead to the page of said state. Hiyabud ( talk) 00:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Remove words and divide up the text so it is readable. 64.189.18.34 ( talk) 08:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)