This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I agree 71.231.140.145 ( talk) 04:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC) The warning here is not needed. We should assume that readers are relatively intelligent and mature enough to deal with strong language.
Good day Gentlemen and Ladies.
I think the following section of a sentence near the opening of the entry should be modified;
"[Copperheads]...hated Blacks, blamed the abolitionists, ".
"Hated" Blacks is not necessarily a very professional nor explanitory choice of words. "Were extremely predjudice towards Blacks", "Were vociferous defenderds of chattle slavery (or of the subjecgation of Blacks". Anything else but "hated".
"Blamed the abolitionists" should read "held the abolitionist responsible for initiating the sectarian tension which ultimately led to secession" or something similar would be appropriate.
Just wanted to run that by people before I made the changes. Thoughts?
-- JohnFlaherty 20:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You're reading too much into my comments and motivation. When it comes to the Civil War, my blood runs Yankee Blue and abolitionist red.
My suggested wording is NOT "highly misleading". On the contrary, it is more accurate, it is more descriptive, and IMO more professional. I doubt the wording as it is now would apear in Brittanica or World Book.
-- JohnFlaherty 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
By any objective standard, the Nazi's hated Jews. No professional, non-fiction resource would state that "The Nazi's hated Jews". I explains nothing. It is amatuer. They would discuss anti-Semitism and Aryianism, pogroms and the diaspora.-- JohnFlaherty 11:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
But let's try a quote: "Hitler was a twisted product of anti-Semitic Austria, of the front lines in World War I, and of a ruinous and vindictive imposed peace. He was also a consummate demagogue, a hypnotic speaker, who recognized and brilliantly exploited popular rage, despair, and hatred of the scapegoat Jews, for whom Hitler himself had a psychotic hatred. He had a ferocious lust for power, not only national but also global. He was utterly false in his promises. He was insatiably murderous. And by early 1933 he was in absolute control of the great German nation. " hatred used twice. War Comes Again: Comparative Vistas on the Civil War and World War II (1995) ed Boritt p 17. Rjensen 11:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Copperheads were pimarily united by their opposition to the war and all its manifestations (like draft and taxes), and continuously pushed for compromises, negotiations and peace candidates. Rjensen 02:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article tries to imply that the Copperheads committed treason. Making such a claim is borderline defamatory. If it were valid about the Copperheads, its also valid about the Anti-Vietnam and Anti-Iraq movements. I would have fixed it, but I'm unsure how to reword the reference. 206.251.8.169 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any truth to the claim that the name "Copperhead" gained political currency in no small part because its association with the feared and despised pit viper species also so called? If so, wouldn't that negative connotation warrant mentioning in the article? -- Ziusudra 12:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I replaced [[Three-cent piece (United States coin)|copper indian-head coins]] with "three-cent copper Indian-head coins" and tagged it with {{
fact}}, since the lk'd article describes no such coin.
Cent (United States coin)#Designs does describe Indian-head pennies of the period. My recollection is that the head was of Washington, but i found some support via Google for a Liberty-head coin, perhaps the 3-cent copper-nickel alloy one in the article whose lk i rem'd.
--
Jerzy•
t 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It is of course obvious the amazing similarities of the "Peace Democrats" of the civil war who felt it was immoral to have a war to free slaves in the Confederate States of America and "Peace Democrats" of today who feel it is immoral to help Muslims in Iraq to have a democratic government. It is so obvious that it might not need to be mentioned, but I think it should be. The techniques and objectives are exactly the same then as they are now... Any objections to a section pointing out the similarities. Mantion ( talk) 11:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
While the article speaks vaguely about "peace at any price", what exactly were the specific aims of Copperheads? Did they explicitly advocate ending the war and recognizing the Confederacy as a separate nation? Did they believe that if they gained power, their attitudes towards slavery would be enough to conciliate the south into rejoining the Union? Or were they not united on a specific program? -- Jfruh ( talk) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC) əə
Why is there a section on the "Profile of the average member"? Isn't that the sort of stereotyping that is very un-PC these days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.13.116 ( talk) 20:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Does every article have to be written from the Northern point of view? Why can't information be presented as Southerners, the population in the South notices this overt bias. The slavery issue is settled, but Southerner's voices are NEVER heard in these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:243B:9AF9:E466:B9A1:1082:4D16 ( talk) 13:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed 'Position- Right-wing' from the infobox. There appears to be a slow-burning edit war over this. In reading the article, it appears that the Copperheads held traditionalist viewpoints. But it is challenging to tie them to a specific ideology, at least from a modern perspective. If identified through a modern perspective, I think the Copperheads held both right-wing and left-wing views, like their opposition to central banking would be left wing and support for traditional agrarianism would be right wing. Since this is contentious and difficult to place on the political spectrum, I think the 'political ideology' identifiers is sufficient. Jip Orlando ( talk) 17:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I agree 71.231.140.145 ( talk) 04:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC) The warning here is not needed. We should assume that readers are relatively intelligent and mature enough to deal with strong language.
Good day Gentlemen and Ladies.
I think the following section of a sentence near the opening of the entry should be modified;
"[Copperheads]...hated Blacks, blamed the abolitionists, ".
"Hated" Blacks is not necessarily a very professional nor explanitory choice of words. "Were extremely predjudice towards Blacks", "Were vociferous defenderds of chattle slavery (or of the subjecgation of Blacks". Anything else but "hated".
"Blamed the abolitionists" should read "held the abolitionist responsible for initiating the sectarian tension which ultimately led to secession" or something similar would be appropriate.
Just wanted to run that by people before I made the changes. Thoughts?
-- JohnFlaherty 20:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You're reading too much into my comments and motivation. When it comes to the Civil War, my blood runs Yankee Blue and abolitionist red.
My suggested wording is NOT "highly misleading". On the contrary, it is more accurate, it is more descriptive, and IMO more professional. I doubt the wording as it is now would apear in Brittanica or World Book.
-- JohnFlaherty 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
By any objective standard, the Nazi's hated Jews. No professional, non-fiction resource would state that "The Nazi's hated Jews". I explains nothing. It is amatuer. They would discuss anti-Semitism and Aryianism, pogroms and the diaspora.-- JohnFlaherty 11:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
But let's try a quote: "Hitler was a twisted product of anti-Semitic Austria, of the front lines in World War I, and of a ruinous and vindictive imposed peace. He was also a consummate demagogue, a hypnotic speaker, who recognized and brilliantly exploited popular rage, despair, and hatred of the scapegoat Jews, for whom Hitler himself had a psychotic hatred. He had a ferocious lust for power, not only national but also global. He was utterly false in his promises. He was insatiably murderous. And by early 1933 he was in absolute control of the great German nation. " hatred used twice. War Comes Again: Comparative Vistas on the Civil War and World War II (1995) ed Boritt p 17. Rjensen 11:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Copperheads were pimarily united by their opposition to the war and all its manifestations (like draft and taxes), and continuously pushed for compromises, negotiations and peace candidates. Rjensen 02:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article tries to imply that the Copperheads committed treason. Making such a claim is borderline defamatory. If it were valid about the Copperheads, its also valid about the Anti-Vietnam and Anti-Iraq movements. I would have fixed it, but I'm unsure how to reword the reference. 206.251.8.169 01:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any truth to the claim that the name "Copperhead" gained political currency in no small part because its association with the feared and despised pit viper species also so called? If so, wouldn't that negative connotation warrant mentioning in the article? -- Ziusudra 12:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I replaced [[Three-cent piece (United States coin)|copper indian-head coins]] with "three-cent copper Indian-head coins" and tagged it with {{
fact}}, since the lk'd article describes no such coin.
Cent (United States coin)#Designs does describe Indian-head pennies of the period. My recollection is that the head was of Washington, but i found some support via Google for a Liberty-head coin, perhaps the 3-cent copper-nickel alloy one in the article whose lk i rem'd.
--
Jerzy•
t 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It is of course obvious the amazing similarities of the "Peace Democrats" of the civil war who felt it was immoral to have a war to free slaves in the Confederate States of America and "Peace Democrats" of today who feel it is immoral to help Muslims in Iraq to have a democratic government. It is so obvious that it might not need to be mentioned, but I think it should be. The techniques and objectives are exactly the same then as they are now... Any objections to a section pointing out the similarities. Mantion ( talk) 11:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
While the article speaks vaguely about "peace at any price", what exactly were the specific aims of Copperheads? Did they explicitly advocate ending the war and recognizing the Confederacy as a separate nation? Did they believe that if they gained power, their attitudes towards slavery would be enough to conciliate the south into rejoining the Union? Or were they not united on a specific program? -- Jfruh ( talk) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC) əə
Why is there a section on the "Profile of the average member"? Isn't that the sort of stereotyping that is very un-PC these days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.13.116 ( talk) 20:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Does every article have to be written from the Northern point of view? Why can't information be presented as Southerners, the population in the South notices this overt bias. The slavery issue is settled, but Southerner's voices are NEVER heard in these articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:243B:9AF9:E466:B9A1:1082:4D16 ( talk) 13:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed 'Position- Right-wing' from the infobox. There appears to be a slow-burning edit war over this. In reading the article, it appears that the Copperheads held traditionalist viewpoints. But it is challenging to tie them to a specific ideology, at least from a modern perspective. If identified through a modern perspective, I think the Copperheads held both right-wing and left-wing views, like their opposition to central banking would be left wing and support for traditional agrarianism would be right wing. Since this is contentious and difficult to place on the political spectrum, I think the 'political ideology' identifiers is sufficient. Jip Orlando ( talk) 17:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)