This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
DYK nomination of Military of the Confederate States of America
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
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
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
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 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.
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.
@
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