Talk:Andersonville National Historic Site
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Old & unsigned discussion
The Southern Guards ate out of the same bakehouse that feed the prisoners. Their death rate, while in less numbers, were actually very close to the same in percentage. The seeming contradiction in the grave count is that they failed to state that the cemetary is still an active national cemetary in which Servicemen are still buried to this day. Pumabuck
This article doesn't strike me as particularly neutral. I kind of suspect that Southern whites ate dramatically better than Andersonville POWs, but I'll have to look it up. I suppose deaths of malnutrition among the guards is relevant to this; death by infectious disease, not so much. Boris B 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the link to Camp Sumpter since it just redirects back to the article on Andersonville. Ronduck 22:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)hi
There seems to be a contradiction: 12,913 dead, but 13,714 graves?
- I don't know if this is the compelete answer, but the National Cenetery part has some graves other than those from Andersonville Prision. Someone needs to expand on that. Bubba73 (talk), 15:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
This article needs to be organized, split into proper sections, and more extensively referenced. /Blaxthos 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More about POW Museum and National Cemetery
More needs to be said about the National POW Museum and the National Cemetery. Bubba73 (talk), 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Andersonville prison?
Why is this article titled "Andersonville National Historic Site" when clearly "Andersonville prison" (currently a redirect) is the more applicable term? In fact, shouldn't there be two separate articles, one for the prison (its history and controversy, etc) and one for its current status as a Historic Site? What are people's thoughts on the latter? María (habla conmigo) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Andersonville National Historic Site" is the official name. It includes the prison, the National Cemetary, and the Prisoner of War museum. More needs to be said about this. Bubba73 (talk), 00:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- In encyclopedic terms, the current official name is less important than how it is recognized by history. My Encyclopedia of the Civil War has an entry on Andersonville Prison, not Andersonville National Historic Site. :) The suggestion is that two separate articles are maintained, both of which can grow in separate ways: "Andersonville prison", which can include a section on the current state of the site's current National Historic status, and "Andersonville National Historic Site", which will contain the rest of it and further information when added. This sort of split has been done with other articles in which there appears to be a conflicting areas of coverage. María (habla conmigo) 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It is OK with me, but I have no references with which to write it. I was there two months ago, but I didn't get any literature or anything. There probably isn't much to be said about the Cemetery or Museum outside the article on the National Historic Site. But the prison could be split off. I'm not opposed to splitting it off. What do others think? You might ask on a History project or the Military History project. Bubba73 (talk), 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-

