Talk:C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 The Domination 2 "Criticism" section removed 3 Strange (vanity?) external links 4 offensive!!! 5 Reminded of 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Csa1.jpg

[edit] The Domination

I just added the series of books The Domination to "See also". It has a similar imperial theme in an alternate reality, although it deals with South Africa spreading, rather than the CSA. samwaltz 09:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that is an appropriate link? Alternative history involving a white supremacist state? Maybe I just answered my own question. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticism" section removed

The notice of unsourced comments posted by another editor did not get any reply, so I removed the "Criticism" section. This is a work of fiction and should not be analyzed as if it were a work of history. Also, the section made unsupported claims about what historians think a successful C.S.A. might have done next. Not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange (vanity?) external links

One of the external links is confederate apologetics from a blogger who actually did not see the movie. I *honestly* have no problem with confederate apologetics or pro-CSA alternate history, but it is odd to link from this entry. If we want to link to WP articles about various conceptions of the confederacy, or a something like that, I have no objection. But this link seems inappropriate because it is (1) Confederate apologetics (2) from someone who has no authority (3) who did not see the move in question (4) but who frames what he says as an "impression of CSA." The next time I return to this page I will remove that link unless someone will argue for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.152.162 (talk • contribs)

I for one thought the link was useful. It can be very difficult to find any intelligent discussion at all about little-known works of fiction. Many of the comments in his blog are from people who did see the movie. Certainly his views are not NPOV (though you misread them if you think they're "confederate apologetics"), but it's fine to have that in an external link. Redquark 19:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Redquark! I completely agree with you about intelligent discussion of works of fiction, but I think you can hardly discuss a work of fiction intelligent without reading/viewing it. Linking to it for the sake of *two comments* from people who saw the film would be stretching it. But as I said, if you insist I won't remove it. (And, by the way, I think I *did* understand his views. I think as a Canadian you may be unaware of a long American tradition of trying to make the connection between secession and slavery seem entirely coincidental through over-simplification and obfuscation. Like I said, there is a place for Confederate apologetics on WP (just like there is a place for the book "1421"), but it would only be appropriate to link to this person if his remarks were a reaction to having seen the movie or he had actual standing as an expert on American history.)

In all honesty, that shouldn't be listed as an external link, but should instead be used as a source for some type of "critical reaction" section for the article. EVula 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] offensive!!!

This movie is very one sided and shows the confederacy from a northern viewpoint! The war was not over slavery it was over southern independence, taxation, and the rights of the states and people. The north was only using slavery to justify thier senseless invasion of the south. I am a black man and my ancestor was a free black confederate who recieved equal pay, a voice, and kindness while serving in the confederacy. Trust me he didn't sighn up to defend slavery either, he sighned up to defend his famly, friends, home, and country, the Confederate States of America.69.19.14.15 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Jamal Byrd (anonymous IP 66.82.9.55)

Dude, this article is not the place to debate the Civil War in general (and in fact, Wikipedia is not the place to debate the Civil War in general), but you might want to consult the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy. Meanwhile, the criterion for what is and isn't a valid subject for a Wikipedia article is not what happens to offend you personally! AnonMoos 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great place to debate the War for Southern Independence. -- User:Truth Teacher

Then you need to consult WP:NOT. AnonMoos 00:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You can not judge the whole war on what one man says. -- User:Truth Teacher

However, that one man was the Vice President of the Confederacy systematically setting out the reasons for attempting to secede, in a public speech near the beginning of the attempted secession. AnonMoos 00:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you really wanna do that then look up the president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis, and also the Confederate Constitution would have outlawed the slave trade. -- User:Truth Teacher

The importation of slaves from Africa was prohibited (in a clause mainly meant to placate international opinion, and which was not actually much of a sacrifice, since the British Navy was the strongest constraint against large-scale resumption of the African slave-trade anyway). However, slavery in the individual states was explicitly entrenched and protected, and the inter-state slave trade continued. AnonMoos 00:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not like they needed to outlaw that anyway because the Confederacy never went and got a single slave during its whole existence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Truth Teacher (talk • contribs).

---

All this is rather irrelevant to the main point, which is that "C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America" is a movie which has received a fair amount of media coverage, and is therefore noteworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia -- regardless of how bogus you may think the premise of the movie is... AnonMoos 00:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reminded of

I just saw it on dvd yesterday, good or bad, it reminded of the 90's tv show Sliders. Anybody else, remember this show? Lugnut215 23:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with making this article better. Abeschr (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Csa1.jpg

Image:Csa1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)