Talk:The Civil War (miniseries)

message: The War (documentary) needs to be put into the box at the bottom of the Ken Burns film pages... don't know how to do it. --Bubba_Phat 2006 March 12 21:28
:On the off-change you'll check this page again: go to Template:Ken Burns films and edit it there. Stilgar135 19:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The War

message: From paragraph 2:  "No reenactors are used.".  From Episode 9: "The most memorable moment comes at the very end, with film of the 50th and 75th reunion of the Blue and the Gray at Gettysburg and a reenactment of Pickett's Charge."  Which is correct?  Ralphmerridew 13:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reenactors" in the opening paragraph refers to modern-day people who dress up as Civil War soldiers. The end of Ep. 9 features newsreel footage of Gettysburg veterans reenatcing the battle. Since the first links to an article about modern reenactors, it's alright to keep it in; I'll change the second to make it obvious that the veterans are reenacting. Stilgar135 16:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reenactment?

message: I'd like to put in a section on corrections or inaccuracies. I think this is needed after viewing the section about Gen. Lee's family: the documentary states that his father Henry Lee fled to the West Indies, implied that he deserted his family. He actually went there to recuperate after suffering wounds inficted by a mob. CFLeon 22:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another one for you: Episode 2: According to the frequently quoted/interviewed writer Shelby Foote "There were more casualties at Shiloh than at the Battle of Waterloo". Really? The French alone suffered more casualties at Waterloo than both sides did at Shiloh.1812ahill (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points. I would also add that some narrations are chronologically inconsistent. For example, at one point in Episode 1, the focus is on Bleeding Kansas, then on the Dred Scott Decision, then on Lincoln's quote about "alloy of hypocrisy", then on the Brooks attack on Sumner. The only snag is that the Dred Scott Decision was handed down in 1857, Lincoln's quote is from a letter he wrote to Joshua F. Speed in 1855, and the Brooks attack on Sumner was in 1856.Faux-pas Pete (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, my mistake; although Dred Scott was decided in March 1857, it had been initially argued in February 1856, three months before the Brooks attack. So, the only item slightly out of chronological order is the Lincoln quote.Faux-pas Pete (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections?

message: :Image:Civil war.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) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Civil war.jpg

message: The link to George Black needs to be removed since the George Black that the link directs to died nearly two decades before the filming of the documentary.
--Zappa2496 (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice work  

message: At the end of the first paragraph it says that a book following the movie has been released.  This needs a footnote to indicate the title and author(s) of the book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.78.220 (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Civil War (miniseries). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110212081011/http://www.jayandmolly.com/ashokanfaq.shtml to http://www.jayandmolly.com/ashokanfaq.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some anon users have been contesting the addition of a historiographical note to the lead, perhaps they would like to explain their reasoning here? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the anon user who removed that, but I'm inclined to agree that this is disproportionate, having read the linked Smithsonian article & the Spokane article.  Nobody contests that some historians dislike the documentary, but we're talking the equivalent of a few negative reviews compared to an absolute mountain of critical praise and acclaim.  Additionally, " perpetuation of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy myth" is over the top and disproportionate.  What people agree on is that historian's slants have changed since the 1980s, that Burns's documentary has a focus on military history, and that Burns gave a lot of time to Shelby Foote.  Those are all fair to bring up, but your additions go quite a bit farther than that.  The Smithsonian article is undoubtedly hostile, but you can't just base sweeping claims in the lede off one article that seems to go even farther than Foner did.  (And heck, even the Smithsonian article merely settles for "skews towards propagating the idea of the Lost Cause, often venerating Confederate officers and soldiers if not the Confederacy itself."  That's still not as strong as what you added in the lede, despite being from about the most hostile source.)   SnowFire (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the moment I have but a single sentence on it in the lead:  Otherwise, the lead is beyond glowing. I welcome suggestions to revise said inclusion. I don't have access to a copy of the historians book that criticized the series, perhaps adding that as a source would be helpful. The Smithsonian article does say , I'm open to suggestions on a better way to paraphrase that then "perpetuation of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy myth". CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simply untrue that the series doesn't cover "slavery as a cause of the war." The first episode, entitled "The Cause," makes abundantly clear that slavery was the root cause of the war. If anyone says otherwise, they either haven't watched the episode or watched it with such an overwhelming bias that they only saw what they wanted to see. For this reason I've removed the statement. Jjuoop (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiography in the lead