Talk:Naming the American Civil War

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

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. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. 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 the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): American Civil War task force

Second American Revolution

Ward Moore used this term for the war in his alternate history novella Bring the Jubilee. Ironically, the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, would have opposed the term. In his first inaugural address, he claimed that the Southern states' secession was rightful and only "by abuse of language... [has] their act been denominated a revolution."[16] This seems out of place and can be deleted, in my opinion, without any harm to the article.Nitpyck (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I don't think we need fictional sources. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis's First Inaugural Address (as Provisional or Permanent President?) is not a fictional source. It would be an extremely reliable source (and one verifiable in multiple places and forms) if it indeed said that "only by abuse of language ... their act been denominated a revolution." —— Shakescene (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to Ward Moore's alternate history story, which is a work of fiction. There's no need for the article to include terms used in fiction. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"In Other Languages" Section Fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR

For international wars like the Seven Years War, the Napoleanic Wars, the two World Wars, yes, details of what those specific wars were called in countries that were combatants or were otherwise involved is expected. However, the American Civil War was solely a war between Americans, therefore the names given to it by uninvolved countries is not useful or germane to the discussion, and just clutters the article. Seriously - Latvian? - few if any Latvians were even aware that America was fighting a Civil War at the time; their later name for it is not important. Notice that the English Civil War article is not bogged down by a list of random foreign names for it. I removed this section once, my change was reverted with no other justification than "I don't think it is superfluous", so now I have deleted it again, and my policy basis for doing so is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", as well as "Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details". Before anyone considers readding this section, there should be discussion leading to consensus based on Wikipedia policy.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel strongly about the resolution of this issue, but here is the justification. The selection of the name for this war is a political statement in a manner that is not similar for the other wars you mentioned. For someone who believes that the southern states legally withdrew from the Union and that the Confederacy was a legitimate separate country, the term Civil War has negative connotations. Therefore, a few years ago some reviewers started mentioning alternative foreign names for the war to demonstrate that other countries did not all share common viewpoints about how the conflict should be interpreted. Whether people of a particular nationality were aware of the conflict in the 19th century is not really material because this is an issue of historiography, which continues to evolve. I personally do not think this is all that interesting, but some people might. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your description of the justification, but as I see it the section still fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Moreover, the section does not satisfy the motive you state reviewers had for mentioning the different names, as the section listed the different names for the war by language, not by country. For instance, Arabic - would Jordanians necessarily have similar views of the war that Syrians do, just because they share a language? Another is China - would mainland Chinese have the same view of the US Civil War that Taiwanese do? Or Spanish versus Bolivians? Or Cubans? So the section fails your justification for it. And if we were to go into the details of what this or that different county thought about the war, possibly snowballing into opposing views of different factions within those countries, we would end up with an overlong mess trying to explain how different people's differnt viewpoints of a war they took no part in shaped their names for it, when really, our civil war had little if any importance or even interest to most people in these foreign countries. Certainly the fact that all of these countries were uninvolved and unaware of our Civil War is material to the weight placed on the notability of their viewpoint and namer for our war in being discussed in this article.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm the editor behind that "I don't think this is superfluous" comment, and I stand by that opinion. However, I don't have really strong feelings about the section (I just don't think it's superfluous), so I have no problem going along with consensus either way. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

War of Southern Treason

I've seen "War of Southern Treason" used a number of times on the web (typically in response to someone using "War of Northern Aggression". Is this a notable enough term to be mentioned in the article (I don't know of any examples that would meet the reliable sources rule, but maybe someone else does).

(Also, given that the South shot first, I'm surprised I've never seen anyone use "War of Southern Aggression". (Or "War of NorthernSouthern Aggression", for emphasis)).Wardog (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can find reliable, published sources, I say go for it. But just because you've seen it used in internet forums, especially as a retort to "War of Northern Agression", I say these don't qualify for its inclusion.Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

While such a name would be apropos, considering the blatant aggression of the Slave Power not only in the opening of the war, but for the thirty years prior to it, I for one have never run across it used historically. The War of Southern Aggression, on the other hand, is indeed a specific phrase of that nature that one can find in published historical sources. Rogue 9 (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it referred to as the War of Confederate Aggression. (After all, it wasn't the North that fired on Fort Sumter.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.217.218 (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

War of Sec.

I know getting stats or authoritative citations is hard for a topic like this, but can some-one try to do so for War of Sec. the article currently indicates it is only uncommonly used, and then in the South. I wonder if this is true. If no one has support for the statement at the moment, could some-one please put a "ref needed" marker on it (I have no idea how to do that, otherwise I would). Kdammers (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)