Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

The Last Days of Pompeii

2009-04-27T11:36:33Z

ANorris:

{{infobox book
| image =
| caption =
| name = The Last Days of Pompeii
| author = Edward Bulwer-Lytton
| language = English
| yearpublished = 1834
}}

'''''The Last Days of Pompeii''''' is an historical novel written in 1834 by Baron Edward Bulwer-Lytton.

== Overview ==

Bulwer-Lytton was inspired to write his work whilst touring [[Italy]], and becoming active during the excavations of the ruined city of [[Pompeii]] that were underway at the time. Bulwer-Lytton's involvement allowed his depiction of Pompeii to be accurate in detail, unlike later works.

== Plot ==

''The Last Days of Pompeii'' takes place in the town of [[Pompeii]] in 79 AD. The novel follows Glaucus, a slave from [[Greece]] who is a reformed [[Christian]]. As Christians were persecuted by the pagan Romans, Glaucus is hunted by his masters as he flees Pompeii, whose heathen residents are punished for their sins by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius.

== Film adaptation ==

An Italian film adaptation of the novel was made in 1913. It was a silent film and was one of few later adaptations to follow the novel faithfully.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0003489/</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External Links ==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1565 ''The Last Days of Pompeii'' at Project Gutenberg]

*[http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=title%3Alast%20days%20of%20pompeii%20-contributor%3Agutenberg%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts ''The Last Days of Pompeii'' at Internet Archive]

[[Category:Historical Dramas]]
[[Category:Novels]]

Four Feather Falls

2009-04-25T11:25:56Z

ANorris: /* Comics */

'''''Four Feather Falls''''' is a 1960 television series created by [[Gerry Anderson]], who would later acquire fame for shows such as ''[[Thunderbirds]]'', ''[[Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons]]'', ''[[Stingray]]'' and ''[[Fireball XL5]]''.

== Overview ==

The series takes place in the town of Four Feather Falls in [[Kansas]], sometime in the 19th century. The show revolved around '''Tex Tucker''', the town sheriff who could utilise four magic feathers given to him by a Red Indian chieftain in thanks for rescuing his son. These feathers Tex would use to stop the machinations of the devious outlaw '''Pedro''' and his partner '''Fernando'''.

== Cast ==

*[[Nicholas Parsons]] as '''Tex Tucker''', the sheriff of Four Feather Falls, Kansas, who is able to use four magical feathers given to him by a Red Indian when in danger. Two feathers allow his gun to fire by itself, whilst the other two allow his horse and his dog to speak English

*[[Denise Bryer]] as '''Ma Jones''', an elderly resident of the town, and '''Little Jake''', a young boy encapsulated by the stories about Tex

*[[Kenneth Connor]] as '''Rocky''', Tex's horse, '''Dusty''', Tex's dog, and outlaw '''Pedro'''. Connor would go on to become a star of the popular ''[[Carry On]]'' film series

*[[David Graham]] as '''Grandpa Twink''', Jake's kindly grandfather, and '''Fernando''', partner-in-crime with Pedro

== Production ==

The series was developed from an idea proposed by [[Barry Gray]], who composed all music for all of the [[Supermarionation]] series. Gray also wrote the script for a pilot episode, which was later developed into a series by [[Gerry Anderson]].

''Four Feather Falls'' was first broadcast on February 25, 1960 on ITV, and ran for 39 minutes (each at 13 minutes length) until November 17, 1960.

The show introduced an advanced form of puppetry that would later become known as [[Supermarionation]]. Despite showing many traits of the technique, ''Four Feather Falls'' is generally overlooked as a [[Supermarionation]] series as the term was not coined until Anderson's next project, ''[[Supercar]]''.

== Comics ==

The adventures of ''Four Feather Falls'' continued in comic-book form after the end of the series, running until 1962. The strips were drawn to deliberately resemble the original television series, thus making the characters seem bulky and surreal.<ref>http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Upload01/4FeatherFalls1.htm
</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/455659/ ''Four Feather Falls'' at the British Film Institute]

*[http://www.classickidstv.co.uk/wiki/Four_Feather_Falls ''Four Feather Falls'' at Classic Kids TV]

[[Category:Supermarionation]]
[[Category:Television Shows]]

Four Feather Falls

2009-04-25T11:25:20Z

ANorris:

'''''Four Feather Falls''''' is a 1960 television series created by [[Gerry Anderson]], who would later acquire fame for shows such as ''[[Thunderbirds]]'', ''[[Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons]]'', ''[[Stingray]]'' and ''[[Fireball XL5]]''.

== Overview ==

The series takes place in the town of Four Feather Falls in [[Kansas]], sometime in the 19th century. The show revolved around '''Tex Tucker''', the town sheriff who could utilise four magic feathers given to him by a Red Indian chieftain in thanks for rescuing his son. These feathers Tex would use to stop the machinations of the devious outlaw '''Pedro''' and his partner '''Fernando'''.

== Cast ==

*[[Nicholas Parsons]] as '''Tex Tucker''', the sheriff of Four Feather Falls, Kansas, who is able to use four magical feathers given to him by a Red Indian when in danger. Two feathers allow his gun to fire by itself, whilst the other two allow his horse and his dog to speak English

*[[Denise Bryer]] as '''Ma Jones''', an elderly resident of the town, and '''Little Jake''', a young boy encapsulated by the stories about Tex

*[[Kenneth Connor]] as '''Rocky''', Tex's horse, '''Dusty''', Tex's dog, and outlaw '''Pedro'''. Connor would go on to become a star of the popular ''[[Carry On]]'' film series

*[[David Graham]] as '''Grandpa Twink''', Jake's kindly grandfather, and '''Fernando''', partner-in-crime with Pedro

== Production ==

The series was developed from an idea proposed by [[Barry Gray]], who composed all music for all of the [[Supermarionation]] series. Gray also wrote the script for a pilot episode, which was later developed into a series by [[Gerry Anderson]].

''Four Feather Falls'' was first broadcast on February 25, 1960 on ITV, and ran for 39 minutes (each at 13 minutes length) until November 17, 1960.

The show introduced an advanced form of puppetry that would later become known as [[Supermarionation]]. Despite showing many traits of the technique, ''Four Feather Falls'' is generally overlooked as a [[Supermarionation]] series as the term was not coined until Anderson's next project, ''[[Supercar]]''.

== Comics ==

The adventures of ''Four Feather Falls'' continued in comic-book form after the end of the series, running until 1962. The strips were drawn to deliberately resemble the original television series, thus making the characters seem bulky and surreal. http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Upload01/4FeatherFalls1.htm

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/455659/ ''Four Feather Falls'' at the British Film Institute]

*[http://www.classickidstv.co.uk/wiki/Four_Feather_Falls ''Four Feather Falls'' at Classic Kids TV]

[[Category:Supermarionation]]
[[Category:Television Shows]]

Four Feather Falls

2009-04-25T11:24:42Z

ANorris: Created page with ''''''Four Feather Falls''''' is a 1960 television series created by Gerry Anderson, who would later acquire fame for shows such as ''Thunderbirds'', ''[[Captain Scarlet a...'

'''''Four Feather Falls''''' is a 1960 television series created by [[Gerry Anderson]], who would later acquire fame for shows such as ''[[Thunderbirds]]'', ''[[Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons]]'', ''[[Stingray]]'' and ''[[Fireball XL5]]''.

== Overview ==

The series takes place in the town of Four Feather Falls in [[Kansas]], sometime in the 19th century. The show revolved around '''Tex Tucker''', the town sheriff who could utilise four magic feathers given to him by a [[Red Indian]] chieftain in thanks for rescuing his son. These feathers Tex would use to stop the machinations of the devious outlaw '''Pedro''' and his partner '''Fernando'''.

== Cast ==

*[[Nicholas Parsons]] as '''Tex Tucker''', the sheriff of Four Feather Falls, Kansas, who is able to use four magical feathers given to him by a [[Red Indian]] when in danger. Two feathers allow his gun to fire by itself, whilst the other two allow his horse and his dog to speak English

*[[Denise Bryer]] as '''Ma Jones''', an elderly resident of the town, and '''Little Jake''', a young boy encapsulated by the stories about Tex

*[[Kenneth Connor]] as '''Rocky''', Tex's horse, '''Dusty''', Tex's dog, and outlaw '''Pedro'''. Connor would go on to become a star of the popular [[Carry On]] film series

*[[David Graham]] as '''Grandpa Twink''', Jake's kindly grandfather, and '''Fernando''', partner-in-crime with Pedro

== Production ==

The series was developed from an idea proposed by [[Barry Gray]], who composed all music for all of the [[Supermarionation]] series. Gray also wrote the script for a pilot episode, which was later developed into a series by [[Gerry Anderson]].

''Four Feather Falls'' was first broadcast on February 25, 1960 on ITV, and ran for 39 minutes (each at 13 minutes length) until November 17, 1960.

The show introduced an advanced form of puppetry that would later become known as [[Supermarionation]]. Despite showing many traits of the technique, ''Four Feather Falls'' is generally overlooked as a [[Supermarionation]] series as the term was not coined until Anderson's next project, ''[[Supercar]]''.

== Comics ==

The adventures of ''Four Feather Falls'' continued in comic-book form after the end of the series, running until 1962. The strips were drawn to deliberately resemble the original television series, thus making the characters seem bulky and surreal. http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Upload01/4FeatherFalls1.htm

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/455659/ ''Four Feather Falls'' at the British Film Institute]

*[http://www.classickidstv.co.uk/wiki/Four_Feather_Falls ''Four Feather Falls'' at Classic Kids TV]

[[Category:Supermarionation]]
[[Category:Television Shows]]

Mars

2009-04-25T11:21:56Z

ANorris: /* Other speculations on civilizations */

''For the [[Roman]] god of war, see [[Mars (god)]]''

{{Planet|image=Mars Viking.jpg
|caption=Mars photographed by [[Viking Orbiter]]s
|symbol=Mars symbol.svg
|discname=Known to ancients
|origname=Roman god of war
|order=4
|primary=Sun
|periapsis=206,620,000 km<ref name=marsfact>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html Mars Fact Sheet]." National Space Science Data Center, [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], November 29, 2007. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=249,230,000 km<ref name=marsfact/>
|semimajor=227,920,000 km<ref name=marsfact/>
|bode=1.6 AU
|circumference=1,429,033,627 km
|eccentricity=0.0935<ref name=marsfact/>
|sidereal=686.980 da<ref name=marsfact/>
|synodic=779.94 da<ref name=marsfact/>
|orbitspeed=24.077 km/s
|inclination=1.850°<ref name=marsfact/>
|reference=the ecliptic
|siderealday=24.6229 h<ref name=marsfact/>
|solarday=24.6597 h<ref name=marsfact/>
|rotatespeed=465.11 m/s
|axialtilt=25.19°<ref name=marsfact/>
|mass=6.4185 * 1023 kg<ref name=marsfact/>
|density=3,933 kg/m³<ref name=marsfact/>
|surfacegrav=3.71 m/s²<ref name=marsfact/>
|escapespeed=5.03 km/s<ref name=marsfact/>
|meanradius=3389.5 km<ref name=marsfact/>
|equatorradius =3396.2 km<ref name=marsfact/>
|polarradius=3376.2 km<ref name=marsfact/>
|surfacearea=144,800,000 km²
|mintemp=140 K<ref name=Arnett>Arnett, Bill. "[http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.html Entry for Mars]." ''The <s>Nine</s> 8 Planets'', September 26, 2006. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>
|meantemp=218 K<ref name=Arnett/>
|maxtemp=300 K<ref name=Arnett/>
|moons=2
|composition=Rock
|color=Red
|albedo=0.15<ref name=marsfact/>
|pmdm=2.1 * 1018 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''[[Creation Research Society Quarterly]]'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref>
|cmdm=1.51 * 1023 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mdt=535 a<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mhl=370.83 a<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
}}
'''Mars''' is the fourth planet from the [[Sun]], after [[Mercury]], [[Venus]], and [[Earth]]. It is called "The Red Planet" on account of the iron oxide that covers much of its suface.

== Ancient knowledge and naming ==
Mars has the [[Rome|Roman]] name of the classical god of war. This name in turn derives from the [[Greece|Greek]] name ''Ares'' for this god. (The traditional symbol of Mars is his shield and spear.) The ancient [[Egypt]]ians simply called Mars ''Her Descher'', or "the red one."<ref name=Hamilton>Hamilton, Calvin J. "[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/mars.htm Entry for Mars]." ''Views on the Solar System'', 2008. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref> The [[Hindu]]s call Mars Mangala, one of the Navagraha.<ref name=ucar>"[http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mythology/mangala.html&edu=high Mangala]." ''Windows to the Universe'', University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, University of Michigan, September, 2000. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref> The [[Maya]] people also tracked Mars regularly.

== Orbital characteristics ==
Mars is in a highly elliptical orbit around the Sun and maintains an average distance slightly more than 1.5 AU. The synodic period of Mars is roughly 26 months. This fact makes Mars a particularly difficult object to explore, because opportunities to launch a rocket probe to Mars occur so far apart in time.

== Rotational characteristics ==
Mars' sidereal and solar days are only slightly longer than the days of earth. This fact has led long-term Mars mission planners to adopt a permanent system for keeping time "local" to Mars. The first mission to use this "Mars solar clock" was [[Viking 1]] in 1976.<ref name=Allison>Allison, Michael, and Schmunk, Robert. "[http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/mars24/help/notes.html Technical Notes on Mars Solar Time as Adopted by the Mars24 Sunclock]." Goddard Institute for Space Studies, [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], May 20, 2008. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

== Physical characteristics ==
Mars is half the size of Earth and has about 11% of earth's mass. The large proportion of [[iron]] in Mars' clay-like topsoil gives Mars its distinctive color.

The weather on Mars is seasonal, on account of Mars's axial inclination. Yet because Mars's orbit is so eccentric, "summer" and "winter" on the northern and southern hemispheres can vary greatly. Temperatures vary from 140 K to 300 K, with an average temperature of 210 K. (The freezing point of [[water]] is 273.15 K.)

=== Atmosphere ===
Mars' atmosphere is quite thin and has an average pressure of 6.36 mb or 0.636% of that of earth. Its chief components are 95.32% [[carbon dioxide]], 2.7% [[nitrogen]], 1.6% [[argon]], 0.13% [[oxygen]], and 0.08% [[carbon monoxide]]. In addition it has trace amounts of [[water]] (210 ppm), [[nitrogen oxide]] (100 ppm), [[neon]] (2.5 ppm), hydrogen-deuterium oxide (HDO) (0.85 ppm), [[krypton]] (0.3 ppm), and [[xenon]] (0.08 ppm). Winds on Mars vary in speed from 2-7 m/s in summer to 5-10 m/s in fall, though the [[Project Viking]] landers have recorded winds varying from 17-30 m/s during dust storms that have swept past the landing sites.<ref name=marsfact/>

Recent warming trends on Mars, including an apparent partial melt of the polar ice caps, have led at least one scientist to question the widely circulating theories of [[global warming]] on earth. Specifically, Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, asserts that the sun, and not any activity specific to the earth, must be responsible for any warming observed on either planet.<ref name=ngs>Ravilious, Kate. "[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says]." ''National Geographic News'', National Geographic Society, February 28, 2007. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

=== Magnetosphere ===
Mars has a very weak magnetic field. Data from various missions has established an upper limit of 2.1 * 1018 N-m/T on the [[magnetic dipole moment]] of Mars. According to [[Russell Humphreys]]'s model of the creation of magnetic fields, Mars probably had a magnetic dipole moment ''at creation'' of 1.51 * 1023 N-m/T. Thus Mars's magnetic field has been decaying very rapidly. This tremendous decay, and the presence on [[Mercury]] of a magnetic field of significant strength, baffles [[astronomy|astronomers]] who have assumed that magnetic fields form on rapidly moving planets that have conductive and liquid cores that can act as dynamos. In fact, Humphreys asserts that the characteristic that determines which of the [[Terrestrial Planet|terrestrial planets]] will have a persistent magnetic field is the core radius, and that the cores of all four of these planets have similar conductivities. Mercury and Earth have larger cores than do Mars and Venus. The lengths of the sidereal days on those worlds do not matter.<ref name=Humphreys/>

=== Geology ===
[[Image:MarsTopoMap-PIA02031 modest.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Topographic map of Mars.]]
There is a dichotomy on the surface of Mars; the northern hemisphere consists of low-lying volcanic plains, with the southern hemisphere consists of ancient, heavily-cratered highland plains. Mars also has two volcanic regions: Tharsis and Elysium. Within the Tharsis region is the largest volcano in the solar system, [[Olympus Mons]]. Olympus Mons is approximately 500 km across and is about the same size as the state of Arizona. Its peak is 24 km above the surrounding plains and it is surrounded by a vertical scarp 6 km high. A large canyon system, Valles Marineris, is located along the Martian equator east of the Tharsis region. Valles Marineris is 2-6km deep and 200-600km wide and approximately 4,500 km long (approximately the distance from San Francisco to Boston). The eastern part of Valles Marineris appears to have a tectonic origin, but the western part is characterized by features such as teardrop islands and longitudinal grooves, indicating it may have been formed by catastrophic flooding in the past. Such flooding may be possible under current climate conditions. Run-off channels in the cratered highland indicate a thicker atmosphere or warmer climate in the past that would have allowed water to be stable on the surface.

Recent satellite imagery has shown that Mars has a 3 kilometre deep ice cap around its polar regions. The northern polar region is surrounded by [[dune]] fields. During the Martian winter, a layer of carbon dioxide condenses at the poles and sublimates in the summer, leaving the water-ice and dust polar caps exposed. The ratio of dust to water-ice contained in the polar caps remains unknown.
[[Image:F035a72_processed.jpg|thumb|100px|left|Cydonia Mensae, home of the alleged "face on Mars."]]
Persistent rumors tell of a "face on Mars," allegedly located in the Cydonia Mensae region at coordinates 40.9°N and 9.45°W. This alleged "face" is located in the midst of several pyramids and other mountains. Prevailing opinion at NASA is that the "face" is a trick of the eye due to the unusual lighting conditions.<ref name=faq>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetaryfaq.html#Mars Frequently Asked Questions - Planetary - Mars]." National Space Science Data Center, [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], January 2, 2008. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

=== Water on Mars ===
[[Image:Weeping_100.jpg|thumb|120px|right|Multiple gullies in a south-facing wall in the Gorgonum Chaos region on Mars]]
Mars cannot have liquid water on its surface. The thin atmosphere does not permit this, even during high summer on Mars. Yet the [[Mars Global Surveyor]] mission in June 2000 took photographs of gully-like formations on several precipices and crater walls on Mars. These formations tend to occur between 30° and 70° north and south latitude. Mission analysts further suggest that these formations are relatively fresh and estimate that liquid water might be found less than 500 meters beneath the surface.<ref name=msss>"[http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/ MOC Images Suggest Recent Sources of Liquid Water on Mars]." Malin Space Science Systems, June 22, 2000. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

More recently, NASA's latest mission, the [[Phoenix lander]], has discovered what appears to be water ice very near the surface near Mars' north pole. Furthermore, analysis of a cubic meter of soil at this site reveals that the soil is far more [[alkali]]ne than expected, and has tolerable levels of salt and low levels of [[calcium]]. Investigators have even suggested that the soil might support the growth of an Earth vegetable, like [[asparagus]].<ref name=courier>"[http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23932393-5013016,00.html Scientists find soil on Mars good enough to grow asparagus]." ''The Courier Mail'', June 28, 2008. Accessed June 30, 2008.</ref>

== Life on Mars ==
The possibility that [[extraterrestrial life]] exists, or has existed, on Mars has been the subject of persistent scientific speculation for decades. The earliest speculation concerned a possible civilization on Mars,<ref name=Hamilton/> this after Percival Lowell theorized that the straight lines that several astronomers had seen on Mars were in fact artificial constructs, and specifically canals.<ref name=canals>"[http://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/tharsis/canals.html The canals of Mars--historical note]." Goddard Space Flight Center, [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], n.d. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref> Lovell popularized his theory as early as 1906, and for a long time the suspicion of a non-human civilization native to Mars would find repeated expression in novels and dramatic presentations. Only with the first successful explorations of Mars would the scientific community, and the public, abandon that theory.

Current speculation concerns the possible finding of [[microbe]]s. These would be [[extremophile]]s, or microbes that survive and even grow in environments lethal to other forms of life. Direct attempts to find such life began in 1976 with the [[Viking 1]] and [[Viking 2]] landers. To date no positive sign of life on Mars has been found. The Viking landers found evidence of unexplained chemical activity, but no clear evidence of microbes. Whether the Viking landers would have been able to detect extremophiles, a concept unknown to the Viking mission planners, is unclear.<ref name=Hamilton/>

The [[astrobiology|astrobiologists]] involved with [[Project Viking]] suspect that Mars might be an inherently inhospitable environment for life. Ultraviolet light from the sun shines unchecked on Mars, on account of Mars' thin atmosphere and weak magnetic field. The soil of Mars is also very dry, and the soil has a high proportion of oxidizing agents.<ref name=Hamilton/>

== Problem for uniformitarian theories ==
The most formidable current problem that Mars poses for uniformitarians today is that its magnetic field is weak and inconsequential, while a planet (Mercury) of little more than half its weight does have a significant magnetic field. According to current theory, planets derive their magnetic fields by dynamo action. This requires fast rotation and liquid cores. Mars and Earth have comparable sidereal days, but Earth's magnetic field is strong enough to protect Earth from the [[solar wind]], while that of Mars is not. Mercury has a far longer sidereal day than Mars has, and yet Mercury has a significant magnetic field while Mars has none.

== Young Mars Creation model. ==
[[Image:Meridiani Planum.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Meridiani Planum region of Mars.]]

Discoveries by the [[Mars Excursion Rover]] ''Opportunity'' have led to a Young Mars Creation model of Martian geology. These discoveries combine with data from the rest of Mars to indicate a massive Martian catastrophe.

Since ''Opportunity'' landed in the Meridiani Planum region of Mars it has sent back findings showing that the area was once underwater and that the water was vary acidic. This high concentration of [[sulfuric acid]] militates against this being a habitable sea. The entire Meridiani Planum region has much evidence of catastrophic flooding, including a clear inlet channel to the southeast and a splash zone in the north.

Mars contains the largest of three major geologic features in the Solar System. The largest impact basin, the largest volcanoes and the largest canyon are all found on Mars and in a clear relationship to each other. This relationship provides the key to understanding Martian geology.

[[Image:Mars topography.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Mars' global topography, and the relationship between the Hellas impact basin and the Tharsis volcanoes.]]Mars’ largest impact basin is called Hellas. As shown in the topography map, on exactly the other side of Mars from Hellas is Mount Alba Patera, the largest volcano by surface area. This antipodal juxtaposition suggests that the Hellas impact caused the eruptions of Alba Patera and the volcanoes of the Tharsis plateau to the south and southwest. To the east is found the gigantic rift valley called Valles Marineris.

These relationships indicate a major geologic catastrophe on Mars resulting in massive volcanic activity. The dating of this event from craters places it at about the time of the [[Great Flood]] on [[Earth]]. This volcanic activity would have increased Mars’s atmospheric pressure to allow liquid water to flow on the surface and thus allow the flooding of the Meridiani Planum region.

This shows that, like Earth, Mars has evidence that it is only a few thousands of years old and not 4.6 billion years old.<ref name=creager>Creager, Charles, Jr. "[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/mars-testament-catastrophe Mars, a Testament to Catastrophe]." ''Answers Research Journal'' 1 (2008): 89–93. Accessed September 23, 2008.</ref>

== Mars in popular culture ==
Mars has figured prominently in [[science fiction]] in the Western world for more than a century.

=== The War of the Worlds ===
The first novel speculating on a civilization on Mars was ''The War of the Worlds'' by [[H. G. Wells]], in 1897. Wells' Martians had a military strength that human civilization could not match, but ultimately perished after contracting various [[infectious disease]]s caused by microbes native to Earth to which the Martians effectively had no defense.

In 1938, actor/director [[Orson Welles]] and his Mercury Theater produced a [[radio]] drama based on this novel. Welles updated the novel to his own period but otherwise remained faithful to the source material. The broadcast created such a panic in the [[United States]] that Welles was compelled to order a broadcast disclaimer in mid-show and, at the end of the show, personally assure his listeners that no such thing as an extraterrestrial invasion had taken place.<ref name=Hamilton/>

H. G. Wells' novel would inspire two [[motion picture]] projects and one [[television]] series.

=== Other speculations on civilizations ===
Author [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] published several novels speculating on an elaborate civilization on Mars to which humans traveled, but which was not bent on invading the earth. Author [[C. S. Lewis]], in his novel ''Out of the Silent Planet'', envisioned Mars as the home of three races of non-fallen beings that were instructed to regard the earth as off-limits on account of man's [[fall of man|fallen nature]].

With the abandonment of the Lowell canal theory, science fiction authors and dramatists envisioned Mars as home to a human colony, such as the situation in the television series ''[[Terrahawks]]''. But at least one motion-picture producer saw Mars as a place that very ancient [[astronaut]]s had once visited. These astronauts, according to this scenario, left behind some advanced equipment that a human rebel was subsequently able to use to give Mars a breathable atmosphere and thus facilitate the Martian colony's liberation from the civilization of earth, which in the story had become venal and tyrannical.

=== Speculation on microbes ===
Authors [[John B. Olson]] and [[Randall S. Ingermanson]] have recently speculated (''[[Oxygen (novel)|Oxygen]]'' and ''[[The Fifth Man]]'') about the finding of microbes on Mars, and the implications that such a discovery would hold for the [[Christianity|Christian]] faith and the possible "back-contamination" of the earth when the crew that found the microbes returned to earth.

== Observation and exploration ==
Observation of Mars has been ongoing since the ancients noted its existence and its movements. The invention of the telescope provoked the first serious study of Mars as a celestial object, and not a prophetic sign. Yet not all of this observation led to proper inferences. Percival Lowell's canal theory would lead to more than half a century of vain speculation on extraterrestrial civilization before the first successful exploratory missions would return evidence forcing the abandonment of that theory.

Mars has been the subject of more attempts to explore it, and more failures, than any other planet. Of approximately 37 separate missions to Mars, only 13 have had any success. The planetary scientists of the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]], so successful in exploring [[Venus]], experienced ten mission failures before achieving their first success, seven years after the [[United States]] achieved success with its [[Mariner 4]] mission. That Soviet mission, [[Mars 3]] in 1971, succeeded in placing a lander on Mars, but the lander's system transmitted for only 20 seconds before failing.

In 1975, [[Project Viking]] achieved the most notable success by placing two orbiters and two landers on Mars. Neither nation would attempt any further missions to Mars until 1988, when the Soviets lost one craft en route and lost contact with the other ([[Phobos 2]] seconds after its rendezvous with Mars's inner [[moon]] [[Phobos]]. Nor was the United States' program immune to failure; its ''Mars Observer'' vessel was lost prior to arrival after some propulsion systems failed.<ref name=faq/>

In 1996 the [[Mars Global Surveyor]] enjoyed the most success to date, returning more images than all previous missions combined. In that same year, the United States landed the first mobile explorer, or "rover," called the [[Mars Pathfinder]].

The United States would, unfortunately, lose the next two successive craft that it sent to Mars. But its [[Mars Odyssey]] would arrive intact in 2001 and send back the first high-resolution images. Two years later the [[European Space Agency]] would successfully place its [[Mars Express]] orbiter in the Martian system; sadly, its associated landing craft would crash-land. The Mars Express orbiter continues in orbit around Mars.<ref name=esa>"[http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/ Mars Express home page]." European Space Agency. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

[[Image:Mcmurdopan_spirit_big.jpg|thumb|left|150px||360 degree panorama from mars rover ''Spirit''.]]
The most successful missions to date have been the Mars Excursion Rover missions. Two of these sophisticated mobile robots, named ''Spirit'' and ''Opportunity'', launched in 2003 and arrived safely on Mars about six months later, on opposite sides of the planet. They have been running for four years now, at least fifteen times longer than they were warranted to run. The Opportunity rover has been taking pictures of the Victoria Crater, and Spirit has been photographing the Esperanza formation which contains "vesicular" basalt (characterized by multiple cavities representing dissolved gas escaping from solution during a volcanic eruption).<ref name=David>David, Leonard. "[http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/061228_rovers_update.html Mars Rovers: On the Roll to New Targets]." ''Space.com'' December 28, 2006. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

On May 26, 2008, NASA placed a polar lander on Mars for the first time: the [[Phoenix lander]]. As of June 28, 2008, the Phoenix lander is functioning well and has already discovered water ice where it landed. Contrary to prior understandings, the Phoenix lander has found an alkaline soil that might be suitable for growing Earth vegetables.

At least one non-governmental group, calling itself the Mars Society, has been actively studying technologies appropriate to send a crew of from four to six astronauts to Mars for a roughly two-year stay.<ref name=marssoc>[http://www.marssociety.org/portal The Mars Society] global and USA portal. Accessed May 27, 2008.</ref>

==Satellites==
Mars has two moons: [[Phobos]] and [[Deimos]] (which respectively mean "Fear and "Panic" in [[Greek]]). Russian scientists in the 1950s posited that Phobos might be hollow, but these claims were discredited in the late 1960s.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

== Related Links ==
* [http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/log/ NASA Historical Log: Missions to Mars]
* [http://www.space.com/mars/ Space.com] All About Mars
* [http://www.google.com/mars/ Google Mars], an interactive topographical map
* [http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/solar_system_level2/mars.html Mars: the Red Planet] by Starchild, an educational service of NASA.
* [http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/ War of the Worlds] commemorative site.

*[http://www.solarviews.com/eng/terms.htm Glossary]

{{solarsystem}}
[[Category:Mars]]

Baghdad

2009-04-23T11:55:08Z

ANorris:

'''Baghdad''' is the capital city of [[Iraq]]. There are about 4.5 million people currently living in the city, with 8 million in the metropolitan area. It should be noted that these statistics are from 2004, and the [[War in Iraq]] may have altered these numbers. Baghdad is situated in the interior of the country on the river Tigris.

Bagdad was founded in the 145th year of the Hejira or flight of Mohammed to Medina, 767. It was destroyed by Hulakoo, grandson of Gengis Khan, in the 656th of the Hejira, A.D. 1277, when the dynasty of the Ambassides was terminated. [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19860/19860-h/19860-h.htm#THE_ARABIAN_NIGHTS}

== See also ==

*''[[Whoops Baghdad!]]'' - A comedy television series set in Medieval Baghdad

[[Category:Asian Cities and Towns]]

British Empire

2009-04-23T11:30:31Z

ANorris:

[[Image:BritishEmpire1921.png|thumb|right|350px|The world in 1921, with British Empire shown in pink]]

The '''British Empire''' was a global empire acquired and ruled by the [[Kingdom of Great Britain]] (or, from 1801 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, called "Great Britain" or "Britain" in historical studies.

At its peak, in 1914 it contained a quarter of the world's land area (with emphasis on Australia and Canada) and more than a
fourth of the world's population (with emphasis on India). Imperialists often boasted, "The sun never set on the British Empire," for it included parts of every continent. The Empire was held together by a highly professional bureaucracy based in London, and by the world's most powerful navy, the Royal Navy, which enlarged its power by creating naval bases and coaling stations in many of the colonies.
==History==
Its origins can be dated to the English discovery of [[Newfoundland]] in 1493, and its voluntary end began in 1947 (when [[India]] was granted independence), and peaked in the 1960s (when Britain withdrew from most of its remaining colonies). The last stages came as recently as 1997 (when [[Hong Kong]], the last major colony, was returned to [[China|Chinese]] rule).
==Settlement==
Millions of Britons migrated and settled some of the Empire--especially the 13 American colonies, Canada (and Newfoundland), Australia, New Zealand and (in part), South Africa. Some settlers came as prisoners, especially to Australia. Others came as slaves, especially to the West Indies and the 13 American colonies.
[[Image:B-Emp-1763.jpg|thumb|375px]]

In the rest of the Empire Britain sent in soldiers, administrators, businessmen and missionaries on temporary duty, as in India and Africa, along with a relatively small number of permanent settlers.
==Economics==
After 1689 England created the world's first modern financial and banking system. The City of London, where finance was and is still based, became the financier to the world, providing short-term credit for trade and long-term credit for investment. By 1810 Britain also had its [[Industrial Revolution]], which produced a flow of high-quality low-cost, textiles, machines and other products that could be sold worldwide. As the leading force in finance and manufacturing, and as the world's dominant naval power, Britain could easily expand across the globe, and did so. In general, in Latin America and China the expansion did not involve colonies.<ref> The British set up a new colony in Hong Kong that became its base for expansion into the China market. Otherwise China remained independent. There were two small colonies on the mainland of Latin America, but they were not very important.</ref> In Africa and Asia new or enlarged colonies were the method used.

Britain's greatest exports were modernization of the economy, and fostering a cosmopolitan attitude toward government, business, law and civic duty, as opposed to local support for traditional rulers and customs. The Empire brought each colony a modern infrastructure, with new roads, railways, ports, banks, post offices and telegraph systems that any modern person could use. Cain and Hopkins (2001) argue that British imperialism was not a form of plunder that hurt the economies they took over; rather, it primarily modernized the territories it controlled.<ref> See Cain and Hopkins, ''British Imperialism'' (2001)</ref>

==1914==
In its heyday, the British Empire was the largest empire in history: by 1914, the eve of the [[First World War]], it spanned a quarter of the world's total land mass (though much of this consisted of vast, uninhabited areas of northern Canada and Australia). Its constituent parts included [[India]], [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], Malaya (now [[Malaysia]] and [[Singapore]]), [[South Africa]], [[Egypt]], [[Nigeria]], [[Kenya]], [[Uganda]] and [[Hong Kong]]. The saying used to be that the sun never sets on the British Empire.
==Dissolution==
The various parts of the Empire were granted independence by London (peacefully usually, sometimes otherwise) at different times. The thirteen American colonies that formed the original [[United States of America]] declared their freedom in 1776 and, with France, defeated the British in a major war. Most of [[Ireland]] went its separate way in 1922. The remaining "settler colonies" that were inhabited mainly by white people of British descent were formally granted self-government in 1931, though they had been self-governing for some years prior to that date. The remaining colonies were granted independence in the decades following the [[Second World War]], and the last remaining colony of importance, Hong Kong, left British rule in 1997 after a long lease with China expired.

Most former colonies are members of the [[Commonwealth of Nations]] and many of them, such as Canada and Australia, still have the the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch.

Fourteen small territories that formed part of the Empire, such as the [[Cayman Islands]], [[Bermuda]], [[Anguilla]], the [[Falkland Islands]] and [[St. Helena]], remain under British rule today. They are legally known as the "British Overseas Territories".
==Historic regions==
===United States===
Although American historians have always paid attention to the negative causes of the revolt by which the 13 colonies broke away from the Empire, in the early 20th century the "Imperial School," including [[Herbert L. Osgood]], [[George Louis Beer]], [[Charles M. Andrews]] and [[Lawrence Gipson]] took a highly favorable view of the benefits achieved by the economic integration of the Empire.<ref>Ian Tyrrell, "Making Nations/Making States: American Historians in the Context of Empire," ''Journal of American History,'' Vol. 86, No. 3, (Dec., 1999), pp. 1015-1044 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2568604 in JSTOR]</ref> For a good sample of the school see George Louis Beer, ''The Old Colonial System, 1660-1754'' (1913) [http://books.google.com/books?id=2KkJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:george+inauthor:beer&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 full text online].
===India===
A raging debate continues regarding the good-or-bad economic impact of British imperialism on India. The issue was raised by conservative leader [[Edmund Burke]] who in the 1780s vehemently attacked the East India Company, claiming that Warren Hastings and other top officials had ruined the Indian economy and society. Indian historian Rajat Kanta Ray (1998) continues this attack, saying the new economy brought by the British in the 18th century was a form of "plunder" and a catastrophe for the traditional economy of Mughal India. Ray accuses the British of depleting the food and money stocks and imposing high taxes that helped cause the terrible famine of 1770, which killed a third of the people of Bengal.<ref>Rajat Kanta Ray, "Indian Society and the Establishment of British Supremacy, 1765-1818," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 508-29</ref>

On the other hand, P. J. Marshall shows that recent scholarship has reinterpreted the received view that the prosperity of the formerly benign Mughal rule gave way to poverty, and anarchy. Marshall argues the British takeover did not make any sharp break with the past. British control was delegated largely through regional Mughal rulers and was sustained by a generally prosperous economy for the rest of the 18th century. Marshall notes the British went into partnership with Indian bankers and raised revenue through local tax administrators, and kept the old Mughal rates of taxation.<ref>Professor Ray agrees that the East India Company inherited an onerous taxation system that took one-third of the produce of Indian cultivators.</ref> Instead of the Indian nationalist account of the British as alien aggressors, seizing power by brute force and impoverishing all of India, Marshall presents the interpretation, supported by many scholars in both India and the West, in which the British were not in full control but instead were players in what was primarily an Indian play and in which their rise to power depended upon excellent cooperation with Indian elites. Marshall admits that much of his interpretation is still rejected by many historians working in India today, who prefer to bash the British.<ref>P.J. Marshall, "The British in Asia: Trade to Dominion, 1700-1765," in ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: vol. 2, The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall, (1998), pp 487-507</ref>
==Slavery==
One of the most controversial aspects of the Empire is its role in first promoting and then ending slavery. In the 18th century British merchant ships were the largest element in the "Middle Passage" which transported millions of slaves to the Western Hemisphere. Most wound up in the Caribbean, where the Empire had highly profitable sugar colonies, and the living conditions were bad. (The plantation owners lived in Britain.) Parliament ended the the international transportation of slaves in 1807, and used the Royal Navy to enforce that ban. In 1833 it bought out the plantation owners for cash and officially banned slavery. Historians before the 1940s argued that moralistic reformers such as [[William Wilberforce]] and the Evangelical Protestants (especially Methodists) were primarily responsible.

Historical revisionism arrived when West Indian historian [[Eric Williams]] in ''Capitalism and Slavery'' (1944), rejected this moral explanation and substituted a [[Marxist]] interpretation. He argued that abolition was now more profitable, for a century of sugar cane raising had exhausted the soil of the islands, and the plantations had become unprofitable. It was more profitable to sell the slaves to the government than to keep up operations. The 1807 prohibition of the international trade, Williams argued, prevented French expansion on other islands. Meanwhile British investors turned to Asia, where labor was so plentiful that slavery was unnecessary. Williams went on to argue that slavery played a major role in making Britain prosperous. The high profits from the slave trade, he said, helped finance the [[Industrial Revolution]]. By implication, Britain enjoyed prosperity because of the capital extracted from the unpaid work of slaves.

More recently historians have challenged Williams. They have shown that slavery remained profitable in the 1830s because of innovations in agriculture, so the profit motive was not central to abolition.<ref> J.R. Ward, "The British West Indies in the Age of Abolition," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 415-39.</ref> Richardson (1998) finds Williams's claims regarding the Industrial Revolution are greatly exaggerated, for profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of total domestic investment in Britain. Richardson further challenges claims (by African scholars) that the slave trade caused widespread depopulation and economic distress in Africa--indeed that it caused the "underdevelopment" of Africa. Admitting the horrible suffering of the slaves themselves, he notes that many Africans benefited directly, because the first stage of the trade was always firmly in the hands of Africans. European slave ships waited at ports to purchase cargoes of people who were captured in the hinterland by African dealers and tribal leaders. Richardson finds that the "terms of trade" (how much the ship owners paid for the slave cargo) moved heavily in favor of the Africans after about 1750. That is, indigenous elites inside West and Central Africa made large and growing profits from slavery, thus increasing their wealth and power.<ref> David Richardson, "The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660-1807," in P.J. Marshall, ed. ''The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century'' (1998) pp 440-64.</ref>

==Further reading==
* Bayly, C. A. ed. ''Atlas of the British Empire'' (1989). survey by scholars; heavily illustrated
* Beinart, William, and Lotte Hughes. ''Environment and Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion) (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Environment-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/0199260311/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224385647&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Black, Jeremy. ''The British Seaborne Empire'' (2004)
* Brendon, Piers. "A Moral Audit of the British Empire." ''History Today'', (Oct 2007), Vol. 57 Issue 10, pp 44-47, online at [[EBSCO]]
* Brendon, Piers. ''The Decline and Fall of the British Empire, 1781-1997'' (2008)
* Bryant, Arthur. ''The History of Britain and the British Peoples'', 3 vols. (1984–90), popular.
* Cain, P. J. and A.G. Hopkins. ''British Imperialism, 1688-2000'' (2nd ed. 2001), 739pp, detailed economic history that presents the new "gentlemanly capitalists" thesis [http://www.amazon.com/British-Imperialism-Crisis-Deconstruction-1914-1990/dp/058220965X/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/24219275?title=British%20Imperialism%3a%20Innovation%20and%20Expansion%2c%201688-1914 full text online]
* Colley, Linda. ''Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850'' (2004), 464pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0385721463/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Dalziel, Nigel. ''The Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire'' (2006), 144 pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0141018445/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpts and online search from amazon.com]
* Etherington, Norman. ''Missions and Empire'' (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Missions-Empire-History-British-Companion/dp/019925348X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224385647&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search], on Protestant missions
* Ferguson, Niall. ''Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power'' (2002), [http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Demise-British-Lessons-Global/dp/0465023290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196061626&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by a conservative scholar
* Hyam, Ronald. ''Britain's Imperial Century, 1815-1914: A Study of Empire and Expansion'' (1993). [http://www.amazon.com/Britains-Imperial-Century-1815-1914-Expansion/dp/033399311X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196061553&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* James, Lawrence. ''The Rise and Fall of the British Empire'' (1997).
* Johnson, Robert. ''British Imperialism.'' (2003) 284pp; good, short introduction to the major issues
* Judd, Denis. ''Empire: The British Imperial Experience, From 1765 to the Present'' (1996). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6969240 online edition]
* Lloyd; T. O. ''The British Empire, 1558-1995'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=27709944 online edition]
* Louis, William Roger (general editor), ''The Oxford History of the British Empire'', 5 vols. (1998–99).
** vol 1 "The Origins of Empire" ed. by Nicholas Canny
** vol 2 "The Eighteenth Century" ed. by P. J. Marshall [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Eighteenth/dp/0199246777/ref=sr_1_3/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
** vol 3 ''The Nineteenth Century'' edited by William Roger Louis, Alaine M. Low, Andrew Porter; (1998). 780 pp.. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98650583 online edition], also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Nineteenth/dp/0199246785/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]
** vol 4 ''The Twentieth Century'' edited by Judith M. Brown, (1998). 773 pp. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104728347 online edition] also [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Twentieth/dp/0199246793/ref=sr_1_13/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-13 excerpt and text search]
** vol 5 "Historiography" ed, by Robin W. Winks (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-British-Empire-Historiography/dp/0199246807/ref=sr_1_25/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842573&sr=8-25 excerpt and text search]
* Marshall, P. J. (ed.), ''The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire'' (1996). [http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Illustrated-History-British-Empire/dp/0521002540/ref=sr_1_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191842268&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search]
* Olson, James S. and Robert S. Shadle; ''Historical Dictionary of the British Empire'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58315322 online edition]
* Porter, A. N. ''Atlas of British Overseas Expansion'' (1994)
* Robinson, Howard . ''The Development of the British Empire'' (1922), 465pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=woRdQlGbL_oC&dq=intitle:british+intitle:empire+date:1900-1924&num=30 online edition]
* Rose, J. Holland, ed. ''Cambridge History of the British Empire: vol 1: The Old Empire from the Beginnings to 1783'' (1929) [http://www.questia.com/read/99039834?title=The%20Cambridge%20History%20of%20the%20British%20Empire online edition]
* Smith, Simon C. ''British Imperialism 1750-1970'' (1998). brief

====Notes====
<references/>

=== See also ===

*''[[The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World]]''

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

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

2009-04-22T12:16:49Z

ANorris: /* Plot */

'''''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America''''' is a 2004 [[United States|American]] film written and directed by [[Kevin Willmott]]. The film takes place in an alternate universe in which the [[Confederate States of America]] won the [[American Civil War]].

== Plot ==

The film is presented as though it were a [[United Kingdom|British]] documentary (actually titled ''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America'') being presented on a Confederate television network. The documentary is apparently controversial due to its disagreement with orthodox American views of American history, but is being shown in its entirety by popular demand. There are also short commercial breaks advertising racist products - some of which were real-life American products, including ''Darkie Toothpaste''<ref>
http://www.toothpasteworld.com/specials.htm</ref> and the ''Coon Chicken Inn'' restaraunt chain<ref>http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/chicken/</ref>.

=== American Civil War ===

The documentary segments detail the history of America from the [[American Civil War]] to the present day. The chief turning-point, however, is the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], which - thanks to the successful diplomacy of Judah P. Benjamin - includes [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] troops fighting with the Confederacy, thus turning the tide in favour of the South.

The Union forces later surrender to the Confederacy, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] is arrested after attempting to flee to [[Canada]] in blackface. After serving two years imprisonment, Lincoln is pardoned (in an effort to appease the conquered North) and is exiled to [[Canada]], where he dies of old age.

=== Consolidation ===

Meanwhile, [[Jefferson Davis]] brings the North into the Confederate way of life by introducing a tax on Northerners that is alleviated by the purchase of slaves, and is supported by a series of novelists who romanticize the events of the Civil War, ignoring the true events and focussing on tragic love stories between Northerners and Southerners. At the same time, an attempt to seperate the church from the state fails, and any non-Christian religions are outlawed in the CSA, although a small [[Judaism|Jewish]] community is permitted to settle on [[Long Island]].

=== American-Mexican War ===

By 1900, the CSA has adopted an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] agenda, hoping to compete with both the [[British Empire]] and the [[German Empire]] by invading [[Mexico]]. The conquest drags on longer than expected, thus preventing the CSA from entering the [[First World War]], which still ends with German defeat despite a lack of American involvement. However, the conflict in [[Mexico]] ends in Confederate victory, and Mexican citizens are racially segregated from white Americans living in the country.

=== War with Japan ===

In 1929, the CSA retreats into isolationism following the Wall Street Crash, but is able to overturn the depression by revitalising its slave trade. The CSA also begins friendly relations with [[Adolf Hitler]] in [[Germany]], but disagrees with Hitler's Final Solution, thinking it to be a waste of potential slave-stock. Instead, the CSA launches an unprovoked attack on the [[Japan]] in 1941, claiming that Japanese power endangered the CSA's position in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. By "the grace of God" (the Atomic Bomb), the war is quickly brought to a close, with Germano-Japanese defeat (the same outcome as our [[Second World War]]).

=== Cold War ===

Afterwards, the CSA enters a [[Cold War]] with "Red [[Canada]]" following a rise in anti-[[Abolitionism|Abolitionist]] sentiment in the Confederacy. A "[[Iron Curtain|Cotton Curtain]]" is erected along the Canadian-American border, and tensions continue into the 1990's, when the [[Cold War]] draws to a close.

=== Modern Day ===

The documentary ends in the modern day, with the CSA fighting in [[Iraq]] against the "[[Taliban|Muslim Menace]]", and an upcoming election for the Presidency of the CSA that may or may not change the course of Confederate history once more.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.csathemovie.com/ Official Movie Website]

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ Entry at the Internet Movie Data Base]

*[http://www.allmovie.com/work/301340 Entry at allmovie]

[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

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

2009-04-22T12:14:47Z

ANorris: /* American-Mexican War */

'''''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America''''' is a 2004 [[United States|American]] film written and directed by [[Kevin Willmott]]. The film takes place in an alternate universe in which the [[Confederate States of America]] won the [[American Civil War]].

== Plot ==

The film is presented as though it were a [[United Kingdom|British]] documentary (actually titled ''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America'') being presented on a Confederate television network. The documentary is apparently controversial due to its disagreement with orthodox American views of American history, but is being shown in its entirety by popular demand. There are also short commercial breaks advertising racist products - some of which were real-life American products, including ''Darky Toothpaste''<ref>
http://www.toothpasteworld.com/specials.htm</ref> and the ''Coon Chicken Inn'' restaraunt chain<ref>http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/chicken/</ref>.

=== American Civil War ===

The documentary segments detail the history of America from the [[American Civil War]] to the present day. The chief turning-point, however, is the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], which - thanks to the successful diplomacy of Judah P. Benjamin - includes [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] troops fighting with the Confederacy, thus turning the tide in favour of the South.

The Union forces later surrender to the Confederacy, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] is arrested after attempting to flee to [[Canada]] in blackface. After serving two years imprisonment, Lincoln is pardoned (in an effort to appease the conquered North) and is exiled to [[Canada]], where he dies of old age.

=== Consolidation ===

Meanwhile, [[Jefferson Davis]] brings the North into the Confederate way of life by introducing a tax on Northerners that is alleviated by the purchase of slaves, and is supported by a series of novelists who romanticize the events of the Civil War, ignoring the true events and focussing on tragic love stories between Northerners and Southerners. At the same time, an attempt to seperate the church from the state fails, and any non-Christian religions are outlawed in the CSA, although a small [[Judaism|Jewish]] community is permitted to settle on [[Long Island]].

=== American-Mexican War ===

By 1900, the CSA has adopted an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] agenda, hoping to compete with both the [[British Empire]] and the [[German Empire]] by invading [[Mexico]]. The conquest drags on longer than expected, thus preventing the CSA from entering the [[First World War]], which still ends with German defeat despite a lack of American involvement. However, the conflict in [[Mexico]] ends in Confederate victory, and Mexican citizens are racially segregated from white Americans living in the country.

=== War with Japan ===

In 1929, the CSA retreats into isolationism following the Wall Street Crash, but is able to overturn the depression by revitalising its slave trade. The CSA also begins friendly relations with [[Adolf Hitler]] in [[Germany]], but disagrees with Hitler's Final Solution, thinking it to be a waste of potential slave-stock. Instead, the CSA launches an unprovoked attack on the [[Japan]] in 1941, claiming that Japanese power endangered the CSA's position in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. By "the grace of God" (the Atomic Bomb), the war is quickly brought to a close, with Germano-Japanese defeat (the same outcome as our [[Second World War]]).

=== Cold War ===

Afterwards, the CSA enters a [[Cold War]] with "Red [[Canada]]" following a rise in anti-[[Abolitionism|Abolitionist]] sentiment in the Confederacy. A "[[Iron Curtain|Cotton Curtain]]" is erected along the Canadian-American border, and tensions continue into the 1990's, when the [[Cold War]] draws to a close.

=== Modern Day ===

The documentary ends in the modern day, with the CSA fighting in [[Iraq]] against the "[[Taliban|Muslim Menace]]", and an upcoming election for the Presidency of the CSA that may or may not change the course of Confederate history once more.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.csathemovie.com/ Official Movie Website]

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ Entry at the Internet Movie Data Base]

*[http://www.allmovie.com/work/301340 Entry at allmovie]

[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

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

2009-04-22T12:11:27Z

ANorris: /* American Civil War */

'''''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America''''' is a 2004 [[United States|American]] film written and directed by [[Kevin Willmott]]. The film takes place in an alternate universe in which the [[Confederate States of America]] won the [[American Civil War]].

== Plot ==

The film is presented as though it were a [[United Kingdom|British]] documentary (actually titled ''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America'') being presented on a Confederate television network. The documentary is apparently controversial due to its disagreement with orthodox American views of American history, but is being shown in its entirety by popular demand. There are also short commercial breaks advertising racist products - some of which were real-life American products, including ''Darky Toothpaste''<ref>
http://www.toothpasteworld.com/specials.htm</ref> and the ''Coon Chicken Inn'' restaraunt chain<ref>http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/chicken/</ref>.

=== American Civil War ===

The documentary segments detail the history of America from the [[American Civil War]] to the present day. The chief turning-point, however, is the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], which - thanks to the successful diplomacy of Judah P. Benjamin - includes [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] troops fighting with the Confederacy, thus turning the tide in favour of the South.

The Union forces later surrender to the Confederacy, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] is arrested after attempting to flee to [[Canada]] in blackface. After serving two years imprisonment, Lincoln is pardoned (in an effort to appease the conquered North) and is exiled to [[Canada]], where he dies of old age.

=== Consolidation ===

Meanwhile, [[Jefferson Davis]] brings the North into the Confederate way of life by introducing a tax on Northerners that is alleviated by the purchase of slaves, and is supported by a series of novelists who romanticize the events of the Civil War, ignoring the true events and focussing on tragic love stories between Northerners and Southerners. At the same time, an attempt to seperate the church from the state fails, and any non-Christian religions are outlawed in the CSA, although a small [[Judaism|Jewish]] community is permitted to settle on [[Long Island]].

=== American-Mexican War ===

By 1900, the CSA has adopted an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] agenda, hoping to compete with the [[British Empire]] and the [[German Empire]] in [[Europe]] by invading [[Mexico]]. The conquest drags on longer than expected, thus preventing the CSA from entering the [[First World War]], which still ends with German defeat despite a lack of American involvement. However, the conflict in [[Mexico]] ends in Confederate victory, and Mexican citizens are racially segregated from white Americans living in the country.

=== War with Japan ===

In 1929, the CSA retreats into isolationism following the Wall Street Crash, but is able to overturn the depression by revitalising its slave trade. The CSA also begins friendly relations with [[Adolf Hitler]] in [[Germany]], but disagrees with Hitler's Final Solution, thinking it to be a waste of potential slave-stock. Instead, the CSA launches an unprovoked attack on the [[Japan]] in 1941, claiming that Japanese power endangered the CSA's position in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. By "the grace of God" (the Atomic Bomb), the war is quickly brought to a close, with Germano-Japanese defeat (the same outcome as our [[Second World War]]).

=== Cold War ===

Afterwards, the CSA enters a [[Cold War]] with "Red [[Canada]]" following a rise in anti-[[Abolitionism|Abolitionist]] sentiment in the Confederacy. A "[[Iron Curtain|Cotton Curtain]]" is erected along the Canadian-American border, and tensions continue into the 1990's, when the [[Cold War]] draws to a close.

=== Modern Day ===

The documentary ends in the modern day, with the CSA fighting in [[Iraq]] against the "[[Taliban|Muslim Menace]]", and an upcoming election for the Presidency of the CSA that may or may not change the course of Confederate history once more.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.csathemovie.com/ Official Movie Website]

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ Entry at the Internet Movie Data Base]

*[http://www.allmovie.com/work/301340 Entry at allmovie]

[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

Battle of Gettysburg

2009-04-22T12:10:28Z

ANorris: /* See Also */

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Cwlogo.png|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Battle of Gettysburg
|-
|Begun
|July 1, 1863
|-
|Ended
|July 4, 1863
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;"|Army of the Potomac
|-
|Commander
|MGEN [[George Meade]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;"|Army of Northern Virginia
|-
|Commander
|GEN [[Robert E. Lee]]
|-
|}
'''The Battle of Gettysburg''' was the climax of the [[Gettysburg Campaign]], a decisive defeat for the Confederacy in the [[American Civil War]] from July 1 to July 4, 1863. General [[George Meade]] commanded the [[Union]] [[Army of the Potomac]] while general [[Robert E. Lee]] led the [[Confederate States of America|Confederate]] Army of Northern Virginia.

==Lee moves north==
[[Image:Lee5.jpg|thumb|200px|right|General Robert E. Lee in 1863]]
[[Image:Gettysburg Campaign.png|thumb|200px|right|The Gettysburg Campaign]]

On preparations and strategies, see [[Gettysburg Campaign]].

Up until now the Confederate army had generally been successful in pitched battles, although they were always outnumbered in men and supplies. While Lee was used to fighting with inferior numbers he was also severely handicapped at [[Gettysburg]] by the recent loss of his best general, [[Stonewall Jackson]], as well as the absence of his "eyes"--the cavalry under [[J.E.B. Stuart]], who he depended on reconnaissance. Lee never knew how close and dangerous the Union army was. Another problem was the new division of the Confederate Army by General Lee. There were originally two corps, one under General [[James Longstreet]], the other under General Jackson. With Jackson's death, Lee decided to divide the second corps into two new ones: one under General [[Richard S. Ewell]], the other under [[A.P. Hill]]. Lee moved north through Maryland and into Pennsylvania, close to a small town called Gettysburg. <ref> [[the American History of the Civil War]], by Bruce Catton, MetroBooks, 2001, p. 304. </ref>
===Hooker and the Union Army===
While Lee's army made preparations to march, the Army of the Potomac rested in their old winter camps opposite Fredericksburg while its commander, Major General [[Joseph Hooker]], wrestled with innumerable predicaments. Not only were Lee's intentions perplexing Hooker, his relationship with War Department officials in Washington had become almost hostile. The flamboyant Hooker had rebuilt morale and discipline in the army after the disastrous "Mud March" in the winter of 1863, and in late April brilliantly moved the bulk of his forces around Lee's army concentrated at Fredericksburg. Despite the Union advantage, Lee and his top general "Stonewall" Jackson, countered Hooker's strategy and soundly defeated him. Hooker's bluster and bravado before the campaign meant nothing after his miserable failure at the [[Battle of Chancellorsville]]. Many in the War Department had lost faith in the general's abilities, including President Lincoln who soon believed Hooker unsuited to contend with Lee.

Hooker approved a plan to probe Lee's defenses and on June 9, the army's cavalry under General Alfred Pleasanton made a surprise attack on General "JEB" Stuart's cavalry camps near [[Brandy Station]], Virginia. Pleasanton's troopers surprised Stuart, but withdrew when Confederate infantry were sighted approaching the battlefield. From this information, Hooker realized that Lee's forces were no longer concentrated in front of him at Fredericksburg. Yet, indecision seemed to strike General Hooker again. He waited for nearly a week before ordering his troops to break camp and then marched cautiously northward, keeping his army between Washington and the suspected Confederate route of march. By this time, Lee's troops had already defeated a Union force at Winchester, Virginia, and crossed the Potomac River into Maryland.

Despite the loss of [[Stonewall Jackson]], the Army of Northern Virginia was never stronger both in manpower and high morale than in the summer of 1863. "It was an army of veterans," recalled A.H. Belo, Colonel of the 55th North Carolina Infantry, "an army that had in two years' time made a record second to none for successful fighting and hard marching." In mid-June, Lee's soldiers crossed the Potomac River and stepped into a rich land barely touched by the war. Except for some persistent Union cavalry units, the southerners tramped along unopposed as militia units retreated from their path leaving the land and its residents to the mercy of the Confederates.
===Looting Pennsylvania===
For Lee's men who had been living for months on reduced rations, Maryland and Pennsylvania were bursting with plenty. "I can hardly believe that a rebel army has actually left poor Virginia for a season," wrote Major Eugene Blackford of the 5th Alabama Infantry. "Of course there is no end of milk and butter which our soldiers enjoy hugely." Encounters with the civilian population of Maryland and Pennsylvania made for good subject matter in letters home such as that of Private William McClellan of the 9th Alabama Infantry, who described Pennsylvanians as, "the most ignorant beings of the world. They don't care how long the war lasts so they are not troubled." Like many of his comrades, McClellan especially detested the females who, "would not look at a Rebel, they would turn up their nose and toss their heads to one side as contemp(t)uously as if we were high way Robers."

"There's hardly any sickness or straggling in the army," added Private Eli Landers, 16th Georgia Infantry. "We have a large army now in Pennsylvania and it is good and in fine spirits. We intend to let the Yankey Nation feel the sting of the War as our borders has ever since the war began." Despite the feelings of retribution that Landers and his fellow soldiers had, on June 21, General Lee issued Order No. 72, which forbade the seizure or theft of private property. Federal property was another matter. Confederate quartermasters used their authority to seize Federal stores found in government warehouses, post offices, and railroad depots. Anything that was of use to the southern army was quickly inventoried and carried away, much to the dismay of Federal authorities. Quartermasters also purchased needed supplies from merchants and privately owned storehouses. Soldiers begged for food from civilians and were often rewarded by farmers too frightened to refuse the Confederate money handed them in payment. Apart from some minor infractions, the Confederates obeyed General Lee's order and respected civilian property.

Yet, northern store owners found themselves in a quandary when their shops were suddenly filled with armed men who helped themselves to boots and shoes before inspecting other goods the owner may have in stock. Cloth, hats, canned foods and other groceries were in high demand. Much to the storekeeper's dismay, the Confederates paid in southern script that was worthless above the Mason-Dixon Line. But most accepted the Confederate paper hoping that it could be eventually exchanged for Federal notes. Many more were careful to hide some of their inventory before the Confederates arrived or be strangely absent with shop doors bolted when the dusty column of Confederates entered a town whose civilian population was already on edge from rumors of rampant thievery and towns burned to the ground. Many of these wild rumors centered around the feared "Louisiana Tigers", rumored by many northerners to be the toughest southern soldiers and the most lawless. Such was the case when the first Confederate column, commanded by General Jubal Early entered Gettysburg, demanding supplies and money. "After matters had been satisfactorily arranged between our Burgess and the Rebel officers," recalled Fannie Buehler who resided on Baltimore Street, "the men settled down and the citizens soon learned that no demands were to be made upon them and that all property would be protected. Some horses were stolen, some cellars broken open and robbed, but so far as could be done, the officers controlled their men. The 'Louisiana Tigers' were left and kept outside of town."
[[Image:George Gordon Meade.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Major General George Gordon Meade, commander of the Army of the Potomac]]
This first encounter was not without a bloody mishap. A small squad from the 21st Pennsylvania Emergency Cavalry was chased out of town and Private George Sandoe was shot and killed, the first official casualty of the coming battle. Early did not tarry for long in Gettysburg, but moved on toward York and Columbia where he was stopped by Pennsylvania militia that burned the bridge over the Susquehanna River. Meanwhile other Confederate forces had occupied a large area of south central Pennsylvania and some had even closed on Harrisburg, threatening the state capitol.
===Meade in command===
The slow pursuit of Lee by the Army of the Potomac not only alarmed War Department officials but shocked governors of northern states who clamored for something to be done to stop the rebel invasion. Political pressure on the Lincoln administration added to the tug of war between General Hooker and the US War Department, which finally ended on June 28 as the Army of the Potomac concentrated at Frederick, Maryland. Completely frustrated by the mistrust and lack of support from War Department officials, General Hooker requested to be relieved of command, which was quickly granted.

Major General [[George Gordon Meade]] was ordered to take command of the army. "I have been tried and condemned", the surprised general remarked after receiving word of his appointment. Using traces of information known on Lee's whereabouts and objectives, Meade decided to send the army north to feel for the enemy and draw Lee into battle on a defensive line he wanted to establish on Pipe Creek, Maryland. The very next day, the Army of the Potomac marched out of their camps to search for the Confederates in Pennsylvania.

===The Opening Shots===
On June 30, Confederate troops left their camps at Cashtown and marched toward Gettysburg in search of supplies. Upon reaching the edge of Gettysburg, scouts spied a column of Union cavalry south of town, closing fast. Under orders not to initiate a battle, the Confederates returned to Cashtown where they reported the encounter to their commander, Lt. General [[A.P. Hill]]. Hill agreed to send two divisions of his corps toward Gettysburg the next day to investigate the arrival of the mystery cavalrymen and the stage was set for the opening of the battle on July 1st, 1863.

==The First Day==
[[Image:Gettysburg Day1 0700.png|thumb|200px|right|7 a.m. on the first day of battle]]
On the morning of June 30, a Confederate column under Brigadier General James J. Pettigrew approached Gettysburg on the Chambersburg Road. Halting his men outside of town, the general rode ahead to Seminary Ridge from which he had a clear view of Gettysburg and the land around it. Within a few minutes he was startled by the report of a blue-clad column approaching Gettysburg from the south. Were these men just more bothersome Yankee militia or troopers from their old nemesis the Army of the Potomac? Under strict orders not to engage in any fighting, he ordered his troops to reverse their course, back toward Cashtown, Pennsylvania. What to do about this column of soldiers would be the decision of his corps commander, General A.P. Hill to whom Pettigrew would report that afternoon.
[[Image:John Buford.jpg|thumb|200px|left|John Buford]]
The commander of the mystery column was Brig. General John Buford, whose troops were not "Yankee militia" but a full division of veteran cavalry. His horsemen were the advance of one wing of the Army of the Potomac, moving north from the vicinity of Frederick, Maryland. General Buford also had unanswered questions as he watched the southern column march away- had they found what may be a large portion of the Confederate army then raiding south-central Pennsylvania? Buford's instinct told him these Confederates would return and he decided to keep his troops positioned around Gettysburg. Headquarters were soon established in the Globe Hotel in Gettysburg, where Buford issued orders for his troopers to picket the roads west, north and east of town. He then penned a message to General John Reynolds, commander of the First Corps, camped at Marsh Creek eight miles south of Gettysburg. Reynolds received the report, which outlined Buford's intention of resisting any southern advance toward Gettysburg. Reynolds replied that he would march to the cavalry officer's support at first light.

Meanwhile, Confederate commanders met at Cashtown eight miles west of Gettysburg, to discuss their course of action. Under orders from General Lee not to get involved in a full scale battle, Hill and his officers obviously believed that only troublesome militia were in their way. General Hill received Pettigrew's report of his encounter and decided to send a larger force toward Gettysburg the next day to investigate the Union troops seen there and, if time allowed, look for supplies. Showers and light rain that evening would also help keep down the dust and dirt on the roads, making for a pleasant march.

Lt. Marcellus Jones of the 8th Illinois Cavalry, was in charge of a picket line that intersected the Chambersburg Road three miles west of Gettysburg. Dawn was just breaking on the morning of July 1, 1863, when, in the distance, cavalrymen in the main post on the road could discern the sound of hushed conversations, the clink of metal cups and canteens, and the shuffle of boots and shoes on the road surface. A sergeant ran to find Lt.Jones, who had just returned to the reserve position with bread and butter purchased from a nearby farm. Jones immediately rode with the sergeant to the post and peering through the early morning haze, he spotted a gray column of soldiers, lazily swinging down the road toward him. Borrowing a carbine from his sergeant, the lieutenant took aim at a mounted figure in front of the column and fired. The column abruptly stopped and the horseman pointed out the Yankee picket post. Behind him, a wisp of wind revealed a red banner. There was no doubt who these men were- Confederates! Jones handed a brief message to a courier, instructing him to ride as fast as possible to General Buford. Seconds later a cannon ball bounded down the road, scattering the Union troopers as Southern bullets whined overhead. The Battle of Gettysburg had begun.

===The battle begins===
[[Image:Gettysburg Day1 1000.png|thumb|200px|right|10 a.m. on the first day of battle]]
[[Image:Gettysburg Day1 1045.png|thumb|200px|right|10:45 a.m.]]
[[Image:Gettysburg Day1 1100.png|thumb|200px|right|11 a.m.]]
The southerners spotted by Jones' picket post were veteran troops of Major General Henry Heth's division, leading the march toward Gettysburg that morning. Well-liked by General Lee, (Heth was the only Confederate officer Lee addressed by his first name), the plucky general was uncertain of what lay ahead of him, be it Pennsylvania militia or troops from the Army of the Potomac, so he ordered his lead unit to deploy in a skirmish line and drive away the blue-clad troopers. The job was given to the 5th Alabama Infantry Battalion, which advanced in good order and quickly encountered groups of cavalrymen who fired on them from the protection of fences and trees. Three miles away at Gettysburg, General Buford calmly awaited the report knowing full well that a thin line of cavalrymen were no match against solid ranks of infantry. Though Reynolds' corps had started toward town that morning, Buford had to wonder if they would arrive in time before he was forced to retreat.

The skirmishing continued for over an hour, the troops passing over a series of rolling ridges farm fields until Buford's men reached Willoughby Run, a shallow stream that bordered the Edward McPherson Farm on the Chambersburg Pike. Through the center of the farm is north-south ridge that lies parallel to the run, and was a good position from which to cover the bridge that spans it. From the observatory of the Lutheran Seminary on Seminary Ridge, Buford watched his horsemen gather on McPherson's Ridge and knew that time was running out. His men had been lucky up to this point- the Confederates had only advanced as skirmishers and not pushed forward in solid battle lines. But southern pressure was steadily growing and the clouds of dust rising from the pike were an obvious sign of more Confederates troops moving toward Gettysburg. Confederate artillery was just then pulling into line on Herr's Ridge west of Willoughby Run, which meant the Confederate commander was done with skirmishing and an infantry attack was sure to follow. General Heth had indeed discovered how slender the Union line was and having arrived at Herr's Ridge, decided it to be the perfect point from which to launch an attack and drive away these pesky Union soldiers once and for all. With his artillery unlimbered and ready to fire, Heth ordered his two lead infantry brigades under Brig. General James Archer and Brig. General Joseph Davis to go forward. With red battle flags unfurled, Archer's and Davis' Confederates set out toward McPherson's Ridge.

===Arrival of Reynolds===
[[Image:GenJFRenyolds.jpg|thumb|200px|left|John F. Reynolds]]
From his post in the observatory of the Seminary roof, General Buford was intently observing the fighting when he was startled by a familiar voice calling from below: "How goes it, John?" Buford immediately recognized his old friend Reynolds. "The devil's to pay!", he replied and rushed down to meet with the infantry commander. The two officers quickly discussed the situation and rode together to McPherson's Ridge. Reynolds chose the ridge as the best location to establish an artillery and infantry battle line, but southern pressure on Buford's men was mounting and Reynolds knew his men would have to move fast. With a casual salute, Reynolds rode off to hurry his troops forward. It was the last time Buford would see the general alive.

Within a half-hour, the vanguard of Reynolds' corps arrived near the Seminary and moved toward the McPherson Farm, while more soldiers filed into the field west of the school building. By this time, the advance of General Archer's brigade had reached the woods and field south of McPherson's farm and turned their attention to the blue-clad infantry forming in their front. This was the famous "Iron Brigade", which had won its reputation on the battlefields of Second Manassas, Antietam, and Fredericksburg, and was commanded by Brigadier General Solomon Meredith. Meredith had just ordered the first regiment of the brigade, the 2nd Wisconsin Infantry, to deploy into battle line when the first volley from Archer's men struck them from the edge of the woods. The black-hatted Wisconsin soldiers had not even had a chance to load their rifles, but with bayonets fixed and little more encouragement required, the 2nd Wisconsin lunged into the woods. Caught off guard by the sudden counterattack, the Confederates fired a few scattered shots and then retreated in disorder through the woods and across Willoughby Run, with the Union soldiers in hot pursuit. A number of southerners found themselves cut off and were taken prisoner including General Archer, grappled from the southern ranks by Private Patrick Maloney of the 2nd Wisconsin Infantry.

Riding behind the 2nd Wisconsin, General Reynolds cheered the men on as they scrambled into the woods. The general turned toward Seminary Ridge to see what troops and officers were following, when he suddenly slumped in his saddle. A staff officer rushed to the general's side as he toppled from his horse. Cradling the general, the officer felt blood on the back of Reynolds' head and turning him over saw that a bullet had cleanly struck the general in the right temple, killing him instantly. John Reynolds was the highest ranking officer of either side to lose his life at Gettysburg and was the general who had recommended General Meade to replace General Hooker in command of the Army of the Potomac. The general's body was borne from the field in an ambulance, escorted by his heartbroken staff officers. He was buried in his hometown of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, barely 40 miles away from the battleground where he had lost his life.

===McPherson's Farm===
Fighting also erupted in fields north of the McPherson Farm, where Davis' Brigade of Mississippi and North Carolina regiments routed part of General Lysander Cutler's Union brigade. When success seemed within their grasp, Davis' regiments were thrown back in confusion by a rapid Union infantry charge and accurate artillery fire. Taking refuge in the bed of an unfinished railroad, Davis' troops desperately fought back as Union troops formed in their front and then charged the southerners. At the center of the charge was Lt. Colonel Rufus Dawes whose 6th Wisconsin Infantry, also from the Iron Brigade, successfully trapped many of the Confederates in the deepest section of the railroad cut. Sgt. Frank Waller wrested the colors of the 2nd Mississippi Infantry from the flag bearer in the railroad bed during the short, deadly struggle. There was no escape for the southerners in the cut soon covered by members of the 6th Wisconsin, 95th New York and the 14th Brooklyn (84th New York), which threw troops across the railroad bed west of the cut. Mercifully the Union troops held their fire and called for the Confederates to surrender. Over 200 men from Davis' brigade were now prisoners.

A lull in the battle ensued as both sides withdrew to restore order and wait for the arrival of additional troops and artillery. Casualties in this early contest were severe for both sides and though the Union army had lost one of its most distinguished generals, the Confederates had suffered more than their Union counterparts. General Archer was captured and the better part of two brigades were knocked out of action for the remainder of the day. Realizing that he was facing more than Pennsylvania militia, General Heth wisely decided to wait for the remainder of his division and artillery to arrive on the battlefield, and then to ask permission of General Hill to continue the attack. General Abner Doubleday, having assumed command of the First Corps upon the death of General Reynolds, arranged his troops in a defensive line starting on McPherson's Ridge. He used troops of General Robinson's Division to extend the line northward on Oak Ridge, which is the northern extension of Seminary Ridge, and then sent an aide to find General Howard to report his position.

Major General Oliver Otis Howard, commander of the Eleventh Corps, arrived on the battlefield that morning at approximately the same time that Reynolds was killed. Howard climbed to the roof of a building in Gettysburg where he spotted some Union troops break through the woods on Seminary Ridge and run toward town. Believing that the First Corps had broken and was in retreat, Howard fired off a desperate message to General Meade at Taneytown, Maryland, that the situation was bad and reinforcements were needed. (The message had unfortunate consequences for General Doubleday, whose generalship on July 1 would later be called into question.) Howard ordered General Carl Schurz to take command of the Eleventh Corps as he assumed command of all Union troops on the field, vice Reynolds and Doubleday, and then sent the Eleventh Corps into the fields north of Gettysburg to bolster the First Corps right flank. One division of the corps was placed on Cemetery Hill just south of town as a reserve force. This proved to be a very important decision that day, securing what was to be a vital position for the Union army.

General Meade was still at Taneytown when he received Howard's disturbing message that included news of Reynolds' death. Though shaken at the loss of one of his closest friends in the army, Meade immediately decided to send another trusted corps commander, Major General Winfield Scott Hancock, north to Gettysburg to investigate the situation and take charge of the troops there. Hancock immediately set out for the battlefield.
[[Image:Gettysburg Day1 1230.png|thumb|200px|right|12:30 a.m.]]
The brief noon-time lull in infantry movement gave commanders on both sides time to plan and augment their battle lines. Union troops followed a jagged line extending northward from the McPherson Farm along Oak Ridge and then east to a small knoll near the county Alms (Poor) House. Confederate forces were arrayed against this line in heavier numbers with more troops expected to arrive at any moment. Though the Union infantry was outnumbered, the First Corps artillery, commanded by Colonel Charles Wainwright, did have an advantage in positions where they could sweep the routes of Confederate attacks with shell and canister.

General Hill did not accompany Heth's troops that morning, so was unaware of his dilemma near Gettysburg. Shortly before noon a small entourage of mounted officers arrived at his headquarters, led by a stern-faced General Lee. The generals were discussing the location of Hill's corps and possible enemy sightings when they were interrupted by the boom of cannon coming from the direction of Gettysburg. Concerned, Lee chose to ride ahead toward the sound of the guns accompanied by Hill and both staffs. It was on the Cashtown-Gettysburg Road where they met a courier from General Heth, bearing news that a large Union force had been encountered and stating confidence they could be driven off. Lee hurried on toward the battle that he was not yet ready to give on Union soil.

===The battle renewed===
[[Image:Gettysburg Day1 1400.png|thumb|200px|right|2 p.m.]]
Heth renewed his attack against the Union positions on the McPherson Farm between 1:30 and 2 o'clock. Supported by Maj. General William Pender's division, Heth sent his two remaining brigades forward to hit a re-enforced line posted behind strong farm fences and in the woods above Willoughby Run. Doubleday's line was stretched thin, but his division and brigade commanders shifted troops around to strengthen weak areas of the line. Determined to stand their ground. the Union troops would not budge no matter how much pressure the Confederates applied. On the McPherson Farm and adjacent Herbst Farm, the Iron Brigade fought toe to toe with Brig. General James J. Pettigrew's North Carolina Brigade. At one point in the battle, opposing lines blazed into one another barely twenty paces apart. Two regiments were especially hard hit- the 24th Michigan Infantry and the 26th North Carolina Infantry both suffered losses of 70%. Twenty one year-old Colonel Henry Burgwyn Jr., commanding the 26th North Carolina, was mortally wounded while leading one of the last charges against the 24th Michigan, shot, "through both lungs. He fell with the colors (of the 26th) wrapped around him."

Spread out between York and Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Lt. General Richard S. Ewell's Corps had been ordered to consolidate in the Gettysburg area on July 1. Setting out early that morning, Ewell's 8,500 troops closed in on Gettysburg from the north and northeast. Maj. General Robert Rodes' Division was the first to arrive and attacked the right flank of the Union First Corps on Oak Ridge, the northern extension of Seminary Ridge. The Union troops on Oak Ridge were from a division commanded by Brig. General John C. Robinson, of the First Corps. Robinson only had Colonel Henry Baxter's brigade of New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania regiments at his disposal and observing the disjointed southern attack, shifted his men to meet each threat upon his position. One by one Baxter's troops repulsed the Confederate assaults and annihilated the North Carolina brigade commanded by Brig. General Alfred Iverson. Iverson's soldiers marched into an open field unsupported, not realizing the strength of the Union position behind the stone wall that lay ahead on Oak Ridge. Over 1,100 Union soldiers rose and fired into the southerners from less than 100 feet away. Few escaped the terrible fire unscathed. Many surrendered to Baxter's men as they rushed into the field to take prisoners and capture flags from their fallen bearers.

With Baxter's regiments running low on ammunition, General Robinson called in Brig. General Samuel Paul's brigade, which replaced Baxter's troops just before General Rodes renewed his attack. Paul's men were soon fighting for their lives as Rodes shifted regiments from other commands into the attack. General Paul was horribly wounded when a bullet struck him in the face, passing through both eyes. Remarkably, he survived this horrific wound. Ammunition began to run out. A Confederate brigade succeeded in reaching woods behind Paul's regiments, threatening to cut them off from the rest of the First Corps. A retreat was ordered to follow Oak Ridge and rejoin the corps. The brigade withdrew, all except for one regiment, the 16th Maine Infantry. The Maine soldiers stubbornly held onto their corner of the stone wall and did not leave until the last moment. Many of the regiment were taken prisoner, including its commander Colonel Tilden. So that their flag would not be taken, the 16th's soldiers ripped the standard into small pieces, each of which were taken by the men.

While Rodes dealt with Baxter and Paul on Oak Ridge, Brig. George Doles' brigade of Georgia troops sparred with Schurz's Eleventh Corps positioned in the fields north of Gettysburg. Though he was outnumbered, Doles' superb generalship kept the Yankee troops, who appeared shaky from the beginning, off guard. Poor morale, exhaustion, and the exposed position of the Eleventh Corps troops, many who were German and Polish immigrants, contributed to the disaster about to befall them. Another division of Ewell's infantry under Brig. General Jubal Early, arrived via the Harrisburg Road at approximately 3 P.M. Understanding the advantage of his position, Early deployed his troops and artillery so that he could sweep behind the Union line.
[[Image:Gettysburg Day1 1600.png|thumb|200px|right|4 p.m.]]
A thunderous roar of artillery announced his arrival as ranks of southern infantry set out across Rock Creek. Seeing his opportunity, General Doles sent his brigade forward and the two wings of the Confederate column came together around "Barlow's Knoll". Though some regiments fought with determination, the Confederate attack broke the line and retreat turned into a panicked rush into Gettysburg. A single Union brigade under Colonel Wladimir Kryzanowski, a Polish immigrant, attempted to make a stand, but were swept aside by overwhelming numbers. Victorious Confederates overran the remaining feeble resistance, a small brigade of Union troops under Colonel Charles Coster, and entered Gettysburg.

West of town, General Doubleday and his First Corps were also in deep trouble. After several hours of fighting marked by great gallantry on both sides, casualties had whittled down the corps' effective force to less than half of the Confederates who seemed to continually be sending in fresh troops. Doubleday withdrew his command into a consolidated position on Seminary Ridge where the men threw down fence rails for a barricade and waited as the Confederates formed on McPherson's Ridge for a final assault. But driving Doubleday's command from Seminary Ridge proved more deadly than Hill and his division officers had planned. The initial Confederate attack met a storm of concentrated artillery and musketry fire that nearly destroyed General Alfred Scales' North Carolina brigade and severely crippled part of a South Carolina brigade commanded by Colonel Abner Perrin. Outnumbered, low on ammunition and with his rear threatened, there was nothing more Doubleday could achieve by holding Seminary Ridge. There was no alternative but to retreat through Gettysburg to Cemetery Hill.

===The Union line collapses===
Despite a severe cross fire and heavy casualties suffered during their charge, Colonel Perrin's South Carolinians exploited a narrow gap in the Union line and raced onto Seminary Ridge just as the Union officers ordered their men to pull out. Perrin ordered two of his regiments to pursue the retreating Federals and the incensed South Carolinians raced after the refuges in blue, taking prisoners and shooting down those who refused to surrender. What began as an orderly retreat soon turned into a confused race through Gettysburg as soldiers trotted through unfamiliar streets and alleys while other lost souls plowed into the crowd from intersecting streets. Adding to the chaos was the lack of orders to direct the refugees to Cemetery Hill, the Union rallying point. Lost soldiers ran from one street to another to find themselves confronted by armed Confederates. Others took refuge in cellars and buildings, only to be rooted out and taken prisoner. Wounded soldiers collapsed in doorways and churches where Gettysburg civilians, such as 21 year-old Sallie Myers, tried to tend to their wounds. Terrified civilians took to their cellars while above them the floors creaked with the heavy sounds of boots. Rifle shots echoed through the streets. Peering from his cellar window, one man was horrified by the sight of a Union soldier shot down in the street in front of his home. Everywhere there were Confederate soldiers with rifles and fixed bayonets, looking for Yankees who had not made their escape.

Christ Lutheran Church on Chambersburg Street was one of the first churches in Gettysburg to be used as a hospital. Wounded were laid on boards set on top of church pews while operations took place in one of the front rooms. The monument in front of the church is to Chaplain Thomas Howell of the 90th Pennsylvania Infantry. Confronted by Confederate soldiers during the Union retreat, Howell refused to surrender his sword and was shot dead on the church steps.

Those who did find their way to Cemetery Hill were confronted by General Winfield Scott Hancock, sent to Gettysburg by General Meade to assume command after the death of Reynolds. Galloping onto Cemetery Hill at 4:30, Hancock beheld a depressing sight: streets filled with masses of Union troops without order, lathered teams of horses pulling artillery limbers forcing their way through the crowd, and wounded soldiers limping or staggering along as if drunk. For all purposes the entire Union force at Gettysburg had been routed. Joined by General Howard, Hancock rode into the center of the Baltimore Pike and immediately barked orders for officers to rally their commands and find shelter on the hillside. Hancock's commanding presence and stern demeanor was enough for most of the exhausted soldiers to search for their regiments and fall into ranks. Hancock paused just long enough to send a report to General Meade before returning to the task of establishing a strong center for the remainder of the Union line to form upon. By nightfall, reorganized regiments had established a line of defenses from Cemetery Ridge to Culp's Hill with Cemetery Hill at the fortified center.
[[Image:Gettysburg Day2 Culp's Hill Defenses.png|thumb|200px|right|Culp's Hill defenses by the end of the first day]]
Once he arrived on the battlefield that afternoon, General Lee appreciated the advantages gained by the sweat and toil of his troops and gave his consent for the attack to continue. He entered Gettysburg on the trail of his soldiers, very concerned with the growing Union strength on Cemetery Hill and the adjacent Culp's Hill. Lee sent a message to General Ewell to take the hills "if practicable"; but Ewell was unable to consolidate his forces to attack before nightfall and the battered Union troops remained undisturbed throughout the evening. Additional Union troops arrived to bolster the Union defenses, followed by General Meade who reached the field around midnight. Thanking Hancock for his services, Meade set about planning for the next day's battle. Though two corps had been defeated and thrown back, their heroic stance had bought time for the remainder of the Army of the Potomac to close on Gettysburg and camp on a position so strong that Lee would be hard pressed to break it. Whether he was fully ready or not, Lee had been drawn into battle and Meade was prepared to fight it to the finish at Gettysburg.

General Lee's headquarters tent was pitched near the Thompson home on the Chambersburg Pike, an ideal location adjacent to the Lutheran Seminary building where the general could utilize the rooftop observatory. Seating himself by the light of a candle in his tent, Lee pondered the day's events. Though his soldiers had driven the Union forces from the field in disarray and captured the town, he certainly had not won the battle necessary to accomplish all of his objectives in Pennsylvania. Losses in Heth's and Rodes' Divisions had been staggering, but the remainder of his army was within a day's march, defiantly confident and fit to fight for another day at least. Against his desires, the ground for the great battle had been chosen and the growing strength of the Union position on Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill concerned him. More fighting clearly lay ahead and Lee had to satisfy himself that the hills would be taken the following day. If only he knew more of where the rest of the Union army was located and how close they were to Gettysburg. That had been "Jeb" Stuart's job and Lee had not heard from him for almost two weeks.

In more than twelve hours of fighting, approximately 16,000 soldiers were killed, wounded or captured during the first day of battle.

==The Second Day==
[[Image:Gettysburg Day2 Plan.png|thumb|200px|right|Lee's plan for the second day of battle]]
The Confederate victory on July 1 was not conclusive. The Army of the Potomac was still present near Gettysburg and by early morning held a strong position on the hills and ridges south of town in a horseshoe-shaped line bristling with artillery. With its right anchored on Culp's Hill, the line stretched through Cemetery Hill and southward to a knoll on Cemetery Ridge, north of two hills that locals referred to as the Round Tops. Troops who had arrived overnight were also arrayed at the base of the smaller of the two hills, partially cleared of tree growth to reveal large boulders and hundreds of rocks, known as Little Round Top. Despite the loss of Reynolds and the majority of two army corps, Meade was satisfied with his army's position, not only for defense but for an attack as well. Union troops of the Twelfth Corps east of Culp's Hill may have an opportunity to attack Lee's flank if possible. But as the morning sun peeked through overcast, rainy skies, the commanding general decided to pull those troops into the horseshoe and wait for Lee to make the next move. The question was, from which direction would the Confederate attack come? Having sought opinions from his most trusted officers, Meade decided to bring forward the remainder of his army, repulse any Confederate attack, and if the opportunity arose, he would, in turn, strike at Lee.

===Weakness on the flanks===
[[Image:Longstreet.jpg|thumb|200px|left|James Longstreet]]
Lee rose before dawn to formulate his plan of attack for the day. In the early morning light he surveyed the strong Union position and realized that a weakness might lay on the Union flanks. A simultaneous strike on both the right and left of Meade's position could roll up the Union line toward Cemetery Hill. The weakest flank was the Union left, which did not appear to be anchored on any high ground including the Round Tops at the southern base of Cemetery Ridge. After consultation with corps commanders A.P. Hill and James Longstreet, Lee dictated orders that Hill would remain in position at the Confederate center while General Longstreet's Corps would attack on the right and General Ewell's Corps would strike on the left. Both had to strike at the same time to throw the Union off balance, not giving Meade time to shift troops to the threatened areas.

Ewell's men were close to the field that morning, but James Longstreet's were not. Two divisions of his corps had stopped for the night several miles away from the field with a third too far away to assist that day. The two divisions under Generals John Bell Hood and Lafayette McLaws set out at 4 AM that morning but had not yet arrived near Gettysburg while Lee was formulating plans for an early morning assault. By the time they arrived it was after 8 o'clock, and Lee was forced to alter his timetable. Orders were finally re-issued at mid morning for General Longstreet to put his troops in motion. Not thrilled with his assignment because of the unfamiliarity of the ground and his desire to fight defensively, a disgruntled Longstreet put Hood and McLaws in motion on secondary roads south. After considerable delay, the march began filled with hope as the early morning drizzle had ended and the sky cleared. Yet misinformation and poor scouting thwarted the march. The day grew warm and the roads turned dusty under the tramping feet of 16,000 soldiers. Midway to the assigned positions, the lead scouts discovered that the road crested a ridge where signalmen on Little Round Top could easily spot the Confederate column. Somehow this critical location had not been reported by Captain Samuel R. Johnston, the officer in charge of an early morning reconnaissance to that area. Longstreet's men had to counter-march, or retrace their route back to another road that proved a more secluded route toward the southern tip of Seminary Ridge.

It was not until 3:30 PM when Hood's and McLaws' men finally reached their positions and formed battle lines having marched an exhausting 18 miles since sunrise. Very few of their troops had the opportunity to rest or fill empty canteens before the signal guns were fired to begin the assault.

Situated on the left of the Union line were troops under the command of Major General Daniel E. Sickles of New York. Despite his lack of military schooling, Sickles was brave, audacious, and had proven himself to be an adequate brigade commander. In 1863 he was given command of the Third Corps, which he led at the [[Battle of Chancellorsville]], Virginia. Sickles's corps had fought well but were ordered into a position that had a great disadvantage in ground height. As a result, Confederate artillery had pounded his troops without mercy. On the morning of July 2, Sickles was worried that the same situation was about to occur. Arriving at Gettysburg overnight of July 1, his troops had been ordered to occupy the southern end of Cemetery Ridge to Little Round Top. From his position the general worried that the ridge on which ran the Emmitsburg Road would be advantageous to the Confederates if they held it. Sickles sent several messengers to headquarters that morning requesting that General Meade visit the Third Corps line to discuss the situation. Meade declined while engaged in other duties. Certain of a Confederate threat to his front, Sickles finally sent out a strong scouting party that included a regiment of United States Sharpshooters. Entering Pitzer's Woods on Seminary Ridge, the sharpshooters encountered Confederate forces from A.P. Hill's Corps and a brisk fight ensued. Returning to the Union line, the scouts reported that the woods ahead of Sickles were full of Rebel soldiers and a dust cloud was seen, obviously caused by a strong column of Confederate troops headed his way. Believing that the Confederate attack would fall on him from the west, Sickles ordered his corps to advance from Cemetery Ridge and occupy the high ground at the Emmitsburg Road.
[[Image:Gettysburg Day2 Hood.png|thumb|200px|right|Hood's attack on the second day]]
The Third Corps was greatly under strength. Sickles had only two divisions, instead of the customary three, under Maj. General David Birney and Brig. General A.A. Humphreys. As a precaution to cover his left flank, Birney's division was stretched from the Peach Orchard southeast to Devil's Den. Humphrey's brigades were arrayed in a battle line with supporting columns ready to march up to the Emmitsburg Road. Though this new line occupied some high ground, it was also very weak; there was not an adequate number of soldiers to man a solid line, especially on General Birney's front, and the advanced position presented the Confederates with a choice target to fire upon from two directions. Sickles had moved away from the main Union line on Cemetery Ridge losing the advantage of artillery support within a shortened front, and, perhaps most condemning, he had made the move forward in defiance of orders to stay where his corps had been posted. This opened a wide gap on both of his flanks, susceptible to being crushed by a flank attack- exactly what was about to happen courtesy of James Longstreet.

Longstreet's attack finally began at 4 o'clock when Confederate cannoneers opened fire on Union positions at Devil's Den and in the Peach Orchard. General Meade had visited Sickles' headquarters a few moments before and the two were conferring in the Peach Orchard when the Confederate guns opened fire. Despite the precarious position he was now in, Meade ordered Sickles to stay and fight along this new line and that other troops would be sent to assist.

General Hood's Division was the first sent into the attack though the lanky general was unhappy with his assignment. The open farm fields allowed Union artillery and sharpshooters to pepper his troops long before they reached the opponent's lines. Hood approached General Longstreet, expressing several objections to the assignment given him and petitioned the general for permission to withdraw his troops to move around Big Round Top. The corps commander blunted Hood's argument. Lee's orders had to be followed and Hood had to continue the attack despite his objections. "Do your best, Sam," Longstreet told the obstinate Texan as he turned his horse away. Law's Alabama Brigade stepped off from Warfield Ridge toward Devil's Den and the Round Tops, closely followed by Brig. General George Anderson's Brigade. Next to Law's men marched the famous Texas Brigade commanded by Brig. General Jerome B. Robertson. This was General Hood's old brigade and he paid special attention to them. Riding to the front of his old command, Hood addressed his soldiers: "Fix bayonets, my brave Texans; forward and take those heights!" Minutes later, General Hood was carried from the battlefield with a horrendous injury to his left arm. Brig. General Evander Law immediately took command as the troops wrestled their way around Sickles' left flank at Devil's Den. The Confederates swung eastward through plowed fields and pastures filled with boulders, past broken fences, and headlong toward Union cannon posted on the ridge above the den, supported by Union infantry. Fighting erupted on the slopes of Little Round Top, in the Wheatfield, and at the Peach Orchard.

===Little Round Top===
[[Image:Joshua Chamberlain.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain]]
[[Image:Little Round Top1.png|thumb|200px|right|Phase 1 on Little Round Top]]
Reacting to the initial Confederate charge, General Gouverneur K. Warren, Meade's chief engineer, was able to divert Colonel Strong Vincent's Union brigade to the slopes of Little Round Top. Understanding the importance of the hill, Vincent posted his regiments on the southern slope where they repulsed the first Confederate attacks. The southern regiments re-organized and renewed their efforts to drive Vincent's men from the hillside with repeated attacks. Vincent's line did not waver, however, and the Union men tenaciously held their ground. Vincent's left regiment, the 20th Maine Infantry under Colonel Joshua L. Chamberlain, held off the 15th Alabama Infantry for over an hour despite repeated attempts to get behind the Maine regiment and around its flank. With his regiment having lost heavily and ammunition nearly exhausted, Colonel Chamberlain decided to make a bayonet charge when the next attack came. The exhausted Alabamians were stopped in their tracks when a line of yelling, cursing men came down the slope at them with bayonets gleaming in the fading light. It was enough for many who threw down their arms. Others ran for their lives back into the woods of Big Round Top. Chamberlain approached a Confederate officer whose pistol misfired in the colonel's face, and accepted the officer's sword in surrender. While the 20th Maine was completing its action in the woods, Vincent's right regiment, the 16th Michigan Infantry, suddenly began to waver and give way. Screaming the "Rebel Yell", Confederates of the 4th and 5th Texas Infantry rushed up the slope in one final frenzy of shooting, stabbing, and clubbing. Racing to stem the flow of retreating soldiers, Colonel Vincent was in the act of rallying his soldiers when he was struck down by a southern bullet. At this critical moment Union reinforcements spearheaded by the 140th New York Infantry, arrived and halted the southern attack. Bravery and gallantry had saved Little Round Top, a key feature on the southern end of the Union line, but at a terrible cost in officers and men for both sides.
[[Image:Little-round-top.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Federal position on Little Round Top]]
While the fighting raged at Little Round Top and around Devil's Den, Union troops in the Wheatfield came under attack first from G.T. Anderson's Georgia Brigade, followed soon after by the South Carolina Brigade of Brig. General Joseph Kershaw. Having left the protection of stone walls on Seminary Ridge, Kershaw's troops crossed the Emmitsburg Road dogged the entire way by Union cannon stationed in the Peach Orchard. Passing into the Rose Farm, Kershaw realized that his men would have to face two separate lines of Union infantry, one at the Peach Orchard and the other placed on a stone-covered hill adjacent to the Wheatfield. Forced to split his brigade in half, the general's left regiments moved against the orchard as his right marched toward the stony hill. Just behind Kershaw, the brigade of Brig. General Paul Semmes arrived and rushed to support the South Carolinian's attack. The fighting swirled through the woods surrounding the field as Anderson's troops probed and moved to outflank the Union forces under Generals DeTrobriand and Barnes. Kershaw's Confederates sought to split the Union defenders who, though outnumbered, fought back furiously.
[[Image:Little Round Top2.png|thumb|200px|right|Phase 2 on Little Round Top]]
[[Image:Gettysburg Day2 Wheatfield1.png|thumb|200px|right|Phase 1 in the Wheatfield]]
[[Image:Gettysburg Day2 Wheatfield2.png|thumb|200px|right|Phase 2 in the Wheatfield]]
[[Image:Gettysburg Day2 Peach Orchard.png|thumb|200px|right|The Peach Orchard]]
Reinforcements from the Union Second Corps arrived, including the famous "Irish Brigade" led at Gettysburg by Colonel Patrick Kelly. The total number of Irishmen barely amounted to 500 officers and men. Before the brigade marched to the Wheatfield, Father William Corby stood upon a large boulder and granted the soldiers complete absolution at this time of crisis. The New York regiments unfurled their unique green silk flags bearing a golden harp and shamrocks and followed them southward. Kelly's soldiers were sent into the center of the "whirlpool", charging through the Wheatfield and into the woods on the west side where they threw back Kershaw's South Carolinians. One soldier recalled finding hundreds of dead and wounded soldiers amongst the rocks and called out to the unhurt Confederates to throw down their rifles and come forward. Several did, preferring capture to certain death.

===The Valley of Death===
The Second Corps troops were able to clear the Wheatfield of southerners, but only for a brief moment. The arrival of a fresh Confederate brigade of Georgia troops commanded by Brig. General William Wofford, which had just smashed in the last Union defenders at the Peach Orchard, drove into the woods outflanking the Union positions. The line melted before the Confederate onslaught. Wofford's regiment swept the Wheatfield and aided by men from Kershaw's, Semmes, and Anderson's brigades, smashed into the division of U.S. Regulars commanded by General Romeyn Ayres, the last Union soldiers who could stem the southern tide. Standing their ground, the Regulars suffered terrible casualties when Confederates were able to sweep around the Union soldiers before they began a fighting retreat across what became known as the "Valley of Death". Wofford's men raced on to the northern base of Little Round Top where they were suddenly counterattacked by a brigade of "Pennsylvania Reserves". Led in the attack by General Samuel Crawford, the Pennsylvanians forced Wofford's men back across the Valley of Death and into the Wheatfield itself. Just before the fighting ended in this area, it had reached a crescendo in the Peach Orchard and along the Union line north of it.
===The Peach Orchard===
From his headquarters at the Trostle Farm, General Sickles attempted to control the flow of the battle while shifting troops to shore up his battered left. At the height of the battle the general was struck in the leg by a cannon ball and carried from the field on a stretcher. Despite the tremendous pain and shock, Sickles cheered on other soldiers hurrying to the front. He was taken to a field hospital where his shattered limb was removed that night. Command of the corps now fell upon General Birney, who knew that the situation was nearly hopeless. Union artillery at the Peach Orchard persisted in blasting back every Confederate assault, despite a relentless volume of Confederate iron thrown at them from guns on Seminary Ridge. Hapless infantrymen could only hug the ground as the missiles filled the air. At approximately 6:30, McLaws sent forward his Mississippi brigade commanded by Brig. General William Barksdale. The battered Union line collapsed when Barksdale's soldiers rammed through the Peach Orchard, flanking out Union regiments along the Emmitsburg Road. Barksdale was followed by Brig. General Wofford's Georgia brigade, which swept on to the Wheatfield, finally clearing it of Union troops. Supported by more southern brigades from Maj. General Richard Anderson's Division of Hill's Corps, Barksdale's men charged on, capturing cannon and shooting down Yankees who dared to make a stand. Before them was a sizable gap in the Union line between Cemetery Hill and Little Round Top, held by only a handful of Union batteries and one regiment of Union infantry. Barksdale's men, joined by two brigades from General Hill's Corps, stormed toward the gap.

On Cemetery Ridge, the 1st Minnesota Infantry was assigned to support a battery of Union guns when they were ordered to make a desperate charge. Without wavering or questioning the order, Colonel William Colvill led 262 of his men headlong into Brig. General Cadmus Wilcox's Alabama Brigade, halting them just long enough for more Union troops to arrive and fill the gap. Adjacent to Wilcox rushed Perry’s Florida Brigade, commanded at Gettysburg by Colonel David Lang. Lang attempted to counter the Minnesotans charge but was in turn ambushed by another Union regiment that fired into the Floridians' flank, driving them into Wilcox's units. A brisk Union counterattack by a brigade of New York troops under Colonel George L. Willard that drove back Barksdale now turned on Wilcox and Lang. In danger of being flanked and possibly cut off, Wilcox ordered the two brigades to retreat, leaving scores of dead and wounded in the path of the charge. An additional Confederate brigade that threatened the Union line right up to its center was also thrown back, and the sounds of battle slowly died away with the sunset. Darkness put a grateful end to the slaughter and Meade used the lull to shore up the Union left with troops from the First, Fifth, and newly arrived Sixth Corps. What was left of Sickles' corps was consolidated with other units on Cemetery Ridge and the Union line re-established where it had been approximately seven hours before.
===Culp's Hill===
Delayed by Union artillery and poor communications, the other wing of Lee's army under General Ewell began the charge onto Culp's Hill at dusk. Confederate infantrymen under General Edward Johnson marched from the Hanover Road to Rock Creek at the base of Culp's Hill. Overwhelming Union artillery fire from Cemetery Hill had delayed the attack and Johnson found that the ground he had to cross to reach Culp's Hill broke up his formations, causing more delays to stop and reorganize before they reached Rock Creek at the base of the hill. In the gathering darkness, Johnson's men waded Rock Creek and pushed into deep woods where they encountered Union troops under Brig. General George S. Greene. During the afternoon, most of the Twelfth Corps had been sent from the hill toward the Round Tops to support Sickles' Corps, leaving Greene's troops to hold the hill. Stationed behind defenses constructed of logs, rocks, and earth, Greene's single brigade of New York regiments was stretched southward from the summit of Culp's Hill to a small knoll above Spangler's Spring. Johnson's brigades attacked the summit but reeled back under a never ending stream of Union bullets. Farther south, two regiments of Brig. General George Steuart's Brigade drove back Union skirmishers to find the Union earthworks on the knoll above Spangler's Spring abandoned.
[[Image:Gettysburg Day2 Culp's Hill Evening.png|thumb|200px|right|Culp's Hill on the evening of the second day of battle]]
[[Image:Gettysburg Day2 Cemetery Ridge.png|thumb|200px|right|Cemetery Ridge on the second day]]
Steuart attempted to press his units forward but halted when small arms fire hit his regiments from the summit of the hill and from the woods west of their newly won position. No matter in what direction the general sent his regiments, they were met with a blinding flash of musketry and forced back to the captured earthworks and stone wall that ran over the hill. "Our loss was heavy, " General Steuart reported, "the fire being terrific and in part a cross-fire." In the darkness, General Johnson could not determine his objectives and was uncertain of the force arrayed before him. The determined defense of Greene's men led Johnson to believe that he was heavily outnumbered. After communicating with General Ewell, he halted his attack at 11 PM and waited for reinforcements to arrive before renewing the assault at dawn. Though outnumbered almost three to one, Greene's men skillfully held their positions and fought back small probing parties of Confederates throughout the night. Additional Union regiments later arrived to support Greene and the echoes of rifle shots finally died away as both sides attempted to get a fitful few hours of rest before the battle would be renewed.

Northwest of Culp's Hill, two Confederate brigades from General Jubal Early's Division momentarily penetrated the Union defenses at Cemetery Hill. After dusk, Colonel Isaac Avery's North Carolina Brigade and Brigadier General Harry Hays' Louisiana Brigade, known as the "Louisiana Tigers", charged across the rolling Culp Farm and struck the Union positions at the base of the hill. The nickname for Hays' men came from former members of the original Louisiana Tigers or Wheat's Battalion, raised in 1861 but disbanded after Major Robert Wheat's death. The remaining Tigers were transferred into the various regiments of Hays' command where the other Louisiana soldiers had taken a liking to the nickname and the fame attached to it.

Union artillery sent shrapnel and canister at the dark columns approaching the hill. Soldiers fell in the corn and wheat, including Colonel Avery who was mortally wounded. Unable to speak, Avery handed an aide a last message: "Tell my father I died with my face to the enemy." The northern fire grew in intensity as the southerners got closer to the base of the hill where shaken Union regiments from the Eleventh Corps stood poised to resist the attack. Undaunted, the southerners rushed the Union line where the 5th, 6th, and 7th Louisiana Regiments overpowered and routed several Union regiments. Pouring through the gap, the Confederates rushed to the summit of Cemetery Hill and into the Union batteries stationed there. Though many of the infantrymen scattered, the Yankee artillerymen stuck to their guns defending them with rammers, trail spikes, pistols, and rocks taken from the nearby stone walls.

===Cemetery Hill===
Not quite a quarter mile away, Colonel Samuel Carroll's brigade of the Second Corps was massed behind Cemetery Ridge when an officer approached with orders from General Hancock: move immediately to the assistance of the Eleventh Corps on Cemetery Hill. Carroll marched his brigade across farm fields and the Taneytown Road, and through cemetery where they stumbled into a scene that one officer compared to "a swarm of mad bees around the hive..." Carroll, "found the enemy up to and in among the front guns of the batteries on the road. It being perfectly dark, and with no guide, I had to find the enemy's line entirely by their fire." Carroll's three regiments attacked, wading into the mass of milling soldiers, breaking up the already disordered Confederate formations. An intense hand to hand battle over the Union guns began. The 6th North Carolina Infantry had planted their regimental flag on one battery but were thrown back by a vicious bayonet charge of Carroll's command. Several regiments from General Coster's Brigade of the Eleventh Corps joined in the counterattack and by 10:30, the last Confederates had been thrown off Cemetery Hill. By midnight, the Union line was restored.
[[Image:JEB Stuart.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Jeb Stuart]]
While evaluating his army's gains at day's end, a disappointed Lee realized that his gamble of attacking the Union flanks simultaneously had not paid off. Longstreet's command had taken some high ground but his losses were very heavy and Meade still held along Cemetery Ridge. The capture of Culp's Hill was still in doubt, though if it could be secured in the morning, the Union position on Cemetery Hill and the Baltimore Pike would be threatened. Determined to strike Meade's flank again with as much force as possible the following day, Lee consented to Johnson being re-enforced and for the attack to continue at first light. By that time he would be able to make a better evaluation of his chances for success in another attack on the Union flanks or devise another strategy.

Late that evening, the general had a surprise visitor. General JEB Stuart arrived at Lee's headquarters to report on his success in riding behind the Yankee army and the capture of Federal wagons and stores. Instead of a warm welcome, Stuart received a cutting reprimand from Lee, upset with the cavalry commander who had not kept him informed of his movements or the position of the Union army during the past week. A shocked and embarrassed Stuart attempted to explain, but it had no effect on the old general. Lee's temper finally cooled. "I need you to help me fight these people," he reminded Stuart, before he changed the subject to his cavalry chief's assignment for the morrow.

General Meade spent the early evening shoring up his line by shifting troops to threatened areas, including Culp's Hill. It was imperative that the Twelfth Corps be returned to Culp's Hill to reinforce Greene's New Yorkers and drive out the threat to his rear at first light. Little did the Confederates who occupied the Union earthworks at Culp's Hill realize that they were only several hundred yards from the Baltimore Pike, the main route of communication and supply to the Union Army positions. Meade appreciated this fact and knew that measures had to be taken to block the Confederate opportunity as soon as possible.

Yet there were many issues on the general's mind that evening when he called his generals together for a "Council of War" held at army headquarters in the home of widow Lydia Leister on the Taneytown Road. The tiny house had two rooms, one of which was soon crowded with Meade's corps commanders, weary and dirty after the long day. The generals spoke frankly about the battle so far and discussed the Union positions on Cemetery Ridge. Different viewpoints were shared until the central question was placed before the group: Should the Army of the Potomac defend their current position for another day or attack? Almost to a man, the officers agreed to stay at Gettysburg and wait for Lee to attack. If he did not, then Meade should order a counterattack and force Lee to fight or flee. The Gettysburg Campaign was about to reach its climax.

==The Third Day==
[[Image:Gettysburg Day3 Culp's Hill Morning.png|thumb|200px|right|Culp's Hill on the morning of the third day of battle]]
Sunset of July 2nd found the Army of the Potomac arrayed in a fishhook-shaped line anchored solidly along Cemetery Ridge, from Big and Little Round Top to Culp's Hill, the most threatened part of the Union line that evening. Based on the consensus of officers who attended the Council of War at Meade's headquarters, the Confederate foothold at Culp's Hill had to be driven off to secure the Union right flank, which covered the Baltimore Pike, the all important road into the Union rear. General Henry Slocum issued orders for his Twelfth Corps troops to return to Culp's Hill and retake the sections occupied by General Johnson's Confederate Division as early as possible.

Preparations for the attack were completed and at 4 AM, the Twelfth Corps counterattacked Johnson's men just as they were preparing to make their own attempt to storm Culp's Hill. Union artillery posted on the Baltimore Pike and Powers Hill blasted southern regiments that ventured out of the captured works or pinned them down so that movement was nearly impossible. Brig. General Alpheus S. Williams, who was placed in command of the corps by Slocum, sent his regiments into the fighting in waves. Each attack countered every move made by Johnson's men, pinning them into a tight area above Spangler's Spring and at the base of the hill proper. For six hours the battle on the hillside raged. The volume of musketry was ear-splitting and the carnage appalling, especially in the meadow near Spangler's Spring. A misunderstanding of verbal orders caused the 2nd Massachusetts Infantry and 27th Indiana Infantry to charge across the open meadow where they were caught in a cross fire from Confederates stationed behind stone walls and earthworks. Both regiments were decimated in the attack. The survivors staggered back to their starting point in the woods south of the field, now littered with the dead and wounded. Soon after this charge, an attempt was made by the 2nd Maryland Infantry (CSA) and 3rd North Carolina Infantry to break out of the Union entrapment. The result was as dismal as the Union attempt had been, the Marylanders suffering heavy casualties in their charge through a small field known today as "Pardee Field", named for Colonel Ario Pardee of the 147th Pennsylvania Infantry whose troops opposed the southern attack.

The Twelfth Corps had advantages over Johnson's southerners in holding fortified positions on the higher portions of the hill, more men and regiments were available to relieve those in the front line, and Union artillery that provided accurate support to Williams' soldiers. Despite their hold on the hill above Spangler's Meadow, Johnson's men could not make any headway through the strong Union defenses and had no artillery to support the attack. By 10 o'clock that morning, General Johnson realized that he could not break through or capture Culp's Hill and began to systematically withdraw his troops, being careful not to give the Union any advantages in counterattacking his retreat. General Steuart, whose brigade of Maryland and North Carolina troops had held the hill above Spangler's Meadow, was so distraught by his losses that he broke into tears. "My poor boys," he said, wringing his hands as he watched his exhausted and bloodied men march by, "My poor boys!"

Union regiments re-took the abandoned positions soon after and General Geary reported that the rebels had gone from his front. The point of the fishhook was no longer in southern hands.

General Lee had hoped to again force the Union flanks in the early morning hours. To coincide with his attacks, he had ordered his cavalry chief, JEB Stuart, to ride around the right of the Union positions and strike toward Meade's supply line. This disruption would threaten Union supply lines and communications, forcing Meade to withdraw troops to protect his threatened rear. But delays and the Union counter-attack that resulted in the defeat of Johnson's command at Culp's Hill, forced a dramatic change in plans. The loss of Culp's Hill left him with few options. Determined to strike again as soon as possible, Lee threw in his trump card: a grand assault against the enemy center preceded by a massive artillery bombardment. Believing that Meade had weakened his center to reinforce his flanks, Lee stated that a bold stroke on the Union center would break the weakest part of the fishhook. The charge would include troops from two corps- an estimated 18,000 men, preceded by a massive bombardment that would sweep the few Union batteries from this section of the Union line.

===The last gamble===
General Lee studied the Union line that morning and presented his plan. General Longstreet was assigned overall command of the attack and ordered to execute the charge. Freshly arrived on the field, Maj. General George Pickett's Division of Virginia troops would form the right half of the attacking column with two divisions from A.P. Hill's Corps to form the left half. If all went well, the attack would be carried out before noon though assembling the required number of men and artillery was another matter. Due to heavy losses suffered on July 1, Hill's six brigades committed to the assault could only muster about 6,000 men. Combined with the 5,500 under Pickett's command and 1,600 men from Anderson's Division of Hill's Corps, barely two-thirds of the desired strength was available. By mid-morning, two of Pickett's brigades were lying in a shallow depression north of the Spangler Farm with the third just behind at the edge of Spangler Woods. Troops from Hill's corps were arrayed in battle lines behind the trees on Seminary Ridge. Inevitable delays held up the attack and by noon an eerie silence had descended on the field, broken only by scattered rifle shots of sharpshooters between Gettysburg and Cemetery Hill. Another hour would pass before all of the preparations were complete.

Late on the morning of July 3rd, Union General Henry Hunt rode to the crest of Cemetery Ridge. "Here a magnificent display greeted my eyes," he wrote. "Our whole front for two miles was covered by batteries already in line or going into position. They stretched... from opposite the town to the Peach Orchard, which bounded the view to the left, the ridges of which were thick with cannon. Never before had such a sight been witnessed on this continent. What did it mean?"

Little did Hunt know that this line of approximately 120 cannon was arranged by General Longstreet to prepare for the greatest charge of the war. In command of the center of the artillery line was 28 year-old Colonel Edward P. Alexander, who's overwhelming duty was to direct his artillery battalion and judge the effect of the artillery barrage on the enemy line. Alexander later wrote that his guns were in a "splendid position" to strike Cemetery Ridge, though his primary concern was for ammunition. The southern artillery had to achieve good results within the first half-hour for them to properly support the infantry assault and would require a fresh supply as soon as the infantry advanced. Alexander's commander, Colonel James Walton, ordered the supply train brought forward to a location near the front lines so that empty ammunition chests could be quickly replenished.

===Pickett's Charge===
[[Image:General George Pickett.jpg|thumb|200px|left|George Pickett]]
It was just before 1 PM when General Longstreet sent orders to the Washington Artillery of New Orleans, stationed in the Peach Orchard, to fire the signal shots to begin the bombardment. The afternoon calm was broken by two loud booms followed by a violent, simultaneous blast of fire from the solid line of Confederate cannon. Surprised Union artillerymen ran to their cannon and returned fire. The battlefield shook under the weight of explosions. Fire and dense smoke covered the ridges and rolled across the fields. Gunners toiled over their heated guns as shells churned up the earth around them, knocking men and horses to the ground. Caissons and limber chests of two Union batteries erupted in massive explosions. Alexander anxiously watched the Yankee line through binoculars. It appeared that nothing could live under the weight of the bombardment on that narrow ridge, but the Union gunfire did not subside; these determined Union cannoneers simply would not quit. Alexander's fears were proving true; the Confederate guns were not doing as much damage as he had hoped in the initial attack and with the high rate of fire necessary to suppress the Union artillery, his ammunition chests would quickly be depleted. Adding to the problem was the poor quality of some southern-made artillery fuzes and shells, many of which failed to explode. Inexperienced gunners in several batteries had difficulty aiming their cannon properly and many shells sailed over Cemetery Ridge into the Union rear, doing little damage to the front line troops and guns. The bombardment continued toward its second hour when ammunition chests began to empty. Artillery drivers took their caissons to the site where wagons loaded with extra ammunition were located, only to find them gone. General William N. Pendleton, Lee's artillery chief, had ordered the wagons away for their protection and not bothered to tell Alexander or any of his subordinates where they had been sent. Staff officers rode off to search for the wayward supply wagons as Alexander's gunners began to empty the last level of artillery shells in the limber chests.

General Hunt, who had earlier remarked on the impressive display of Confederate ordnance, had also prepared the Union artillery line that morning by insuring fresh batteries could be sent forward from the Artillery Reserve when needed. When his active batteries ran low on ammunition, Hunt could replace them with new units from the reserve. After forty minutes of constant shelling, those batteries near the center of the line were low on long range ammunition or partially disabled. Hunt ordered those gunners to cease fire and sent couriers to bring fresh batteries forward. The Union fire slackened as the guns went silent. Artillerymen in several batteries limbered their smoking guns and prepared to leave, yet many could not- the tremendous barrage had killed or maimed most of the horses, which lay in heaps in front of the limbers and caissons still strapped into their harnesses. Through the dense battle smoke, Alexander observed several Union batteries withdraw and immediately sent a note to General Pickett: "Come quick. The guns in the cemetery have gone. Come quick or I cannot properly support you." Pickett immediately reported to General Longstreet in Spangler's Woods and presented Alexander's note. Seated on a fence at the edge of the woods, Longstreet silently read the note without uttering a word. "Shall I advance, sir?" Pickett asked. The sullen general could barely nod his approval. Racing to his horse, Pickett mounted and wisped a hasty salute before turning to ride to his troops. Longstreet remained on his fence quiet and dour, his eyes downcast while his troops moved into position to begin the mile long march to Cemetery Ridge.
[[Image:Pickett's-Charge.png|thumb|200px|right|Pickett's Charge]]
General George Edward Pickett's Division was composed of three brigades of Virginia regiments. Brig. General Richard Garnett and Brig. General James Kemper led the two brigades arranged in the first line, with the third brigade, commanded by Brig. General Lewis Armistead, just behind. Lt. J. Irving Sale of Company H, 53rd Virginia Infantry, recalled General Armistead standing at the front of his old regiment. "Just before we started," wrote Lt. Sale, "he tore off his cravat, put his hat on his sword, and cried: 'Remember your homes, your wives and your sweethearts!'" There were similar addresses by officers of other regiments, yet the most inspiring words may have come from General Pickett himself who called on his men to remember their homes, "wives and sweethearts", and the importance of being a native of Virginia. With that, the advance began, the long columns tramping steadily forward in almost perfect alignment past the Emmitsburg Road and across open farm land toward the smoldering Union line on Cemetery Ridge.

Almost immediately, Union artillery from Cemetery Hill to Little Round Top opened fire, sending sold shot and shell into the thick, gray-clad columns.

North of Pickett's Division, three lines of southern infantry emerged from the woods on Seminary Ridge and quickly advanced through the William Bliss Farm, past the smoking remains of the house and barn which had been burned that morning. The regular commanders of both divisions having been wounded, Brig. General James J. Pettigrew led Heth's Division, and Maj. General Isaac Trimble led a portion of Pender's Division. The troops marched in perfect alignment until Union shells hit the left flank of the line where Colonel John Brockenbrough's small Virginia brigade marched. Nearly shattered on the first day of the battle, Brockenbrough's men could not stand the fire and fled. General Trimble quickly ordered his two brigades to the left to bolster the wavering line while Pettigrew continued to urge his men forward.

The Union center was held by the Second Corps commanded on July 3rd by General John Gibbon, the same officer who Meade had warned about an attack on his front the night before. Gibbon realized what this bombardment meant and had done all he could to prepare his infantry who suffered under the barrage. Many a veteran complained of the frustration of being unable to fight back against an enemy at long range. Some even expressed a sense of relief to finally see the Confederate infantry emerge from the woods and fields to begin their charge. At last they would have their chance to fight back.

At the center of Gibbon's line, referred to as "the Angle" for the sharp corner of the stone fence located there, was an infantry brigade of regiments raised entirely within the county limits and city of Philadelphia. The "Philadelphia Brigade" had fought with distinction during the Peninsular Campaign, Antietam, and Fredericksburg. Now, they were witnesses to the greatest charge of the war and would soon find themselves at its center, commanded by an officer unfamiliar to a majority of them.

Brig. General Alexander Webb was given command of the Philadelphians barely three days before the battle, and had little time to become acquainted with his officers or men. Yet his troops had fought admirably on July 2nd, and now the astute Webb observed that the charge was headed toward his position at the Angle clogged with the scattered remains of Battery A, 4th US Artillery, commanded by 21 year-old Lt. Alonzo Cushing. His battery was a shambles- bridled horses lay dead, still strapped to the limbers and caissons, two of which had exploded from direct hits. The torn bodies of gunners and drivers lay amidst the scattered equipment and by one of his disabled guns. Despite this destruction, Cushing asked permission of Webb to remain with his last two operating guns that he ordered be pushed to the stone wall adjacent to infantrymen of the 71st Pennsylvania. Webb gave his permission to the severely wounded lieutenant, and watched as he and his few remaining artillerymen pushed the guns forward and piled charges of canister by each. One was manned by volunteers from the 71st, who jammed rocks and several discarded bayonets into the muzzle of the gun over the canister round. Around the guns, infantry had taken up and loaded discarded muskets, leaning them against the wall so they could be quickly used. The grim wait then began as the southern column appeared, moving steadily forward despite the shot and shell that fell into their ranks.

Bordering the Emmitsburg Road were stout rail fences, which were too strong to be knocked down or pushed over, and the southerners were forced to climb over or crawl through the rails where sections had not been torn out during the previous day's fighting. The Union line came alive with musketry as Pickett's soldiers scaled the fences, many of the men taking shelter in the shallow ditches on each side of the road while the rest climbed the next fence and pushed onward. Armistead's brigade arrived close behind Garnett's men, and immediately scrambled over and through the unbending obstacle. "I tried to crawl through the fence," recalled Lt. Sale, 53rd Virginia, "and heard the shot striking ping - ping on the rails all around me. My head got caught between two rails and I recall the horror of the thought that I might be killed and left hanging there dead. I jumped over the fence and came on. It was awful the way the men dropped."

Those who had weathered the artillery and kept up with their commanders, huddled behind the regimental flags that danced crazily above the ranks, the color bearers making every attempt to keep their banners aloft. General Garnett, one of the few officers who rode into the charge, cheered his men forward and up the incline where the Union line anxiously waited. Randolph Shotwell of the 8th Virginia remembered: "With a shout we start to run up the slope. Lo! From behind the breastworks on the crest arises a dense rank of blue coats whose polished musket barrels are seen to glitter for an instant. Then bursts forth a puff, a blinding, withering blaze, a long sheet of lightning as if from the summit of the hill had suddenly sprung a vomiting volcano. Think of the havoc such a volley must make in the compact columns swarming up the ascent! All around me were men weltering in their life-blood, some on their faces, some on their backs, some writhing and moaning, others still forever. Half the flags of the division fell with the first fire, but quickly they were raised by the survivors and borne forward."

From behind their stone wall, Gibbon's troops unleashed a merciless fire into the southern columns, joined by Union batteries that let loose double charges of canister. With the front of Webb's infantry, Lt. Cushing was at his single gun, supervising every discharge into the seemingly unstoppable Confederates. "I'll give them one more shot," he told his sergeant as he took up the lanyard and pulled. The sharp report of the cannon covered the whiz of the southern bullet that smacked into Cushing at the same moment, killing him instantly, his lifeless body falling over the trail of the gun. Out in front, Pickett's men dropped by the hundreds. All organization was lost as the men pushed together to fill gaps in the ranks, the different regiments soon hopelessly intermingled. Waving swords and shouting commands, officers encouraged their men onward. The explosion of shells, whine of bullets and rattle of musketry was deafening and commands could not be heard above the din of battle. All followed the flags forward into the smoke, storming up the gentle slope to the stone wall at the Angle where Pickett's command intermingled with troops from General Pettigrew's column, and together crashed into the wall, driving back part of the Union infantry. Hopelessly intertwined, the milling crowd of southerners hesitated, shooting at shadows in the smoke ahead and around them. The whine of bullets through their ranks told them that the Union soldiers had not fully retreated and the area within the angle was a no man's land.

General Webb's troops fought back desperately. Though the 71st Pennsylvania had been forced back from the wall, they had been joined by the 72nd Pennsylvania, which formed a solid line of blazing musketry at the eastern end of the Angle. Forcing his way through the crowd, General Armistead approached the front ranks and shouted for the men to follow. Lt. Sale was right behind the general: "General Armistead was right ahead of me. When we poured over the wall, he waved his hat and sword and yelled: 'Now give 'em the cold steel, boys!'" Followed by officers and men from his and Garnett's commands, Armistead leapt the wall and ran to one of the abandoned guns of Lt. Cushing's battery. Lt. Sale and his men followed: "I was only a few feet behind him when he fell. The next moment I was surrounded and gave up my sword." Once Armistead went down, the rush forward apparently lost much of its initiative and the men took cover behind the cannon or charged into the dense thicket of trees nearby, later to be known as the "High Water Mark of the Confederacy."

===Emmitsburg Road===
North of Pickett's command, Pettigrew and Trimble had succeeded in reaching the Emmitsburg Road but with great difficulty. Union artillery on Cemetery Hill continued to blast the Confederate formations, composed of North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama troops, as they reached the strong fences at the road. Men poured through a handful of gaps while others scurried over the fences that averaged five and one-half feet in height. With formations lost, herds of Confederates followed their red battle flags past the road, the right regiments of Pettigrew's line headed toward the angle to join with Pickett's men while the remainder surged up the gentle slope. Pettigrew's Brigade, commanded by Colonel James Marshall during the charge, was the center brigade of the front line with the remnant of the 26th North Carolina Infantry at its center. The survivors of the terrible fighting on July 1st were now in a more deadly situation with nothing to provide cover or concealment. "The advance was made in perfect order," reported the 26th's commander Major John Jones. "When about half across the intervening space, the enemy opened on us a most destructive fire of grape and canister. When within about 250 or 300 yards of the stone wall behind which the enemy was posted, we were met with a perfect hail-storm of lead from their small arms." Knocked down by a spent ball, Jones refused to leave the field until he was certain that the charge had failed and those who could had escaped. General Trimble had just spoken with Pettigrew by the Emmitsburg Road when he was seriously wounded, a ball hitting him the leg, shattering the bone. Trimble relinquished command to General Lane and added with his compliments, "if the troops I've had the honor to command today cannot take those heights, then all hell cannot take them!" Seconds later general Pettigrew received a painful wound in the hand but remained on the field to rally his men.

Aligned in solid ranks behind stone walls and fence barricades from Ziegler's Grove to the Angle, troops under the command of General Alexander Hays were more than prepared to contest the Southern attack. Hays had put two of his largest brigades on the line, stacked shoulder to shoulder. In one place the men were four ranks deep. Many of these regiments had been forced to surrender to "Stonewall" Jackson at Harpers Ferry in 1862 without firing a shot and it was a stain that unjustly had followed them since. For many this was the first opportunity to "exact retribution" for the humiliation. Through the smoke the Union soldiers watched the butternut formations approach, awed by the discipline displayed in the southern ranks. The moment was not lost on the fiery General Hays:

:''"Their march was as steady as if impelled by machinery, unbroken by our artillery, which played upon them a storm of missiles. When within 100 yards of our line of infantry, the fire of our men could no longer be restrained. Four lines rose from behind our stone wall, and before the smoke of our first volley had cleared away, the enemy, in dismay and consternation, were seeking safety in flight. Every attempt by their officers to rally them was in vain."''

Having moved to the left to support Pettigrew's troops, Brig. General James Lane reached the Emmitsburg Road to find his North Carolina brigade on the front line facing a mass of blue-clad troops at the crest of Cemetery Ridge. "My command never moved forward more handsomely," General Lane reported. "The men reserved their fire, in accordance with orders, until within good range of the enemy, and then opened with telling effect, repeatedly driving the cannoneers from their pieces, silencing the guns in our immediate front... We advanced to within a few yards of the stone wall, exposed all the while to a heavy raking artillery fire coming from the right. My left was here very much exposed and a column of the enemy's infantry was thrown forward... which enfiladed my line." Lane's troops were trapped in a terrible cross fire with everyone else in the charge. Soldiers lay down to escape the shower of lead or crawled into any depression that could provide cover. No one could stand on that field and live.

===The bloody Angle===
[[Image:Lewis armistead-.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Lewis Armistead]]
While Pettigrew's troops struggled for survival, the situation at the Angle had reached a critical point with the most intense fighting centered around Cushing's wrecked battery. The 72nd Pennsylvania Infantry, intermixed with members of the 71st Pennsylvania, stood on the crest of the ridge firing into the mass of Confederates who had retreated back to the wall. Stubbornly refusing to move forward or backward, the "Fire Zouaves" fired wildly into Pickett's men as rapidly as they could load. Rifle fire and shouts of the combatants were a continuous roar. Lt. Frank Haskell, an aide to General Gibbon, realized that the regiment had to charge and spurred his horse to the front of the 72nd: "These men of Pennsylvania, on the soil of their own homesteads, the first and only to flee the wall must be the first to storm it. 'Sergeant, forward with your color. Let the Rebels see it close to their eyes once more before they die.' The color sergeant of the 72nd Pennsylvania, grasping the stump of the severed lance in both hands, waved the flag above his head and rushed towards the wall. Almost halfway to the wall, down go color bearer and color to the ground; the gallant sergeant is dead. The line springs... with a great roar, heaves forward its maddened load- men, arms, smoke, fire, a fighting mass. It rolls to the wall. A moment ensues of thrusts, yells, blows, shots and undistinguishable conflict..."

Jammed in the gray-clad crowd at the wall, Lt. John James, Company D, 11th Virginia, waited in vain for supports to arrive: "We saw the enemy advancing heavy reinforcements. We looked back for ours, but in vain; we were compelled to fall back and had to run as targets to their balls. Oh, it was hard, too hard to be compelled to give way for the want of men having fought as hard as we had that day. We gained nothing but [[glory]] and lost our bravest men." A handful of Confederates remained in the clump of trees. "After a few minutes of desperate hand to hand fighting," Colonel Hall reported, "the crowd... threw down their arms and were taken prisoner of war, while the remainder broke and fled." Webb's men pursued the southerners over the wall. Those who remained had no choice but to surrender. "Defeated, routed, the enemy fled in disorder," a relieved General Webb reported. "This brigade captured nearly 1,000 prisoners, 6 battle-flags, and picked up 1,400 stand of arms. The conduct of (my) brigade was most satisfactory. I lost gallant officers and men."
[[Image:Confederate-prisoners.jpg|thumb|200px|left|Confederate prisoners after the battle]]
Hundreds of prisoners were herded together, disarmed, and then ordered to the rear, among them Lt. Sale who had followed Armistead into Cushing's guns. Having surrendered his sword, the young officer stepped over bodies, "lying all over so thick that you could scarcely help stepping on them." Everywhere soldiers rushed out to gather up prisoners and the prized southern flags, many lying abandoned in front the wall, their bearers having been shot down. One flag was given to the enthusiastic General Hays who rode along the front of his troops dragging the captured banner through the dust.

Leaderless survivors made their way back to Seminary Ridge. Among them rode a tearful General Pickett, in shock at the destruction of his once magnificent division. Of the 5,500 men who made the charge, over 2,800 were killed, wounded, or captured. The survivors were scattered and it took many hours for them to reorganize- barely a thousand answered to the roll call that evening. Likewise the destruction in Pettigrew's ranks was appalling. A mere handful reached a point within a few yards of the stonewall, only to be called in to surrender. The remainder turned back to Seminary Ridge, stepping over and around hundreds of bodies that covered the gentle slope. General Trimble was so seriously wounded at the Emmitsburg Road that it required the amputation of his leg. Pettigrew was also wounded, struck in the hand by a canister ball. The storm of Union fire, at one point from three directions, was more than anyone could stand and soldiers ran for their lives. "We fell back as well as could be expected," added General Lane who's troops were the last off that portion of the field. The loss in many regiments, including the 11th Mississippi and the 26th North Carolina, was especially frightful. "It was a second Fredericksburg affair," lamented Captain J.J. Young of the 26th North Carolina, "only the wrong way."

A footnote to the repulse of Pickett's Division was the misguided charge of Brig. General Cadmus Wilcox's brigade and Colonel William Perry's Florida brigade. By the time Wilcox received word to advance to support Pickett, smoke so obscured the field that he could not tell where Pickett's troops had advanced to. The two brigades crossed the Emmitsburg Road following Pickett's original route and charged into a perfect storm of artillery fire in Plum Run Valley, near the same position where they had fought the day before. Two large Vermont regiments from Brig. General Stannard's brigade had swung out to hit Kemper's flank and now turned toward the Confederates stuck in the marshy ground of Plum Run. The 14th and 16th Vermont Infantry Regiments tore into the flank as charges of canister shredded the southern ranks. For Wilcox, there was no recourse but a hasty retreat with Pickett's survivors. For the Vermonters, Gettysburg was their only battle. Stannard's entire brigade was mustered out of service two weeks after the battle and went home heroes, some bearing souvenirs from their participation in the repulse of Pickett's Division.
[[Image:Gettysburg East Cavalry Field1.png|thumb|200px|right|]]
[[Image:Gettysburg East Cavalry Field2.png|thumb|200px|right|]]
[[Image:Gettysburg East Cavalry Field3.png|thumb|200px|right|The cavalry battle to the east of Gettysburg on the third day, where Stuart met defeat at the hands of Gregg.]]
[[Image:Gettysburg Retreat.png|thumb|200px|right|Lee's retreat from Gettysburg]]
While directing the 16th Vermont into position, General Hancock was struck by a Confederate bullet that traveled through the pommel of his saddle and struck an artery in his groin. A quick thinking aid applied a tourniquet to stop the bleeding and also pulled a nail from the wound that the bullet had carried from the saddle into the general's leg. Despite the intense pain, Hancock dictated a final message to Meade, describing the repulse and ending with the remark that the Confederates must be low on ammunition for he was shot with a ten-penny nail! Gibbon, Webb, and many others were also wounded, but the center of the line had held.

Union soldiers scoured the field collecting weapons, flags, and the wounded. General Hays' soldiers collected 2,500 discarded rifles, 15 battle flags, and took over 1,500 prisoners. Sharing in the victory was the 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry, positioned far out in front of the Union line on skirmish detail. As the Confederate line approached Cemetery Ridge and bypassed the Ohioans, Lt. Col. Franklin Sawyer ordered his men to turn and fire into the flanks of Brockenbrough's and then Scales' and Lane's troops. The apparent confusion in the southern ranks was so obvious that Sawyer believed he had turned back the bulk of the Confederate left wing. Sawyer's men charged into the field to capture approximately 200 Confederates and pick up flags of the 34th North Carolina and 38th Virginia Infantry.

General Meade arrived near the Angle just as the last of Pickett's men were being driven away. The bombardment had sent he and his staff scurrying from the Leister House to another temporary headquarters, and he returned just in time to see a herd of Confederate prisoners moving to the rear. "Thank God," the general muttered, which he followed with a hoarse "Hurrah!" A Union band struck up "Hail to the Chief" as Meade galloped past the bloodied ranks of soldiers who had held the center. The chant of "Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!" passed up and down the line. It was six months before at the Battle of Fredericksburg that these soldiers had experienced an identical trial by fire in a hopeless charge over open plain. Now they had paid the Confederates back in blood.

For George Gordon Meade, his first test as an army commander had been a successful one, but the strain of the past week had taken its toll. Outwardly the "old Snapping Turtle" was grateful to his officers and staff while still irascible with subordinates who did not move quickly enough or brought him bad news. "It was a grand battle," he confided to his wife in a letter two days later, "and is in my judgement a most decided victory, tho I did not annihilate or bag the Confederate army. The men behaved splendidly. They endured long marches short rations and stood one of the terrific cannonading I ever witnessed."

General Lee left his headquarters and rode south on Seminary Ridge to find General Longstreet still seated on the rail fence in Spangler's Woods. After a brief discussion, Lee rode to Colonel Alexander's artillery line at the edge of the woods, arriving just in time to witness the southern tide crest on Cemetery Ridge. Silently he watched the flags disappear in the battle smoke while hundreds, if not thousands, of his soldiers streamed back toward him. Most walked as if in a trance. Others were near panic, and raced as fast as their legs could carry them to safety. Alexander looked at his army chief, perhaps curious to see the great commander's reaction. At first motionless, Lee quickly sprang into action and rode into the fugitives speaking words of encouragement, calming the panicked. Lee was soon joined by Colonel Arthur Fremantle, a British Army officer who had accompanied Lee's army into Pennsylvania as an observer. To Fremantle, Lee's demeanor in the face of disaster was impressive: "He was engaged in rallying and in encouraging the broken troops, and was riding about... in front of the woods, quite alone. His face, which is always placid and cheerful, did not show signs of the slightest disappointment, care, or annoyance; and he was addressing to every soldier he met a few words of encouragement, such as 'All this will come right in the end; we'll talk it over afterwards; but, in the meantime, all good men must rally. We want all good and true men just now.' He said to me, 'This has been a sad day for us, Colonel, a sad day; but we can't expect always to gain victories.' In this manner I saw General Lee encourage and reanimate his somewhat dispirited troops, and magnanimously take upon his own shoulders the whole weight of the repulse."

For James Longstreet, the dismal failure of the assault was almost too much. Riding among the survivors, Longstreet encouraged the beaten men to rally themselves behind Seminary Ridge. For "Old Pete", the failure of the charge that afternoon would haunt him for the rest of his life. Among the survivors was a downcast General Pickett who rode silently, pale and in shock. General Lee approached, asking the general the condition of his command. "General, I have no division," Pickett replied. "Armistead is down, Garnett is down, and Kemper is mortally wounded." Lee responded with kind, comforting words, telling him to rally his men behind Seminary Ridge. Like Longstreet, Pickett would never forget this terrible moment at Gettysburg and is alleged to have later placed the blame for the failure of the charge directly on General Lee.

It was soon after rallying his troops that a courier arrived to inform Lee of Stuart's defeat at the hands of Union cavalry three miles east of Gettysburg. Blocked by a strong Union cavalry force, Stuart withdrew his cavalry division from the field after a spirited battle. Union cavalry also tested the Confederate right, still held by General Hood's troops. A charge made by Union cavalry under General Elon J. Farnsworth was handsomely repulsed and resulted in Farnsworth's death.

This was little consolation. Lee knew that he could no longer remain in Pennsylvania. Late that evening, he dictated orders for his army to withdraw from Gettysburg and begin the retreat back to Virginia.

==Aftermath==
[[image:Gettysburg.jpg|200px|thumb|left|"A Harvest of Death." Gettysburg, July 1863. Timothy O'Sullivan.]]
The effects of the battle were felt in Pennsylvania for many months after the armies had left. Approximately 5,500 soldiers from both armies were killed in the battle, with 22,000 wounded soldiers packed into churches, barns, and private homes throughout Adams County. Some of the wounded had no shelter except for the shade of trees. Overtaxed Union surgeons who had treated Union wounded continuously during the battle were now left with thousands of wounded Confederates to care for. Even with the the help of Gettysburg citizens and Confederate surgeons who remained, the situation appeared to be near calamity. But lessons learned from other battlefields had not been lost on the US Army Medical Department. Adams County was invaded once again that July, but this time by medical personnel with equipment and supplies who established a central hospital east of Gettysburg, dubbed "Camp Letterman". Wounded men were collected from remote locations to corps hospitals and then to Camp Letterman where surgeons and staff went immediately to work while civilian commissions assisted with nursing care and shelter. Once an individual was strong enough, he was shipped by rail to a permanent hospital in Philadelphia or Baltimore. Despite the best efforts of the army and charitable organizations, an additional 4,000 would succumb to their injuries either in Gettysburg or in the hospitals where they had been sent. Approximately 10,000 soldiers were captured during the fighting and both armies were burdened with their captives until they could be sent to prison camps.

With the wounded being cared for, attention turned to the sad condition of battlefield burials. Patriotic citizens of Adams County undertook efforts to establish a proper burial place for the Union dead and with funds provided by the Pennsylvania legislature, the process of reburials began that fall. The Soldiers National Cemetery was dedicated on November 19, 1863, and was the occasion of President Lincoln's highly regarded [[Gettysburg Address]], when the president not only dedicated a cemetery but gave the north a reason to continue the struggle to reunite the nation, the focus of the American Civil War.

For the residents of Gettysburg, the experiences of those three terrible days were vivid for many years to follow. Many, such as store clerk Daniel Skelly, recounted their stories of the battle in letters, journals, and reminiscences. Many of these, such as the story told by Gettysburg school teacher Sallie Myers, related much of the horror of the battle and its immediate effect on the townspeople. Though life eventually returned to normal and repairs were made to damaged buildings, many homes in Gettysburg today still bear the scars of the battle.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! killed
! wounded
! missing
|-
| Federals
| 3, 155
| 14, 529
| 5, 365
|-
| Confederates
| 3, 903
| 18, 735
| 5, 425
|}

==See Also==
* [[American Civil War: 1863]]
* [[Gettysburg Campaign]]
* [[Gallery of American Heroes]]
* ''[[C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America]]''

==Bibliography==
* Coddington, Edwin B. ''The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command'' (1968), the best single book on the campaign; [http://www.amazon.com/Gettysburg-Campaign-Study-Command/dp/0684845695/ref=sr_1_13/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194199232&sr=1-13 excerpt and text search]
* Foote, Shelby. ''The Civil War: A Narrative'' (3 vol. 1974), [http://homepage.eircom.net/%257Eodyssey/Quotes/History/Shelby_Foote_2.html#2-4 vol 2. ch 4 excerpts online]
* Freeman, Douglas S. ''R. E. Lee, A Biography'' (4 vol 1934) see [http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/home.html (online vol. 3 ch 3-9], Pulitzer prize biography
* Gallagher, Gary W., ed. ''Three Days at Gettysburg: Essays on Confederate and Union Leadership'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/three-days-at-gettysburg-essays-on-confederate-and-union-leadership-by-gary-w-gallagher.jsp online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Third-Gettysburg-Beyond-Military-Campaigns/dp/0807847534/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197713649&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Gallagher, Gary ed. ''The First Day at Gettysburg'' (1993) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-first-day-at-gettysburg-essays-on-confederate-and-union-leadership-by-gary-w-gallagher.jsp online edition]
* Gallagher, Gary ed. ''The Second Day at Gettysburg and Beyond'' (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Second-Day-Gettysburg-Confederate-Leadership/dp/0873384822/ref=sr_1_30/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194199306&sr=1-30 excerpt and text search]
* Gallagher, Gary ed. ''The Third Day at Gettysburg and Beyond'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-third-day-at-gettysburg-and-beyond-by-gary-w-gallagher.jsp online edition]
* Luvaas, Jay. ''Guide to the Battle of Gettysburg'' (1994) (U.S. Army War College Guides to Civil War Battles) [http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Gettysburg-College-Guides-Battles/dp/0700606866/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197710442&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* McPherson, James M. "To Conquer a Peace? Lee's Goals in the Gettysburg Campaign." ''Civil War Times'' (2007) 46(2): 26-33. Issn: 1546-9980 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Nofi, Albert A. ''The Gettysburg Campaign, June-July 1863'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-gettysburg-campaign-june-july-1863-by-albert-a-nofi.jsp online edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Gettysburg-Campaign-June-July-Great-Campaigns/dp/0938289837/ref=sr_1_44/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194199417&sr=1-44 excerpt and text search]
* Pfanz, Harry W. ''Gettysburg: The First Day'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Gettysburg-First-Day-Civil-America/dp/0807826243/ref=sr_1_33/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194199306&sr=1-33 excerpt and text search]
* Pfanz, Harry W. ''Gettysburg: The Second Day'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/gettysburg-the-second-day-by-harry-w-pfanz.jsp complete online edition]; also [http://www.amazon.com/Gettysburg-Second-Day-Harry-Pfanz/dp/0807847305/ref=sr_1_19/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194199232&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search]
* Pfanz, Harry W. ''Gettysburg: Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill,'' (1993), 510pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/gettysburg-culps-hill-and-cemetery-hill-by-harry-w-pfanz-gary-w-gallagher.jsp online edition]
* Robinson, Warren C. ''Jeb Stuart and the Confederate Defeat at Gettysburg'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Jeb-Stuart-Confederate-Defeat-Gettysburg/dp/0803211015/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197711388&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Sears, Stephen W. ''Gettysburg'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Gettysburg-Stephen-W-Sears/dp/0618485384/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194199033&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* United States Military Academy Dept. of Military Art and Engineering and Vincent J. Esposito. ''The West Point Atlas of American Wars: 1689-1900'' (1995); all maps are online free: [http://www.military.com/Resources/HistorySubmittedFileView?file=history_civilwar_maps.htm Eastern Theatre]
* Woodworth, Steven E. ''Beneath a Northern Sky: A Short History of the Gettysburg Campaign.'' (2003). 241 pp.

----
{| style="width: 100%; background:transparent; border: 2px solid #000099;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"
!colspan=2 style="width: 100%; text-align: center; background-color: #000088; color: white; "|'''Copyright Details'''
|-
!style="background-color: #000088; color:white;"|License:
|style=" background-color: none;"| This work is in the [[Public Domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the U.S. Code
|-
!style=" background-color: #000088; color:white;"|Source:
|style="background-color: none;border-top: 2px solid black"| File available from the {{{1|[[United States Federal Government]] [http://www.nps.gov/gett/historyculture/index.htm]}}}.
|}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gettysburg, Battle of}}

[[Category: American Civil War Battles]]

Iron Curtain

2009-04-22T12:09:31Z

ANorris:

[[Image:Iron Curtain caricature.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A caricature published by the [[Daily Mail]] in 1946 following Churchill's speech.]]
The [[Iron Curtain]] was a metaphorical term referring to the physical and ideological division across post-[[World War II]] [[Europe]], which restricted travel, commerce and communication between the nations of the West and the nations under the control of the [[Soviet Union]].

It was erected by the Soviet Union after the war and was the first part of the [[Cold War]]. Although drawn from the use of actual "curtains" of iron used in [[theater]]s to prevent the spread of fire, the phrase was probably first used in a metaphorical sense by [[H. G. Wells]] in 1901, and later by [[Joseph Goebbels]] (February 1945) and [[German]] politician Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk (May 1945). It achieved wider exposure and popularity when it was used by [[Winston Churchill]] in a speech at Westminster College, Fulton, [[Missouri]] on 5 March 1946: "From [[Stettin]] in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."<ref>''Sinews of Peace'' Speech by Winston Churchill [http://www.historyguide.org/europe/churchill.html The History Guide]. Accessed 5 February 2008</ref> [[Stalin]] responded to Churchill's speech by calling it a "declaration of war".<ref>''Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe'' International Relations 1945-1991 [http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/ir2/sovietexpansionineasterneuroperev2.shtml BBC Schools]. Accessed 5 February 2008</ref><ref>'''Zubok, Vladislov''' ''Stalin used Churchill speech to tighten Iron Curtain'' [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/02/reflections/ CNN Interactive]. Accessed 5 February 2008</ref> The [[Berlin Wall]] became its most visible symbol, dividing the German city into the free [[West Berlin]] and [[East Berlin]] under Soviet [[dictator]]ship.

The Iron Curtain fell after a series of events in the 1980s, perhaps best symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989, followed by the Soviet Union itself in 1991.<ref>''Berlin Wall Timeline'' [http://www.dailysoft.com/berlinwall/history/berlinwall-timeline.htm Berlin Wall Online]. Accessed 5 February 2008</ref>

==In popular culture==

*In the 2004 film ''[[C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America]]'', a similar "Cotton Curtain" is erected between the [[Confederate States of America]] (in that universe having won the [[American Civil War]]) and [[Canada]] for almost identical purposes to those of the Iron Curtain.

==Further reading==
*'''Harbutt, Fraser J.''' ''The Iron Curtain: Churchill, America, and the Origins of the Cold War'' (Oxford University Press, 1989) ISBN 0-1950-5422-9
*'''Rose, Brian''' ''The Lost Border: Photographs of the Iron Curtain'' (Princeton Architectural Press, 2004) ISBN 1-5689-8493-6.

==References==
<References/>

[[category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Communism]]

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

2009-04-22T12:07:29Z

ANorris: /* War with Japan */

'''''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America''''' is a 2004 [[United States|American]] film written and directed by [[Kevin Willmott]]. The film takes place in an alternate universe in which the [[Confederate States of America]] won the [[American Civil War]].

== Plot ==

The film is presented as though it were a [[United Kingdom|British]] documentary (actually titled ''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America'') being presented on a Confederate television network. The documentary is apparently controversial due to its disagreement with orthodox American views of American history, but is being shown in its entirety by popular demand. There are also short commercial breaks advertising racist products - some of which were real-life American products, including ''Darky Toothpaste''<ref>
http://www.toothpasteworld.com/specials.htm</ref> and the ''Coon Chicken Inn'' restaraunt chain<ref>http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/chicken/</ref>.

=== American Civil War ===

The documentary segments detail the history of America from the [[American Civil War]] to the present day. The chief turning-point, however, is the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], which - thanks to the successful diplomacy of Judah P. Benjamin - includes [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] troops fighting with the Confederacy. The Union later surrenders, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] is arrested after attempting to flee to [[Canada]] in blackface. After serving two years imprisonment, Lincoln is pardoned (in an effort to appease the conquered North) and is exiled to [[Canada]], where he dies of old age.

=== Consolidation ===

Meanwhile, [[Jefferson Davis]] brings the North into the Confederate way of life by introducing a tax on Northerners that is alleviated by the purchase of slaves, and is supported by a series of novelists who romanticize the events of the Civil War, ignoring the true events and focussing on tragic love stories between Northerners and Southerners. At the same time, an attempt to seperate the church from the state fails, and any non-Christian religions are outlawed in the CSA, although a small [[Judaism|Jewish]] community is permitted to settle on [[Long Island]].

=== American-Mexican War ===

By 1900, the CSA has adopted an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] agenda, hoping to compete with the [[British Empire]] and the [[German Empire]] in [[Europe]] by invading [[Mexico]]. The conquest drags on longer than expected, thus preventing the CSA from entering the [[First World War]], which still ends with German defeat despite a lack of American involvement. However, the conflict in [[Mexico]] ends in Confederate victory, and Mexican citizens are racially segregated from white Americans living in the country.

=== War with Japan ===

In 1929, the CSA retreats into isolationism following the Wall Street Crash, but is able to overturn the depression by revitalising its slave trade. The CSA also begins friendly relations with [[Adolf Hitler]] in [[Germany]], but disagrees with Hitler's Final Solution, thinking it to be a waste of potential slave-stock. Instead, the CSA launches an unprovoked attack on the [[Japan]] in 1941, claiming that Japanese power endangered the CSA's position in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. By "the grace of God" (the Atomic Bomb), the war is quickly brought to a close, with Germano-Japanese defeat (the same outcome as our [[Second World War]]).

=== Cold War ===

Afterwards, the CSA enters a [[Cold War]] with "Red [[Canada]]" following a rise in anti-[[Abolitionism|Abolitionist]] sentiment in the Confederacy. A "[[Iron Curtain|Cotton Curtain]]" is erected along the Canadian-American border, and tensions continue into the 1990's, when the [[Cold War]] draws to a close.

=== Modern Day ===

The documentary ends in the modern day, with the CSA fighting in [[Iraq]] against the "[[Taliban|Muslim Menace]]", and an upcoming election for the Presidency of the CSA that may or may not change the course of Confederate history once more.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.csathemovie.com/ Official Movie Website]

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ Entry at the Internet Movie Data Base]

*[http://www.allmovie.com/work/301340 Entry at allmovie]

[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

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

2009-04-22T12:07:00Z

ANorris: /* American-Mexican War */

'''''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America''''' is a 2004 [[United States|American]] film written and directed by [[Kevin Willmott]]. The film takes place in an alternate universe in which the [[Confederate States of America]] won the [[American Civil War]].

== Plot ==

The film is presented as though it were a [[United Kingdom|British]] documentary (actually titled ''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America'') being presented on a Confederate television network. The documentary is apparently controversial due to its disagreement with orthodox American views of American history, but is being shown in its entirety by popular demand. There are also short commercial breaks advertising racist products - some of which were real-life American products, including ''Darky Toothpaste''<ref>
http://www.toothpasteworld.com/specials.htm</ref> and the ''Coon Chicken Inn'' restaraunt chain<ref>http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/chicken/</ref>.

=== American Civil War ===

The documentary segments detail the history of America from the [[American Civil War]] to the present day. The chief turning-point, however, is the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], which - thanks to the successful diplomacy of Judah P. Benjamin - includes [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] troops fighting with the Confederacy. The Union later surrenders, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] is arrested after attempting to flee to [[Canada]] in blackface. After serving two years imprisonment, Lincoln is pardoned (in an effort to appease the conquered North) and is exiled to [[Canada]], where he dies of old age.

=== Consolidation ===

Meanwhile, [[Jefferson Davis]] brings the North into the Confederate way of life by introducing a tax on Northerners that is alleviated by the purchase of slaves, and is supported by a series of novelists who romanticize the events of the Civil War, ignoring the true events and focussing on tragic love stories between Northerners and Southerners. At the same time, an attempt to seperate the church from the state fails, and any non-Christian religions are outlawed in the CSA, although a small [[Judaism|Jewish]] community is permitted to settle on [[Long Island]].

=== American-Mexican War ===

By 1900, the CSA has adopted an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] agenda, hoping to compete with the [[British Empire]] and the [[German Empire]] in [[Europe]] by invading [[Mexico]]. The conquest drags on longer than expected, thus preventing the CSA from entering the [[First World War]], which still ends with German defeat despite a lack of American involvement. However, the conflict in [[Mexico]] ends in Confederate victory, and Mexican citizens are racially segregated from white Americans living in the country.

=== War with Japan ===

In 1929, the CSA retreats into isolationism following the Wall Street Crash, but is able to overturn the depression by revitalising its slave trade. The CSA also begins friendly relations with [[Adolf Hitler]] in [[Germany]], but disagrees with Hitler's Final Solution, thinking it to be a waste of potential slave-stock. Instead, the CSA launches an unprovoked attack on the [[Japan]], claiming that Japanese power endangered the CSA's position in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. By "the grace of God" (the Atomic Bomb), the war is quickly brought to a close, with Germano-Japanese defeat (the same outcome as our [[Second World War]]).

=== Cold War ===

Afterwards, the CSA enters a [[Cold War]] with "Red [[Canada]]" following a rise in anti-[[Abolitionism|Abolitionist]] sentiment in the Confederacy. A "[[Iron Curtain|Cotton Curtain]]" is erected along the Canadian-American border, and tensions continue into the 1990's, when the [[Cold War]] draws to a close.

=== Modern Day ===

The documentary ends in the modern day, with the CSA fighting in [[Iraq]] against the "[[Taliban|Muslim Menace]]", and an upcoming election for the Presidency of the CSA that may or may not change the course of Confederate history once more.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.csathemovie.com/ Official Movie Website]

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ Entry at the Internet Movie Data Base]

*[http://www.allmovie.com/work/301340 Entry at allmovie]

[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

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

2009-04-22T12:05:30Z

ANorris: /* American Civil War */

'''''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America''''' is a 2004 [[United States|American]] film written and directed by [[Kevin Willmott]]. The film takes place in an alternate universe in which the [[Confederate States of America]] won the [[American Civil War]].

== Plot ==

The film is presented as though it were a [[United Kingdom|British]] documentary (actually titled ''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America'') being presented on a Confederate television network. The documentary is apparently controversial due to its disagreement with orthodox American views of American history, but is being shown in its entirety by popular demand. There are also short commercial breaks advertising racist products - some of which were real-life American products, including ''Darky Toothpaste''<ref>
http://www.toothpasteworld.com/specials.htm</ref> and the ''Coon Chicken Inn'' restaraunt chain<ref>http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/chicken/</ref>.

=== American Civil War ===

The documentary segments detail the history of America from the [[American Civil War]] to the present day. The chief turning-point, however, is the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], which - thanks to the successful diplomacy of Judah P. Benjamin - includes [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] troops fighting with the Confederacy. The Union later surrenders, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] is arrested after attempting to flee to [[Canada]] in blackface. After serving two years imprisonment, Lincoln is pardoned (in an effort to appease the conquered North) and is exiled to [[Canada]], where he dies of old age.

=== Consolidation ===

Meanwhile, [[Jefferson Davis]] brings the North into the Confederate way of life by introducing a tax on Northerners that is alleviated by the purchase of slaves, and is supported by a series of novelists who romanticize the events of the Civil War, ignoring the true events and focussing on tragic love stories between Northerners and Southerners. At the same time, an attempt to seperate the church from the state fails, and any non-Christian religions are outlawed in the CSA, although a small [[Judaism|Jewish]] community is permitted to settle on [[Long Island]].

=== American-Mexican War ===

By 1900, the CSA has adopted an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] agenda, hoping to compete with the [[British Empire]] and the [[German Empire]] in [[Europe]] by invading [[Mexico]]. The conquest drags on longer than expected, thus preventing the CSA from entering the [[First World War]], which still ends with German defeat despite a lack of American involvement.

=== War with Japan ===

In 1929, the CSA retreats into isolationism following the Wall Street Crash, but is able to overturn the depression by revitalising its slave trade. The CSA also begins friendly relations with [[Adolf Hitler]] in [[Germany]], but disagrees with Hitler's Final Solution, thinking it to be a waste of potential slave-stock. Instead, the CSA launches an unprovoked attack on the [[Japan]], claiming that Japanese power endangered the CSA's position in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. By "the grace of God" (the Atomic Bomb), the war is quickly brought to a close, with Germano-Japanese defeat (the same outcome as our [[Second World War]]).

=== Cold War ===

Afterwards, the CSA enters a [[Cold War]] with "Red [[Canada]]" following a rise in anti-[[Abolitionism|Abolitionist]] sentiment in the Confederacy. A "[[Iron Curtain|Cotton Curtain]]" is erected along the Canadian-American border, and tensions continue into the 1990's, when the [[Cold War]] draws to a close.

=== Modern Day ===

The documentary ends in the modern day, with the CSA fighting in [[Iraq]] against the "[[Taliban|Muslim Menace]]", and an upcoming election for the Presidency of the CSA that may or may not change the course of Confederate history once more.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.csathemovie.com/ Official Movie Website]

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ Entry at the Internet Movie Data Base]

*[http://www.allmovie.com/work/301340 Entry at allmovie]

[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

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

2009-04-22T12:05:11Z

ANorris:

'''''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America''''' is a 2004 [[United States|American]] film written and directed by [[Kevin Willmott]]. The film takes place in an alternate universe in which the [[Confederate States of America]] won the [[American Civil War]].

== Plot ==

The film is presented as though it were a [[United Kingdom|British]] documentary (actually titled ''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America'') being presented on a Confederate television network. The documentary is apparently controversial due to its disagreement with orthodox American views of American history, but is being shown in its entirety by popular demand. There are also short commercial breaks advertising racist products - some of which were real-life American products, including ''Darky Toothpaste''<ref>
http://www.toothpasteworld.com/specials.htm</ref> and the ''Coon Chicken Inn'' restaraunt chain<ref>http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/chicken/</ref>.

=== American Civil War ===

The documentary segments detail the history of America from the [[American Civil War]] to the present day. The chief turning-point, however, is the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], which - thanks to the successful diplomacy of [[Judah P. Benjamin]] - includes [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] troops fighting with the Confederacy. The Union later surrenders, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] is arrested after attempting to flee to [[Canada]] in blackface. After serving two years imprisonment, Lincoln is pardoned (in an effort to appease the conquered North) and is exiled to [[Canada]], where he dies of old age.

=== Consolidation ===

Meanwhile, [[Jefferson Davis]] brings the North into the Confederate way of life by introducing a tax on Northerners that is alleviated by the purchase of slaves, and is supported by a series of novelists who romanticize the events of the Civil War, ignoring the true events and focussing on tragic love stories between Northerners and Southerners. At the same time, an attempt to seperate the church from the state fails, and any non-Christian religions are outlawed in the CSA, although a small [[Judaism|Jewish]] community is permitted to settle on [[Long Island]].

=== American-Mexican War ===

By 1900, the CSA has adopted an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] agenda, hoping to compete with the [[British Empire]] and the [[German Empire]] in [[Europe]] by invading [[Mexico]]. The conquest drags on longer than expected, thus preventing the CSA from entering the [[First World War]], which still ends with German defeat despite a lack of American involvement.

=== War with Japan ===

In 1929, the CSA retreats into isolationism following the Wall Street Crash, but is able to overturn the depression by revitalising its slave trade. The CSA also begins friendly relations with [[Adolf Hitler]] in [[Germany]], but disagrees with Hitler's Final Solution, thinking it to be a waste of potential slave-stock. Instead, the CSA launches an unprovoked attack on the [[Japan]], claiming that Japanese power endangered the CSA's position in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. By "the grace of God" (the Atomic Bomb), the war is quickly brought to a close, with Germano-Japanese defeat (the same outcome as our [[Second World War]]).

=== Cold War ===

Afterwards, the CSA enters a [[Cold War]] with "Red [[Canada]]" following a rise in anti-[[Abolitionism|Abolitionist]] sentiment in the Confederacy. A "[[Iron Curtain|Cotton Curtain]]" is erected along the Canadian-American border, and tensions continue into the 1990's, when the [[Cold War]] draws to a close.

=== Modern Day ===

The documentary ends in the modern day, with the CSA fighting in [[Iraq]] against the "[[Taliban|Muslim Menace]]", and an upcoming election for the Presidency of the CSA that may or may not change the course of Confederate history once more.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.csathemovie.com/ Official Movie Website]

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ Entry at the Internet Movie Data Base]

*[http://www.allmovie.com/work/301340 Entry at allmovie]

[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

Confederate States of America

2009-04-22T12:03:47Z

ANorris: /* See also */

CSA: The Confederate States of America

2009-04-22T12:02:48Z

ANorris: Redirected page to C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America

#REDIRECT [[C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America]]

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

2009-04-22T12:02:04Z

ANorris: /* War with Japan */

'''''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America''''' is a 2004 comedy-drama film written and directed by [[Kevin Willmott]]. The film takes place in an alternate universe in which the [[Confederate States of America]] won the [[American Civil War]].

== Plot ==

The film is presented as though it were a [[United Kingdom|British]] documentary (actually titled ''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America'') being presented on a Confederate television network. The documentary is apparently controversial due to its disagreement with orthodox American views of American history, but is being shown in its entirety by popular demand. There are also short commercial breaks advertising racist products - some of which were real-life American products, including ''Darky Toothpaste''<ref>
http://www.toothpasteworld.com/specials.htm</ref> and the ''Coon Chicken Inn'' restaraunt chain<ref>http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/chicken/</ref>.

The documentary segments detail the history of America from the [[American Civil War]] to the present day. The chief turning-point, however, is the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], which - thanks to the successful diplomacy of [[Judah P. Benjamin]] - includes [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] troops fighting with the Confederacy. The Union later surrenders, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] is arrested after attempting to flee to [[Canada]] in blackface. After serving two years imprisonment, Lincoln is pardoned (in an effort to appease the conquered North) and is exiled to [[Canada]], where he dies of old age.

=== Consolidation ===

Meanwhile, [[Jefferson Davis]] brings the North into the Confederate way of life by introducing a tax on Northerners that is alleviated by the purchase of slaves, and is supported by a series of novelists who romanticize the events of the Civil War, ignoring the true events and focussing on tragic love stories between Northerners and Southerners. At the same time, an attempt to seperate the church from the state fails, and any non-Christian religions are outlawed in the CSA, although a small [[Judaism|Jewish]] community is permitted to settle on [[Long Island]].

=== American-Mexican War ===

By 1900, the CSA has adopted an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] agenda, hoping to compete with the [[British Empire]] and the [[German Empire]] in [[Europe]] by invading [[Mexico]]. The conquest drags on longer than expected, thus preventing the CSA from entering the [[First World War]], which still ends with German defeat despite a lack of American involvement.

=== War with Japan ===

In 1929, the CSA retreats into isolationism following the Wall Street Crash, but is able to overturn the depression by revitalising its slave trade. The CSA also begins friendly relations with [[Adolf Hitler]] in [[Germany]], but disagrees with Hitler's Final Solution, thinking it to be a waste of potential slave-stock. Instead, the CSA launches an unprovoked attack on the [[Japan]], claiming that Japanese power endangered the CSA's position in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. By "the grace of God" (the Atomic Bomb), the war is quickly brought to a close, with Germano-Japanese defeat (the same outcome as our [[Second World War]]).

=== Cold War ===

Afterwards, the CSA enters a [[Cold War]] with "Red [[Canada]]" following a rise in anti-[[Abolitionism|Abolitionist]] sentiment in the Confederacy. A "[[Iron Curtain|Cotton Curtain]]" is erected along the Canadian-American border, and tensions continue into the 1990's, when the [[Cold War]] draws to a close.

=== Modern Day ===

The documentary ends in the modern day, with the CSA fighting in [[Iraq]] against the "[[Taliban|Muslim Menace]]", and an upcoming election for the Presidency of the CSA that may or may not change the course of Confederate history once more.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.csathemovie.com/ Official Movie Website]

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ Entry at the Internet Movie Data Base]

*[http://www.allmovie.com/work/301340 Entry at allmovie]

[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

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

2009-04-22T12:01:18Z

ANorris: /* American-Mexican War */

'''''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America''''' is a 2004 comedy-drama film written and directed by [[Kevin Willmott]]. The film takes place in an alternate universe in which the [[Confederate States of America]] won the [[American Civil War]].

== Plot ==

The film is presented as though it were a [[United Kingdom|British]] documentary (actually titled ''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America'') being presented on a Confederate television network. The documentary is apparently controversial due to its disagreement with orthodox American views of American history, but is being shown in its entirety by popular demand. There are also short commercial breaks advertising racist products - some of which were real-life American products, including ''Darky Toothpaste''<ref>
http://www.toothpasteworld.com/specials.htm</ref> and the ''Coon Chicken Inn'' restaraunt chain<ref>http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/chicken/</ref>.

The documentary segments detail the history of America from the [[American Civil War]] to the present day. The chief turning-point, however, is the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], which - thanks to the successful diplomacy of [[Judah P. Benjamin]] - includes [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] troops fighting with the Confederacy. The Union later surrenders, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] is arrested after attempting to flee to [[Canada]] in blackface. After serving two years imprisonment, Lincoln is pardoned (in an effort to appease the conquered North) and is exiled to [[Canada]], where he dies of old age.

=== Consolidation ===

Meanwhile, [[Jefferson Davis]] brings the North into the Confederate way of life by introducing a tax on Northerners that is alleviated by the purchase of slaves, and is supported by a series of novelists who romanticize the events of the Civil War, ignoring the true events and focussing on tragic love stories between Northerners and Southerners. At the same time, an attempt to seperate the church from the state fails, and any non-Christian religions are outlawed in the CSA, although a small [[Judaism|Jewish]] community is permitted to settle on [[Long Island]].

=== American-Mexican War ===

By 1900, the CSA has adopted an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] agenda, hoping to compete with the [[British Empire]] and the [[German Empire]] in [[Europe]] by invading [[Mexico]]. The conquest drags on longer than expected, thus preventing the CSA from entering the [[First World War]], which still ends with German defeat despite a lack of American involvement.

=== War with Japan ===

In 1929, the CSA retreats into isolationism following the [[Wall Street Crash]], but is able to overturn the depression by revitalising its slave trade. The CSA also begins friendly relations with [[Adolf Hitler]] in [[Germany]], but disagrees with Hitler's [[Final Solution]], thinking it to be a waste of potential slave-stock. Instead, the CSA launches an unprovoked attack on the [[Empire of Japan]], claiming that Japanese power endangered the CSA's position in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. By "[[Atomic Bomb|the grace of God]]", the war is quickly brought to a close, with Germano-Japanese defeat (the same outcome as our [[Second World War]]).

=== Cold War ===

Afterwards, the CSA enters a [[Cold War]] with "Red [[Canada]]" following a rise in anti-[[Abolitionism|Abolitionist]] sentiment in the Confederacy. A "[[Iron Curtain|Cotton Curtain]]" is erected along the Canadian-American border, and tensions continue into the 1990's, when the [[Cold War]] draws to a close.

=== Modern Day ===

The documentary ends in the modern day, with the CSA fighting in [[Iraq]] against the "[[Taliban|Muslim Menace]]", and an upcoming election for the Presidency of the CSA that may or may not change the course of Confederate history once more.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.csathemovie.com/ Official Movie Website]

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ Entry at the Internet Movie Data Base]

*[http://www.allmovie.com/work/301340 Entry at allmovie]

[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

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

2009-04-22T12:00:39Z

ANorris: Created page with ''''''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America''''' is a 2004 comedy-drama film written and directed by Kevin Willmott. The film takes place in an alternate universe in which...'

'''''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America''''' is a 2004 comedy-drama film written and directed by [[Kevin Willmott]]. The film takes place in an alternate universe in which the [[Confederate States of America]] won the [[American Civil War]].

== Plot ==

The film is presented as though it were a [[United Kingdom|British]] documentary (actually titled ''C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America'') being presented on a Confederate television network. The documentary is apparently controversial due to its disagreement with orthodox American views of American history, but is being shown in its entirety by popular demand. There are also short commercial breaks advertising racist products - some of which were real-life American products, including ''Darky Toothpaste''<ref>
http://www.toothpasteworld.com/specials.htm</ref> and the ''Coon Chicken Inn'' restaraunt chain<ref>http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/links/chicken/</ref>.

The documentary segments detail the history of America from the [[American Civil War]] to the present day. The chief turning-point, however, is the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], which - thanks to the successful diplomacy of [[Judah P. Benjamin]] - includes [[United Kingdom|British]] and [[France|French]] troops fighting with the Confederacy. The Union later surrenders, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] is arrested after attempting to flee to [[Canada]] in blackface. After serving two years imprisonment, Lincoln is pardoned (in an effort to appease the conquered North) and is exiled to [[Canada]], where he dies of old age.

=== Consolidation ===

Meanwhile, [[Jefferson Davis]] brings the North into the Confederate way of life by introducing a tax on Northerners that is alleviated by the purchase of slaves, and is supported by a series of novelists who romanticize the events of the Civil War, ignoring the true events and focussing on tragic love stories between Northerners and Southerners. At the same time, an attempt to seperate the church from the state fails, and any non-Christian religions are outlawed in the CSA, although a small [[Judaism|Jewish]] community is permitted to settle on [[Long Island]].

=== American-Mexican War ===

By 1900, the CSA has adopted an [[Imperialism|imperialist]] agenda, hoping to compete with the [[British Empire]], the [[French Empire]] and the [[German Empire]] in [[Europe]] by invading [[Mexico]]. The conquest drags on longer than expected, thus preventing the CSA from entering the [[First World War]], which still ends with German defeat.

=== War with Japan ===

In 1929, the CSA retreats into isolationism following the [[Wall Street Crash]], but is able to overturn the depression by revitalising its slave trade. The CSA also begins friendly relations with [[Adolf Hitler]] in [[Germany]], but disagrees with Hitler's [[Final Solution]], thinking it to be a waste of potential slave-stock. Instead, the CSA launches an unprovoked attack on the [[Empire of Japan]], claiming that Japanese power endangered the CSA's position in the [[Pacific Ocean]]. By "[[Atomic Bomb|the grace of God]]", the war is quickly brought to a close, with Germano-Japanese defeat (the same outcome as our [[Second World War]]).

=== Cold War ===

Afterwards, the CSA enters a [[Cold War]] with "Red [[Canada]]" following a rise in anti-[[Abolitionism|Abolitionist]] sentiment in the Confederacy. A "[[Iron Curtain|Cotton Curtain]]" is erected along the Canadian-American border, and tensions continue into the 1990's, when the [[Cold War]] draws to a close.

=== Modern Day ===

The documentary ends in the modern day, with the CSA fighting in [[Iraq]] against the "[[Taliban|Muslim Menace]]", and an upcoming election for the Presidency of the CSA that may or may not change the course of Confederate history once more.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.csathemovie.com/ Official Movie Website]

*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/ Entry at the Internet Movie Data Base]

*[http://www.allmovie.com/work/301340 Entry at allmovie]

[[Category:American Civil War]]
[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

Talk:Wikipedia

2009-04-22T11:28:33Z

ANorris: /* Content Suggestions */

= Content Disputes =

==Relevance of introductory information?==

Why:

- a) is it relevant that Jimmy Wales is an atheist, when no mention is made that the majority of users here seem to have a strong creationist, Christian bias?
- b) is there no information about the Brittanica-Wikipedia assessment that showed wikipedia to be of similar general accuracy?
- c) do numerous arguments on the wikipedia article rely on the argument that anyone can edit the various articles, when, in fact, the majority of this encylopaedia's articles can be edited by anyone?
- d) is there no mention of Conservapedia's reliance on Wikipedia's principles?

==Sources==
If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point.
Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The need for factual evidence (not based solely upon polls, which are essentially a measurement of mass opinion) abounds in this article as well as the rest of this site. Without evidence supporting your claims, you create straw-man arguments that are easy to refute. They will maintain no sway in those who are not yet persuaded, for these people will look past your argument into your logical fallacies. Please just keep this in mind during creation of future articles. {{unsigned|TheFlaxenFox}} December 2007.

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..."
How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"?
(What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581] --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

== "Controversy" ==

This page was unlocked to add ''facts'', not ''alleged bias''. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

"mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed. " seems like some rather big speculation -- you may want to provide evidence for this claim. {{unsigned|Usapatriotgwb}}

:It's WP:Common knowledge [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:03, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

=="A large percentage" of homosexuals==
C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges], by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:" and given by example are [[Sodom]] and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please, ''please'' do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:''Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm''. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story '''does''' in fact have to do with homosexuality. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is ''anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom,'' or ''the people of the city, the people of Sodom''. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.

::::Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.

::::But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about this: Genesis 19:5 - They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to stay with you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." If you look at any Bible version, it's pretty much the same thing. [http://bible.cc/genesis/19-5.htm]

:::So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality scares me, are any of you guys homosexuals? --[[User:Lenigrad|Leningrad]] Eight Past One, 11 April 2007CE (GMT)

::::Yeah, we don't want any of those guys on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia they even have a category full of gay users: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_Wikipedians] --[[User:USAisDoubleplusgood|USAisDoubleplusgood]] 21:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

#A disproportionate number of Wikipedia arbcom members are avowed homosexuals. I debated a lesbian one at length on IRC more than once.
#Sodom and Gomorrah are good Biblical references. Sodomy is named for [[Sodom]], because the men of the city wanted to ''know'' (i.e. fornicate with) the two special male visitors in Lot's house. He criticized this illicit desire indirectly, with his comment about his daughters. I assume that any man who seduced a daughter of Lot would have had to marry her (see [[shotgun wedding]]); later in the Old Testament, laws about this were given by Moses. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:In particular, David R. seems to be citing an opinion given in ''Slate'' by Brendan I. Koerner, a contributing editor at ''Wired'' and a columnist for the ''New York Times'':
:*The word "sodomy" itself is something of a misnomer, since the Bible contains no mention of homosexual conduct among the residents of Sodom. That corrupt city was not destroyed because of acts of buggery but rather because its citizens were inhospitable to God's angelic messengers. [http://www.slate.com/?id=2075271]
:{{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

==What's wrong with using actual numbers?==
I said that

:Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gay_Wikipedians] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]], I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias against homosexuality ==
This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --[[User:QuestionMark|QuestionMark]] 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::It isn't. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded ''up,'' and 3,834,720, which I rounded ''down.'') [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please don't revert multiple times ==
:This is directed at user [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Like conservipedia" ==

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the expression is "rip off", not "rip of". And I wouldn't claim that wikipedia was "established" at anything ... except smearing victims and misleading students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

I second that. It's such a rip off that if it wasn't for conservapedia's different logo and the overwhelming spelling errors and biased views, I'd almost have a hard time telling the websites apart. At least this way we can keep the majority of lower IQ readers and writers off of wikipedia. {{unsigned|CanAnyoneHereSpell}}

: At least you can spell "rip off" properly! Well done! Now all you have to do is learn to sign your name and you'll be all set. Try our [[economics lectures]] and maybe you can actually learn something too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

: Okay, look at his phrase. "Since conservipedia is pretty much a rip off Wikipedia..." That doesn't make sense. A "rip of Wikipedia" makes more sense. It would have to be "A rip off of Wikipedia" in order to be correct. And I agree, Wikipedia is much more established than this pathetic website. Also, Wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias! It just has a LACK of a conservative bias! The bias that this website is overflowing with. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::Merely claiming all that doesn't make it so. You've offered an opinion, with no reason to back that opinion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:06, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Assuming you meant "rip" of Wikipedia - Conservapedia started its material from scratch, so it's not just a modified clone of Wikipedia's knowledge base. (This works both for and against Conservapedia - it avoids importing the pitfalls that Conservapedia aims to avoid in Wikipedia's material, but a lot of Conservapedia's more obscure articles have much less information than their Wikipedia counterparts.) The phrasing "Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users" is intended to describe the website to Conservapedia users may not be familiar with Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:18, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

==RightWolf2, please back up your statements==
Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:
:Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.
well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:
:The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community
I personally have no idea how one would even ''begin'' to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a '''specific''' link to the page supporting the statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==OK, it is pretty funny==
RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_sexuality]). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
its not funny

== Dpbsmith ==

This page is very interesting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dpbsmith Wikipedia Page for this user]

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:This editors comments in this article are also interesting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia] [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=36275&oldid=36173 the diff] in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::How about, "226 have outed themselves". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
::I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
:::"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
::::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Nice, I like the change in language. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Encyclopedic Content & Gossip ==

I'm struggling with [[User: Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s definition of these terms when he insists on keeping [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64686&oldid=64582 this text] in the article. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*
{{QuoteBox|Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".}}
There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more <s>gossip</s> factual information? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. But remember to follow [[Conservapedia:Commandments|site policy]] when editing it.

::The various official Conservapedia pages say:
{{QuoteBox|
*We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
*Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
*We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
*Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
*Everything you post must be true and verifiable.}}
::Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
{{QuoteBox|
#"Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
#*Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
#*Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
#"The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
#*Quick, point to the source.
#"Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
#*Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
#"the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
#*Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
#*When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
#"catapulting the slander factory"
#*Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
#*Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
#"from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
#*Quick, point to the source.
#[quoted news article snippet]
#*The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
#*The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?}}
::This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask '''you''' now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
::But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm '''extremely''' bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
::But thanks for the unlock. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

So I was reading this article and saw this: "Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of USA Today from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability." His case about Wikipedia threatening free speech is based on the fact that it is free for anyone to voice their opinions and not controlled by the government. Sorry guys, i know it must be hard trying to uphold the conservative practices with what little backing you can find, but really - please try to make some sense with what you put on here. I'm only looking out for you guys, and you're not doing anything with this site but declaring your close-mindedness and denouncing every single detail that you don't completely agree with. Thanks, and have a nice day. Oh, and by the by, your warning stating "Please note that all contributions to Conservapedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors" is the exact same formatting used on the Wikipedia, the very same site you are trying to protest. -- [[User:genghis19958|genghis19958]] 23:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Larry Sanger ==

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called ''Larry Sangers'' right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
: No it doesn't. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that [[Larry Sanger]] has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's [http://www.citizendium.org/faq.html FAQ page], calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.

:Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out][http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==article==
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.

::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.

::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.

::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::We get that you're bitter (or that you simply like to brag), but Andy stated that we don't need two articles about Wikipedia's shortcomings and errors. That's why the first instance of this article was vaped and got redirected to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]. This was once supposed to be a factual article about Wikipedia, not what [[Theory of evolution]] is to the actual theory of evolution - a piece that exists only to point out that it's BAD BAD BAD. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This article is not unlike History of Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia] though perhaps we could cover the blocking of the Third grade class incident, which they don't. It's all part of the sum of human knowledge. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If this is part of the sum of human knowledge, I think the equation needs a "re-right". [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia breaks GFDL? ==

Could somebody with more experience shed some light here? Right now, this sounds quite unlikely to me, especially when you keep in mind the fact that articles are not completely removed (undelete feature, anybody). Also, what happened to the rule about not citing wikis?

Oh, and by the way, the entire section right now was copy-pasted from the Wikitruth article. Just pointing out that Conservapedia apparently breaks the GFDL in a section about Wikipedia breaking the GFDL. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
== Whining? ==

Conservapedia was created by conservatives whining about Wikipedia's 'liberal bias' (in about .002 percent of Wikipedia's articles). And about 99 percent of this article is gossip, which Conservapedia is supposed to avoid, and 1 percent unbiased factual information (the first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph). I mean, you could at least have a 'History of Wikipedia' section to make it look like a real article. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 22:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:"The dispute is notable as an attack on the Wikipedia policy of editorial oversight as being too lax and unmonitored. Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism." <---- I don't read whining in that tone. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::What was wrong with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=79145 this edit]? It cited sources, identified ''when'' potentially rapid-changing pages were accessed so that page history could be checked to see what they said at the time, and they can be rechecked in a few months time, and included the full text of a quote which could otherwise be taken out of context. I may not be around for a few days to see the answer to this. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 11:24, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Andy's response is copied from [[user talk:Aschlafly/Archive12#Wikipedia_article]].'' --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Scott, I apologize for not responding sooner. I was in a car for over ten hours yesterday, and the limited time I had on the computer was spent updated the Main Page, adding some entries, and responding on this page and the Bias in Wikipedia talk page. I did not see your comments on the Wikipedia talk page, and I apologize.

: I also regret that the rollback feature on Wiki does not allow comment to explain why. So let me elaborate here and now.

: One of your changes seemed to be incorrect. You changed the name of the company from "Bomis" to "Bomis.com", which I think is wrong. Other changes were unsupported and opinionated, such as saying that "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles many of which were used to kickstart the project in English, which now has over 1.7 million articles on a much wider range of subjects." That lacked support. Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying.

: You also added superfluous detail unsuitable for a concise entry. Note that being concise is one of our main goals. Then you praised Wikipedia for making an article about an obscure rock band "much longer." Why would anyone want a longer article about something that is inappropriate in short version? That change was contrary to the point being made, and contrary to one of our goals here.

: I welcome your contributions here. We all do. But please conform to our [[rules]]. Also, while we are all very patient, was it really necessary to launch into an attack on Conservapedia on my personal talk page? Note that on Conservapedia, we respect users' talk pages more than Wikipedia does. Please see [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]].

: I apologize for my 24-hour delay in responding to your comments on another talk page, and hope you can reconsider your view towards Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I accept your apology. If you wish to revert and leave an edit comment, you can edit the older version. Thankyou for now explaining your reasoning, and I wish to defend my edit.

::On further investigation, it appears that the company in question is Bomis, Inc. Sorry - I took the name I changed it to from their logo. However the rollback button is heavyhanded for an edit of that size with one small mistake in it.

::: OK, fine, but please realize that you erroneously changed something that was correct. That is a red flag and can be a valid reason for reverting all the changes if one is in a hurry, as I was.

::: Conservapedia strives to be accurate about these details. We want high quality here, and let's not be casual about factual errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The 1.7 million articles was cited. I did in fact find a reference for the 40,000 articles in the 1911 Britannica, but appear to have forgotten to cite it. Try [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:Explanation 1911 Encyclopedia] accessed 3 April 2007 (Access dates are important for all web sites, as the content can change, but there are internet archives that contain some older content).

::: I don't fully understand your response here. You claimed that wholesale copyin of the Encyclopedia Britannic was to "kickstart" the Wikipedia project. That claim needs a citation, and needs to be said in a way that does not justify it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If I may chime in here, I was there, and it was not a kickstart. The project had thousands of articles before agreement was reached to supplement the article base with EB 1911. It was not a decision reached lightly, because (1) it was hard to find a copy of it that wasn't copyrighted, (2) the copy that was found had NPOV problems, (3) much information was ninety years out of date.

::::If it's germane to the discussion, I can dig into this and find out exactly when (and how many of) these articles were added to Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I did not "praise" Wikipedia for making the article longer. I corrected the statement that the short form ''is'' a Wikipedia article. It ''was'' a Wikipedia article for a period of about 2 months, ending 4 months ago. I made no judgement on whether the article had any more value now than it had then. If the point is that the coverage of Wikipedia is wider (or simply different) than the coverage of Conservapedia, then the content of the older form of the article should not have been included either, it should simply have been referred to as an example of Wikipedia content unsuitable for Conservapedia. The fact that the scope of coverage of Wikipedia is different than that of Conservapedia should not be a criticism of either.

::: I don't think my version ever said that short form was the entire entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Rhetorical questions, even in footnotes, such as "Did you know that...?" do not appear to be appropriate for Conservapedia, so I modified the language so that the "question" was answered instead.

::: OK, good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Copying public domain sources is perfectly legal, and in fact Wikipedia ''does'' acknowledge the origin of those articles, many of which have changed since they were copied in.

::: Are you referencing the Encyclopedia Britannica here? Where is Wikipedia candid about so much wholesale copying? I've only seen tiny references at the bottom of individual articles, and I'm not confident that acknowledgment is always there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise if my comments on your talk page went too far. However, I think you will find that I am not alone in many of those thoughts. The idea of an encyclopaedia written with a conservative viewpoint is interesting enough I decided to try to help rather than laugh or vandalise. However I intend to also continue as a Wikipedia editor, and have enjoyed being able to write in both with different points of view. I've also looked at [[Citizendium]] and decided not to attempt to contribute there, even though I contribute to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia under variants of my real name. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I certainly welcome you. Of course Conservapedia has many critics. Anything worthwhile in life is going to spark criticism. But please realize that our rules and style is different, and we think more advantageous, than at Wikipedia. Please contribute as much as you like here, but please keep in mind that this is not Wikipedia. We are concise and factual here, and do not have a liberal bias. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Quote mining from the TOP==
Wow, even [[User:Aschlafly| The Boss]] gets into it! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&oldid=78392| This edit] shows a mined quote that weeds out the chaff from the "truth":
===Truth===
'''Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, Wikipedia instead whines about how "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a ... more authoritative reference" than Wikipedia.'''
===Distortion===
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell| Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism.]
:::::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:33, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: The end quote is more "truthy" I guess. Ridiculous. This is why creationists don't get into good scientific journals - they can't be trusted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ye God. Also, why does an encyclopedic article use phrases like "Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell,Wikipedia instead whines about..."? This is the same sort of thing that is still in the Seigenthaler section (thanks to the Boss, too [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=64218&oldid=64215][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=64220]): "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarrassment to Wikipedia's credibility as a viable source, the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ad hominem attacks==

This irrelevant fact is mentioned in the Wikipedia page:

::Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.

Am I mistaken, or is that an [[ad hominem]] attack, which is a well-known [[logical fallacy]]? And why did [[Andrew Schlafly]] delete my comment when I pointed it out?

:: No, I don't think that's an ad hominem attack. Wikipedia itself features pornographic images now and this history reflects its ideology. No individual is smeared by this historical description. It is informative to show where Wikipedia is coming from. I doubt Wikipedia's own people would consider that to be an ad hominem attack.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not an ad hominem attack, because it relates to the policy decision to allow porn. Jimbo could easily have said: no porn. He could have made it stick, at the cost of alienating a significant fraction of his volunteer base. I was heavily involved in these policy discussions from around 2001-2003.

:::Cries of "censorship" dominated these discussions, although in one significant episode Jimbo blocked a user for added a gay porn image to an article. He was showing Wikipedia to a businessman (or other VIP) when lurid and "embarassing" (Jimbo's words) images came on the screen.

:::Wikipedia's articles about sex are not 'family-friendly', in that (1) they show more than parent would like, i.e., are too graphic/explicit; (2) they are anti-religious in that they imply that it doesn't matter whether your 'sex partner' and you are married.

:::Moreover, the entire series on homosexuality carries the implicit (verging on the explicit) message that "it is okay to be homosexual" and "homosexual acts are morally neutral".

:::This is not the same as applying the NPOV policy to morality, and saying that 'these religions say this' and 'other people say that'. The articles give a strong impression that "these conditions, attitudes and acts '''are not wrong'''". That's a big difference between saying that "various groups of people differ on these points but Wikipedia takes no position". They do take a position, and this (A) violates their stated policy and (B) offends religious people such as myself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Ed's right. Let me emphasize that we do not, and will not, smear any individuals. But factual statements about Wikipedia's ideology are informative and appropriate. If Wikipedia does not consider something about its ideology to be an ad hominem attack, why should we?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so why does everybody who mentions the fact that Andrew Schlafly's brother John is gay get immediately
and permanently banned from Conservapedia? (In fact, when my buddy Rotifer got banned, everybody who uses
computers in our rec room here got banned too!)

You might say it's reasonable to erase all mention of the fact that John Schlafly is gay, because it's
an [[ad hominem]] attack on Andrew Schlafly, or on Conservapedia. But I don't think so. I think when
the mainstream press published information about the fact that John Schlafly had been 'outed', they did
it because they thought it was informative to show where the Schlafly family and the Eagle Forum organization
are coming from. The idea that a gay man (and his family) could continue to advocate anti-gay political
causes strikes many people as hypocritical. It's not an [[ad hominem]] attack. It's important perspective
that some people might not know about the founders of Conservapedia and the Eagle Forum.

I assume this will be my last post. You are welcome to prove me wrong by (1) not removing this comment,
which is based entirely on facts and is intended to provide information about the Schlafly family's point
of view, NOT to smear them, and (2) not banning me from Conservapedia. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a travesty ==

From top to bottom:

''Honk If You Love Fred Durst'' is the name of a single not a ''phrases used by obscure rock bands''.
''Henry Liddell's grandfather'' being youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is perhaps of interest to those interested in genealogy. The fact that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for is not ''arcane'' it is very interesting - a great piece of English literature was originally written for one particular little girl and not general release.

''Cumbersome'' - what is cumbersome about GNU? Is that opinion or fact?

This kind of repeats itself :
:''Many entries were copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a public domain resource. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contained 40,000 articles[4] many of which were copied into the English Wikipedia early in the project, which now has over 1.7 million articles.[5]''

Ref. 4. links to an online version of the ''1911 Encyclopedia Britannica'' and ref. 5 links to wikipedia apparently for the number of articles in Wikipedia. None of the references clarify what the ''many'' may actually mean in this context.

''Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures'' ref. 6 is likely this [http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article345103.ece] which has:
:"Wikipedia (wiki wiki means "quick" in Hawaiian) was founded in January 2001 as a sideline to the Numedia encyclopedia being written by experts for an American company, Bomis. Under its chief executive, Jimmy Wales, Bomis ran a search engine that included links to pornographic sites and also for a time sold erotic photographs of women."
''hosting'' isn't mentioned.

The fact that articles is Wikipedia may be false or erronous is no great surprise. Anyone can edit! As the Independent[http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article345080.ece] writes ''And now Wikipedia, the web's "open-source encyclopaedia", is in the firing line due to a number of misleading amendments to pages by mischevious contributors. A question mark has arisen over whether visitors to the site can really believe what they read.'' That is equally applicable here.

This article is a travesty. The kettle calling the pot black. Get real people. Do you want to be taken seriously?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 10:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: This is an open-edit encyclopedia. Isn't that clear? If you think a reference is not adequate, as you imply above, then you're welcome to add a better one. If you think "many" could be improved with a more precise term, then please do so. But please don't inject liberal bias into the entry. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem isn't that references are ''not adequate'' but simply plain wrong or useless. In order to avoid injecting liberal bias into the entry I would need to know what liberal bias is. The article [[liberal bias]] is of no help what-so-ever. May I safely assume that avoiding liberal bias would be the same as [[NPOV]][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::While liberal bias clearly has no place in Conservapedia, I'm feeling some anti-Wikipedia bias in this article. It begins by characterising Wikipedia as a website full of ridiculous, obscure and irrelevant information, and dedicates the majority of the article to individuals' complaints of Wikipedia's flaws. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:50, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== "40k are copies" ==

"Up to 40,000 of its entries are copies of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica." - I think that's a very strong claim, and backing it up with sources should be extremely tough. The problem is that you changed it from "many of the 40k '''were''' copied" to "up to 40k '''are''' copies". Even ignoring how you twisted the mushy quantifying words (which I'm not a big fan of in the first place) around in your favor, I ask for a precise number of articles that ''still are copies'' of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Also, it's not supported by the reference, which is just to a site about the 1911 encyclopedia, and neither makes nor proves any allegations of copying.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think it was mentioned above that there might be a source of the pre-Andy version - that "many" (How many?) of the 40k were copied into it (with no statement about the ''current'' state of those articles), but the post-Andy version is most likely impossible to prove (because it is most likely wrong by now). Thanks for removing it for the moment. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thousands of pages use Wikipedia's {{tl|1911}}, which indicates the article uses content from the 1911 Britannica. A list of such articles (at 5,000 articles listed per page) can be seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911&limit=5000&from=0 here]. [[User:Liberty|Liberty]] 12:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the link! Looks like a bit less than 13,000 to me, unless I counted wrong (plus x articles that were potentially untagged, but I somehow doubt that that number is in the dimensions of "27,000"). That's certainly a bunch, but less than the upper border we had so far. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article length==
:Wikipedia's entries are far more verbose and long-winded than traditionally concise encyclopedias.
I doubt this.

What "traditionally concise encyclopedias" would those be? The 1911 Britannica, (which is the very model of a modern encyclopedia/With information densier and heavier and read-ier) has one article, "Bible," that runs from page 849 to 894, and those are big pages of small type, too. I estimated that article to weigh in at just about one megabyte of text, all by itself. If you displayed it in Conservapedia format onscreen, it would run to about 12,500 lines = a scroll of text about 100 feet long, requiring about 200 "page down" presses to read it all.

And that's not even including "Bible, English," which is a separate article running from page 894 to 905.

In the modern Britannica, the Macropædia, which comprises about 2/3 of the current Britannica, consists entirely of long articles.

Yes, the better Wikipedia articles tend to run longer than those of a single-volume desk encyclopedia like the Columbia Encyclopedia, or a high-school-oriented encyclopedia like World Book. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship in Wikipedia==

I just spent a couple of hours trying to place information about Japanese pornography, prostitution and rape in Wikipedia articles. Two articles were immediately censored.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ed_Poor/Japan

This is not an isolated incident, and I didn't do it to make a point. I was just editing as usual and came across one of Wikipedia's typical omissions. Someone was trying to obscure the fact that ''hentai'' means Japanese porn, and since I know a little about Japanese culture and language, I began to correct this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Hentai does not mean "Japanese porn" - that is it's usage as a loanword. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 12:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm talking about the English word ''hentai'', not the Japanese word. I took Japanese for two semesters at Harvard, and I know what a [[loanword]] is. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a long bilingual discussion of this [http://wakaba.c3.cx/soc/kareha.pl/1121956450/ here], but this is all beside the point.

::What I say was censored was not my additions to [[hentai]] but my additions to [[Geisha]] and [[Mizuage]]. Although a quick peek at related changes there's indicates it may be even worse than I said. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who do you consider has censored you at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisha Geisha] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizuage Mizuage]? "Wikipedia" in general, or User:John Smith's in particular? There appears to be relevant dialog on both talk pages which doesn't really fit with the charge of "censorship". I'm also a little uncertain how that shows a liberal bias - I expect you'd get reverted or worse for posting information about [[rape]], [[prostitute]]s and [[pornography]] on Conservapedia, too (all blue links to pages saying "this has been deleted and protected"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

* Your issue here appears to be with user John Smith, the user who has problems with your edits. Remember that like Conservapedia, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, without requiring the approval of Wikipedia staff or administrators. Having one's edits reverted (in this case, by a single user who may or may not be correct in doing so) should not be considered a form of official censorship by Wikipedia. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:46, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

== GFDL ==

Look, on Wikipedia, and other MediaWiki sites, "deletion" of articles merely hides them from the public. There is no violation of the GFDL here, this needs to be removed, for the sake of Conservapedia preserving what little credibility it has. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]] • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA)</code> 21:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
::no, special sysops can permanently delete articles. This ability was added in order to prevent Wikimedia from being sued for copyright infringement if such infringement are not permanently deleted from the server. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::: You mean oversight? Even that doesn't delete stuff, it just hides it. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:34, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::no, oversight is the new ability to selectively delete an article's history.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia's page on oversights]: "Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made." [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:27, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

== Error in article ==

The article currently says, "Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's entries on Wikipedia." This isn't exactly true. Only sysops (admins) can delete. For some reason (maybe because I'm new here) it won't let me edit the article. Someone should fix that. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 22:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

: You're right. It should say "edits", not "entries". I'll fix now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a minor spelling error, "...the gravity of thier concerns". -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 18:26, 22 February 2008 (EST)

: Great catch. I just fixed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:37, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Founder of Wikipedia ==

I remember a scandal a little while back that the founder of wikipedia edited out parts of his past from his own article. He used his own login and got caught. I'm surprised that's not mentioned anywhere. If it is, then please forgive me for not catching it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neutrality ==

Is there actually one article written from a neutral point of view on this website? {{unsigned|Nyrias}}
:I'm sure there are plenty. What do you think, for example, of [[permian]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Try [[faith]] also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

::Um, no. [[faith]] is not neutral. It is written from a Christian point of view. I'd just like to point that out. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 13:01, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Ok, try [[Ketchup in the Culture Wars]]. I thought it was an excellent NPOV, giving balance to all sides of an issue. Perhaps you could improve it. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Re: WELCOME AGAIN TO WIKIPEDIA: THE LIBERAL SMEAR MACHINE on today's (June 6, 2007)main page- It looks like Conservapedia is starting to get hysterical about Wikipedia.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 19:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

: Oldoligarch, we call it like it is. Wikipedia is a liberal smear factory. That's why liberals love it. Stick around and you will see many more examples pointed out here. Notice how the smear was reinserted in the Cochran entry after it was removed? That is modus operandi at Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:11, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 10:52, 7 June 2007 (EDT)
::At least Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and not from a biased, conservative point of view. Wikipedia's entry on this encyclopedia (if you can call it that) is completely neutral and points out both the praise and criticism this encyclopedia has received. BTW, I am a Catholic and, therefore, a conservative, for anyone who thinks I'm witting this because I'm a liberal. Another comment; whatever happen to loving others as you love yourself? You're treating us Wikipedians like unintelligent dirt. One last thing; has anyone here heard about unregistered editing? God. I had to create an account just to write this. [[User:Boricuaeddie|Boricuaeddie]] 11:49, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wikipedia most certainly is not neutral, nor does it not contain bias. An example is a small edit war I had over there concerning the name of an ironclad warship; my opponent decided that 150 years of this name was totally wrong, its use by everyone was totally wrong, and he decided to get politically correct about it, despite the fact that I pulled up historical documentation and proved that he was the one who was wrong. This individual is also on the board of directors regarding the history subject. And it was unregistered editing that now has someone possibly in deep trouble with the law as a result of an edit in the Chris Benoit article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not share Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy. Forced neutrality would amount to censorship, interfere with the truth and encourage liberal bias. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:38, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" is a scam, in my humble opinion. Wikipedia editors impose a markedly [[liberal]] point of view as reflected in the dozens of examples in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. That Wikipedia claims to be neutral while exhibiting so much [[liberal]] bias is preposterous. It would be as though the [[Village Voice]] claimed to present a "neutral point of view." It doesn't pretend that, and no one would believe it if it did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

I love George Bush. He's doing things right in Iraq. Some of the things they say about him on Wikipedia are outrageous.

[[Image:http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v104/6/37/1437360279/n1437360279_30078698_5294.jpg]]

{{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

== References ==

I've noticed that the references are not uniform. While most use the appropriate reference label to show up under the References section, a large number do not. Perhaps this should be made consistent? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:If we could get the article unlocked it would make it a tad easier, unfortunately I have other business IRL to attend to and will be unavailable for a few hours (at least). [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: I've unprotected the page for you to improve it. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

=="arcane British royalty"==
- This is just plain wrong. Henry Liddell is in no way an example of "arcane British royalty". Being an aristocrat is not the same as being Royal. Henry Liddell was not even part of the aristocracy, being that his "grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne" means he was 4 generations from the title, maybe a member of the upper classes (because of his job as Vice Chancellor of Oxford University), but more likely just upper middle class! He is not a figure of huge historical note for sure, but was a scholar whose work is still in use and the father of Alice of "Alice in Wonderland". He certainly features, on the margins, in many histories of the period and books of Victorian biography, so is not unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. What exactly is your mention of his wikipedia article supposed to imply about wikipedia? It implies something about yourselves as he is neither arcane, "requiring secret or mysterious knowledge" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, nor a member of the Royal family. So 1). what's your point? 2. Get it right! {{unsigned|Swdr}}

* It's pretty obscure. Why should an American care about the aristocracy of nineteenth century Britain? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 14:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::"Burn the Library of Alexandria! All we need to know is in the Koran!" [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:15, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, this is a warning: improve the quality of your edits or your account will be blocked. Sarcasm, idiocy, silliness, or simply juvenile behavior is not appropriate here. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I fail to see what's juvenile about using an incident from history (even an apocryphal one) to point out the anti-intellectualism of someone's apparent claim that "it's unnecessary to know that, no one should write about it," which is how I read JonathanDrain's comment. And lest the reference to the Koran concern you, the comment is meant to point out the idiocy of thinking the Koran has all the answers and nothing else is worth reading. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:34, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The Earls of Strathmore were ancestors of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (1900-2001) and hence of our own dear Queen, so tho' HL wasn't royalty himself he did have a link to the royals, and a pretty arcane one, at that! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Agreement in tense ==

I suggest changing "...discovered that a prominent Wikipedia administrator, bureaucrat and arbitrator nicknamed Essjay has lied" to "...had lied". --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 14:01, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== Rutgers-Ivy "hoax" ==

I'm curious as to what sources you had for the idea that the Ivy League invitation to Rutgers was a "hoax". That's all. [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 23:41, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have it backwards. A source is not needed to prove that something never existed. The burden is on the person who makes the claim that something happened to support it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Um... faulty logic? You need to prove the hoax exists. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 20:41, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

==Arbitary blocking==

Someone named R. Fiend just blocked my Wikipedia account for 48 hours - no reason given. ;-)

Typical hijinks at the asylum run by the inmates. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:07, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:Are you running an attack site, Ed? The proposed decision says, "a period of investigation should occur, including attempts to negotiate with the site regarding the objectionable material. If it possible without republication of sensitive material, the matter should be discussed at a forum such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#A_wait] Maybe it's guilt by association. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, someone saw my message on my user talk page there and unblocked me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:57, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::The big ArbCom case, "Attack sites." This Principal here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Malicious_sites_2] is one vote away from becoming new WP policy, with much unforseen consequences, and no mechanism to determine what is and what isn't a "Malicious site." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Paul L. Boyer otherwise known as R. fiend can pretty much do and say anything he likes at Wikipedia. His claim to fame is that he once appeared on Jeopardy! where he was said to be working as a bartender. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 13:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

::Dwain, got any diffs? A bartender on Jeopardy! is enough to be WP expert in the field of knowledge. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:25, 18 November 2007 (EST)

==Stunning the world==
*The most popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia has stunned the world; and as a leading force in the open source revolution has shaken assumptions regarding knowledge and scholarship to their very roots. Its reliability has been challenged because of its policy to let anyone contribute to it, but it has stood up remarkably to tests and comparisons to conventional sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. [http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Info:Main_Page]

::You sound like a wikipedia infomerical. It has hardly "stunned the world". The concept was a good one, but the implementation was where problems kicked in. And wikipedia only has comparable information to encyclopedias in non-controversial areas, and even then it has a tendency to sound a bit disjointed. Look at the article on the moon for instance. Although no new information has been found for a while, there have been 50 edits since the start of the month. There's a constant battle of pushing and pulling inherent in wikipedia and its political correctness. One person dared to show distances in miles as well as kilometers -- of course he was reverted.

::Most of us here would praise the original concept, but what it became helps to serve as an example to us of what not to do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:46, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

WP isn't all bad. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:27, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Languages ==
At risk of sounding disingenuous, couldn't this be perceived as hypocrisy: "There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, although only 130 have more than 1000 articles." - It's phrased as a criticism, but it should be noted that, for example, Conservapedia has only English language articles. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 23:23, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Arcane British royalty ==
In the opening paragraph, Wikipedia's entry on Henry Liddell is cited as an example of arcane British royalty. He wasn't royalty. Either another example should be found or the text changed to something like "obscure British nobility". [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:11, 12 December 2007 (EST)

: Thank you. Change made as requested. Factual truth comes first, though I can't resist observing that this correction seems rather arcane on this side of the pond!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:56, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::Well, yes, I can understand that. Indeed, royalty is simply the "uppermost" tier of nobility. But British royalty is actually very small with only about a dozen or so members, i.e. the family of the monarch, and so none of them, at least in the UK, are particularly obscure even though they might be the US.
::As I'm on a roll, I might also point out that Henry Liddell isn't notable for his nobility - I'm not even sure whether he was nobility or simply Esquire. Rather he is notable for those things in the opening paragraph of his entry on Wikipedia. I'm sure there must be a better example. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:14, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::: Well, I went and looked at the entry again, and some of those "notable" things of Henry Liddell do not seem terribly significant in 2007. I do think the copying by [[Wikipedia]] of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, with its very British view of that outdated world, plays a role here. Also, not to be overly contentious, but the point is not whether the entry is notable, but that the entry is filled with junk about arcane nobility. Still, I agree, there might be an even better example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:::: Yes, the criticism was not of the article's subject itself, but of some of the trivia in it. But I do find it annoying when insular Americans judge the merit of something on how important it is to Americans. And although the connection to Alice in Wonderland is merely trivia, it's ''interesting'' trivia! (Perhaps it shouldn't be in the introduction, though.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:52, 12 December 2007 (EST)

::::: Philip, I think I can safely speak for all non-Brits, or at least all non-English speaking people, in describing [[Wikipedia]]'s trivia about British nobility as "arcane"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:::::: I'm not sure what relevance "non-English speaking people" have for an ''English'' language encyclopaedia, but apart from that, perhaps you are correct. I actually decided that I better look up "arcane" to be sure I understood the word, and it wasn't quite what I thought it was. ''Arcane: mysterious; secret; obscure.'' Yes, I guess for many people the British nobility is a bit mysterious and obscure. But then I could say much the same about calculus, quantum theory, and definitely the American system for electing presidents which I've ''never'' been able to comprehend! But isn't an encyclopaedia intended to demystify the mysterious and clarify the obscure? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 12 December 2007 (EST)

= Content Suggestions =
==SOME positive aspects of WP?==

I'm going to tread lightly here. I know there is loads of animosity toward Wikipedia here, but wouldn't it be fair to mention SOME of the good aspects of the site? To me, it seems like most of the WP articles disputed here are only on highly-politicized topics. Personally, I have found that many of the basic science articles (fundamental physics and chemistry, especially most of the mathematics branches) as well as many of the History articles are quite good and seem to line up exactly with my university texts.

I think it is fair to mention the virtue of WP's non-politicized articles, as they greatly outnumber the hot-button subjects. I will not start editing the page until I can collaborate with somebody though. [[User:ENelson|ENelson]] 14:21, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, there are of course lots of positive aspects of Wikipedia especially, as you say, in articles that are not contentious along socio-political lines. And even those articles that are contentious tend to be good - there is no reason why conservatives shouldn't exert as much editorial pressure as liberals, which of course they do.

:But two reasons why Conservapedia will not publish pro-Wikipedia content. Firstly, it's in direct competition with it. Not commercially but for what it sees as the hearts and minds of the new generation. Secondly, Conservapedia does not pretend to be NPOV. It promotes a dichotomy between left and right. So, while Wikipedia has good things to say about Conservapedia and even bad things to say about itself, Conservapedia doesn't want to dilute its anti-Wikipedia stance at all.

:While I agree with you that Conservapedia would be taken more seriously by mainstream conservatives if it could allow itself to be a little more balanced, I feel this is unlikely in this currently hyped atmosphere of them and us. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:: In the lead sentence of its entry about [[Conservapedia]], [[Wikipedia]] lies about our "stated purpose" in an attempt to smear us. This has been pointed out in [[Bias in Wikipedia]] but the [[liberals]] at [[Wikipedia]] won't correct it. I doubt you will either.

:: No, there's little of value in a cite as devoted to lies, gossip and pornography as [[Wikipedia]] is. What's next, you're going to insist that the National Enquirer has much redeeming value? Please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::"Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism." (from Wikipedia's intro on Conservapedia).

:::Where's the lie in the above, Aschlafy? Or is it a simple error? Or a difference in opinion. I don't know - genuinely interested. And why don't you change it?

:::Personally I don't find Wikipedia particularly dedicated to lies, gossip and pornography. Sure, it's there if you look for it, but I don't. Wikipedia has many redeeming features - it would churlish to deny it. I still maintain they should be covered in this article to lend a bit of balance. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:46, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Hmmm.. actually I think I see what you're getting at. I think sentence means that the stated purpose is to create "an encyclopedia written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint" and that it is "supportive of ... Young Earth creationism". But yes, that form of words might suggest that the latter was also a stated aim. I could attempt to change it... [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:52, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Done. Let me know what you think. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:25, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Better, but the term "supportive" (used twice) is still wrong, non-encyclopedic, and an attempt to smear Conservapedia. Also, note how [[liberals]] have flagged the entry and are likely to change or revert any improvements you make. One [[liberal]] has already modified your edit! Welcome to how [[Wikipedia]] operates in removing improvements and ensuring continuing [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:48, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::...the "liberal" edit did nothing more than moving a source to its proper place. The source reads:
{{cquote|Welcome to Conservapedia – Wikipedia from a creationist perspective. [...] Perhaps not surprisingly, it seems creationism gets top marks in every one of its 5,100 entries.}}
:::::So it seems like "supportive" is not a too unfitting word in this context. The "problem" is not in Wikipedia, it's in the source. And it's in the source because Conservapedia does give exactly that impression. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 11:09, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well, one editor has moved a citation - correctly by the looks of it. How is "supportive" wrong? I'm not trying to be difficult - I just don't get it. What would be a better NPOV form of words in your view? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:12, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::: What are you quoting from ... a [[liberal]] article trying to smear [[Conservapedia]]? And that makes something factual????

:::::: Suppose I changed [[Wikipedia]]'s entry and described Wikipedia as "supportive" of the homosexual lifestyle and abortion-on-demand. Would you accept that as a proper description at the beginning of its entry? No, I doubt you would. Yet [[Wikipedia]] insists on its baseless smears of Conservapedia, which is not "supportive" of any specific position. Our [[rules]] have been clear from the very beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:34, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Aschfly, can I just get this straight, please? Are you denying that Conservapedia is supportive of a conservative viewpoint? Or a Youth Earth Creationist viewpoint? Or both? Or what?

:::::::The text as it now stands states that Conservapedia is supportive of a conservative view and many of the articles are supportive of a YEC view. Is this not correct? If it isn't, what form of words would be correct? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:50, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm not going to waste time by repeating this again. If you would like to remove the lies from Wikipedia's entry about Conservative, then that would be welcome, though I'd expect Wikipedia editors to reinsert the lies.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:58, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::If you tell me what the lies are and why, I will try to. Or give a link that describes them. Or tell me what your preferred set of words would be. I don't see why this is proving to be so difficult. I've obviously missed previous discussions on this. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:10, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I think the original point has been diluted with all of this unnecessary talk regarding the definition Wikipedia currently provides for Conservapedia. The only comment I'll make is that Wikipedia's article seems quite balanced, and I've been contributing heavily to it lately to make sure this site isn't unnecessarily mocked. I am against bias. Now, the real question/issue is whether there are merits to be found in using Wikipedia, a site which hosts nearly 2 million articles. Granted some maybe viewed by others to be "anti-intellectual" in nature - if you don't want to read about music groups, television shows, movies, video games etc..etc..that's fine. But take a gander at Wikipedia's repository for science related articles. This includes cell biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, medicine (pathology) and countless other categories. They are extremely well written, neutral, sourced, and informative. And I'm not talking about Evolution. I echo the original commentors observations - it also applies to historical, geographical, and mathematical articles. I think this article itself would benefit from a fleshing out. You don't have to PRETEND NPOV, but you can still strive for it. Right now it's just a list of negativity that represents a minutia of problems with Wikipedia articles in the past. Just my two cents. I would be more than happy to help. And before anyone calls me on liberal bias, I beg you to look past those classifications and see that I am a Wikipedian and a Conservapedian. Thanks guys. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I've read (or tried to plow through) many of Wikipedia's life sciences articles. They are poorly written. They are no good for beginners, i.e., people who don't know much about biology for example. And they are biased against the idea that human beings may have more to them than just their physical bodies.

:::You can't say much about people without considering the [[spiritual body]] [[St. Paul]] spoke of, and you can't describe human life without [[free will]] and [[life after death]]. Moreover, how can you talk about the children without describing their [[God|Father]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:50, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has many positive features. I wouldn't have devoted 3 years of spare time to it, if I thought it was utterly useless. For one thing, it pioneered the concept of a free online encyclopedia which is collaboratively written.

Oh, and they're moving their headquarters to San Francisco, where they'll be surrounded by more liberals than ever before. ;-) [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/10/BU69SNMQ2.DTL] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:36, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:Either that or they're moving to the Ninth Federal Judicial District in hopes of more favorable rulings from all the lawsuits they have. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:46, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Cut from intro:

:Content on Wikipedia is controlled by and released under the "GNU Free Documentation License" (GFDL) requirements. Anyone can delete or alter anyone else's edits on Wikipedia.

Maybe we can divide this article into general information of interest - such as the license and the ease of editing - and the strenuous criticism of its leftist bias and general unreliability. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:41, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

:A great idea! We'll call the former [[Wikipedia]] and the latter [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]! ...no, wait... ;)
:Seriously, though, it's nice that a sysop finally (implicitly) admits that practically the entire article is just pointing out how bad WP is and that good/neutral info is so rare that it practically sticks out. This article is to Wikipedia what [[Theory of Evolution]] is to evolution: Little actual info, tons of preaching how it's bad and shouldn't be trusted. I fully support the idea of having an actual article about Wikipedia. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 21:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::Finally? I've been saying so all along. Remember, I'm still on the Mediation Committee at Wikipedia. And I used to be a senior admin until the inmates took over the asylum.

::Wikipedia is a good idea, poorly managed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:32, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

==Two pages?==
This is just an idea, but maybe all the sections of the Wikipedia page talking about it's scandals and stuff could be moved to a separate page (like [[Controversy in wikipedia]] or something like that, and this page could just summarize wikipedia, Kinda like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia this], except include some of the bad aspects as well). [[User:1984|1984]] 17:40, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

==Major Faux Pas from using Wikipedia==
Due to a mis-quote on Wikipedia a group of university professors caused Pope Benedict XVI to cancel a lecture at La Sapienza University in Rome in January 2008. This garnered international attention and was a major embarassment to the university.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7188860.stm

http://www.zenit.org/article-21701?l=english

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020707.html

==Ethnocentrism==

* I personally think this article should also mention Wikipedia's preference for American content over non-American content (or, for that matter, criticisms raised by non-American users). As a British user on [[Wikipedia]], I can testify to such bias, hence why I am now active on [[Conservapedia]]. Take Wikipedia's ''List of films considered the worst'' or ''List of films considered the best'' - on both articles, nearly all films are American, and no attention is made to European or Asian films. And then we have an entry I made on their ''DC Comics'' page a while back, highlighting DC Comics' apparent tradition of portraying British and French characters in a negative light. All I got for my pains was a speedy deletion and a comment with language strong enough to peel paint off of my doorframe. [[User:Crablogger]] 12:28 GMT, 22 April 2009

= Other =
==Secret Revelations==
:I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.

:As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.

:Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.

:To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. [[User:Knight|Knight]]
::Yes, this is true. Liberals, pagans and freemasons seem to be in control of all content at Wikipedia. A freemason merely has to express outrage at a quote (usually one by a freemason) regarding freemasonry on a userpage or person.al website and everyone jumps to remove the information. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 15:32, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

== Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors ==

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

''put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).''

-- from the bible

[[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following [[The Conservapedia Commandments]]. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B
[[User_Talk:Republican|Republican]]

:No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should auto ban blacks and chinese and jews and anyone who isn't white, straight, a man, conservative, and christian, too. {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}
::: And you too? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:07, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The user BushUSA99 was blocked infinitely for the above posting, and I considered reverting it too but left it to show cause. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Did you know ... ==
Did you know that you can buy a listing in Wikipedia on eBay? Ebay user diremine, who has a 99,9% positive feedback, provides the service of getting an article about your business inside Wikipedia, 10
interwiki links to your article and 2 external links to your website. [http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160146092291&ssPageName=MERCOSI_VI_ROSI_PR4_PCN_BIX&refitem=160144755846&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&refwidgettype=osi_widget] [http://myworld.ebay.com/diremine] Wikipedia suggests there are spy's and traitors who assist with this.(Wikizine - number: 79)

:Diremine is already indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for that reason, as you can see at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diremine his user page]. Wikipedia will not tolerate such abuse. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 15:11, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fox News ==

FOX news once said they couldn't find out why "Geromino" is yelled when people sky dive. The guy was like "I looked in wikipedia, but only because it really isn't something serious." Well, I looked that up on wikipedia, and I found out why they yell it.

The 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment's motto and slogan was named after him. In 1940, the night before their first mass jump, U.S. paratroopers at Fort Benning watched the film Geronimo and a Private Aubrey Eberhardt announced he would shout the name when he jumped to prove he was not scared. The trend has since caught on elsewhere. This unit was the first Airborne unit in U.S. History. [4][5] {{unsigned|BushUSA99}}

:So? Take it up with Fox, not us. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic... ==

Ok, Bob. You don't mind if I call you Bob, fo you? Nice, Bob. Ok, let's begin...
While I know that Conservapedia hasn't made a claim to be neutral I will point this out anyway. Since, logiacally, an encyclopdia which is subjective is hardly a trustworthy one. It is uncertain if it is even an ecyclopedia at all...
Ok, the majority of this "criticism" comes from the human mr. Brandt. My money is on the fact that Brandt either drives a personal vendetta against Wikipedia. He could, of course, be an ally of this "encyclopedia". In either case this is a highly questionable source since whe don't know anything about him except that he is a "wikipedia critic". Does that make him trustworthy? Hardly. Anyone can pick a source but the source has to have some form of authority in that area.
You are not following, Bob? Didn't think so.
In short, a professor in english is highly qualified to come with statements about English grammar. On the other hand is not not qualified as a source when writing an article about geology. And what is required to be a wikipedia critic? Well, you should qualify if you hate wikipedia which rarely makes you a reliable source.
Ok, Bob, do you follow? Smashing.
The main criticism is that wikipedia has errors in it. From your point of view that is, Bob. Translated into normal English wikipedia's (rather correct) version of reality collides with you (rather incorrect) version of reality. Oh, was that too complicated, Bob? You understand? Highly impressive.

Now, finally, even if wikipedia has errors (which I am sure it has) no one is perfect. Take ten articles from wikipedia and ten from conservapedia and compare them to the generally accepted vision of reality. I believe wikipedia will prove to be the most reliable source of information. So while wikipedia may have it flaws conservapedia is like a made-up encyclopedia where the majority of the articles suffer from delusion. Was that too complicated, Bob? It was, wasn't it? Too bad, my time is running up, Bob. Adieu.

/Cthulhu

: Do your sample of 10 on each site and you will find that Conservapedia is superior.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Cthulhu, there are several problems with your rant.
::* You seem to presume that being subjective and being trustworthy are mutually exclusive, but this is not self-evident and you haven't explained how it is so.
::* The main criticism of Wikipedia is not that it has errors, but that it has systemic problems which encourage and/or perpetuate errors. Several of the criticisms, for example, are that errors were corrected then the corrections were reverted to the error state.
::* You made a number of assertions as though self-evidently true, but which of course we would reject, and you haven't substantiated them. Things such as "you (sic) (rather incorrect) version of reality" and "the majority of articles suffer from delusion".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:47, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I hit Conservapedia's "Random Page" button ten times to take a sample of ten, then compared them to their counterparts on Wikipedia.
* [[COBE]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE COBE]
* [[Clamato]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamato Clamato]
* [[Ancient Art]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_art Ancient art]
* [[Joshua (Biblical book)]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua Book of Joshua]
* [[Aksum]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum Kingdom of Aksum]
* [[Hypertonic solution]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertonic Hypertonic]
* [[The Renaissance]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance Renaissance]
* [[Option]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_(finance) Option (finance)]
* [[Shoe laces]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoelaces Shoelaces]
* [[Robert Parris Moses]] vs [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parris_Moses Robert Parris Moses]
Opinions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:38, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Seems like it is 10 - 0 to wikipedia. While conservapedia wrote about one paragraph wikipedia wrote a few pages. Could you repeat what you said about conservapeda being superior, Bob? You don't mind if I call you Bob, right. Smashing.

--[[User:Cthulhu|Cthulhu]] 16:48, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:More writing does not necessarily equate to superiority. Conservapedia is new, and concise. Articles will grow, but in view of where is the conservative viewpoint allowed to be presented, which do you find to do a better job? Since we live in an open society, people don't have to choose one or the other. They can make their own decisions, but at least they have Conservapedia as a source if they desire and they have the capability to get information and perspectives that might otherwise be lacking or hard to find.

:By the way, be glad I wasn't looking where you signed on as a user as you would have been blocked up front for the name. Why not just call yourself Kali? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, a longer article is not necessarily better but in this case it is irrelevant. The conservapedia version of the articles generally was and idiot-version of the wikipedia one. To clearify, contained VERY general information whereas wikipedia had more extensive and in-depth information. Bob, you don't mind if I call you Bob, do you? Capital. You see, Bob, when you say that conservapedia is better in giving information from a conservative viewpoint this is not the case. The viewpoint is the same but wikipedia generally have more and better detailed information. You are following me? Smashing.

When Bob over there claims that conservapedia is "supreme" it was from an encyclopedia perspective. An encyclopdia's function is to contain articles within one or seveal topics. Wikipedia's articles are, in these examples, more detailed and professional. Thus conservapedia cannot be "supreme". Bob, you also claim that conservapedia is still young, etc. That I can agree with but if that is the case you people shouldn't come with absurd statements such as "you will find that conservapedia is supreme" and then pretend like it was some kind of paranthetis that you can conviniently ignore when it suits you.

And finally, Bob, considering my user name: Resorting to threats like "I could had banned you if I wanted" is REALLY mature (note, Bob, that I'm being ironical). Resorting to threats only proves that your arguments lack substance. My user name is my business as long as it doesn't contain anything illegal or offensive which it does not. Cthulhu is a fictional pre-christian entity which figured in anumber of horror stories written by H.P. Lovecraft. And my name...as a principle I don't give out my real name on the internet as a securiy measure and that is not negotiable, Bob.

//Cthulhu
:Just a point of clarification, we do reserve the right to reject user names for reasons other than being illegal or offensive. See [[special:userLogin]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Verbose and choppy writing is not the hallmark of professionalism. The Wikipedia articles come across as largely disjointed and difficult to get an overall feel, as one would expect from a large number of editors often at odds and trying to push their particular writing. I prefer many of the Conservapedia articles due to their smoother flow and a greater sense of capturing the subject matter. It's similar to your writing, for instance. Filled with a variety of duplicated cut and paste insults, the overall product is to take up space without meaning. I would suggest, in life, that you consider a path where you may grow to understand that viewpoints apart from your own still have a right to be expressed. Peace to you in finding this path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:51, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==For the record==
For the record, I was one of the "other Wikipedia Review" editors investigating the Essjay scandal. Here [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=2778&view=findpost&p=20408] I raised the possibility Essjay could be more than one person. Here, Brandt confronts Essjay, and asks, "Are you more than one person?" [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/gifs/usermess.png] it should also noted, the forum was frequented by high level WP Administrators who were active participants in these discussions, and new all relevent facts. Therefore, the discoveries made on January 19, that Essjay had lied & put the credibility of WP at stake in a most compromising way was known to high level WP Admins who regulalry report back on activities on the mailing lists before ''Jimbo'' appointed Essjay to ArbCom, with the full knowledge the ''The New Yorker'' was about to print a retraction on the lies and disinformation.

How this got fouled up in WP's internal bureacracy, is only a cause for speculation. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:17, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

== Waste ==

Isn't this article just bashing Wikipedia, not a very nice (or informative) article

: It's factual and balanced about [[Wikipedia]], which is more than can be said about [[Wikipedia]]'s smears in its entry about [[Conservapedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:53, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::This article is far from balanced (and I believe that's the general consensus among your users) - there isn't a single informative statement that doesn't have to do directly with some kind of verbose scandal or minutia error that existed in a handful of articles out of millions. No offense Aschlafly, but the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia is an example of what this one should be -resourceful, neutral, and informative in ALL aspects. Just my two cents. Cheers. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:01, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:I don't think this whole website is very factual or helpful in anyway, it is just to promote a very conserative agenda.
[[User:EtAlt292|EtAlt292]] 14:48, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::hot button issues maybe, but not the majority of the articles. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:56, 9 December 2007 (EST)

: EtAlt292, how about stating your political beliefs (e.g., [[liberal]]) before pretending to be unbiased in your comments???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::I kinda take exception to that statement - Just because someone disagrees with certain issues doesn't make them inherently biased, or in this case "liberal". I self-identify as a liberal (mostly because if I was forced to pick a label, that would be it), although I normally eschew such classifications, but I don't consider myself biased at all. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:39, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:::Let's look at the conclusion of this article [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html]covering the recent Overstock.com/Bagley/Attack sites incident:
{{QuoteBox|If you ask Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne what's going on, they'll tell you the ban is part of much larger attempt to discredit their views on naked shorting. They believe that a small group of people is using Wikipedia as means of controlling public opinion. 

"'''When you think of how the public consciousness of an issue can develop, one of the first things that's going to happen in today’s age is people are going to Google the issue and then read the Wikipedia article''' that comes up," Byrne says. "So if you can control that article, you can really deflect the discourse." 

Whatever the motives behind it, there's no doubt that the Wikipedia inner circle rules those four articles with an iron fist. And as Charles Ainsworth points out, this puts a cloud over the entire encyclopedia. 

"Wikipedia, in its way, is of great benefit to the web community," he says. "But I've also been greatly dismayed that Wikipedia has apparently attracted some intelligent but problematic personalities with ambition, secret personal agendas, and cold, ruthless behavior towards other editors and ideas that they perceive as threatening their power, position, or agendas. '''What's disheartening is that Jimbo and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation not only don't do anything about it, but they appear to support these charlatans''' to some degree." 

"When Bagley attempted to level the playing field, he was banished immediately," Ainsworth continues. "Obviously, there's something seriously wrong with the way Wikipedia is being managed and administered. I don't know if it threatens the long-term viability of the project or not, but it is cause for concern among those of us who spend a lot of hours actually trying to write quality articles." }}

:::Northing has been added from Bagley's case to this article, yet the conclusions are virtually identical to what is already presented here.

:::For the record, see Byrne's posting to Daniel Brandt here, "''your'' gangsters turn out to be connected to ''our'' gangsters."[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=3761&view=findpost&p=14936] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:40, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== More sources for section on Barbara Bauer ==

Should have better sourcing. We should add [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Barbara%20Bauer] where the quoted comment actually occurred as well as possibly including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_31#Barbara_Bauer] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_7] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_25] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_26] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Bauer]. The Bauer dispute seems that it might be more complicated. I'm struggling to understand what happened so we can add more to it. It looks like some liberal science fiction writers tried to hijack a lot of Wikipedia and got away with it until Bauer filed suit. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 23:56, 16 January 2008 (EST)

==Quoting from Wikipedia==

I am aware that the Commandments forbid quoting from Wikipedia, unless it is done to illustrate a liberal point of view, but what would be the problem if the quoted material was something which Conservapedians found unobjectionable? I have just joined, and have not made any edits yet. But I'm a musician by profession, and so one of the first areas of this encyclopedia I looked at was the one on music. Compare the page here on, say, Music Theory with the equivalent page on Wikipedia. The difference in quality is immense; the Conservapedia page is innacurate and confusing, to say the least. I can't think of any possible liberal bias which could lurk within a topic like that, and any that did exist (such as British spellings or BCE dates) could be easily edited. So what is the rule regarding this subject?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 20:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:Hi and welcome. My take on the issue is that we just don't lift text from wikipedia. As I understand the way WP works, there is no original research or creative writing there, so their information must show where it is from, and so there should be no problem with us being able to use the same or similar sources to produce our own articles without having to actually take text from WP. With regard to the article you mention, it may well be that we have no one (unlike yourself that is) who is a professional musician or at least an informed amateur to produce - yet - a quality technical article. Of course, you are welcome to bring your knowledge to the crease and I'm sure everyone here, and our readers, would be very grateful for your efforts there :) My musical knowledge is limited to "I know what I like" lol [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:29, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:In furtherance of Fox's comments, Eoinc, if you wrote the entry on Wikipedia, then of course you can copy your own work. But I compared our [[music theory]] to Wikipedia's and personally I prefer our concise, encyclopedic treatment. Wikipedia has not one, not two, but three big disclaimers in its entry, the first of which says it was taken almost entirely from one source! Moreover, the Wikipedia entry is far to long and tedious to be educational. I'm a teacher and know the value of conciseness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:33, 19 January 2008 (EST)

:We may be confusing two issues here. As mentioned above, you are not allowed to copy from Wikipedia, unless it is entirely your own work. But you are also not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference, which I think may be what Eoinc is referring to. Wikipedia has a similar rule, i.e. that you cannot use other on-line encyclopedias, blogs, etc. as sources. It has to be what they refer to as a "reliable source". Similarly, we don't find Wikipedia necessarily reliable, so you can't use it as a source. But as Fox said, you may be able to use and cite the same sources that Wikipedia uses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:48, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia minimizes Bozell's criticism. ==

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Brent_Bozell_III&diff=prev&oldid=157974132]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:51, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikilink cleanup ==

There are some inappropriately-linked dates in the [[Wikipedia#The_scandal_breaks]] section. Could someone clean this up or unlock it so that I can do it? Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:04, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Atheist ==

What relevance does saying Wales is an atheist have? The website is not atheist and covers all ranges of topics, so I don't understand why this has any place in the first sentence of the article. [[User:Luano|Luano]] 19:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Because atheist = bad. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:47, 16 October 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, how unbelievably insulting is that? Way to make an unwarranted generalization, dude. Unfortunately, that is exactly why they make hay of Wales' religious beliefs (or lack thereof) - because the founders of this site seriously believe that an atheist is somehow the worst thing someone could possibly be. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 15:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

==Jimbo Wales==
Do you think were helping the conservative cause by calling "Jimmy Wales" "Jimbo Wales".

: I thought he preferred that nickname. We don't care but we often use the nicknames preferred by the person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:58, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

==Sexual obsession==
Is there a way to source and point out Wikipedia's obsession with sexual trivia and sexual phraseology without sullying this reference? One of the mildest of such articles is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_tail Whale Tail]. My point is that how can any reference take itself seriously when it has entire articles devoted to peeking at female underwear which include links to more articles on topics such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttock_cleavage Butt Cleavage].
I apologize if this shocks or offends. I'd just like to point out how juvenile and base Wikipedia is. It also puts into perspective Wikipedia's wild claim on the number of articles it has. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]]

== Er.. ==

:well, in all fairness they also cover a large number of other subjects in addition to sexual trivia and phraseology, they have a great deal of information on masonry, biology etc., But I agree that some of those articals just don't need to exist.

==Rachel Marsden==
Ex-girlfriend of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, now Wale's biggest critic. Her summary describes Wikipedia as an "online libel board," that "any loser can use to smear people who are more successful than them." http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9999282-2.html , July 25, 2008--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:39, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
:I would just point out that n ex-girlfriend, particularly one that became such under not very amicable circumstances, might not be the best or most unbiased source imaginable. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:32, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:: True, due to her circumstances. However, replace her name with any known conservative, just keep the quotes. I bet you still get the truth about Wikipedia!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== Arabic wikipedia ==

Hi, any one can do/write an article about the Arabic wikipedia, please review the talk page here, nd help if u can, it's so biased [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arabic_Wikipedia The arabic wiki]
Regards.

::Are you Stayfi? If so, I really suggest you take some ESL courses before you make any further attempts to enact change at Wikipedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:33, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:::hhh, eh, u can always add an a or an A, if u didn't get it, i changed it for u, dude, just so simple. --[[User:Stayfi|Stayfi]] 15:25, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

== Typo ==

There is a typo in the article, currently. "Mr. Farah has repeatedly has been..." I would have made the change myself, but the article is protected. What does one have to do around here to prove one's credentials for editing the article about Wikipedia? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] 15:45, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

: Done, six minutes after your request. Not bad, eh? It's unlocked for general editing now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:51, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Pompeii

2009-04-21T04:53:23Z

ANorris: /* See Also */

'''Pompeii''' was an ancient Roman city destroyed in 79 AD by an eruption from the volcano [[Vesuvius]].

== Legacy ==

The ruins gained fame because the falling ash preserved the shapes of many of the occupants killed by the eruption. The empty spaces allowed for the creation of plaster casts of some of the former occupants. Some [[graffiti]] from the city's walls has been preserved to this day, providing a unique glimpse into Roman culture.

==See Also==

*''[[The Last Days of Pompeii]]'' - a novel (and later film) set during the destruction of Pompeii

*''[[Up Pompeii!]]'' - a comedy television series set in pre-eruption Pompeii

[[Category:Roman History]]
[[Category:Cities]]
[[Category:Italy]]

Aunt Phillis's Cabin

2009-04-20T16:07:58Z

ANorris: Added infobox

{{infobox book
| image = Auntphillis.jpg
| caption = Title page from the original 1852 edition
| name = Aunt Phillis's Cabin; Or, Southern Life As It Is
| author = Mary Henderson Eastman
| language = English
| yearpublished = 1852
}}

'''''Aunt Phillis's Cabin; Or, Southern Life As It Is''''' (also known as simply '''''Aunt Phillis's Cabin''''') was a novel written by Mary Henderson Eastman in reaction to ''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]'', and was first published in 1852, the same year ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' first appeared in book form.

== Overview ==

''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' was one of several pro-slavery novels that were written in response to ''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]'', which was seen in the South of the [[United States]] as inaccurately depicting the concept of slaveholding<ref>http://www.enotes.com/uncle-toms/</ref>. Eight of these novels were published in 1852 alone<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4113/is_200501/ai_n9483519/</ref>, with ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' being among the first.

== Plot ==

''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' follows the social lives on a plantation somewhere in [[Virginia]]. The black slaves - here presented as being loyal to their benign, caring masters - are pious, temperamental, and happy, claiming that it was the will of the Lord [[God]] to make them slaves. Eastman supports this argument by citing areas of the [[Bible]] throughout her book, including Genesis 9:27<ref>Preface to ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' - M.H. Eastman (1852)</ref> and various sections from the Book of Deuteronomy.<ref>Preface to ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' - M.H. Eastman (1852)</ref>

== See Also ==

*''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]''

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External Links ==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16741 ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' at Project Gutenberg]

*[http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/proslav/eastmanhp.html ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' at the University of Virginia]

[[Category:Novels]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

The Last Days of Pompeii

2009-04-20T16:04:48Z

ANorris: /* External Links */

'''''The Last Days of Pompeii''''' is an historical novel written in 1834 by Baron Edward Bulwer-Lytton.

== Overview ==

Bulwer-Lytton was inspired to write his work whilst touring [[Italy]], and becoming active during the excavations of the ruined city of [[Pompeii]] that were underway at the time. Bulwer-Lytton's involvement allowed his depiction of Pompeii to be accurate in detail, unlike later works.

== Plot ==

''The Last Days of Pompeii'' takes place in the town of [[Pompeii]] in 79 AD. The novel follows Glaucus, a slave from [[Greece]] who is a reformed [[Christian]]. As Christians were persecuted by the pagan Romans, Glaucus is hunted by his masters as he flees Pompeii, whose heathen residents are punished for their sins by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius.

== Film adaptation ==

An Italian film adaptation of the novel was made in 1913. It was a silent film and was one of few later adaptations to follow the novel faithfully.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0003489/</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External Links ==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1565 ''The Last Days of Pompeii'' at Project Gutenberg]

*[http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=title%3Alast%20days%20of%20pompeii%20-contributor%3Agutenberg%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts ''The Last Days of Pompeii'' at Internet Archive]

[[Category:Historical Dramas]]
[[Category:Novels]]

Aunt Phillis's Cabin

2009-04-20T16:01:52Z

ANorris: /* External Links */

[[File:Auntphillis.jpg|thumb|right|Title Page of the 1852 Edition]]
'''''Aunt Phillis's Cabin; Or, Southern Life As It Is''''' (also known as simply '''''Aunt Phillis's Cabin''''') was a novel written by Mary Henderson Eastman in reaction to ''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]'', and was first published in 1852, the same year ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' first appeared in book form.

== Overview ==

''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' was one of several pro-slavery novels that were written in response to ''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]'', which was seen in the South of the [[United States]] as inaccurately depicting the concept of slaveholding<ref>http://www.enotes.com/uncle-toms/</ref>. Eight of these novels were published in 1852 alone<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4113/is_200501/ai_n9483519/</ref>, with ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' being among the first.

== Plot ==

''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' follows the social lives on a plantation somewhere in [[Virginia]]. The black slaves - here presented as being loyal to their benign, caring masters - are pious, temperamental, and happy, claiming that it was the will of the Lord [[God]] to make them slaves. Eastman supports this argument by citing areas of the [[Bible]] throughout her book, including Genesis 9:27<ref>Preface to ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' - M.H. Eastman (1852)</ref> and various sections from the Book of Deuteronomy.<ref>Preface to ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' - M.H. Eastman (1852)</ref>

== See Also ==

*''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]''

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External Links ==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16741 ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' at Project Gutenberg]

*[http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/proslav/eastmanhp.html ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' at the University of Virginia]

[[Category:Novels]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

Aunt Phillis's Cabin

2009-04-20T16:00:54Z

ANorris: /* External Links */

[[File:Auntphillis.jpg|thumb|right|Title Page of the 1852 Edition]]
'''''Aunt Phillis's Cabin; Or, Southern Life As It Is''''' (also known as simply '''''Aunt Phillis's Cabin''''') was a novel written by Mary Henderson Eastman in reaction to ''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]'', and was first published in 1852, the same year ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' first appeared in book form.

== Overview ==

''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' was one of several pro-slavery novels that were written in response to ''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]'', which was seen in the South of the [[United States]] as inaccurately depicting the concept of slaveholding<ref>http://www.enotes.com/uncle-toms/</ref>. Eight of these novels were published in 1852 alone<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4113/is_200501/ai_n9483519/</ref>, with ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' being among the first.

== Plot ==

''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' follows the social lives on a plantation somewhere in [[Virginia]]. The black slaves - here presented as being loyal to their benign, caring masters - are pious, temperamental, and happy, claiming that it was the will of the Lord [[God]] to make them slaves. Eastman supports this argument by citing areas of the [[Bible]] throughout her book, including Genesis 9:27<ref>Preface to ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' - M.H. Eastman (1852)</ref> and various sections from the Book of Deuteronomy.<ref>Preface to ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' - M.H. Eastman (1852)</ref>

== See Also ==

*''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]''

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External Links ==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16741 ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' at Project Gutenberg]

*[http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/proslav/eastmanhp.html ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' at the University of Virginia]

[[Category:Literature]]
[[Category:Slavery]]
[[Category:The South]]

Pompeii

2009-04-20T14:00:30Z

ANorris: /* See Also */

'''Pompeii''' was an ancient Roman city destroyed in 79 AD by an eruption from the volcano [[Vesuvius]].

== Legacy ==

The ruins gained fame because the falling ash preserved the shapes of many of the occupants killed by the eruption. The empty spaces allowed for the creation of plaster casts of some of the former occupants. Some [[graffiti]] from the city's walls has been preserved to this day, providing a unique glimpse into Roman culture.

==See Also==

*''[[The Last Days of Pompeii]]'' - a novel (and later film) set during the destruction of Pompeii

[[Category:Roman History]]
[[Category:Cities]]
[[Category:Italy]]

Pompeii

2009-04-20T13:59:46Z

ANorris:

The Last Days of Pompeii

2009-04-20T13:57:45Z

ANorris: /* External Links */

The Last Days of Pompeii

2009-04-20T13:55:39Z

ANorris: /* External Links */

The Last Days of Pompeii

2009-04-20T13:54:41Z

ANorris: Created page to the best of my abilities

Aunt Phillis's Cabin

2009-04-20T13:34:01Z

ANorris: Created work using copy of ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' in my possession

'''''Aunt Phillis's Cabin; Or, Southern Life As It Is''''' (also known as simply '''''Aunt Phillis's Cabin''''') was a novel written by Mary Henderson Eastman in reaction to ''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]'', and was first published in 1852, the same year ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' first appeared in book form.

== Overview ==

''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' was one of several pro-slavery novels that were written in response to ''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]'', which was seen in the South of the [[United States]] as inaccurately depicting the concept of slaveholding<ref>http://www.enotes.com/uncle-toms/</ref>. Eight of these novels were published in 1852 alone<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4113/is_200501/ai_n9483519/</ref>, with ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' being among the first.

== Plot ==

''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' follows the social lives on a plantation somewhere in [[Virginia]]. The black slaves - here presented as being loyal to their benign, caring masters - are pious, temperamental, and happy, claiming that it was the will of the Lord [[God]] to make them slaves. Eastman supports this argument by citing areas of the [[Bible]] throughout her book, including Genesis 9:27<ref>Preface to ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' - M.H. Eastman (1852)</ref> and various sections from the Book of Deuteronomy.<ref>Preface to ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' - M.H. Eastman (1852)</ref>

== See Also ==

*''[[Uncle Tom's Cabin]]''

== References ==

{{reflist}}

== External Links ==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16741 ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' at Project Gutenberg]

*[http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/proslav/eastmanhp.html ''Aunt Phillis's Cabin'' at the University of Virginia]

[[Category:Literature]]

Uncle Tom's Cabin

2009-04-20T13:19:48Z

ANorris:

'''Uncle Tom's Cabin''' was a popular [[abolitionist]] novel written by [[Harriet Beecher Stowe]] in 1852. The main character is Uncle Tom, a black slave who endures undeserved hardship with a quiet dignity and grace from God.

The book was very successful, selling 300,000 copies in the first year alone. Its popularity led it to be turned into a theatrical performances and eventually, silent films.<ref>[http://chnm.gmu.edu/lostmuseum/searchlm.php?function=find&exhibit=uncletom&browse=uncletom The Uncle Tom's Cabin Archive]</ref> Its popularity also helped add fuel to the fire of the building anti-slavery movement, which culminated in the [[American Civil War]] and the removal of slavery from America, and as such is one of the most powerful books ever written.

==Modern Distortions==

Although incredibly powerful and influential at the time of its writing--to the point where President [[Abraham Lincoln]] described Harriet Beecher Stowe as "...the little woman who wrote the book that made this great war!"--''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' has fallen out of favor with academics and the intelligentsia in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Many reasons have been suggested for this; the shift from [[romanticism]] to [[naturalism]] in literature is one common;y-suggested reason. Another likely cause for the book's fall from grace in the eyes of intellectuals is its staunch and unyielding [[Christian]] message; Stowe, the daughter of a minister, wrote a novel that openly called on Americans to do their Christian duty and oppose slavery. The book contains powerful Christian characters (Tom and Eva,) who manage to touch others through their faith and devotion. It also includes events which are little short of miraculous (such as Eliza's escape from slave-catchers across a frozen river.)

Perhaps the gravest injustice which has been done, though, is to the character of Tom himself. The phrase "Uncle Tom" has come to be used as a derogatory term for someone who is black, but chooses to act in a subservient manner towards those who are white. This, however, is not an accurate depiction of the character in the novel. Uncle Tom is a tremendously strong individual, who refuses to strike back at his owners not because he is subservient to them, but because he is subservient to God. At the climax of the book, he is beaten to death by Simon Lagree. Tom doesn't fight back, but this is in no way an act of surrender; to the end, he refuses to betray the other slaves who have escaped. Although Lagree attempts to destroy Tom's faith, he fails; Tom forgives him and prays for him even when he is being beaten to death. Although Tom dies, he is the ultimate victor--not a broken and demoralized slave, but a triumphant servant of Christ.

==Theatrical Posters==
<gallery>Image:Uncle Tom.jpg|"Uncle Tom"
Image:Legree.jpg|"Legree"
Image:Eliza.jpg|"Eliza"
Image:Topsy.jpg|"Topsy"</gallery>

==See Also==
*''[[Aunt Phillis's Cabin]]''

==References==
<references/>
::http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/
[[Category:Literature]]