Talk:American Civil War: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by Caustic3 - "A brief followup" |
→GAN: new section |
||
| Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
Paragraph 1, sentence 2: spelling error in 'states'. Change from 'ststes' to 'states' required. [[User:Chargz|Chargz]] ([[User talk:Chargz|talk]]) 05:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC) |
Paragraph 1, sentence 2: spelling error in 'states'. Change from 'ststes' to 'states' required. [[User:Chargz|Chargz]] ([[User talk:Chargz|talk]]) 05:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
:Done [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 05:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC) |
:Done [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 05:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
== GAN == |
|||
{{GA nominee|18:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Caustic3|Caustic3]] ([[User talk:Caustic3|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=World history|status=|note=}} |
|||
Revision as of 18:27, 20 May 2021
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Civil War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 60 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Other talk page banners | ||||
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Huntcanwritesogoodlike (article contribs). | |||||
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the American Civil War.
Q1: Should slavery be presented as the most important cause of the war? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. Slavery was the most important cause of the war. Wikipedia requires that we rely on the best officially documented research available, without any original research or undue weight to fringe theories.
After the war, some movements sought to advance Lost Cause interpretations, arguing that the Confederacy was not primarily fighting to defend slavery. While these have been popular in some quarters, the vast majority of historians do not support these interpretations, including best historians (McPherson, Nevins, Freehling and even the better Southern historians such as Potter). Ironically, during the crisis that led to the outbreak of war, Confederate politicians openly presented preservation of slavery as the central issue, in their own words. They mentioned fears for the future of slavery many times in their declarations of reasons for secession, political speeches and editorials. Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stephens had the following to say: "You think slavery is right and should be extended; while we think slavery is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub." - From Abraham Lincoln's letter to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, Dec 22, 1860 "We at the South do think African slavery, as it exists with us, both morally and politically right. This opinion is founded upon the inferiority of the black race. You, however, and perhaps a majority of the North, think it wrong." - From Stephens' reply to Lincoln, Dec 30, 1860 It is true that Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis both downplayed the slavery issue after the war began. As historian James Ford Rhodes explained, Davis hoped to get support from Britain and France, where slavery was unpopular, and Lincoln needed to keep the loyalty of the border states, which were both pro-slavery and pro-Union. This is why in statements like the Crittenden–Johnson Resolution, northern politicians argued they were only fighting to preserve the Union. Similarly, Lincoln's sole justification for the Emancipation Proclamation was military necessity. Holzer, Striner and Brewster note that Lincoln needed to portray the emancipation in a way that was acceptable to the border states and War Democrats. Q2: Were tariffs and states' rights similar in importance? (No.)
A2: No. The tariff issue and states' rights were factors, and there were others. These are all included in the article. However, no issue was as important as slavery.
The original secessionists were not very careful in separating states' rights from the slavery issue. They defended both states' rights (such as secession) and federal power (such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), depending on which suited slavery with each controversy. South Carolina's declaration of reasons for secession is one example out of many. However, Lost Cause historians did subsequently portray the Confederacy as consistent defenders of states' rights. The tariff issue had been a much larger issue three decades before the war, and even then John Calhoun, who led South Carolina's attempt to nullify the Tariff of 1828, said that the tariff issue was related to slavery. In his March 6, 1860 speech at New Haven, Lincoln had said that the slavery issue was more important than the tariff or any other issue. Q3: Did Lincoln propose to immediately abolish slavery in the South when elected? (No.)
A3: No. Lincoln combined moral opposition to slavery (calling it "a monstrous injustice") with a moderate, gradual program of action. Lincoln, like most Republicans, believed that compromises of the Constitution (a three-fifths clause, a 20 year extension of the African slave trade and a fugitive slave clause) implied constitutional recognition of slavery where it existed. However, Lincoln would not compromise on preventing any expansion of slavery in the hope that this would put it "in the course of ultimate extinction." Q4: Did Lincoln believe in racial equality? (Mostly.)
A4: In the context of the 19th century, being seen as a "Black Republican" abolitionist would be politically damaging. Lincoln was inconsistent on the equality issue during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, partly in order to deflect this charge. However, the things Lincoln said in favor of equality were many (including Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address and his Cooper Union speech), while the things he said against it were few, and those few were combined with a great deal of political pressure. While Lincoln and other northern politicians did not always advocate equality, this should not be given undue weight, especially as they wanted to give far more rights to black people than the Confederate politicians. At a July 10, 1858 Speech at Chicago Lincoln said, "I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist." Q5: Should the article refer to the states that allowed slavery as slave states? (Yes.)
A5: Yes, because their politicians referred to them as slave states, and because slavery related concerns were by far the major complaint mentioned by secessionists. After the outbreak of war, the slave states became divided between the Confederate states and the border states. Q6: Did some slave states fight for the North? (Yes.)
A6: Yes, the five border states. These states had less slavery and more support for the Union than the Confederate slave states. They opposed emancipation at first, but largely accepted the military need for it eventually. Kentucky and Missouri had more slavery than the rest, and had loyalties that were more divided than the rest. For example, Missouri's Governor Claiborne Jackson was a southern sympathizer, but was prevented from seceding by Union Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon. Missouri saw some of the worst guerrilla fighting of the entire war because of its divisions over slavery. Q7: Should the title be American Civil War? (Yes.)
A7: Yes. The title "American Civil War" is used only because it is the most common international name for the war. It is used in order to be understood, regardless of whether it could be better. The title does ignore the South's point of view, and it ignores the fact that Central America and South America are also America, in a sense.
The other names should be mentioned, but not in this article. They are mentioned in Naming the American Civil War. The main article links to this. Q8: Did the South start the war? (Yes.)
A8: The South bombarded and seized Fort Sumter, a federal fort in South Carolina. Historians regard this as the incident in which the actual fighting began. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Civil War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Since the article lists video games, what about tabletop games?
For example, 1863, A House Divided, For the People, etc. ?138.88.18.245 (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Corrected typo.138.88.18.245 (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Can you give me a list of board games about the war that also have Wikipedia articles? If we did include, they'd have to have articles. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Civil_War_board_wargames I see A House Divided is on the list, but not the others I'd mentioned. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Can you give me a list of board games about the war that also have Wikipedia articles? If we did include, they'd have to have articles. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021
Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
civil war was initially to "fight to preserve the Union" and launched into the the abolishment of slavery after Antietam and the Emancipation proclamation was written 71.33.145.139 (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done: If you read the body of the article you will see that distinction is discussed, see American_Civil_War#Emancipation. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lee surrendered on April 9. May 9 is incorrect if not arbitrary 47.40.118.229 (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not done: Lead and articles indicates that Lee surrendered on April 9. May 9th in infobar is based on when President Johnson officially declared an end to the insurrection. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
citation to James Downs should specify it is a *blog* post, not OUP peer-reviewed
This citation is referenced at least twice. The citation should be clarified: it is justa *blog* post by James Down, on a blog at Oxford U Pr; it is *not* an Oxford University Press publication. The difference makes all the difference. There is no peer-review of blog posts, even at OUP. It is therefore not a 'reliable source.' "Color blindness in the demographic death toll of the Civil War". TruthSum (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
France sent limited aid to the Confederacy, add this to the belligerents list (not as a full belligerent)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_of_the_American_Civil_War#France "The French expected that a Confederate victory would facilitate French economic dominance in Mexico. Napoleon helped the Confederacy by shipping urgently needed supplies through the ports of Matamoros, Mexico, and Brownsville, Texas." 100.6.158.213 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also Wikipedia itself is not considered a WP:RS per WP:NOTSOURCE Run n Fly (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Lead
@Caustic3: Hello! I am glad to see you editing leads, something that is sorely needed on Wikipedia. You have certainly walked into a controversial lead here :) Before I lay out my problems, I'd like to introduce you to an idea we call WP:BRD: "Bold, Revert, Discuss". When someone makes a bold change, as you have, someone else can revert it. Instead of re-reverting, you should come to a talk page like this to discuss the issue. Alright, with that out of the way, here are the issues I have:
The debate on slavery was raging since the nation's founding. It was only when the federal government explicitly outlawed slavery's expansion westward that prompted the South to secede.
The first sentence is true but poorly worded. I would make it more encyclopedic, such as "The issue of slavery had been contentious since the nation's founding, and had been left poorly resolved at the signing of the Constitution." For part two, thats not true. The South seceded when Lincoln was elected.- With regards to the second paragraph, the new version does not provide the most accurate accounting. It attempts to get at the nuance and fails. The prior paragraph was concise and accurate. Splitting it into two has made the lead too long anyway (leads target 4 paragraphs, sometimes 5).
- "Combat officially ended on April 9"...except that it didn't. The last shot was fired June 22. The previous wording was chosen carefully.
CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you captain
I want to thank you for reading my work and providing constructive criticism. I value your feedback and I genuiely appreciate your response. I am still relatively new to editing here so please forgive me if I am not familiar with all the protocols involved. That said I am a fast learner and I look forward to working with you in the future.
15:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Caustic3
- @Caustic3: A few more things. So, you keep trying to claim that it was northern outlawing of the expansion of slavery that caused the war. But the immediate cause of the war was the election of Lincoln. I know I did mention better wording about the constitution, but ultimately I think that is something better explored in the body, not the lead. A lead is a short and fairly simple summary of an issue that must understandably drop some of the nuance. But the body makes up for that. If you have further ideas for lead changes I suggest you note them here so they can be workshopped. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to nose in here, encouraging User:Caustic3 to continue to edit boldly, but also pointing out editing the lead on an article of this high visibility is a challenging place to start. I know because I re-wrote the lead myself about 15 years ago and was complimented for my changes, but within a month my work had been completely lost except in page history. Hundreds of editors have contributed to this page and many still watchlist it. Not all of us oldtimers are as kind and helpful as User:CaptainEek. It was suggested to me and I found it good advice to find early success working on ACW stubs, sourcing them, improving their leads, and advancing them to B-class pages. This gave me the chance to work largely uninterrupted and develop my own wikivoice. My experience in those arenas allowed my involvement on this page more sophistication and gave me the preparation to find consensus (argue constructively) when editors disagreed (as we inevitably will do). I like that you value feedback; demonstrating one can disagree respectfully (as the captain has demonstrated) is a sign of an editor who may be successful here. If you need any help, I'm happy to oblige. BusterD (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Caustic3, This is now the third time that you have added the incorrect claim that the South seceded in response to the prohibition of slavery. That's simply untrue. Slavery had been somewhat limited in the decades running up to the war. But slavery was still fully allowed in the south in 1860. Lincoln didn't even take office until 1861, and the Emancipation Proclamation, which did end slavery in the south, occurred several years into the war, in 1862/1863. The South seceded in response to the election of Lincoln, starting with South Carolina in December 1860. James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" dedicates a good two chapters to the issue, Chapter 7 takes a look at the election of 1860, and Chapter 8 looks at the secession movement that occurred directly after Lincoln's election. I am unsure where you are getting your claims from, or what exactly you mean by them. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Template:CaptainEek I apologize for not being clear as I should have been. All I am trying to say is that the reason the conflict erupted in 1861 is due to the new coalition of abolitionists gaining control of the federal government, most importantly the presidency in the form of the Republican party. Lincoln did not argue for abolition in the states where slavery was practiced from Missouri to Texas. He did argue and attempt to implement halting the expansion of slavery. Meaning any new state going into the Union from Lincoln's presidency onward irregardless of location would have to be a free state. The south now seeing how they were outnumbered in the federal government and having issue with more radical party members in the party like Thaddeus Stephens and Charles Sumner. Uncertainty and bitterness dominated the south as they feared Lincoln would go beyond his position from being against slavery's expansion to being against the institution of slavery itself. Ergo they left the federal union initially to form their own nation but began war became inevitable when Lincoln refused to surrender federal property in the south and hand over weapons and money accordingly.
- I'm going to nose in here, encouraging User:Caustic3 to continue to edit boldly, but also pointing out editing the lead on an article of this high visibility is a challenging place to start. I know because I re-wrote the lead myself about 15 years ago and was complimented for my changes, but within a month my work had been completely lost except in page history. Hundreds of editors have contributed to this page and many still watchlist it. Not all of us oldtimers are as kind and helpful as User:CaptainEek. It was suggested to me and I found it good advice to find early success working on ACW stubs, sourcing them, improving their leads, and advancing them to B-class pages. This gave me the chance to work largely uninterrupted and develop my own wikivoice. My experience in those arenas allowed my involvement on this page more sophistication and gave me the preparation to find consensus (argue constructively) when editors disagreed (as we inevitably will do). I like that you value feedback; demonstrating one can disagree respectfully (as the captain has demonstrated) is a sign of an editor who may be successful here. If you need any help, I'm happy to oblige. BusterD (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I also wanted to say that in the leading section of the article contains an opinion. "The Union of states is permanent.". I do not believe that a non-cited and quite frankly inaccurate statement should be displayed in the leading section as not to confuse our readers. Those were the only changes that I stand by in support of. I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caustic3 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Paragraph 1, sentence 2: spelling error in 'states'. Change from 'ststes' to 'states' required. Chargz (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
GAN
 | American Civil War is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Caustic3 (talk) at 18:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
|
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- B-Class American Civil War articles
- American Civil War task force articles
- Failed requests for military history A-Class review
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Unknown-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- B-Class American Old West articles
- High-importance American Old West articles
- WikiProject American Old West articles
- American Old West articles with to-do lists
- American Civil War articles with to-do lists
- United States military history articles with to-do lists
- B-Class United States History articles
- Unknown-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States History articles with to-do lists
- United States articles used on portals
- WikiProject United States articles
- Top-importance United States History articles
- B-Class African diaspora articles
- Top-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review