This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abraham Lincoln and slavery 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:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This will be a long comment, but it will address a question applicable to all of Wikipedia, and in fact to all historical writing, not only to Abraham Lincoln and slavery. The question is when to quote and when to paraphrase. I believe that quoting is preferable except when a quotation is long or complex or confusing. Two other Wikipedia editors, Alanscottwalker and Quisqualis, apparently disagree.
I'll start at the beginning. I edited "6.2 Citizenship and limited suffrage" in the Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Alanscottwalker undid my edit. I will now paste in the version that I edited and that Alanscottwalker put back, and under it I will paste my edited version. I will remove footnotes and Wikilinks for the sake of readability:
John Wilkes Booth, a Southerner and outspoken Confederate sympathizer, attended the speech and became determined to kill Lincoln for supporting citizenship for blacks. Booth assassinated Lincoln three days later.
John Wilkes Booth, a Southerner and outspoken Confederate sympathizer, attended the speech and reacted by saying, "That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make."
Before I made this edit, I had made a smaller edit, merely changing "citizenship" to "suffrage," because in his speech, Lincoln had referred to Black suffrage, not to citizenship. Alanscottwalker correctly undid this edit, reminding me that Booth himself had used the word "citizenship," as I quoted him above. I then commented on User talk:Alanscottwalker, initiating the following exchange:
Thanks again for catching my error; I had forgotten Booth's comment. But any reader who was unfamiliar with the comment or had forgotten it might be confused by Wikipedia first quoting Lincoln advocating Black suffrage and then stating that Booth reacted by wanting to kill Lincoln for supporting Black citizenship. I propose that we change "became determined to kill Lincoln for supporting citizenship for blacks. Booth is reported to have remarked: 'That is the last speech he will ever make'" to "and reacted by saying, 'That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.'" I would footnote that to Ronald White's A. Lincoln, p. 672. Would you go along with that? Wikipedia quotes "nigger" where appropriate, as I think it is here. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think, it's clear and direct the way it is, and already sourced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, I explained why the version you prefer is unclear. To repeat, it jumps without explanation from Lincoln's advocating Black suffrage to Booth's opposition to Black citizenship. You have not attempted to dispute that, but only to assert without offering a reason that it is clear.
Second, you imply that my version is unclear, which is patently false, and you do not explain why it is unclear.
Therefore, I will revert back to my version. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[At this point Alanscottwalker undid my edit, and I wrote:]
I know that editing wars are frowned upon, so I will not undo your change now. But I intend to pursue this, after I figure out the arbitration procedure, which I've never used. In light of the fact that I offer reasons for my version and you rudely do not, I expect to prevail. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1st, I reverted to the longtstanding version, you made a mistake by reverting back, see BRD. If you don't understand my reasons you can ask and discuss.
2nd: Any reader with a modicum of sense, can see the connection between voting and citzenship. (both in the way the sentences are structured and in substance)
3rd: A simple declarative statement is always more clear. What we are to do here is summarize, simply and straitforwardly. (the point there is simply that someone wanted to kill him for giving that speech, and that's because voting means citizenship, the details of the speech and Booth belong in other articles.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(drive-by commenter) I agree here that the interest of encyclopedic brevity should be served. Any clarity added by the longer quotation is negated by the strong words used by Booth. The longer version of Booth's words seems to belong in Booth's biography, as it serves to characterize Booth's state of mind in more detail. This article talk page concerns Lincoln. Quisqualis (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Now I will get to the point about quoting versus paraphrasing. I believe that "reacted by saying, 'That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.'" is far more informative than "became determined to kill Lincoln for supporting citizenship for blacks."
For one thing, my version makes explicit that Booth spoke of citizenship. Readers do not have to draw the connection between voting and citizenship that Alanscottwalker thinks any reader with a modicum of sense can draw.
For another thing, my version tells readers how Booth thought and spoke. Alanscottwalker's version tells readers how Alanscottwalker writes. Surely Booth's words are preferable in a case like this where they are perfectly clear.
I do not understand how Alanscottwalker can believe that his version is clearer, when in fact the opposite is the case.
Quisqualis acknowledges that quoting Booth is clear but believes that "Any clarity added by the longer quotation is negated by the strong words used by Booth." My response is first that my version is only very slightly longer. Second, I do not see how strong words negate clarity. In fact, they add clarity. The phrase "nigger citizenship" is far clearer in conveying Booth's feelings than is "supporting citizenship," especially when Lincoln had not referred to citizenship.
If Quisqualis or anyone else has qualms about quoting such a vile word, then they should be aware that Wikipedia has an article on Nigger.
Thank you for your time. Of course, I hope you agree with me that my version is preferable to Alanscottwalker's. But more important, I hope you agree that quoting is preferable to paraphrasing where the quotation is clear and succinct, as it is here. Maurice Magnus ( talk) 13:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Maurice Magnus: I don't get this edit summary [1]? Beginning with the fact that no law could pass the Senate without the support of slave state senators, you also have all the powerful slave state lawmakers (see generally slave power) and the territorial crisis (eg. Wilmot Proviso, Kansas Nebraska Act etc.) Even for a time Congress had the "gag rule" on anti-slavery petitions, etc. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 20:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
This is completely untrue. In the months before he was sworn in and as certain states left the Union, he made this clear. He would guarantee the continued existence of slavery in existing slave states if it would preserve the Union. He had no long term objective to end slavery. The abolitionists in the Republican Party were livid about this.
He wrote the following to Greeley on August 22, 1862 as the war was already underway.
"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Someone needs to edit this blatantly false statement.
What is true is that once the war was underway, he realized that preserving the Union required ending the institution that was the root cause of disunion, which was slavery. He initially did not make the war about ending slavery, which angered many in his party. But he decided that it should be about that, and waited for public opinion to catch up as well as the right time to make this pronouncement. Dmbeaster ( talk) 04:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abraham Lincoln and slavery 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:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This will be a long comment, but it will address a question applicable to all of Wikipedia, and in fact to all historical writing, not only to Abraham Lincoln and slavery. The question is when to quote and when to paraphrase. I believe that quoting is preferable except when a quotation is long or complex or confusing. Two other Wikipedia editors, Alanscottwalker and Quisqualis, apparently disagree.
I'll start at the beginning. I edited "6.2 Citizenship and limited suffrage" in the Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Alanscottwalker undid my edit. I will now paste in the version that I edited and that Alanscottwalker put back, and under it I will paste my edited version. I will remove footnotes and Wikilinks for the sake of readability:
John Wilkes Booth, a Southerner and outspoken Confederate sympathizer, attended the speech and became determined to kill Lincoln for supporting citizenship for blacks. Booth assassinated Lincoln three days later.
John Wilkes Booth, a Southerner and outspoken Confederate sympathizer, attended the speech and reacted by saying, "That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make."
Before I made this edit, I had made a smaller edit, merely changing "citizenship" to "suffrage," because in his speech, Lincoln had referred to Black suffrage, not to citizenship. Alanscottwalker correctly undid this edit, reminding me that Booth himself had used the word "citizenship," as I quoted him above. I then commented on User talk:Alanscottwalker, initiating the following exchange:
Thanks again for catching my error; I had forgotten Booth's comment. But any reader who was unfamiliar with the comment or had forgotten it might be confused by Wikipedia first quoting Lincoln advocating Black suffrage and then stating that Booth reacted by wanting to kill Lincoln for supporting Black citizenship. I propose that we change "became determined to kill Lincoln for supporting citizenship for blacks. Booth is reported to have remarked: 'That is the last speech he will ever make'" to "and reacted by saying, 'That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.'" I would footnote that to Ronald White's A. Lincoln, p. 672. Would you go along with that? Wikipedia quotes "nigger" where appropriate, as I think it is here. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think, it's clear and direct the way it is, and already sourced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, I explained why the version you prefer is unclear. To repeat, it jumps without explanation from Lincoln's advocating Black suffrage to Booth's opposition to Black citizenship. You have not attempted to dispute that, but only to assert without offering a reason that it is clear.
Second, you imply that my version is unclear, which is patently false, and you do not explain why it is unclear.
Therefore, I will revert back to my version. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[At this point Alanscottwalker undid my edit, and I wrote:]
I know that editing wars are frowned upon, so I will not undo your change now. But I intend to pursue this, after I figure out the arbitration procedure, which I've never used. In light of the fact that I offer reasons for my version and you rudely do not, I expect to prevail. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1st, I reverted to the longtstanding version, you made a mistake by reverting back, see BRD. If you don't understand my reasons you can ask and discuss.
2nd: Any reader with a modicum of sense, can see the connection between voting and citzenship. (both in the way the sentences are structured and in substance)
3rd: A simple declarative statement is always more clear. What we are to do here is summarize, simply and straitforwardly. (the point there is simply that someone wanted to kill him for giving that speech, and that's because voting means citizenship, the details of the speech and Booth belong in other articles.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(drive-by commenter) I agree here that the interest of encyclopedic brevity should be served. Any clarity added by the longer quotation is negated by the strong words used by Booth. The longer version of Booth's words seems to belong in Booth's biography, as it serves to characterize Booth's state of mind in more detail. This article talk page concerns Lincoln. Quisqualis (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Now I will get to the point about quoting versus paraphrasing. I believe that "reacted by saying, 'That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.'" is far more informative than "became determined to kill Lincoln for supporting citizenship for blacks."
For one thing, my version makes explicit that Booth spoke of citizenship. Readers do not have to draw the connection between voting and citizenship that Alanscottwalker thinks any reader with a modicum of sense can draw.
For another thing, my version tells readers how Booth thought and spoke. Alanscottwalker's version tells readers how Alanscottwalker writes. Surely Booth's words are preferable in a case like this where they are perfectly clear.
I do not understand how Alanscottwalker can believe that his version is clearer, when in fact the opposite is the case.
Quisqualis acknowledges that quoting Booth is clear but believes that "Any clarity added by the longer quotation is negated by the strong words used by Booth." My response is first that my version is only very slightly longer. Second, I do not see how strong words negate clarity. In fact, they add clarity. The phrase "nigger citizenship" is far clearer in conveying Booth's feelings than is "supporting citizenship," especially when Lincoln had not referred to citizenship.
If Quisqualis or anyone else has qualms about quoting such a vile word, then they should be aware that Wikipedia has an article on Nigger.
Thank you for your time. Of course, I hope you agree with me that my version is preferable to Alanscottwalker's. But more important, I hope you agree that quoting is preferable to paraphrasing where the quotation is clear and succinct, as it is here. Maurice Magnus ( talk) 13:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Maurice Magnus: I don't get this edit summary [1]? Beginning with the fact that no law could pass the Senate without the support of slave state senators, you also have all the powerful slave state lawmakers (see generally slave power) and the territorial crisis (eg. Wilmot Proviso, Kansas Nebraska Act etc.) Even for a time Congress had the "gag rule" on anti-slavery petitions, etc. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 20:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
This is completely untrue. In the months before he was sworn in and as certain states left the Union, he made this clear. He would guarantee the continued existence of slavery in existing slave states if it would preserve the Union. He had no long term objective to end slavery. The abolitionists in the Republican Party were livid about this.
He wrote the following to Greeley on August 22, 1862 as the war was already underway.
"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Someone needs to edit this blatantly false statement.
What is true is that once the war was underway, he realized that preserving the Union required ending the institution that was the root cause of disunion, which was slavery. He initially did not make the war about ending slavery, which angered many in his party. But he decided that it should be about that, and waited for public opinion to catch up as well as the right time to make this pronouncement. Dmbeaster ( talk) 04:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)