![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article makes it all seem as if the south seceeded because only because of slavery. This is somewhat one sided and needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.23.143 ( talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, the article includes the nullification crisis and tariffs--but the South did end up seceding because of slavery, or more accurately over efforts to restrict slavery from the territories. (Read the secession ordinances and look carefully at the timeline, then try to explain any other reason for it. Absent the slavery issue the other reasons given appear trivial.) If there are other relevant events that you feel should be added, then name them so that they can be considered for inclusion. Red Harvest ( talk) 18:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a source that states that Lee agreed to take over the US Army as long as Virginia didn't seceed? Leobold1 ( talk) 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Not that anyone watches this page anyway, and I may just be wasting my time typing this out for others to read, but....anyone who reads this please comment and let help with some citations on this article. Not only are citations needed, but some of the sentence structure is horrible. For example: "Buchannan decides to keep Fort Sumpter in Charlston Harbor". As if to presume it can be moved. I understand the meaning, but the sentence needs to be more clear. There are others, but lets start with what we have.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 22:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, paragraphs are customary...
dprocter
Should the 3/5 compromise be included as an event that led to the civil war? It was one of the initial compromises to avoid debate of slavery, similarly to the ascending events like the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. ~ Nondoleo ( talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The initialism CSA is used in the article but not defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.22 ( talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
We need a cutoff and perhaps April 15, 1861 works. This article does not cover the war itself. Rjensen ( talk) 13:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an interesting and useful article -- the question is how long it should be. It is quite possible to string together 10,000 events, but that would defeat the use of a handy encyclopedia for readers, who would be submerged in detail. I suggest a reasonable number of items to list would be in the range of 200 to 300, and that each should be linked either to a useful online source (like Google books or Amazon.com) or to a Wikipedia article. The goal is to maximize the use for readers. there are now 392 items down to Ft Sumter--somewhat too many in my opinion. Rjensen ( talk) 20:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Many of the items in this list are linked to articles on the event or person or other point made. Detail can be found there. In some cases, an item speaks for itself. I have added a lead section although I have seen other timelines or lists that have little or no introduction because of the nature of the article. I agree, however, that an introduction is appropriate here and explains the rationale for the events.
I do not understand the comment about supporting materials. There were quite a few citations and references at the time of the review. There are now 329 citations, many of them used multiple times. There are 38 books or articles listed in the references, all of them used at least once. Most entries are quite short. Those which required some explanation have at least one citation for almost every sentence. Many entries now have multiple citations. Books that are chronologies or have substantial timelines, including those by Wagner, Long, Bowman, are cited for the great majority of the items. These are backed up by citations from noted historians such as McPherson, Hansen, Klein and others on the causes or origins of the war or events leading up to the war. If taking information from various sources, or perhaps paraphrases which may or may not be entirely artful, constitute synthesis, then very many articles would be open to that criticism. The entries are statements of fact about events, statements, writings and occurrences over time that built up to the Civil War without argument, interpretation or combination into misleading conclusions. There is no original research.
Census data entries were mentioned as a concern. Three of the census data entries are now backed up by secondary sources. Others may be as I am not finished with revisions; otherwise they could be deleted but this would simply reduce information on the growth of slavery over some of the intervening years. The reader is left to draw his or her own conclusion from the mere reporting of the number of slaves over time. Clearly, slavery is a focal point and undoubted source of conflict leading to the war.
Although I do not agree with the suggestions about original research or synthesis, I think it is counterproductive to spend time debating whether a few items or even a few phrases might fall into these categories if some changes can result in a consensus that the article is acceptable and meets the criteria. So I have revised the entry mentioned on the talk page and have revised a few other entries that have phrases that might seem out of character with the simpler language I have tried to use in the remainder of the article because each entry is meant to be the recitation of an event, etc. So I trust there is now, or will be with a little more editing, no reason to suggest or have further debate the original research or synthesis points. I will continue to clean up a few of the items and add further citations and sources so that all entries have sources which clearly relate them to the origins or build-up to the war or in a few instances to the main topic, slavery.
The one item I have had a little trouble composing is an infobox. I have not yet found clear examples, or very many at all, in similar articles or appropriate templates in the help or style or example pages. I am sure I can find something or compose something that will fit with the article.
The entire article was unsourced when I started work on it. I think I have deleted the few entries that remained unsourced after I (and User:RJensen) tried to provide sources. If I find any more that I have not deleted and for which I cannot locate a source, I will delete them.
So I am commenting here in the nature of an update, not a report that revisions are finished or a suggestion that a further look for the purpose of assessment is appropriate, although I will appreciate and act or comment upon any further suggestions. I think I will soon have the article ready for a second look because I have done work on it over the past few days and think I can finish the revisions within a few days. I did not set out to create the article, only to improve it. I have spent somewhat more time than I suspected I would, so I would like to move on to other articles without much delay (except that caused by personal matters over the next few weeks). I do think it is now a useful article with much information and many links to the more detailed articles on the individual events or topics or persons noted. So it can be a worthwhile resource.
Thanks for your comments and all the work that all of you on this committee do for other editors and the project in general. Donner60 ( talk) 08:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This article seems like it contains a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYN, because while almost all the list items are cited, the actual article is a synthesis of a bunch of things that might have contributed to the civil war, but there aren't sourced from
I looked through your sources & as an example of A is the first chapter in MacPhereson, which you don't seem to use much of since most of the citations aren't from pages 1-21. The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference pages 57-68 is an example of B which is a tertiary source for your list of items, which you could fill in with secondary sources for the items if you wanted to expand on them. If your article was based on those two sources, I wouldn't have a problem.
All you need for a B article is those sources I mentioned, some structure with a lead and a supporting element (like an infobox or image). Obviously, a lot of work has gone into this already; it probably just needs a lot of cleanup. Kirk ( talk) 23:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
An event in 1830 that lead to the American Civil war was the U.S. slave population in the 1830 United States Census: 2,009,043.
Source: Connecticut-born Charles G. Finney begins preaching and helps to initiate the Second Great Awakening, an evangelical Protestant movement that inspires many social reformers including abolitionists.. What's the point of continuing with this article? Kirk ( talk) 20:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
In Boston, William Lloyd Garrison starts publishing The Liberator, an important abolitionist newspaper, which calls for an immediate end to slavery. Kirk ( talk) 21:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
More
From Encylopedia of the Civil War, page 5 some close paraphrasing:
Wagner pg 63: …a judge upholds a New York law that grants freedom to slaves who are brought into a state by their owner while en route to another state. Most Northern states have similar laws rejecting any right of transit for slave owners. Kirk ( talk) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Long pg. 7: Mr. Lincoln kept trying to affirm quietly that the states would be left alone to control their own affairs, but few in the south believed it. 02:55, 15 February 2011
Long p. 22The merchant vessel Star of the West left New York for Fort Sumter with 250 troops., and recently edited
07:58, 31 March 2011
Here's an example of not plagiarizing, the lead from the Star of the West article: The Star of the West was a civilian steamship hired by the United States government to transport military supplies and reinforcements to the garrison of Fort Sumter. Do you see the difference?
You keep asserting there's no more plagiarism, but its still here, and you keep doing it after being reported.
Kirk (
talk)
16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Article: President Davis names P. G. T. Beauregard as brigadier general to command Confederate forces in the area.
Long, p. 43 President Davis named P. G. T. Beauregard to command the area.
05:46, 30 March 2011
User Kirk wants to erase the article , bu that is not allowed under Wikipedia copyvio rules. -- and give the "fair use" provision of Wikipedia there are no copy vios here in the first place. Any further attacks will be reported as deliberate vandalism in violation of WP rules. (the rule is if you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed) but Kirk is erasing everything. Rjensen ( talk) 14:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I have readded the copyright template and will remind all editors that this tag may not be removed until the issue is resolved. These allegations are in no way trivial and should not be ignored. Yoenit ( talk) 17:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I just had a look and while I couldn't find anything online it is really worrying that copyright violations have been confirmed for the books of Long and Wagner, as most of the article is sourced to them and was written by the same editors. Yoenit ( talk) 20:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed entries that cite Wagner and Long and Bowman through 1860 and made some revisions. I will review others as promptly as possible. Donner60 ( talk) 21:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This is more a timeline of slavery in the United States. I don't think it helps those interested in the topic (the Civil War) to talk about the 17th century.
This sure differs from the sidebar "Events leading to the American Civil War" (see at Origins of the American Civil War).
These are not events:
I could go on. deisenbe ( talk) 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
It should say Timeline of Events Leading to the 1st American Civil War, for posterity. 84.118.60.112 ( talk) 21:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article makes it all seem as if the south seceeded because only because of slavery. This is somewhat one sided and needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.23.143 ( talk) 01:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, the article includes the nullification crisis and tariffs--but the South did end up seceding because of slavery, or more accurately over efforts to restrict slavery from the territories. (Read the secession ordinances and look carefully at the timeline, then try to explain any other reason for it. Absent the slavery issue the other reasons given appear trivial.) If there are other relevant events that you feel should be added, then name them so that they can be considered for inclusion. Red Harvest ( talk) 18:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a source that states that Lee agreed to take over the US Army as long as Virginia didn't seceed? Leobold1 ( talk) 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Not that anyone watches this page anyway, and I may just be wasting my time typing this out for others to read, but....anyone who reads this please comment and let help with some citations on this article. Not only are citations needed, but some of the sentence structure is horrible. For example: "Buchannan decides to keep Fort Sumpter in Charlston Harbor". As if to presume it can be moved. I understand the meaning, but the sentence needs to be more clear. There are others, but lets start with what we have.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 22:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, paragraphs are customary...
dprocter
Should the 3/5 compromise be included as an event that led to the civil war? It was one of the initial compromises to avoid debate of slavery, similarly to the ascending events like the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. ~ Nondoleo ( talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The initialism CSA is used in the article but not defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.22 ( talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
We need a cutoff and perhaps April 15, 1861 works. This article does not cover the war itself. Rjensen ( talk) 13:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an interesting and useful article -- the question is how long it should be. It is quite possible to string together 10,000 events, but that would defeat the use of a handy encyclopedia for readers, who would be submerged in detail. I suggest a reasonable number of items to list would be in the range of 200 to 300, and that each should be linked either to a useful online source (like Google books or Amazon.com) or to a Wikipedia article. The goal is to maximize the use for readers. there are now 392 items down to Ft Sumter--somewhat too many in my opinion. Rjensen ( talk) 20:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Many of the items in this list are linked to articles on the event or person or other point made. Detail can be found there. In some cases, an item speaks for itself. I have added a lead section although I have seen other timelines or lists that have little or no introduction because of the nature of the article. I agree, however, that an introduction is appropriate here and explains the rationale for the events.
I do not understand the comment about supporting materials. There were quite a few citations and references at the time of the review. There are now 329 citations, many of them used multiple times. There are 38 books or articles listed in the references, all of them used at least once. Most entries are quite short. Those which required some explanation have at least one citation for almost every sentence. Many entries now have multiple citations. Books that are chronologies or have substantial timelines, including those by Wagner, Long, Bowman, are cited for the great majority of the items. These are backed up by citations from noted historians such as McPherson, Hansen, Klein and others on the causes or origins of the war or events leading up to the war. If taking information from various sources, or perhaps paraphrases which may or may not be entirely artful, constitute synthesis, then very many articles would be open to that criticism. The entries are statements of fact about events, statements, writings and occurrences over time that built up to the Civil War without argument, interpretation or combination into misleading conclusions. There is no original research.
Census data entries were mentioned as a concern. Three of the census data entries are now backed up by secondary sources. Others may be as I am not finished with revisions; otherwise they could be deleted but this would simply reduce information on the growth of slavery over some of the intervening years. The reader is left to draw his or her own conclusion from the mere reporting of the number of slaves over time. Clearly, slavery is a focal point and undoubted source of conflict leading to the war.
Although I do not agree with the suggestions about original research or synthesis, I think it is counterproductive to spend time debating whether a few items or even a few phrases might fall into these categories if some changes can result in a consensus that the article is acceptable and meets the criteria. So I have revised the entry mentioned on the talk page and have revised a few other entries that have phrases that might seem out of character with the simpler language I have tried to use in the remainder of the article because each entry is meant to be the recitation of an event, etc. So I trust there is now, or will be with a little more editing, no reason to suggest or have further debate the original research or synthesis points. I will continue to clean up a few of the items and add further citations and sources so that all entries have sources which clearly relate them to the origins or build-up to the war or in a few instances to the main topic, slavery.
The one item I have had a little trouble composing is an infobox. I have not yet found clear examples, or very many at all, in similar articles or appropriate templates in the help or style or example pages. I am sure I can find something or compose something that will fit with the article.
The entire article was unsourced when I started work on it. I think I have deleted the few entries that remained unsourced after I (and User:RJensen) tried to provide sources. If I find any more that I have not deleted and for which I cannot locate a source, I will delete them.
So I am commenting here in the nature of an update, not a report that revisions are finished or a suggestion that a further look for the purpose of assessment is appropriate, although I will appreciate and act or comment upon any further suggestions. I think I will soon have the article ready for a second look because I have done work on it over the past few days and think I can finish the revisions within a few days. I did not set out to create the article, only to improve it. I have spent somewhat more time than I suspected I would, so I would like to move on to other articles without much delay (except that caused by personal matters over the next few weeks). I do think it is now a useful article with much information and many links to the more detailed articles on the individual events or topics or persons noted. So it can be a worthwhile resource.
Thanks for your comments and all the work that all of you on this committee do for other editors and the project in general. Donner60 ( talk) 08:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This article seems like it contains a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYN, because while almost all the list items are cited, the actual article is a synthesis of a bunch of things that might have contributed to the civil war, but there aren't sourced from
I looked through your sources & as an example of A is the first chapter in MacPhereson, which you don't seem to use much of since most of the citations aren't from pages 1-21. The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference pages 57-68 is an example of B which is a tertiary source for your list of items, which you could fill in with secondary sources for the items if you wanted to expand on them. If your article was based on those two sources, I wouldn't have a problem.
All you need for a B article is those sources I mentioned, some structure with a lead and a supporting element (like an infobox or image). Obviously, a lot of work has gone into this already; it probably just needs a lot of cleanup. Kirk ( talk) 23:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
An event in 1830 that lead to the American Civil war was the U.S. slave population in the 1830 United States Census: 2,009,043.
Source: Connecticut-born Charles G. Finney begins preaching and helps to initiate the Second Great Awakening, an evangelical Protestant movement that inspires many social reformers including abolitionists.. What's the point of continuing with this article? Kirk ( talk) 20:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
In Boston, William Lloyd Garrison starts publishing The Liberator, an important abolitionist newspaper, which calls for an immediate end to slavery. Kirk ( talk) 21:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
More
From Encylopedia of the Civil War, page 5 some close paraphrasing:
Wagner pg 63: …a judge upholds a New York law that grants freedom to slaves who are brought into a state by their owner while en route to another state. Most Northern states have similar laws rejecting any right of transit for slave owners. Kirk ( talk) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Long pg. 7: Mr. Lincoln kept trying to affirm quietly that the states would be left alone to control their own affairs, but few in the south believed it. 02:55, 15 February 2011
Long p. 22The merchant vessel Star of the West left New York for Fort Sumter with 250 troops., and recently edited
07:58, 31 March 2011
Here's an example of not plagiarizing, the lead from the Star of the West article: The Star of the West was a civilian steamship hired by the United States government to transport military supplies and reinforcements to the garrison of Fort Sumter. Do you see the difference?
You keep asserting there's no more plagiarism, but its still here, and you keep doing it after being reported.
Kirk (
talk)
16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Article: President Davis names P. G. T. Beauregard as brigadier general to command Confederate forces in the area.
Long, p. 43 President Davis named P. G. T. Beauregard to command the area.
05:46, 30 March 2011
User Kirk wants to erase the article , bu that is not allowed under Wikipedia copyvio rules. -- and give the "fair use" provision of Wikipedia there are no copy vios here in the first place. Any further attacks will be reported as deliberate vandalism in violation of WP rules. (the rule is if you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed) but Kirk is erasing everything. Rjensen ( talk) 14:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I have readded the copyright template and will remind all editors that this tag may not be removed until the issue is resolved. These allegations are in no way trivial and should not be ignored. Yoenit ( talk) 17:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I just had a look and while I couldn't find anything online it is really worrying that copyright violations have been confirmed for the books of Long and Wagner, as most of the article is sourced to them and was written by the same editors. Yoenit ( talk) 20:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed entries that cite Wagner and Long and Bowman through 1860 and made some revisions. I will review others as promptly as possible. Donner60 ( talk) 21:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This is more a timeline of slavery in the United States. I don't think it helps those interested in the topic (the Civil War) to talk about the 17th century.
This sure differs from the sidebar "Events leading to the American Civil War" (see at Origins of the American Civil War).
These are not events:
I could go on. deisenbe ( talk) 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
It should say Timeline of Events Leading to the 1st American Civil War, for posterity. 84.118.60.112 ( talk) 21:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)