This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I noticed that the description of the kinship between Butler and Brooks, has mutated to "cousin, once removed", which is none too adequate: if we are to be precise, it should be first cousin once removed, or third cousin once removed, etc. I suggest we switch back to the amiably vague "kinsman" until someone can actually provide exact details of their kinship. - Nunh-huh 08:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You'll have to pardon me if I'm a bit touchy - an anonymous editor came through a while back and made a very POV edit. As for facts, here are some reputable citations for the relationship, none of which mention the cousinship that user:Tlbenson insisted on:
I accomodated Tlbenson, but now that I look into it further, I think we should revert to uncle until that editor provides a citation for a different relationship. - Willmcw 22:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Removed old bibliography; am placing it here if anyone needs it. I also cleaned up the article to update the English usage a bit (changed negroes to blacks for example). User:FeanorStar7
See Sumner's Works (15 vols., Boston, 1870–1885), and Edward L. Pierce's Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner (4 vols., Boston, 1877–1893). Briefer biographies have been written by Anna L Dawes (New York, 1892); Moorfield Storey (Boston, 1900); and George H Haynes (Philadelphia, 1909).— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeanorStar7 ( talk • contribs) 06:09, 1 July 2005 (UTC)
This article could use a separate section on Sumner and his views on race. He was unusually far-sighted for his time in pleading for suffrage and equal access for blacks, and this ought to be addressed. I'll add it, unless someone else would prefer to do it.-- Idols of Mud 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current
Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the
Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found
here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to
WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the
verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project
talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project.
Agne 23:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone (who know how, since I do not) would change the "speech" link which now links to "speech" to the actual speech described in the article. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nowax ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
The birth dates in the text and under the photo do not coincide. At least one of them has to be wrong. GS3 ( talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The speech doesn;t say anything about "noisome, squat, and nameless animal ... not a proper model for an American senator."
Neither it "took a cruel, personal turn as he mocked the 59-year-old Butler's manner of speech and physical mannerisms, both of which were impaired by a stroke that Butler had suffered earlier."
Please remove.
The link to the speech is included in the article. Did anybody read it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.10.3 ( talk) 17:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. Although several references are listed, there are no inline citations for large portions of the article's content which is required under the criteria. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. Usually I have to tell people to expand the leads of articles, but in this case the lead should be reduced in length. There is some content that doesn't exist in the article itself, and that should be incorporated into its respective area. See WP:LEAD for guidelines. All of the external links in the namesakes section also need to be formatted properly. As a side note, I tagged multiple images for moving over to Wikimedia Commons, so if you have an account there, consider moving them over so other language Wikipedias can use them. Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN or you can contact me on my talk page and I'll review it for you so you can bypass the month-long backlog. If you need assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
In regards to my audio recording, I would like to point out that I have finished recording it and have the full file, but that I lack sufficient audio editing equipment to correct the errors I made while recording it.
Thus, I'm stuck. I'm still working on it, but I can not go further at the moment because of my resources.
--
TurtleShroom! :)
NOODY BRANCH! Don't mess with farmers, SpongeBob. They know how to grow food. - Knowledge is power, grab it while you can. 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the Tunnel from the "Namesakes" list. The Sumner Tunnel is not named for Charles Sumner - it's named for William H. Sumner (as noted on the corresponding page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pobbard ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have managed to recover the file and will soon begin the editing process. Some time in the future, it'll be uploaded. --
99.157.108.248 (
talk) 22:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
What kind of legal action was taken against the guy who nearly beat Sumner to death? Also what kind of "censure" did the guy brandishing the pistol get? AaronY ( talk) 05:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Why in the article do we make nonquoted references to "negroes"? Such use of the term is not only taboo and archaic but is also bordering on the prejudicial. Is there any reason this has been done? Wally 19:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I edited the opening section which contained the statement that Sumner had been removed from his Chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee by Grant's Congressional forces on account of his support of the Liberal Republicans in the 1872 campaign, whereas (relying on Donald and the EB) he was stripped on his chairmanship in 1871 because of his opposition to Grant's Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) scheme. This harmonizes with information presented later as well. Meb53 23:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about one of the images here. It seems to me that the image just under the infobox listed as Senator Charles Sumner, c. 1870 is not Charles Sumner. The subject in that portrait looks nothing like Sumner, especially when compared by a portrait from five years later by the same artist. Even this cartoon of Sumner shows that he changed little from the Brady photos of the 1850s. I know the source web site identifies it as Senator Sumner, but c'mon... -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The lead is
The concluding para of the lead makes it clear that the lead has a point of view on who Sumner was. I don't think that's appropriate...comments? Johnleemk | Talk 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that even the remaining second half of the lede (paragraphs 3 and 4) is a bit much in level of detail for an article lede. Any chance that we can look at summarizing it, while moving those details to a section in the article? -- Habap ( talk) 20:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree with the position that including Donald's subjective appraisal in the lead is completely improper. Donald's work (from 1960) is clearly pulled apart in the rejoinders cited in the bibliography; it belongs to a Revisionist, pro-Southern, anti-abolitionist school that has fortunately been largely put in the dustbin of history (or historiography). Feketekave ( talk) 11:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What party did Sumner consider himself to be part of at the time of the beating, Democrat, Free-soil, Republican or something else? Naraht ( talk) 19:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I updated photo. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
An editor added that the "Crime Against Kansas" speech contained "...several sexual references regarding Butler." What "sexual references" are those? Here's the text [5]. - Willmcw 23:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It is not original research to state the obvious, Will. Being intentionally obtuse, OTOH, can constitute a form of disruption. Needless to say, sources are plentiful:
I'm willing to concede the point about sexual imagery (despite the fact that your first link doesn't work, your second is to a blog with a blatant POV which should be balanced and your third is about something entirely different), though the current phrasing is problamatic, however, having read the speach, I can't find this: "noisesome, squat, and nameless animal ... not a proper model for an American senator." and your link to the citation doesn't work. 216.98.233.245 ( talk) 00:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, found it, it's from the debate that followed his speech. Since we're playing with that, should we also include this: "Is it his object to provoke some of us to kick him as we would a dog in the street, that he may get sympathy upon the just chastisement?" Senator Douglas. Citations: http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext02/ascru10.htm, http://books.google.com/books?id=g681Ea923hUC&pg=PA3564&lpg=PA3564&dq=%22%22noisesome,+squat+and+nameless%22&source=web&ots=xWtVQo4tly&sig=ZragRthiHRzx0gY4fyKWC0pcWko&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA3560,M1 216.98.233.245 ( talk) 00:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The purpose here is to create an article sympathetic to Sumner's attackers.
Posters who object to the article's NNPOV characterisation of Sumner's language are themselves threatened, in the Wikiterror that has started in 2006, with charges of disruption here on a Talk page, silencing people who object by threatening them with loss of reputation here and in meatspace.
The fact is that (1) Sumner didn't use profanity, only the vivid oratory characteristic of ante-bellum America and (2) whatever he said on the Senate floor could have been censured by parliamentary procedures, and for this reason the attack on him was terrorism...an act of war on the United States.
I realize that this may be difficult for crazed autodidacts, fourteen year old boys, and convenience store clerks to understand.
The fact is that when crazed autodidacts, fourteen years old boys, and convenience store clerks laboriously read the Sumner story with their goddamn lips moving dyslexically, their sympathies are naturally with Brooks and Sumner's attackers.
This is because bullies, recruited by thugs like Jimmy Wales, know a safe target when they see one, and in denial of their psychological and social vulnerability, they seek to transfer that vulnerability to a "mark" who they can then treat with unlimited savagery.
Sumner was isolated as an abolitionist in a Democratic party being high-jacked by slaveowners in the same way the Republican party was highjacked by white racists under Reagan and Bush. Therefore he was a safe target for cowards like Brooks and today, the pretentious little convenience store clerks who profess to be "editors" of wikipedia.
The intensity of Sumner's speech would deserve no more than a word in a real encyclopedia written by grownups. I find a very, very disturbing link here between Open Content and neo-Secesh movements in Amerikkka which are using Wikipedia to make the idea of white secession from Obama's administration acceptable to the mainstream, for Open Content is virtual, time-sliced slavery itself.
The neo-Secesh deny that they are racists, of course. But strangely enough, you never find African Americans supporting their cause, now do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.100.235 ( talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Edward G. Nilges
This is just terrible writing: "Its motivation, he said, was to rape a virgin"
Sumner proposed an analogy in which Slavery rapes the Virgin Territory to produce a Slave State as its illegitimate offspring. He didn't say the Act's motivation was rape. He may have said the Act's impact was analogous to rape or even akin to rape. But he's not identifying the Act itself as an act of rape. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Why was Baker as a source taken from the article? There is no Wikipedia policy that states sources have to have a PHD in History. Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a better reason then Baker is "novelist", therefore don't use him as a source. He was good enough for American Heritage, certainly he is good enough for Wikipedia. American Heritage described Baker as a Journalist, not a "novelist". I was going by what American Heritage Magazine said. American Heritage Magazine is not fringe. Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is Wikipedia policy: Ownership of Articles Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. And actually on AH here: http://www.americanheritage.com/content/capitol-punishment?page=show I see no reason why only one source can be used, especially when there's a disagreement. It's a fine point, and the 1973 work requires library access to jstor. BusterD ( talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The source for the Baker article is here. Capitol Punishment. Baker did not specifically say the Civil War was caused by the debate over the Humanity of African Americans. However, slavers believed Africans were "Children of Ham" and cursed. According to the KJV Bible, Noah cursed one of Ham's children, Canaan, not Cush or Put. Canaan, however, settled in Palestine, not Africa. That is another subject. Africans humanity debate was significant, particularly Jefferson who viewed Africans as inferior to whites. The belief in African inferiority was the reason they were enslaved. Jefferson's biographer, Merrill D. Peterson, did not use footnotes, and his work is a valid source on Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson and the new nation: a biography. As far as Wikipedia rules goes an editor pointed out:
American Heritage is a magazine and a mainstream publication. Has not been sourced since 1995 by Project MUSE is a straw argument. As a magazine the source does not have to be pier reviewed, according to Wikipedia rules. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This is Baker's words:
While I appreciate that Rjensen would like to maintain high quality references for this article, I take note that the article is currently and rightfully assessed as a C-class and is missing quite a number of citations. In some cases, there are direct quotes which are lacking references. Rather than persist in the expenditure of energies present in this discussion, I would suggest a compromise that Baker be accepted as a reference for the time being and be revisited later when the article has achieved the status for which Rjensen's arguments for article quality would be more relevant. This would allow time, following Cmguy's suggestion, that another reference may be found to possibly replace it.
Could we agree to this compromise and those who have the sources spend the efforts on improving the article?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I found an article by Stephen B. Oates on American Heritage Magazine. The article has information on Charles Sumner and I believe would add value to the article. Here is the link: The Slaves Freed. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The Oates and additional Coben source edits add to the article. Thanks Rjensen. Oates himself is a subject of controversy, having been accused of plagerism on his biography of Abraham Lincoln. Stephen B. Oates Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I have found what I believe to be relevant American Heritage Magazine articles for the Charles Sumner article. Any objections?
I agree Rjensen. That is why I believe the magazine can be a good source. I would call some of these article a "gold mine" of information. I apoligize for not putting in the Baker source first before discussion. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest moving Wikisource links in the article to the "See also" section. I believe the links compete with the photos and unbalance the general layout of the article. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Any objection to segmenting the Civil War section? The reader would be able to use the menu to jump to different subject matters in the Civil War section. Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe the article photos can be rearranged. Do the double photos and captions need to be separate photos and captions photos? Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been attempting to get the narration in chronological order. The Civil rights section contains information from various dates. I suggest moving information in this section to any corresponding sections in similar time frames. Information pertinent to his Senatorial career can left in the Senatorial career section. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I put his marriage under Sumner's Senatorial career section since he was married while he was Senator. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I recommend splitting up the multiple photos making them individual photos. I believe the Multiple photos look cumbersome the way the article is currently structured. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I have made improvements to the article. Are there any suggestions as to make the article better or any subjects that need to be discussed pertaining to the article? I believe more needs to be done on the Dominican Republic (Santo Domingo) treaty and the Sumner's controversial relationship with President Grant and Secretary Fish. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to put in the CS article that David Donald was a southerner raised in segregated Mississippi? Mississippi was occupied by the U.S. military after the American Civil War. Could Donald have bias against Sen. Sumner who was responsible for implementing this policy? Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
In 1861 Sumner gave emancipation as the reason for the American Civil War in a speech in Massachusetts, rather then Lincoln's moderate plan to save the Union. I believe this is important enough for the article. Sumner's speech caused great controversy among conservative northerners. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest combining the Reconstruction and Civil Rights sections since the two subjects are related. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Any objection to Robert L. Reynolds (1960) source on American Heritage? Here is article link: Seward’s Wise Folly Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe that putting in that Sumner supported and spoke for the Alaska treaty in the Senate is important. Interestingly, Sumner apparently was not concerned over the plight of Alaska natives, who had no input into the treaty with Russia and the United States. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
is there any relation to this sumner and gov. increase sumner or his son william h, he of "tunnel" fame? all three are harvard grads and prominent boston figures within 50 or so years of each other. i would hazard a guess that there's a "cousin" or "uncle" involved here, but i can't google it up.
if not, some sort of "no relaton to..." should be added in somewhere. we're talking about a governor and senator in the same state after all. 216.50.220.13 ( talk) 11:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I have read there were just minor differences between the two factions. Both Liberal Republicans and Republicans wanted amnesty to confederates. Both parties were for the equality of race. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a source that states whether Alaskan Creoles (Russian-Indian) were considered Russian, therefore, citizens of the U.S. upon ratification of the 1867? The 1867 treaty does not mention Creoles or any other Indian tribes. Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
RJensen, Please cite exactly where Sumner said slaveowners or Butler "controlled a harlot." Here is the cite for his allusion to Cervantes. Please revert your restoration of the erroneous word, pimp. Thank you. Yopienso ( talk) 20:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Revelations 17: 5 states " And upon her forehead was a name written MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. " Babylon is a "whore". (Rev. 17:16) Babylon represented a commercial empire "the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies" (Rev. 18: 7). Did Sumner have any Biblical connotations in his insult to Butler? Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure of Sumner's religious training, however, coming from "Puritan" Massachusetts he must have heard of or read Revelations in the Bible. His Kansas speech and Revelations have similar overtones. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Did Sumner turn against Abraham Lincoln in 1864 having supported another Presidential candidate? I have read that Lincoln eventually barred Sumner from visiting the White House. Is this worth being put in the article if their is any truth to the matter? Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe mentioning the Virginius Affair in 1873 would be good for the article. Although he was no longer Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the press had desired to know his view on the Virginius Affair. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Sumner was for African American literacy as a condition for suffrage in 1866. Did he ever change these views? Was Sumner for the Fifteenth Amendment that did not have any conditions for suffrage? Cmguy777 ( talk) 14:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The article says that he joined the senate as a Democrat, but then later refers to him as a Republican. When did he switch parties? It seems like that should be in the article. Tad Lincoln ( talk) 03:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
A reference named "McCullough" is cited as a source numerous times.
Unfortunately, it ( is it a book? an article?) is never properly identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.24.186 ( talk) 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to put the information regarding Brooks's beating of Sumner into a separate article, considering how important and symbolic an event it was, and that the vast majority of the information is repeated in separate articles: Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks, and Bleeding Kansas.
I have begun this "Main Article" by copypasting to Caning of Charles Sumner, and this note has been copied to the relevant Talk pages for discussion here ( Talk:Charles Sumner#Separate article on caning). Let me know what you think, and let's try to pin down title, article scope, and summary scope in the next 2 weeks. SamuelRiv ( talk) 20:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
what the heck does THAT mean? "after you"?
every last googlit on the matter points back here!
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Sumner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Sumner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I noticed that the description of the kinship between Butler and Brooks, has mutated to "cousin, once removed", which is none too adequate: if we are to be precise, it should be first cousin once removed, or third cousin once removed, etc. I suggest we switch back to the amiably vague "kinsman" until someone can actually provide exact details of their kinship. - Nunh-huh 08:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You'll have to pardon me if I'm a bit touchy - an anonymous editor came through a while back and made a very POV edit. As for facts, here are some reputable citations for the relationship, none of which mention the cousinship that user:Tlbenson insisted on:
I accomodated Tlbenson, but now that I look into it further, I think we should revert to uncle until that editor provides a citation for a different relationship. - Willmcw 22:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Removed old bibliography; am placing it here if anyone needs it. I also cleaned up the article to update the English usage a bit (changed negroes to blacks for example). User:FeanorStar7
See Sumner's Works (15 vols., Boston, 1870–1885), and Edward L. Pierce's Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner (4 vols., Boston, 1877–1893). Briefer biographies have been written by Anna L Dawes (New York, 1892); Moorfield Storey (Boston, 1900); and George H Haynes (Philadelphia, 1909).— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeanorStar7 ( talk • contribs) 06:09, 1 July 2005 (UTC)
This article could use a separate section on Sumner and his views on race. He was unusually far-sighted for his time in pleading for suffrage and equal access for blacks, and this ought to be addressed. I'll add it, unless someone else would prefer to do it.-- Idols of Mud 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current
Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the
Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found
here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to
WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the
verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project
talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project.
Agne 23:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone (who know how, since I do not) would change the "speech" link which now links to "speech" to the actual speech described in the article. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nowax ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
The birth dates in the text and under the photo do not coincide. At least one of them has to be wrong. GS3 ( talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The speech doesn;t say anything about "noisome, squat, and nameless animal ... not a proper model for an American senator."
Neither it "took a cruel, personal turn as he mocked the 59-year-old Butler's manner of speech and physical mannerisms, both of which were impaired by a stroke that Butler had suffered earlier."
Please remove.
The link to the speech is included in the article. Did anybody read it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.10.3 ( talk) 17:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I believe the article currently has multiple issues that need to be addressed, and as a result, I have delisted the article. Although several references are listed, there are no inline citations for large portions of the article's content which is required under the criteria. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. Usually I have to tell people to expand the leads of articles, but in this case the lead should be reduced in length. There is some content that doesn't exist in the article itself, and that should be incorporated into its respective area. See WP:LEAD for guidelines. All of the external links in the namesakes section also need to be formatted properly. As a side note, I tagged multiple images for moving over to Wikimedia Commons, so if you have an account there, consider moving them over so other language Wikipedias can use them. Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN or you can contact me on my talk page and I'll review it for you so you can bypass the month-long backlog. If you need assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 01:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
In regards to my audio recording, I would like to point out that I have finished recording it and have the full file, but that I lack sufficient audio editing equipment to correct the errors I made while recording it.
Thus, I'm stuck. I'm still working on it, but I can not go further at the moment because of my resources.
--
TurtleShroom! :)
NOODY BRANCH! Don't mess with farmers, SpongeBob. They know how to grow food. - Knowledge is power, grab it while you can. 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the Tunnel from the "Namesakes" list. The Sumner Tunnel is not named for Charles Sumner - it's named for William H. Sumner (as noted on the corresponding page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pobbard ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have managed to recover the file and will soon begin the editing process. Some time in the future, it'll be uploaded. --
99.157.108.248 (
talk) 22:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
What kind of legal action was taken against the guy who nearly beat Sumner to death? Also what kind of "censure" did the guy brandishing the pistol get? AaronY ( talk) 05:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Why in the article do we make nonquoted references to "negroes"? Such use of the term is not only taboo and archaic but is also bordering on the prejudicial. Is there any reason this has been done? Wally 19:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I edited the opening section which contained the statement that Sumner had been removed from his Chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee by Grant's Congressional forces on account of his support of the Liberal Republicans in the 1872 campaign, whereas (relying on Donald and the EB) he was stripped on his chairmanship in 1871 because of his opposition to Grant's Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) scheme. This harmonizes with information presented later as well. Meb53 23:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about one of the images here. It seems to me that the image just under the infobox listed as Senator Charles Sumner, c. 1870 is not Charles Sumner. The subject in that portrait looks nothing like Sumner, especially when compared by a portrait from five years later by the same artist. Even this cartoon of Sumner shows that he changed little from the Brady photos of the 1850s. I know the source web site identifies it as Senator Sumner, but c'mon... -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 17:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The lead is
The concluding para of the lead makes it clear that the lead has a point of view on who Sumner was. I don't think that's appropriate...comments? Johnleemk | Talk 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that even the remaining second half of the lede (paragraphs 3 and 4) is a bit much in level of detail for an article lede. Any chance that we can look at summarizing it, while moving those details to a section in the article? -- Habap ( talk) 20:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree with the position that including Donald's subjective appraisal in the lead is completely improper. Donald's work (from 1960) is clearly pulled apart in the rejoinders cited in the bibliography; it belongs to a Revisionist, pro-Southern, anti-abolitionist school that has fortunately been largely put in the dustbin of history (or historiography). Feketekave ( talk) 11:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What party did Sumner consider himself to be part of at the time of the beating, Democrat, Free-soil, Republican or something else? Naraht ( talk) 19:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I updated photo. Cmguy777 ( talk) 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
An editor added that the "Crime Against Kansas" speech contained "...several sexual references regarding Butler." What "sexual references" are those? Here's the text [5]. - Willmcw 23:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It is not original research to state the obvious, Will. Being intentionally obtuse, OTOH, can constitute a form of disruption. Needless to say, sources are plentiful:
I'm willing to concede the point about sexual imagery (despite the fact that your first link doesn't work, your second is to a blog with a blatant POV which should be balanced and your third is about something entirely different), though the current phrasing is problamatic, however, having read the speach, I can't find this: "noisesome, squat, and nameless animal ... not a proper model for an American senator." and your link to the citation doesn't work. 216.98.233.245 ( talk) 00:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, found it, it's from the debate that followed his speech. Since we're playing with that, should we also include this: "Is it his object to provoke some of us to kick him as we would a dog in the street, that he may get sympathy upon the just chastisement?" Senator Douglas. Citations: http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext02/ascru10.htm, http://books.google.com/books?id=g681Ea923hUC&pg=PA3564&lpg=PA3564&dq=%22%22noisesome,+squat+and+nameless%22&source=web&ots=xWtVQo4tly&sig=ZragRthiHRzx0gY4fyKWC0pcWko&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA3560,M1 216.98.233.245 ( talk) 00:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The purpose here is to create an article sympathetic to Sumner's attackers.
Posters who object to the article's NNPOV characterisation of Sumner's language are themselves threatened, in the Wikiterror that has started in 2006, with charges of disruption here on a Talk page, silencing people who object by threatening them with loss of reputation here and in meatspace.
The fact is that (1) Sumner didn't use profanity, only the vivid oratory characteristic of ante-bellum America and (2) whatever he said on the Senate floor could have been censured by parliamentary procedures, and for this reason the attack on him was terrorism...an act of war on the United States.
I realize that this may be difficult for crazed autodidacts, fourteen year old boys, and convenience store clerks to understand.
The fact is that when crazed autodidacts, fourteen years old boys, and convenience store clerks laboriously read the Sumner story with their goddamn lips moving dyslexically, their sympathies are naturally with Brooks and Sumner's attackers.
This is because bullies, recruited by thugs like Jimmy Wales, know a safe target when they see one, and in denial of their psychological and social vulnerability, they seek to transfer that vulnerability to a "mark" who they can then treat with unlimited savagery.
Sumner was isolated as an abolitionist in a Democratic party being high-jacked by slaveowners in the same way the Republican party was highjacked by white racists under Reagan and Bush. Therefore he was a safe target for cowards like Brooks and today, the pretentious little convenience store clerks who profess to be "editors" of wikipedia.
The intensity of Sumner's speech would deserve no more than a word in a real encyclopedia written by grownups. I find a very, very disturbing link here between Open Content and neo-Secesh movements in Amerikkka which are using Wikipedia to make the idea of white secession from Obama's administration acceptable to the mainstream, for Open Content is virtual, time-sliced slavery itself.
The neo-Secesh deny that they are racists, of course. But strangely enough, you never find African Americans supporting their cause, now do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.100.235 ( talk) 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Edward G. Nilges
This is just terrible writing: "Its motivation, he said, was to rape a virgin"
Sumner proposed an analogy in which Slavery rapes the Virgin Territory to produce a Slave State as its illegitimate offspring. He didn't say the Act's motivation was rape. He may have said the Act's impact was analogous to rape or even akin to rape. But he's not identifying the Act itself as an act of rape. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Why was Baker as a source taken from the article? There is no Wikipedia policy that states sources have to have a PHD in History. Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
There needs to be a better reason then Baker is "novelist", therefore don't use him as a source. He was good enough for American Heritage, certainly he is good enough for Wikipedia. American Heritage described Baker as a Journalist, not a "novelist". I was going by what American Heritage Magazine said. American Heritage Magazine is not fringe. Cmguy777 ( talk) 05:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is Wikipedia policy: Ownership of Articles Cmguy777 ( talk) 06:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. And actually on AH here: http://www.americanheritage.com/content/capitol-punishment?page=show I see no reason why only one source can be used, especially when there's a disagreement. It's a fine point, and the 1973 work requires library access to jstor. BusterD ( talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The source for the Baker article is here. Capitol Punishment. Baker did not specifically say the Civil War was caused by the debate over the Humanity of African Americans. However, slavers believed Africans were "Children of Ham" and cursed. According to the KJV Bible, Noah cursed one of Ham's children, Canaan, not Cush or Put. Canaan, however, settled in Palestine, not Africa. That is another subject. Africans humanity debate was significant, particularly Jefferson who viewed Africans as inferior to whites. The belief in African inferiority was the reason they were enslaved. Jefferson's biographer, Merrill D. Peterson, did not use footnotes, and his work is a valid source on Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson and the new nation: a biography. As far as Wikipedia rules goes an editor pointed out:
American Heritage is a magazine and a mainstream publication. Has not been sourced since 1995 by Project MUSE is a straw argument. As a magazine the source does not have to be pier reviewed, according to Wikipedia rules. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
This is Baker's words:
While I appreciate that Rjensen would like to maintain high quality references for this article, I take note that the article is currently and rightfully assessed as a C-class and is missing quite a number of citations. In some cases, there are direct quotes which are lacking references. Rather than persist in the expenditure of energies present in this discussion, I would suggest a compromise that Baker be accepted as a reference for the time being and be revisited later when the article has achieved the status for which Rjensen's arguments for article quality would be more relevant. This would allow time, following Cmguy's suggestion, that another reference may be found to possibly replace it.
Could we agree to this compromise and those who have the sources spend the efforts on improving the article?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I found an article by Stephen B. Oates on American Heritage Magazine. The article has information on Charles Sumner and I believe would add value to the article. Here is the link: The Slaves Freed. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 23:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The Oates and additional Coben source edits add to the article. Thanks Rjensen. Oates himself is a subject of controversy, having been accused of plagerism on his biography of Abraham Lincoln. Stephen B. Oates Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I have found what I believe to be relevant American Heritage Magazine articles for the Charles Sumner article. Any objections?
I agree Rjensen. That is why I believe the magazine can be a good source. I would call some of these article a "gold mine" of information. I apoligize for not putting in the Baker source first before discussion. Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest moving Wikisource links in the article to the "See also" section. I believe the links compete with the photos and unbalance the general layout of the article. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Any objection to segmenting the Civil War section? The reader would be able to use the menu to jump to different subject matters in the Civil War section. Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe the article photos can be rearranged. Do the double photos and captions need to be separate photos and captions photos? Cmguy777 ( talk) 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been attempting to get the narration in chronological order. The Civil rights section contains information from various dates. I suggest moving information in this section to any corresponding sections in similar time frames. Information pertinent to his Senatorial career can left in the Senatorial career section. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I put his marriage under Sumner's Senatorial career section since he was married while he was Senator. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I recommend splitting up the multiple photos making them individual photos. I believe the Multiple photos look cumbersome the way the article is currently structured. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 02:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I have made improvements to the article. Are there any suggestions as to make the article better or any subjects that need to be discussed pertaining to the article? I believe more needs to be done on the Dominican Republic (Santo Domingo) treaty and the Sumner's controversial relationship with President Grant and Secretary Fish. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to put in the CS article that David Donald was a southerner raised in segregated Mississippi? Mississippi was occupied by the U.S. military after the American Civil War. Could Donald have bias against Sen. Sumner who was responsible for implementing this policy? Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
In 1861 Sumner gave emancipation as the reason for the American Civil War in a speech in Massachusetts, rather then Lincoln's moderate plan to save the Union. I believe this is important enough for the article. Sumner's speech caused great controversy among conservative northerners. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I suggest combining the Reconstruction and Civil Rights sections since the two subjects are related. Cmguy777 ( talk) 01:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Any objection to Robert L. Reynolds (1960) source on American Heritage? Here is article link: Seward’s Wise Folly Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe that putting in that Sumner supported and spoke for the Alaska treaty in the Senate is important. Interestingly, Sumner apparently was not concerned over the plight of Alaska natives, who had no input into the treaty with Russia and the United States. Cmguy777 ( talk) 21:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
is there any relation to this sumner and gov. increase sumner or his son william h, he of "tunnel" fame? all three are harvard grads and prominent boston figures within 50 or so years of each other. i would hazard a guess that there's a "cousin" or "uncle" involved here, but i can't google it up.
if not, some sort of "no relaton to..." should be added in somewhere. we're talking about a governor and senator in the same state after all. 216.50.220.13 ( talk) 11:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I have read there were just minor differences between the two factions. Both Liberal Republicans and Republicans wanted amnesty to confederates. Both parties were for the equality of race. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a source that states whether Alaskan Creoles (Russian-Indian) were considered Russian, therefore, citizens of the U.S. upon ratification of the 1867? The 1867 treaty does not mention Creoles or any other Indian tribes. Cmguy777 ( talk) 03:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
RJensen, Please cite exactly where Sumner said slaveowners or Butler "controlled a harlot." Here is the cite for his allusion to Cervantes. Please revert your restoration of the erroneous word, pimp. Thank you. Yopienso ( talk) 20:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Revelations 17: 5 states " And upon her forehead was a name written MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. " Babylon is a "whore". (Rev. 17:16) Babylon represented a commercial empire "the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies" (Rev. 18: 7). Did Sumner have any Biblical connotations in his insult to Butler? Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure of Sumner's religious training, however, coming from "Puritan" Massachusetts he must have heard of or read Revelations in the Bible. His Kansas speech and Revelations have similar overtones. Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Did Sumner turn against Abraham Lincoln in 1864 having supported another Presidential candidate? I have read that Lincoln eventually barred Sumner from visiting the White House. Is this worth being put in the article if their is any truth to the matter? Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe mentioning the Virginius Affair in 1873 would be good for the article. Although he was no longer Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the press had desired to know his view on the Virginius Affair. Any objections? Cmguy777 ( talk) 18:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Sumner was for African American literacy as a condition for suffrage in 1866. Did he ever change these views? Was Sumner for the Fifteenth Amendment that did not have any conditions for suffrage? Cmguy777 ( talk) 14:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The article says that he joined the senate as a Democrat, but then later refers to him as a Republican. When did he switch parties? It seems like that should be in the article. Tad Lincoln ( talk) 03:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
A reference named "McCullough" is cited as a source numerous times.
Unfortunately, it ( is it a book? an article?) is never properly identified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.24.186 ( talk) 18:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to put the information regarding Brooks's beating of Sumner into a separate article, considering how important and symbolic an event it was, and that the vast majority of the information is repeated in separate articles: Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks, and Bleeding Kansas.
I have begun this "Main Article" by copypasting to Caning of Charles Sumner, and this note has been copied to the relevant Talk pages for discussion here ( Talk:Charles Sumner#Separate article on caning). Let me know what you think, and let's try to pin down title, article scope, and summary scope in the next 2 weeks. SamuelRiv ( talk) 20:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
what the heck does THAT mean? "after you"?
every last googlit on the matter points back here!
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Sumner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Sumner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)