Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origins of the American Civil War

Article is still a featured article.

It has no lead section that can act as concise encyclopedia article (not in news style), which in addition to being reader unfriendly, makes it very hard to feature this article on the Main Page.

  • A lead section was added since the comments were made. 172 01:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is also horrendously huge (80 KB!), we should not be encouraging such a huge article size by featuring such an unusably long article. It needs to be broken up in discrete digestible bits (NOT another damn series - if you want to write a book then go to Wikibooks!)-- mav 06:41, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Size issue fixed. Article going through the nomination process again. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

While I don't care about featured status in and of itself, I'm worried that Mav's sending a message that there is no place for a measure of depth and substance on Wikipedia. If you do not have the time or energy to read an 80KB + article, then there's the timeline toward the bottom of the article, the intro lead in sentence, and the one paragraph overview just for you. But others are looking for substance and an overview of where historians disagree, not a dinky chronology that anyone can find in an almanac.
I'm not alone in this regard. Note, e.g., this comment on the talk page: "I am in my first year teaching American history at the high school level, and I thought this article was incredibly helpful, both to me and to my students. Too often, websites or online encyclopedias provide only a cursory overview of the Civil War, or present the lead-up to the conflict as an inevitable polarisation of 'Slavery v. Anti-Slavery' and 'States Rights v. Federalism'. Certainly these themes are central to the conflict, but they were neither inevitable nor straightforward - nor did they take on the moral overtones people tend to give them today. This article avoids those pitfalls - thanks."
See also "Wikipedia for Journalists" By Sree Sreenivasan, Columbia Professor & Poynter Visiting Professor http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=32&aid=62126 . An excerpt reads, "So far, the effort has created numerous reference-quality articles as wide ranging as the Hutton Inquiry, algorithms, social history of the piano, origins of the American Civil War, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. As its quality has improved, news publications have increasingly cited Wikipedia on subjects..." From time to time Wikipedia has to address issues of such complexity. And a "long" article is the only way to give credence to a subject with such a rich historiographical tradition. 172 01:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you can't create a ~20KB summary then I will. I will start with expanding your overview and combining that with the timeline. There are very valid technical and readability reasons to split this monster up. -- mav 06:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, you will not create redundant article. The executive summary of the origins article belongs in - and is found in - the parent History of the United States article, which contains the executive summaries of its component daughter articles. If you choose to "expand" the overview by "combining that with the timeline," it will go up on VFD right away.
Nor will you dismember the main body of the text. Although you're caught up in the " the news style mantra", I have cited ample evidence demonstrating that others find the in-depth coverage helpful and readable. Nor can you take issue with the latter. A lead-in sentence, an overview, and a timeline already supplement the origins article for clarity and readability. 172 07:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some facts you deleted from this section (which was talk moved from my talk page):

Just for everyone to note, I removed your spam. Perhaps had you "summarized" your spam in the first place I would've had no need to remove it. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not spam - I moved the talk and deleted it from my talk page. --mav
  • The text alone of the 88KB article takes at least 12+ seconds to download for a 56K connection (assuming that the modem is operating at max speed which means 7KB/second - most 56K modems max out at 4-5 KB a second).
  • Many browsers cannot edit such a long article.
  • Most readers don't have the time to read it (it took me over 50 minutes to read every word).
    • Your point? You have a disdain for serious history on this site, but others don't, and I've cited ample evidence demonstrating that you're in the minority - if not alone. You seem to like almanac-style lists, but I will ensure that readers looking for something else have a choice. You have the " the news style" executive summary and the timeline, which you can feel free to expand. But there's no way in hell that I'm letting you dumb down this article. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I do not have a disdain for serious history - that is an unfounded personal attack. I'm also not the only person who does not like the length of the article and wishes to break it up. Nowhere have I advocated that any of your prose should be removed. Summarizing the main points and putting the detail in daughter articles is not dumbing down anything - it is making it more useful for a larger number of people who may not want to spend an hour to get the major points. --mav
        • No, you are alone. Alex, the other user concerned with the length, called the article "excellent." His concerns are logistical. In fact, he seems to be on my side on the talk page, in favor of splitting it up into several parts rather than splitting up along the lines of the New Imperialism series. Alex is coming to realize that this article cannot be restructured. As the article proceeds, it relates historians' competing interpretations and the thematic build up to the chronological narrative history. But this organization makes the article impossible to restructure, given the build up from the top of the article to the bottom. As a historian, I knew that this was the only workable organization for an encyclopedic article of this nature on Wikipeida (and I'll defend my reasoning on a more appropriate page). Aside from Alex, the article has received ringing praise from everyone else but you. Why? You're a copyeditor caught up with "news style." The other people who've given us feedback on the article, however, read the article due to a different set of reasons - that is, they were hoping to actually learn something about the origins of the Civil War. I know you mean well, but I have to teach you a lesson. You need to accept the fact that the structure and organization of all history articles cannot be one in the same. 172 21:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I have also stated that the content is really good. My main concern is to make that article accessible to a larger audience. That requires it to be broken up and a summary left in its place (with pointers to the detail). I am in fact agreeing with Alex right now on that talk page - so how can I be alone on this point? I think you have misunderstood what I wanted and acted irrationally to the mention of "news style" (which in fact is not really the right term - a better term is needed). Please join the discussion on the origins talk page. --mav
  • When I put the text in OpenOffice the result was 30 pages long. Books have separate pages, why should this article/booklet not have separate pages?

Best to keep the detail but put it in daughter articles and summarize the whole thing at the parent. The executive summary you talk about is way shorter than what I was thinking of. --mav

    • Then expand it and quit bitching about it. It almost seems as if you're trying to censor content that doesn't correspond to your personal stylistic hangups. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying censor anything - that is yet another unfounded personal attack. I am advocating for that article to be split up. I will go ahead and expand that section and farm off the detail to daughter articles soon. --mav
        • This isn't an attack. You are imposing your own personal preferences on the entire community, conflating them with everyone's preferences and even policy. You probably don't even realize this, but you're going way to far. You're not being helpful in this case. Just accept the fact that this isn't a "Mav style" article. 172 21:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm being very helpful - right now we are working out how to best break up this article. That's all I really wanted. --mav
To get to the heart of my real concern, this is fundamentally an argument over the nature and style of history articles. Mav says, "Not sure what to do with the historiography... I for one don't much care for analysis like that since it reads more like a thesis than encyclopedic prose (I instead prefer to do my own analysis after being presented the facts). Much of it could be condensed - but that can be taken care of later." 1. (I disagree with these premises, but that's irrelevant to the point of my example.) I'm not suggesting that these comments reflect negatively on Mav. I'm just saying that our preferences are related to our backgrounds, and that like-minded users shouldn't be dictating stylistic "polices" for history articles. Their preferences ought to be respected - hence we have a short boiler point summary, an overview, and a timeline on the subject - but not hegemonic. In the end, I can argue that Mav wants to write an almanac as well as he can argue that I belong at "Wikibooks."
Although I'm arguing that policy is on my side with respect to featured status, I'm far more concerned about emphasizing that my argument is fair, irrespective of policy. The opinions of readers satisfied by the article are simply underrepresented on this page. They tend to be readers searching for encyclopedic entries rather than active users (that is, readers who were searching for something and were satisfied with what they had found). Mav was complaining about the fact that an anon nominated the page; but I'd say that a nomination by an anon, who might've found the article through a search engine, said even more about the article.
I've also gotten a number of favorable e-mails from readers without user accounts (i.e. "anons"). Interestingly enough, shorter articles never got me favorable e-mails. I make no apologies for writing the article with someone like the author of the following comments in mind: "I am in my first year teaching American history at the high school level, and I thought this article was incredibly helpful, both to me and to my students. Too often, websites or online encyclopedias provide only a cursory overview of the Civil War, or present the lead-up to the conflict as an inevitable polarisation of 'Slavery v. Anti-Slavery' and 'States Rights v. Federalism'. Certainly these themes are central to the conflict, but they were neither inevitable nor straightforward - nor did they take on the moral overtones people tend to give them today. This article avoids those pitfalls - thanks." 2. I also make no apologies for the timeline, despite my doubts that this will do much to strengthen a reader's understanding of the subject. 172 12:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172, me, and AlexS have been trying to work out the size issue on the Origins' talk page. If the outcome of that is a split-up of the article that will probably result in me withdrawing my objection (depending on how it is split up). See Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/categorization. ? mav

Size issue fixed. Article going through the nomination process again. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War/old&oldid=17715849"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origins of the American Civil War

Article is still a featured article.

It has no lead section that can act as concise encyclopedia article (not in news style), which in addition to being reader unfriendly, makes it very hard to feature this article on the Main Page.

  • A lead section was added since the comments were made. 172 01:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is also horrendously huge (80 KB!), we should not be encouraging such a huge article size by featuring such an unusably long article. It needs to be broken up in discrete digestible bits (NOT another damn series - if you want to write a book then go to Wikibooks!)-- mav 06:41, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Size issue fixed. Article going through the nomination process again. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

While I don't care about featured status in and of itself, I'm worried that Mav's sending a message that there is no place for a measure of depth and substance on Wikipedia. If you do not have the time or energy to read an 80KB + article, then there's the timeline toward the bottom of the article, the intro lead in sentence, and the one paragraph overview just for you. But others are looking for substance and an overview of where historians disagree, not a dinky chronology that anyone can find in an almanac.
I'm not alone in this regard. Note, e.g., this comment on the talk page: "I am in my first year teaching American history at the high school level, and I thought this article was incredibly helpful, both to me and to my students. Too often, websites or online encyclopedias provide only a cursory overview of the Civil War, or present the lead-up to the conflict as an inevitable polarisation of 'Slavery v. Anti-Slavery' and 'States Rights v. Federalism'. Certainly these themes are central to the conflict, but they were neither inevitable nor straightforward - nor did they take on the moral overtones people tend to give them today. This article avoids those pitfalls - thanks."
See also "Wikipedia for Journalists" By Sree Sreenivasan, Columbia Professor & Poynter Visiting Professor http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=32&aid=62126 . An excerpt reads, "So far, the effort has created numerous reference-quality articles as wide ranging as the Hutton Inquiry, algorithms, social history of the piano, origins of the American Civil War, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. As its quality has improved, news publications have increasingly cited Wikipedia on subjects..." From time to time Wikipedia has to address issues of such complexity. And a "long" article is the only way to give credence to a subject with such a rich historiographical tradition. 172 01:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you can't create a ~20KB summary then I will. I will start with expanding your overview and combining that with the timeline. There are very valid technical and readability reasons to split this monster up. -- mav 06:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, you will not create redundant article. The executive summary of the origins article belongs in - and is found in - the parent History of the United States article, which contains the executive summaries of its component daughter articles. If you choose to "expand" the overview by "combining that with the timeline," it will go up on VFD right away.
Nor will you dismember the main body of the text. Although you're caught up in the " the news style mantra", I have cited ample evidence demonstrating that others find the in-depth coverage helpful and readable. Nor can you take issue with the latter. A lead-in sentence, an overview, and a timeline already supplement the origins article for clarity and readability. 172 07:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some facts you deleted from this section (which was talk moved from my talk page):

Just for everyone to note, I removed your spam. Perhaps had you "summarized" your spam in the first place I would've had no need to remove it. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not spam - I moved the talk and deleted it from my talk page. --mav
  • The text alone of the 88KB article takes at least 12+ seconds to download for a 56K connection (assuming that the modem is operating at max speed which means 7KB/second - most 56K modems max out at 4-5 KB a second).
  • Many browsers cannot edit such a long article.
  • Most readers don't have the time to read it (it took me over 50 minutes to read every word).
    • Your point? You have a disdain for serious history on this site, but others don't, and I've cited ample evidence demonstrating that you're in the minority - if not alone. You seem to like almanac-style lists, but I will ensure that readers looking for something else have a choice. You have the " the news style" executive summary and the timeline, which you can feel free to expand. But there's no way in hell that I'm letting you dumb down this article. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I do not have a disdain for serious history - that is an unfounded personal attack. I'm also not the only person who does not like the length of the article and wishes to break it up. Nowhere have I advocated that any of your prose should be removed. Summarizing the main points and putting the detail in daughter articles is not dumbing down anything - it is making it more useful for a larger number of people who may not want to spend an hour to get the major points. --mav
        • No, you are alone. Alex, the other user concerned with the length, called the article "excellent." His concerns are logistical. In fact, he seems to be on my side on the talk page, in favor of splitting it up into several parts rather than splitting up along the lines of the New Imperialism series. Alex is coming to realize that this article cannot be restructured. As the article proceeds, it relates historians' competing interpretations and the thematic build up to the chronological narrative history. But this organization makes the article impossible to restructure, given the build up from the top of the article to the bottom. As a historian, I knew that this was the only workable organization for an encyclopedic article of this nature on Wikipeida (and I'll defend my reasoning on a more appropriate page). Aside from Alex, the article has received ringing praise from everyone else but you. Why? You're a copyeditor caught up with "news style." The other people who've given us feedback on the article, however, read the article due to a different set of reasons - that is, they were hoping to actually learn something about the origins of the Civil War. I know you mean well, but I have to teach you a lesson. You need to accept the fact that the structure and organization of all history articles cannot be one in the same. 172 21:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I have also stated that the content is really good. My main concern is to make that article accessible to a larger audience. That requires it to be broken up and a summary left in its place (with pointers to the detail). I am in fact agreeing with Alex right now on that talk page - so how can I be alone on this point? I think you have misunderstood what I wanted and acted irrationally to the mention of "news style" (which in fact is not really the right term - a better term is needed). Please join the discussion on the origins talk page. --mav
  • When I put the text in OpenOffice the result was 30 pages long. Books have separate pages, why should this article/booklet not have separate pages?

Best to keep the detail but put it in daughter articles and summarize the whole thing at the parent. The executive summary you talk about is way shorter than what I was thinking of. --mav

    • Then expand it and quit bitching about it. It almost seems as if you're trying to censor content that doesn't correspond to your personal stylistic hangups. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying censor anything - that is yet another unfounded personal attack. I am advocating for that article to be split up. I will go ahead and expand that section and farm off the detail to daughter articles soon. --mav
        • This isn't an attack. You are imposing your own personal preferences on the entire community, conflating them with everyone's preferences and even policy. You probably don't even realize this, but you're going way to far. You're not being helpful in this case. Just accept the fact that this isn't a "Mav style" article. 172 21:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm being very helpful - right now we are working out how to best break up this article. That's all I really wanted. --mav
To get to the heart of my real concern, this is fundamentally an argument over the nature and style of history articles. Mav says, "Not sure what to do with the historiography... I for one don't much care for analysis like that since it reads more like a thesis than encyclopedic prose (I instead prefer to do my own analysis after being presented the facts). Much of it could be condensed - but that can be taken care of later." 1. (I disagree with these premises, but that's irrelevant to the point of my example.) I'm not suggesting that these comments reflect negatively on Mav. I'm just saying that our preferences are related to our backgrounds, and that like-minded users shouldn't be dictating stylistic "polices" for history articles. Their preferences ought to be respected - hence we have a short boiler point summary, an overview, and a timeline on the subject - but not hegemonic. In the end, I can argue that Mav wants to write an almanac as well as he can argue that I belong at "Wikibooks."
Although I'm arguing that policy is on my side with respect to featured status, I'm far more concerned about emphasizing that my argument is fair, irrespective of policy. The opinions of readers satisfied by the article are simply underrepresented on this page. They tend to be readers searching for encyclopedic entries rather than active users (that is, readers who were searching for something and were satisfied with what they had found). Mav was complaining about the fact that an anon nominated the page; but I'd say that a nomination by an anon, who might've found the article through a search engine, said even more about the article.
I've also gotten a number of favorable e-mails from readers without user accounts (i.e. "anons"). Interestingly enough, shorter articles never got me favorable e-mails. I make no apologies for writing the article with someone like the author of the following comments in mind: "I am in my first year teaching American history at the high school level, and I thought this article was incredibly helpful, both to me and to my students. Too often, websites or online encyclopedias provide only a cursory overview of the Civil War, or present the lead-up to the conflict as an inevitable polarisation of 'Slavery v. Anti-Slavery' and 'States Rights v. Federalism'. Certainly these themes are central to the conflict, but they were neither inevitable nor straightforward - nor did they take on the moral overtones people tend to give them today. This article avoids those pitfalls - thanks." 2. I also make no apologies for the timeline, despite my doubts that this will do much to strengthen a reader's understanding of the subject. 172 12:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172, me, and AlexS have been trying to work out the size issue on the Origins' talk page. If the outcome of that is a split-up of the article that will probably result in me withdrawing my objection (depending on how it is split up). See Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/categorization. ? mav

Size issue fixed. Article going through the nomination process again. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War/old&oldid=17715849"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE