Talk:Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War

Slavery sole reason?

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)

I think slavery is bad 174.103.150.114 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2024 (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)

Unsigned is right to a degree. The South seceded because they felt that the election of Lincoln threatened their way of life and their rights, particularly the right to hold slaves, but he hadn't even taken office. There was much clash over culture and politics before this, about slavery and about many other things. They wanted slavery to expand BECAUSE they wanted their way of life to endure. Saying it was only about slavery would be a mistake, their way of life was under attack. Candykilobyte 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candykilobyte (talk • contribs)

Lee Accepts?

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)

Can't say that I've ever seen one.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

General Winfield Scott was 75 and Robert E. Lee was offered the posision by the pres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.130.182 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(Secede). But no. He did not. He specifically stated that, save in the defense of his native state, he would never again draw his sword. Don't have a particular source handy right at this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.201.18 (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation tag and such

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

The Three-Fifths Compromise

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)

CSA

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)

Cutoff needed for "events leading to " the war

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)

Agreed. I deleted most items for events after April 15. In order to keep a few events related to secession and the initiation of the war, I had added too many other events related to hostilities or the conduct of the war. I intended to bring this up to the Battle of Bull Run/Manassas mainly in order to capture these few items in context and without omissions for the events of the April 15–July 21 period and because there was still some hope that a war could be avoided or cut short. It was becoming apparent that there were too many entries, however, and I was having second thoughts about all the entries for this period. I think the few entries after April 15 that deal with the limited topics of secession and initiation of the war may still be appropriate so I have left them in. If anyone objects to this and really thinks all entries after April 15 should be deleted, I would not argue with the deletion although at this time I prefer to leave the items at the end of the list and leave any deletions to someone else. I will add a few more notes for the 1860 and 1861 items and cite individual pages from Long for these later items to finish my revisions. Donner60 (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

much improved--good work! some of the items are much too detailed for a timeline (esp when there is a Wiki article linked to entry), such as 1654 entry. Need much more on colonial era. 1814 entry should be dropped (no link to slavery--South NO ONE ever referenced Hartford as their model). Suggest dropping 1830/Walker Trim 1833 tariff entry; add more on Amistad case; Rjensen (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw your point immediately on the 1654 entry and it was an easy edit to delete the last three of the five sentences. I got the 1814 entry from the Wagner et al Civil War Desk Reference time line. I will look at McPherson and a couple of other sources to see if they say anything enlightening about it which might make it worth keeping if edited. A number of sources mention tariffs, sometimes at length, but specific points for a timeline are not always present in the sources. Some of the Wikipedia links are to articles that are not very detailed. I will look at whether I can revise any of the tariff points to make them more relevant or whether a few of these should be dropped altogether as you suggest. A problem for me in adding colonial era entries and more the Amistad case is that most of the information available to me is from Wikipedia itself. I have a large Civil War library but only a few books on the colonial period before the Revolution. Borrowing from another Wikipedia article is ok, of course, if it is sourced but some of the articles are not referenced. Relying on another Wikipedia article alone (which you do not suggest) would be bad practice even if Wikipedia policy did not discourage it. I will dig around a little more on the colonial period and the Amistad. Perhaps I can find an old book online if my current library will not yield more information. I think I can find at least a few more entries on the Virginia law and practice on slavery in sources already cited. Since Virginia was a populous state and a leader in some of the slavery laws, it would not seem to be out of line to add entries for Virginia as representative of colonial law and practice. I did hesitate to add a few more Virginia entries that I had available because I wondered whether so many entries dealing with events in one state might be criticized as not representative. I can see that there are a few entries other than those you specifically mention that might be shortened. I find this is some times easier to do in a later edit than in the first draft. A few events are so detailed that their importance may be lost if they are cut down to a few words and a reference but these are likely to be few in number. Compromise of 1850 is probably such an entry. That does not mean I cannot look at whether even these might be shortened. I did not start this article but since I have revised and added to it substantially, I need to consider whether I have kept a few old entries which should be revised further or even dropped. I hope to get the revisions and further references done within a few days. I am responding after making only one change this time because it may take a little longer than one day to complete. Thanks for your suggestions. Donner60 (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Another comment. I added the 1830 Walker death item because it is in the Civil War Desk Reference. It seemed a bit speculative to me but since noted authors used it, I supposed there must be something to it. On the other hand, without another source or some more detail, I understand why it might be an item that could be dropped. I suppose it could be added as a brief sentence to the previous item, but that only would seem to de-emphasize it and shorten it up a little, not to provide any explanation for why his death is described as "mysterious" (other, I suppose, than the apparent implication either that he was a young man or there was something suspicious in the surroundings when he was found). Donner60 (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

How many items

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)

Thanks for your edits. I subtracted William Lee from the 124 slaves of George Washington since if I read my source or sources correctly, only 123 would remain to be freed by Martha. I think a difference of one either way does not matter much and perhaps your source would indicate that 124 was the correct number. I suppose one could have been added by birth between the two dates, as well. If I read it correctly, you have added that the fugitive slave provision of the Northwest Ordinance would no longer apply when the territories become states. Is this not superfluous since none of the territories became states until after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was passed and it would be applicable to all states? Or is there some meaning in the possible end of the application of the provision at the time it was passed that would still mark a milestone of some sort? I had the 26 to 40 figures for the executions after the Gabriel plot (which you kept) because sources differed on the numbers, a frustrating but not altogether uncommon occurrence. As for the number of entries, I have included all events after Lincoln's election that are mentioned in the sources. Since at least some of these events are of minimal significance, and some can be combined into a single entry for a period of a month or several months rather than listing each on individual days, I should be able to reduce the number of entries without removing much substance. I think this would not differ from a few of the earlier summary entries and would not result in the loss of continuity of the timeline. Donner60 (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think both of us have misread Pogue on the date that Martha freed George's slaves. I had listed the date as 1800. You have 1802. Looking at it again, I think it was 1801, which is backed up by the comment that it was 18 months before Martha's death, which was mid-1802 according to the Wikipedia article. So I am going to change the date to 1801. If you have a different source or I have misread Pogue again, go ahead and change it again. Donner60 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

good work! The Northwest Ordnance outlawed slavery only when a place was a territory--it became defunct and did not outlaw slavery when Ohio etc became states. Illinois seriously considered slave status, for example, in early 1829s.

1782 Virginia law may have amended 1723 law, not 1726; seems to be a conflict of sources; I will try to establish more definitely. Article may be ready for B class assessment, which would not prohibit a few more accurate and sourced additions or edits. Failed to sign this addition made about one minute ago. Donner60 (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

B-Class assessment

Moved from Milhist assessment requests for reference, Woody (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War - Please assess for B-Class. I have substantially revised and expanded this article. User:RJensen also has contributed comments, edits, citations and references. Previous versions were less comprehensive and lacking in citations and references. Also, there had been an additional narrative of major points. To the extent the content of this narrative was not redundant, I have added it to the items in the timeline. Please note I will be "off line" for about 10 days and may not be able to respond to comments immediately. Since this will be near the end of the month and there is a drive to add B-Class articles this month, I thought I should go ahead and submit this now, which may give me a few days before the end of the month to respond to any comments. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no sections in the body, no lead and no supporting materials. Also, a couple paragraphs are uncited, so that's a fail on 1, 3 and 5. Kirk (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I thought about this some more and I'm extremely concerned with WP:OR and WP:SYN on this one - I left a note on the talk page. Kirk (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I did not start this article nor did I contribute all of the entries. Nonetheless, I am now responsible for much of it and have taken the lead in requesting an assessment. This article is a timeline and thus it may be considered a list, or table, or compendium or something similar. It is a compilation of discreet items or entries about events, statements and actions. So I do not understand the comment about sections in the body. There would not be sections in a continuous list or timeline. I will put in a few section headings at a few obvious break points in the timeline. This might help the appearance of the article but I am not sure that it will advance it much.

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)

• Sorry for the run-on paragraph above, which I have now subdivided after only a few minutes. I thought I had several paragraphs in the entry but I did not enter a second return for each. I think I have fixed that just a few minutes after the entry so I hope that anyone who wishes to read it will have an easier time separating the various topics that I mentioned and has not been inconvenienced by the previous poor layout. Also, I hope my thoughts did not run on at too great length here, but in view of the concerns expressed, I thought some response with explanations as well as further revisions and edits undertaken and planned was appropriate. Donner60 (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Research, synthesis, plagiarism problems

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

A A book chapter titled "Origins of the Civil War" or

B another time line.

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)

there is no original research in the article--all the material comes from reliable secondary sources. There is no "synthesis" either--a synthesis is some new argument and there are no arguments here. (that is all the events are provided in standard secondary sources such as Morris. It's just a listing of events accepted by historians and does not evaluate the importance of each event. Rjensen (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's an example: U.S. slave population in the 1830 United States Census: 2,009,043., which is sourced from 'Historical Census Data', not from A or B. Its synthesis - it seems important to include in the timeline but its not from a 'timeline' source & synthesis is OR. Some solutions in this case is to delete it, or change the citation to an A or B source I checked Hansen and Wagner, neither one mentioned this in their timeline.

Also, in the process of trying to explain this further I found some blatant plagerism:

• Your text:South Carolina lawyer and South Carolina College (University of South Carolina) President Thomas Cooper publishes On the Constitution, which expresses the view that the Constitution strictly limited the federal government from interfering with the sovereign states in matters affecting their immediate welfare.
• Source text:The writings of Thomas Cooper and R.J. Turnbull were extraordinary expositions of the point of view that the Constitution strictly limited the federal government from interfering with the sovereign states over matters affecting their immediate welfare and contributed greatly to building a body of sympathetic opinion in the South. Usually once you find some blatant plagerism there's more; you'll probably have to spend a lot of time cleaning that up as well & it will be easier with a more stripped down article. Kirk (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

to state that the slave population in 1830 was 2,009,043 is a simple matter of reporting a fact that was published at the time. The Census Bureau did the original research, not a Wiki editor. Rjensen (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I reworded the example from WP:Synthesis for you:

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.

• The sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that the slave popluation in 1830 was an event leading to the American Civil War. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.

Look, there's a good chance someone will start the deletion process since both plagerism and sythnesis are reasons for deletion. I'm trying to give you a chance to clean up the article here before that happens. Kirk (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

all the RS say that slaves were central to the Civil War, and all give the number of slaves. The experts did the OR and synthesis, not the editors here. A synthesis is taking statement A (from source a1), and statement B (from source b1) and adding statement C (from no source). Here we have A and B but we do NOT have C. Rjensen (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How did you write that and not see the synthesis? Go to citation 51 - what expert said that? Someone synthesized other experts allegedly talking about slave populations in other decades and added two more decades to fill in the holes.

More plagiarism: # Charles G. Finney of Connecticut begins preaching and helps initiate the Second Great Awakening, a Protestant Evangelical movement that inspires many social reformers, including abolitionists.

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)

it's easy enough to rewrite copied text--and anyone can do it a lot faster than they can complain. Rjensen (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Another example (not as bad) William Lloyd Garrison begins publishing The Liberator.
  Source

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)

• • Also, this one happens to be in the very first edit from 2004. Kirk (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

go ahead and fix it--don't be shy about helping out in an important article that runs nearly 18,000 words. Rjensen (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

More

• Word for word, except for a capital U. Arkansas enters the union as a slave state. Wagner, p. 60: Arkansas enters the Union as a slave state.
• Word for word, except for a capital U. Michigan enters the union as a slave state. Wagner, p. 60: Michigan enters the Union as a slave state.
• Word for word, except for a capital U. Iowa enters the union as a slave state. Wagner, p. 62: Iowa enters the Union as a slave state.
• Word for word, except for a capital U. Wisconsin enters the union as a slave state. Wagner, p. 62: Wisconsin enters the Union as a slave state. Kirk (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

From Encylopedia of the Civil War, page 5 some close paraphrasing:

• American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society is founded by Arthur Tappan and Lewis Tappan Source: ...; most of them ended up in the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society founded by Arthur Tappan and Lewis Tappan Kirk (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Back to Wagner, Two sentences: A New York judge grants freedom to eight slaves from Virginia who are brought into the state by their owner while in transit to another state. Most Northern states have such laws rejecting a "right of transit" to slave owners...

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)

• • I don't feel like you (Rjensen and Donner60) actually are taking this seriously; I can't check all of your dozens of sources and hundreds of citations for plagerism becuase I don't have access to them.

I haven't noticed either of you finding and fixing plagerism but you have all the sources; if you have please post those edits here so the admins know what you've found. :There's so much easy to find plagerism I suspect there is a lot more. Fixing the article is going to be difficult; it should get the chance to be reviewed before any more edits take place. The copyvio template says if you want to edit in the meantime, basically create a copy off the talk page. Kirk (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• More examples from a third source Lincoln affirms that states would be left to control their own affairs under his administration.

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

• The unarmed merchant vessel Star of the West, which was under contract to the War Department, leaves New York for Fort Sumter with 250 reinforcements and supplies.
  

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)

• Another recent one:

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

Erasing the article is in violation of Wikipedia rules

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)

• FYI: I was just following the copyvio template instructions. Kirk (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Kirk misread the rules and misread the Wikipedia guidelines on copyright. Fair use allows small fragments to be incorporated (with citation). Furthermore names and titles are public domain and cannot be copyrighted. He ignores this. Text in public domain can be copied without copyvio and he ignores this. He're an example. Kirk says the article text "William Lloyd Garrison begins publishing The Liberator" is a copyvio because the book cited said "In Boston, William Lloyd Garrison starts publishing The Liberator, an important abolitionist newspaper, which calls for an immediate end to slavery." ""William Lloyd Garrison" is a name and cannot be copyrighted, and likewise "The Liberator". So the article violation comes down to "begins publishing" -- but the source said "starts publishing" -- we are left with one word "publishing" and using it says Kirk is a copyvio. Actually the word "publishing" was used before 1923 and so it is in the public domain. So in this example Kirk is 100% wrong--demonstrating his basic ignorance of the copyright laws and Wiki rules. Rjensen (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Copyright protects creative expressions (structure of the actual sentence) rather than individual words. Your comment shows a serious misunderstanding about how copyright works. I will also note that you picked the shortest example provided and perhaps the only one where you could get away with by claiming "a lack of creativity". Yoenit (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• I followed the instructions under 'Complicated infringement': WP:CPI, Suspected or complicated infringement, all revisions have problems, its contested and complicated.
• Your example is still plagerized and the source is copyrighted so its copyvio; yes, arguably each word might not be copyvio or you could argue some kind of exception but it doesn't matter - see WP:PLAG.
• Could you please show good faith to the admins and start reviewing each citation for plagerism? I suggest you keep track here as well, thanks. Kirk (talk) 15:48, 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)

• • Also, I might have said something confusing earlier; when I mentioned above the article might ultimately be deleted as the result of someone reporting the copyright violations (which ultimately was me) I was trying to warn that these were serious problems that needed to be addressed and had a serious consequence, not that I wanted to delete the article, nor that I was personally going to 'blank' the article at some point in the near future. I understand that's what could have appeared to happen when I followed the WP:CPI instructions, and I'm sorry I might have caused that misunderstanding. Kirk (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
    • all the items Kirk pointed to have been rewritten. Rjensen (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Are those all of the problems in the article, or has anyone besides Kirk gone through and actively looked for copyright problems yet? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
        • All items Kirk mentioned have been changed. No one else said there were any copyvio. Rjensen (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
          • That's not actually what I asked. I asked if anyone else had looked to see if there were other problems. Copyvio often travels in packs, so the article needs to be reviewed before it's unblanked, which is why it's listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 March 31 for admin review. I'll try take a look at it later today or this weekend. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:58, 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'm hoping the editors in question start a systematic check of the print-only sources; I found another instance I put above. Kirk (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to change or delete items rather than have a big controversy or to waste the work on the article. Should I assume the copyright review will proceed and that part or all of the article could still be restored? I think that most if not all of the claimed copyright violations are rather fair use than violations. Also, they are non-creative statements of well-known facts. The items mentioned as possible violations are statements of facts that can be found in many books and are not subject to dispute. They are not presented in any creative or distinct way. They are simple and simply worded. The common examples state that a State was admitted to the union (in a certain year) and it was a slave or free state. I question whether copyright would even cover such a matter of fact statement. Ironically, this may have become a question because the items in the article were sourced. If they were unsourced, any number of similar or identical sentences could be found in historical works. The stated fact almost certainly would not have been challenged and the copyright violation question would not have come up. I suppose that is a problem or danger inherent in trying to compile a list of many short items such as these and provide a citation to each of them. Nonetheless, although I think it does not help the overall process to have an unduly restrictive notion of copyright violations, I think the time, energy and good will involved in a prolonged controversy does not advance putting a decent article on the main page as we approach the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War. It seems unproductive to argue about it in what seems to be a rather simple situation (although with many items to review). I have been working on revisions to the article and, assuming I am permitted to do so here or on another page, I will continue to do so. It is a long article and will take time to review each item as that seems to be the suggestion. I believe Dr. Jensen will be tied up for awhile and my time will be somewhat limited over the next few weeks. So, again, it will take some time. I am not sure whether some sort of interim report is expected or exactly where to report that the article is again available for assessment. I suppose I should reserve the right to give up on the article if it appears too difficult or time-consuming to revise it and it begins to appear that time is better spent on more ordinary sorts of articles but I will give notice if that is the case. I think I should also ask whether a shorter article that has been reviewed could be placed in the main space with other items added as they are reviewed and revised if necessary? That might be more productive than working on a revision for a month or more and leaving nothing at all but the banner in the main space, but I do not know if there is some procedure or guideline or suggestion for that. Donner60 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the copyright review will proceed and the article will be restored once that's completed. Wikipedia's definition of a copyright violation is not exactly the same as the legal definition of copyright infringement, as with images, it is intentionally stricter than required by fair use law.

As far as the non-creative statements of well-known facts go: While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The less creative the expression, the looser copyright applies, but even so close paraphrasing becomes a great concern when there are long passages that include fragments of the original and the structure of the original is retained. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Articles blanked for possible copyright violation generally stay that way for about a week - after that it should be restored with whatever clean material remains/has been rewritten. There is a temporary page provided for rewrites. Another option would be to rewrite the article in place, but that would likely require stubbing it down to whatever parts are already known to be non-infringing and restoring the rest piece-by-piece as it is checked. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and the link to the temporary page. Because of the nature of the article with many small entries, I am not sure what approach will work best in this case. I think I will put the entire article as it is on the temporary page, then decide whether to blank everything after the introduction and start putting items back one by one - or check each item in turn and keep them, change them or discard them as appropriate. It may not matter much as long as only persons working on the article will see it. Donner60 (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Review and revision

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)

I have finished review of entries that cite Bowman and reviewed those that cite McPherson and Eicher and have revised some. Donner60 (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have placed this message near the top of the revised article on the temporary page - just below the note concerning revision and caution on possible deletion. I used bold font to distinguish it from the apparently standard message above it and the text of the article which starts below it: Any entries supported by citation to sources subject to possible copyright question (almost all of them; there are 8 pre-1923 sources) have now been reviewed, checked against sources and many of them have been revised since this article was moved to this temporary page - except 3 JSTOR sources published after 1923 cited in one entry each, which were initially reviewed. All 3 entries which have these citations also have citations to other sources. Donner60 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to be sure that the review was complete and satisfactory, I confirmed the JSTOR citations, reviewed pre-1923 citations, added citations to some entries (mainly pre-1923 additions), and made a few corrections and revisions. I added the following revised note in bold near the top of the page: "All entries have been checked against the supporting citations and many of them have been revised since this article was moved to this temporary page. The editors who have worked on this article in recent months believe there should be no objection to restoring this entire article to the main pages." Donner60 (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions

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:

• A "Society" is not an event.
• The cotton gin.
• Harriet Tubman

I could go on. deisenbe (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Petition to change the title

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)