Talk:Abraham Lincoln and slavery

Quoting versus paraphrasing

This will be a long comment, but it will address a question applicable to all of Wikipedia, and in fact to all historical writing, not only to Abraham Lincoln and slavery. The question is when to quote and when to paraphrase. I believe that quoting is preferable except when a quotation is long or complex or confusing. Two other Wikipedia editors, Alanscottwalker and Quisqualis, apparently disagree.

I'll start at the beginning. I edited "6.2 Citizenship and limited suffrage" in the Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Alanscottwalker undid my edit. I will now paste in the version that I edited and that Alanscottwalker put back, and under it I will paste my edited version. I will remove footnotes and Wikilinks for the sake of readability:

John Wilkes Booth, a Southerner and outspoken Confederate sympathizer, attended the speech and became determined to kill Lincoln for supporting citizenship for blacks. Booth assassinated Lincoln three days later.

John Wilkes Booth, a Southerner and outspoken Confederate sympathizer, attended the speech and reacted by saying, "That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make."

Before I made this edit, I had made a smaller edit, merely changing "citizenship" to "suffrage," because in his speech, Lincoln had referred to Black suffrage, not to citizenship. Alanscottwalker correctly undid this edit, reminding me that Booth himself had used the word "citizenship," as I quoted him above. I then commented on User talk:Alanscottwalker, initiating the following exchange:

Thanks again for catching my error; I had forgotten Booth's comment. But any reader who was unfamiliar with the comment or had forgotten it might be confused by Wikipedia first quoting Lincoln advocating Black suffrage and then stating that Booth reacted by wanting to kill Lincoln for supporting Black citizenship. I propose that we change "became determined to kill Lincoln for supporting citizenship for blacks. Booth is reported to have remarked: 'That is the last speech he will ever make'" to "and reacted by saying, 'That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.'" I would footnote that to Ronald White's A. Lincoln, p. 672. Would you go along with that? Wikipedia quotes "nigger" where appropriate, as I think it is here. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think, it's clear and direct the way it is, and already sourced. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I explained why the version you prefer is unclear. To repeat, it jumps without explanation from Lincoln's advocating Black suffrage to Booth's opposition to Black citizenship. You have not attempted to dispute that, but only to assert without offering a reason that it is clear.

Second, you imply that my version is unclear, which is patently false, and you do not explain why it is unclear.

Therefore, I will revert back to my version. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[At this point Alanscottwalker undid my edit, and I wrote:]

I know that editing wars are frowned upon, so I will not undo your change now. But I intend to pursue this, after I figure out the arbitration procedure, which I've never used. In light of the fact that I offer reasons for my version and you rudely do not, I expect to prevail. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1st, I reverted to the longtstanding version, you made a mistake by reverting back, see BRD. If you don't understand my reasons you can ask and discuss.

2nd: Any reader with a modicum of sense, can see the connection between voting and citzenship. (both in the way the sentences are structured and in substance)

3rd: A simple declarative statement is always more clear. What we are to do here is summarize, simply and straitforwardly. (the point there is simply that someone wanted to kill him for giving that speech, and that's because voting means citizenship, the details of the speech and Booth belong in other articles.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(drive-by commenter) I agree here that the interest of encyclopedic brevity should be served. Any clarity added by the longer quotation is negated by the strong words used by Booth. The longer version of Booth's words seems to belong in Booth's biography, as it serves to characterize Booth's state of mind in more detail. This article talk page concerns Lincoln. Quisqualis (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Now I will get to the point about quoting versus paraphrasing. I believe that "reacted by saying, 'That means nigger citizenship. Now, by God, I'll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.'" is far more informative than "became determined to kill Lincoln for supporting citizenship for blacks."

For one thing, my version makes explicit that Booth spoke of citizenship. Readers do not have to draw the connection between voting and citizenship that Alanscottwalker thinks any reader with a modicum of sense can draw.

For another thing, my version tells readers how Booth thought and spoke. Alanscottwalker's version tells readers how Alanscottwalker writes. Surely Booth's words are preferable in a case like this where they are perfectly clear.

I do not understand how Alanscottwalker can believe that his version is clearer, when in fact the opposite is the case.

Quisqualis acknowledges that quoting Booth is clear but believes that "Any clarity added by the longer quotation is negated by the strong words used by Booth." My response is first that my version is only very slightly longer. Second, I do not see how strong words negate clarity. In fact, they add clarity. The phrase "nigger citizenship" is far clearer in conveying Booth's feelings than is "supporting citizenship," especially when Lincoln had not referred to citizenship.

If Quisqualis or anyone else has qualms about quoting such a vile word, then they should be aware that Wikipedia has an article on Nigger.

Thank you for your time. Of course, I hope you agree with me that my version is preferable to Alanscottwalker's. But more important, I hope you agree that quoting is preferable to paraphrasing where the quotation is clear and succinct, as it is here. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

1) You asked me if I object to the edit; I told you I did; so, it is nothing wrong on my part that my editing is in accord with the objection you sought out.

2) You misrepresent Quisqualis, his whole point was that the use of the Booth quote here is not clearer writing. Nor does anything anywhere encourage multiple uses of the same quote over and over again in the pedia. This article is not about Booth's use of language (offensive or not) it is about Lincoln's ideas.

3) The current structure of the section is:

A. Summary Setup

B. Lincoln's Idea Quote

C. Summary Reaction

D Expert's Quote.

It should not be turned into, Quote; Quote; Quote as you would have it. The overuse and overreliance of quotes is universally condemned, especially in tertiary writing, as bad writing. By any measure, turning the whole section into quote after quote, as you want is overuse and overreliance on quotes. (We are not writing dialogue, as for the larger discussion you want on matters of style across articles, this is not the place to have it, perhaps try VPP or MOS). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker, I'm with you on the overreliance on quotes. It seems to result from either a lack of paraphrasing ability and/or the desire to inject personal viewpoints (of the quotees) into the article (or pure laziness, for all I know). Brevity is the "soul" of any encyclopedia: If an article is TL, people DR it, because details (including anecdotes and/or colorful quotations of persons not the topic of the article) can distract from the narrative. The article is called Abraham Lincoln and slavery, not Abraham Lincoln and his rabid pro-slavery opponents.

@Maurice Magnus, I note that both quotations mention citizenship for Black Americans. Further, there are articles about both John Wilkes Booth and the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, either one of which could accommodate the full quote, which is graphically emblematic of Booth's beliefs. As a side note, Arbitration is likely to reject a content dispute. Quisqualis (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Quisqualis (talk): I believe that my latest response to Alanscottwalker (below this comment) addresses your comment. I'll add only that the fact that Booth's language appears in other articles does not constitute a reason not to quote it in this one, because some people may read only this one. It would be different if, after Alanscottwalker's paraphrase, we had a footnote saying, "To learn Booth's exact language, look at the article on him or on the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln." But, of course, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. And don't worry; I no longer plan to pursue this matter anywhere but on this Talk page; it's not important enough to me. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker::Your primary objection to my edit appears to be that it is a quotation. Of course, the "overuse and overreliance of quotes is universally condemned"; that's tautological in that if use or reliance is "over," it is by definition bad. The question is whether my use of a quotation in this instance, added to other quotations in the article, constitutes overuse or overreliance. I don't know what it means to over rely on quotations (assuming that it's something different from overuse of them), and as for overuse, I'm not going to count the number of other quotations in the article, and I don't think it matters, because what matters is whether my particular quotation is better than your paraphrase.

And that issue you do not address except to say that "This article is not about Booth's use of language ... it is about Lincoln's ideas." True, but, if we're going to mention that Booth assassinated Lincoln, and you apparently have no objection to that even though it is not about Lincoln's ideas, then we ought to mention it in the clearest and most informative manner we can, without making it too lengthy, which my edit did not do. It surely benefits and does not harm readers to understand Booth's motivation from his own words. By the way, what is "BRD," a term you use in an earlier comment above? Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Maurice Magnus, WP:BRD is the idealized version of Wikipedia's recommended method of settling content disputes (in a perfect world) . It stands for make bold, well-considered edits, prepare to be WP:REVERTed, and editors may then WP:DISCUSS the matter on the article's talk page. The current discussions rightfully belong on the relevant talk page, imo, and I regret having butted in here, given your recalcitrance. Sadly, I've never been able to have a discussion on Wikipedia with editors holding similarly stubborn viewpoints.

In the alternatives to BRD the first-listed is to discuss on the article's talk page the edit you intend to make, then ask for feedback. While feedback isn't always forthcoming, at least you have given fair warning, encouraging others to remain calm. What we have come to on this talk page is backwards from what should have happened. Quisqualis (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

PS: It's not uncommon for an editor to come across an anecdote or quotation which is so compelling that it seems to "need" sharing in Wikipedia. The temptation is great, and I understand it. Such material may be safely placed in a note or included as a quotation within the citation, where it won't bog down the narrative of the article itself. Quisqualis (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Quisqualis (talk). My quotation does not bog down the narrative of the article. It is almost as concise as the paraphrase, and it saves the reader from having to stop and wonder why the paraphrase mentions citizenship after Lincoln mentioned suffrage. The reader doesn't know from the paraphrase that Booth spoke of citizenship; the reader knows it only from the quotation. But are you suggesting that I insert the quotation as a footnote to the paraphrase? That seems a reasonable compromise, even though less efficient than simply using the quotation in the text. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Quisqualis (talk), I find your latest comments confusing. You write, "The current discussions rightfully belong on the relevant talk page," but they are, aren't they? I erred initially in posting on Alanscottwalker's talk page, but then I pasted our exchange into this talk page. I do not see myself as recalcitrant or stubborn, if by that you mean standing by my position for emotional reasons. I am open to being persuaded to change my opinion if Alanscottwalker or you or anyone else provides a cogent reason why I should. I believe that I have refuted all your attempts to do so. For example, Alanscottwalker argues against my quoting Booth because the article is about Lincoln's ideas, but he himself paraphrases Booth, and a paraphrase of Booth is no more about Lincoln's ideas than is a quotation from Booth. It's merely less informative of Booth's motivation.

Finally, I do not believe that I am recalcitrant or stubborn, because I capitulated and left the paraphrase in the article, and I've said here that I don't plan to pursue this matter other than on this talk page. As a practical matter, that means that, unless you or Alanscottwalker change your minds or other editors join the conversation in support of my position, I will drop the matter and give in. Life's too short. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right there: far too short for Wiki-wars. Quisqualis (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

In Congress

Maurice Magnus: I don't get this edit summary [1]? Beginning with the fact that no law could pass the Senate without the support of slave state senators, you also have all the powerful slave state lawmakers (see generally slave power) and the territorial crisis (eg. Wilmot Proviso, Kansas Nebraska Act etc.) Even for a time Congress had the "gag rule" on anti-slavery petitions, etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker Sorry, I didn't see your comment until now, when I just happened to glance at the Talk page; I did not receive an email alerting me to it. The sentence I edited read, "However, the question of what to do about it [slavery] and how to end it, given that it was so firmly embedded in the nation's constitutional framework, in Congress, and in the economy of much of the country, was complex and politically challenging." Your points are valid, but they are not conveyed in the phrase, "embedded ... in Congress." At least they weren't conveyed to me. I wouldn't be averse to "embedded ... in various congressional actions," but I don't think that that would be helpful, because I don't think that it wouldn't bring to the average reader's mind the items you list. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Lincoln's long-term goal was to apply federal pressure on the slave states to get them to abolish slavery on their own, beginning with the four loyal, non-seceding border states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri.

This is completely untrue. In the months before he was sworn in and as certain states left the Union, he made this clear. He would guarantee the continued existence of slavery in existing slave states if it would preserve the Union. He had no long term objective to end slavery. The abolitionists in the Republican Party were livid about this.

He wrote the following to Greeley on August 22, 1862 as the war was already underway.

"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Someone needs to edit this blatantly false statement.

What is true is that once the war was underway, he realized that preserving the Union required ending the institution that was the root cause of disunion, which was slavery. He initially did not make the war about ending slavery, which angered many in his party. But he decided that it should be about that, and waited for public opinion to catch up as well as the right time to make this pronouncement. Dmbeaster (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published thought. We take WP:SECONDARY sources and weigh them to get the right balance. What we don't do is analyze primary sources to make a novel conclusion and insert this conclusion into the narrative. See WP:No original research which is a hard policy, no leeway there. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)