User talk:JimWae/Lincoln, Civil War, etc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bias and personal

I think you need to take a chill pill and read your history, you have made it a very salvery biased pov, slaver was involed not the only or mojor issue, second if you want to personaly insult me on my writing then do it on my page. --Boothy443 06:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about you read Corwin Amendment that you cited, then reread what you put up?--JimWae 06:59, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

How about you look at the edit history before you start calling people out. --Boothy443 07:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found this:

User talk:140.142.110.158
Civil War
I agree with your changes on the civil war, and have reverted edits to the contrary that other ppl have done. You might want to regerster for wiki, i fell that this going to be a debate in the coming weeks. --Boothy443 03:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would I bother arguing with an anon? How about you read Corwin Amendment?--JimWae 07:08, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Ok, your point is? --Boothy443 07:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morrill Tariff

User talk:JimWae/morrill

[edit] Civil War

User:Wighson has been reverting his changes, and I doubt he's gonna be swayed. Any idea what to do? Maybe you should have the page protected. --brian0918™ 05:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ACW edit

It probably isn't a good idea to simply skirt issues. However, the main point of my edit was to simplify the sentence structure--unnecessary compound clauses, incorrect use of en-dashes. Did you object to the North America change? If so, you could have edited that out, not reverted the whole thing. If that was not the problem, let me know what it was and I'll reword it again. Hal Jespersen 19:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--- North America suggests significant battles in Canada & Mexico. One could say "within the present boundaries of the United States" OR, for simpler sentence structure, just let the rest of the article explain it.--JimWae 21:06, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

  • The American Civil War (1861-1865) was fought between 11 states of the Southern United States and United States federal forces (mostly from the 23 Northern states that remained in the Union). Following the election of 1860, seven Southern states declared their secession from the U.S. and joined together to form the Confederate States of America. The seceding states took control of federal properties within their territories, leading to the Battle of Fort Sumter and the commencement of hostilities. After this battle, four more Southern states joined the Confederacy. Battles were fought in the Southern states, in some Northern states, and in some U.S. territories.

OR

  • The American Civil War (1861-1865) was fought between 11 states of the Southern United States (joined together to form the Confederate States of America) and United States federal forces (mostly from the 23 Northern states that remained in the Union). Following the election of 1860, seven Southern states declared their secession from the U.S. and formed the Confederacy. The seceding states took control of federal properties within their territories, leading to the Battle of Fort Sumter and the commencement of hostilities. After this battle, four more Southern states joined the Confederacy. Battles were fought in the Southern states, in some Northern states, and in some U.S. territories.

I prefer the second, although you have omitted the point about 23 becoming 25 during the war. As I said, none of this level of political detail is of interest to me; I wanted to simplify a convoluted sentence. I think this full article is overly long, but don't wish to contribute to the heat by excising anything substantive, even if it clearly belongs elsewhere. I also don't get exercised if an important point doesn't find its way into the first paragraph of an article.

[I didn't reply immediately because I expected to see your reply in my Talk page. Most Wiki authors I've dealt with do that. Is there an accepted method or is it simply random?] Hal Jespersen 02:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I've no idea whether this is standard or not - but I think it is easier to follow the flow of the conversation if it is all in one spot, eh?
Well, easier in one way, but I have no idea when you update your Talk page with the reply unless I watch it like the other articles.
OK with me. But use ndash instead of hyphen and I would spell out 11 and 23 in the opening paragraph of the piece. Hal Jespersen 11:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crittenden Compromise

I've reverted your additions to the Crittenden Compromise article and added that text to Crittenden-Johnson Resolution. The Crittenden Compromise was not the same as the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution: the latter declared that the incipient conflict was not over slavery, whereas the former was an effort to avoid the conflict entirely. I'm fairly certain that none of the prominent Republicans supported the Compromise, although they might well have supported the Resolutions. But it's possible I'm wrong in that respect. -- Trivial 03:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see what you did -- I assumed falsely. I'll change it back, sorry. -- Trivial 03:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The problem was the subsection heading (as a "Resolution") and the small paragraph leading into it which confused the two. I removed paragraph and renamed the heading. Hopefully that will solve the problem. I did some google research into Republican of the Compromise, and it seeems that although Seward supported it, most Republicans, including Greeley [1], did not. -- Trivial 03:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

I was perusing through the edit history of American Civil War and couldn't help notice your admirable defense of the integrity of the article in several instances. I'm particularly refering to a recent spasm of edits by a user I have encountered previously, whom I consider to be one of the most insidious purveyors of POV garbage on Wikipedia. I'm extremely glad that someone else has taken a stand against this person. If you ever need backup regarding this, I am at your service. -- Decumanus 04:47, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


[edit] Lincoln

Some days ago someone reverted the article back two months, un-doing a hell of a lot of improvement. I am trying to put it back together. Please leave it alone.

Are you planning to incorporate all the changes I and others have made in the last day or so? Why are you anonymous? So far it looks like you have done exactly what he did. I am willing to wait & see, but would appreciate answers.

that natural rights stuff & civil rights stuff is either gobblededook or unexplained jargon. Simpler is:
  • He believed that the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal" should have been applied also to black slaves — but he did not believe that freed black slaves should live in the same society as white Americans with all the same rights as white American citizens


[edit] Lincoln on slavery and equality

Even during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Lincoln was accused of being inconsistent in his position on slavery. To this day, there are issues surrounding the following somewhat-contrary views he held at one time or another.

  • He believed that slavery was a profound evil that must not be spread to the territories — yet he was willing to tolerate it in the states in which it already existed.
  • He believed the federal government did have power to bar slavery in the territories — yet he maintained that the federal government did not possess the constitutional power to bar slavery in states where it already existed.
  • He was willing to tolerate slavery in the states in which it already existed — yet he later advocated its complete abolition.
  • The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves where the measure could not be put into effect — yet left them enslaved where the measure could have been enforced.
  • He believed that the Declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal" should have been applied also to black slaves — but he did not believe that freed black slaves should live in the same society as white Americans with all the same rights as white American citizens.

Some of these opposing views are less inconsistent than others. See article: Abraham Lincoln on slavery


How about what's there now?

[edit] Lincoln trivia

Do you have any idea what you're getting yourself into? :) Check out what I call the War Between the Wikipedians about this particular bit of trivia. I spectacularly lost that war, BTW. Go figure. Vincent 00:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The editors of the Lincoln article do not seem to have the same determination to remove this or any other trivia - it is a different article --JimWae 00:50, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Lincoln

You are right about the Hillary quote, but it was too good to pass up. --Noitall 04:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Nice work

Just wanted to say thanks for your great contributions to stuff like Missouri secession and Confederate States of America. Much appreciated. jengod 21:52, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln

User:JimWae - I see where you participated in the matter concerning Abraham Lincoln's sexuality that was discussed and voted upon on Talk:Abraham Lincoln. There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion surrounding this exact same issue at Talk:Elvis Presley and the archived Talk pages as well. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it.

If the policy consensus you and others arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think your group discussion that arrived at a determination of what constituted a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. - Ted Wilkes 20:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln speech

First off most of Lincolns speeches were written by others. That doesn't mean it's not relective of him, because he did indeed use the speeches clearly showing that he agreed with what it said. If you dont agree you are basically saying the president of the US is bossed around by his speech writers. If I applied your logic almost every single US presidents speeches would have to be blocked. As for Washington, can you please verify that he abandoned his prayer book? If you dont provide facts I am going to have to report you for vandalism. Please get back to me to clear up this matter. - unsigned by JJStroker

JJStroker is misinformed. One of Lincoln's most admirable characteristics is that he wrote his own eloquent speeches.Lestrade 13:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Perhaps I need to add

a Wars Named After Lincoln section in the Abraham Lincoln article ? Weasel the Lincoln County War in that way ? Carptrash 01:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

the war was named after the county in which it took place --JimWae 01:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Lincoln

Oddly enough, I think the February 5th date is no longer disputed by Lincoln historians. However, I agree that proper citations are required in order to make this assertion. I'll see what I can turn up. Even if I do, there will be many older sources that show the April date, so we'll have to stay up on this for a long time to come. Rklawton 19:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Good work today on American Civil War

For a few hours today it seemed like were working together to make a positive impact. I hope we can move the page forward. 00:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allow me to help with the ACW skirmish

Don't get yourself close to 3RR over Dr J. I'll help anytime. BusterD 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that restoring flags that others delete before discussion has taken place does not count - but I would appreciate any assistance you have to offer - that guy is drains too much of my time anyway --JimWae 05:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you need me to drop that NPOV tag back in? BusterD 07:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, thanks for reverting RJ's insertion again of "seceded and ... formed another country". I did not see you'd already changed it when I put it in, so I reverted myself --JimWae 08:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We're almost stumbling over each other to revert his changes, all the while I'm trying to shepherd two bright young things through their first bias rants on two different pages. It's funny how similar the situations are, yet no users except myself are in common. BTW, I'm trying to identify interest in a potential ACW portal. Would you be interested in seeing or helping maintain such a portal if one was proposed/created? BusterD 08:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Back again. If Dr. J reverts delinking in introduction once more, he's in vio of 3RR. I'd like to see him spanked if he acts badly. Do you mind looking at the page, and if agree, assist? Thanks. BusterD 20:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I have actually been living life outside wikipedia today - is there anything I can do right now? --JimWae 04:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

but no I wasn't vandalizing.

I just think it's funny that some people don't want an article questioning how old Aisha was at marriage but an article questioning Licolns sexual orientation is fine by them. grazon 21:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining --JimWae 03:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lincoln

Sheesh. Thanks for that. How did that crap sneak in there w/o me catching it? The battle never ends... Tomertalk 07:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

Your recents edits [[2]] do not reflect the current discussions or tags on the talk page. Stop making edits without verifing your sources. I have reverted your edits. Please provide documentation that the sources verfied are not fringe or extremist, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves. see WP:SELFPUB --Masterpedia 04:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • LOC=Library of Congress. Please provide evidence that LOC is fringe or extremist - also you have broken a link --JimWae 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)