|
* <nowiki>[[Lieber Code#Slavery and black prisoners of war|Lieber Code]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Slavery and black prisoners of war) has been [[Special:Diff/1135510465|deleted by other users]] before. <!-- {"title":"Slavery and black prisoners of war","appear":{"revid":593628255,"parentid":593628030,"timestamp":"2014-02-02T20:16:35Z","removed_section_titles":["Slavery and Black Prisoners of War"],"added_section_titles":["Slavery and black prisoners of war"]},"disappear":{"revid":1135510465,"parentid":1135507593,"timestamp":"2023-01-25T02:36:49Z","replaced_anchors":{"Main provisions":"Legal provisions","Ethical treatment":"Ethical behaviour","Harder measures":"Hard measures"},"removed_section_titles":["Historical background","Main provisions","Ethical treatment","Slavery and black prisoners of war","Harder measures","CITEREFNebrida1997"],"added_section_titles":["History","Legal provisions","Ethical behaviour","Black prisoners of war","Hard measures"]}} -->
}}
== Who the Hell is Kal Ashraf? ==
{{edit semi-protected|Emancipation Proclamation|answered=yes}}
Making sure sources of information or even opinion are legitimate and appropriate can be crucial on articles especially those of historical importance. In the Critique section on the article of the Emancipation Proclamation an editor has put there that "Kal Ashraf wrote:" followed by a brief quote.I like everyone else who read this part asked who is Kal Ashraf and a google search returned zero results. After more research I finally found the article at hand through Jstor. The piece quoted is a half page editorial/news letter. Kal Ashraf and his work on the Emancipation Proclamation are not in anyway up to standards in reliability or importance necessary for the subject or for the ethical dissemination of fact and information that Wikipedia stands for. Kal Ashraf name and statement which are featured on the article need to be removed and replaced with a more substantial and legitimate scholar on the subject. [[User:Wikieditwiki201|Wikieditwiki201]] ([[User talk:Wikieditwiki201|talk]]) 07:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Eggishorn|Eggishorn]] [[User talk:Eggishorn|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Eggishorn|(contrib)]] 19:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
::Any information on who Kal Ashraf is? He certainly isn’t a household name that does not need prefacing. [[User:Thriley|Thriley]] ([[User talk:Thriley|talk]]) 04:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
== Footnote 11 misuse implies Lost Cause ==
Footnote 11 is quoted as the EP is historic cuz it "would redefine the Civil War, turning it from a struggle to preserve the Union to one focused on ending slavery, and set a decisive course for how the nation would be reshaped after that historic conflict". This framing has two problems:
1. It doesn't mention that the source History.com article is referring to ''Lincoln's'' purpose in the Civil War.
My reply: The two sentences in the last paragraph of history.com are not clearly written. The second does not seem to follow from the first. The first is about Lincoln's purpose, but the second does not seem to be.
2. It obfuscates that the Union broke in the first place because the South was worried slavery was going to be curtailed, and some readers will assume the original break did not concern slavery because this Lost Cause alternative history is a common narrative even today.
My reply: It does not obfuscate that. Rather, it does not discuss why the South seceded; it is solely about the North. When it states, "Emancipation would redefine the Civil War, turning it from a struggle to preserve the Union to one focused on ending slavery," it means "Emancipation would redefine the Civil War, turning it, ''for the North'', from a struggle to preserve the Union to one focused on ending slavery." I will edit it to insert the words "for the North" in brackets.
These is a deeper problem with the second sentence, however: It is false. The Civil War never stopped being, for the North, a struggle to preserve the Union. The sentence should say that emancipation turned the Civil War, for the North, from being ''solely'' a struggle to preserve the Union to being ''also'' a struggle to end slavery. To correct that will require eliminating the quotation and replacing it with an accurate statement. I'll work on that another time. [[User:Maurice Magnus|Maurice Magnus]] ([[User talk:Maurice Magnus|talk]]) 22:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I corrected the false statement without eliminating the quotation. Instead I inserted "solely" and "also" into the quotation, in brackets, of course. [[User:Maurice Magnus|Maurice Magnus]] ([[User talk:Maurice Magnus|talk]]) 22:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
== Two confused sentences ==
| 