Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 7

Lincoln's Religion

It was very clear that Lincoln believed in no religion, so why talk about his religious background I say we put it back like it was Religion = none, besides the facts in the table should be quick greater details could be mentioned in the article --Six 7 8 00:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Useful Facts About Lincoln

There used to be a trivia section in this article that had useful information like Lincoln's height, the fact that he was the first president with a beard and such. It's gone now because of this misguided moratorium on trivia sections. Can we get this useful information back please? I don't care if we don't call it "trivia," or whatever. -- 66.135.149.195 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's really interesting to know how many feet Lincoln was. TheBlazikenMaster 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if someone wants to know whether a President of the United states was left handed or right handed, he should find this information in the biggest Internet Encyclopedia! --Six 7 8 00:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not something important as how many feet Lincoln was. How many feet he was is something none or few of the other presidents have in common with Lincoln. TheBlazikenMaster 15:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it should be in there. I spent like 15 minutes wandering around Wikipedia looking for how tall he was, and I couldn't find it so I had to look elsewhere. It should be included somehow, if only because it puts him as the tallest/one of the tallest presidents. Nblinknpark41 03:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there must be a way without adding a trivia section. TheBlazikenMaster 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If it hadn't been taken I would have recommended www.wikitrivia.com and then a link to that. Would have been nice, and in keeping information in the right places.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.212.100.60 (talk • contribs).

Today, Bill Clinton’s page notes Clinton was among the tallest presidents of the United States. As Abe Lincoln was the tallest, I really think the article can afford to mention it. I mean, why ever not? Bossk-Office 20:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln's "Lost Speech"

Should Lincoln's "Lost Speech" be mentioned (May 29, 1856, in Bloomington, Illinois)? It "may have been the most influential oration delivered in America since the founding of the Republic," and it is considered a major event in strengthening the new Republican party and furthering Lincoln's political career. See: http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton1/Lincoln63.html which is linked in the WP articles on Oratory and Eloquence.

If the Lost Speech is mentioned (and perhaps even if not), Wilson Tucker's time-travel novel The Lincoln Hunters could be added under "Lincoln in art and popular culture". Its focus is the quest for the Lost Speech. 4granite 03:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So, um, why is the title "Abraham Lincoln Life?

Abraham Lincoln redirects here. Was his "real" life name "Life"? WTF? — Lenoxus 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I moved it back. Now to give a welsome and subtle talking-to to the person who moved it in the first place... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lenoxus (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Lincoln's "Bankruptcy"

http://www.totalbankruptcy.com/celebrity_bankruptcy.htm

Could someone clarify something for me. As I understand it the story goes that Lincoln borrowed money to invest in a store in 1833. The store failed, I don't know if it was formally wound up or even if there was legislation to do that. Lincoln's personal debt became due and the law got involved, a sheriff seizing his possessions. Was this formal insolvency or was it a court judgement to seize assets from a delinquent debtor? I suppose in 1833 it could have been a criminal matter? The story that he took on his former partners debts voluntarily suggests to me it wasn't formal bankruptcy as does his legal and public career - in England it would have been difficult to practice law or take public office as a bankrupt. I'd like to get some clarification on a story which is clouded by his subsequent achivements. —The preceding Johnnybriggs 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC) unsigned comment was added by Johnnybriggs (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

sarah

Sarah was born in 1807, not 1805.

function of opening section = summarize his importance

Many readers read only the opening. It has to concisely summarize his important actions, before the war and during the war, covering military and civilian phases. Every sentence is covered in multiple books, so we have to condense here. Rjensen 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

attacks ... was held against him.

The sentence should read, "Lincoln's attacks on Polk and Taylor came back to haunt him during the Civil War and indeed *were* held against him when he applied for a major patronage job from the new Taylor administration." Easy mistake to make; probably came from the combining of two originally separate sentences. It's so minor I probably wouldn't point it out except that it's an example of the problems of locking a page. If the page were open to edits, minor mistakes like these could be ironed out by casual readers.

Protection and Unprotection

I think we should keep this page on Abe Lincoln PROTECTED —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.163.39 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

External Link

Editors,

I am a presidential librarian at the Miller Center of Public Affairs (a research institution affiliated with the University of Virginia). We run a non-partisan, non-profit website on the American Presidency. We have a section on each president that includes an extensive essay on the president and shorter essays on the first lady and each cabinet member. Each essay is vetted by a prominent scholar of that particular president. We also provide quick facts, key events, and links to a growing collection of multimedia materials specific to the president. I believe that a external link to our Lincoln page would be a valuable addition to the Lincoln wiki entry. Please take a look at the following page and if you think it is appropriate, we would appreciate you adding it as an external link.

http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/lincoln

Should you choose to put the link on the page, we would prefer the following language:

Extensive essay on Abraham Lincoln and shorter essays on each member of his cabinet and First Lady from the Miller Center of Public Affairs

Best,

Michael Greco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MillerCenter (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Another External Link

Another good Lincoln site is http://www.lincolnstudies.com It features a daily blog, book reviews, primary documents, and a discussion board.

Fake Lincoln Quotes

For 160 years, people have been citing quotes falsely or dubiously attributed to Lincoln.

For instance, did Lincoln refer to elements of the U.S. military as "demons from hell" in his first floor speech as a congressman?

One doubts it -- that speech was a carefully constructed legal argument. Would Lincoln have carelessly or deliberately wrecked his own construction? It seems unlikely.

Such words don't appear in the standard record of Lincoln's speech of January 12, 1848.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mal:@field(DOCID+@lit(d0007400))

The "demons from hell" words, and other dubious verbage, appeared a couple of months later, in a newspaper account by a supposed ear witness who claimed that the standard record omitted all the really bad stuff that Lincoln actually said.

This account was dismissed at the time as being the work of locofocoists (extremely partisan Democrats, presumably willing to lie about Whig politicians such as Lincoln).

See the book, "Abraham Lincoln: A Press Portrait, His Life and Times from the Original Newspaper Documents of the Union, the Confederacy, and Europe" -- edited by Herbert Mitgang (New York: Fordham University Press, 2000).

Since the "demons from hell" words are of disputed authenticity, the Wikipedia page on Lincoln should either drop those words, or else should indicate that they may or may not be Lincoln's actual words. Skeptic99 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This article from the State of Illinois may interest folks who are wondering about the veracity of some quotes attributed to Lincoln.A mcmurray 23:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction"

Demons from Hell quote is authentic says leading biographer

The leading Lincoln specialist on this period (Beveridge) believes Lincoln did say that in his speech but erased the term when he sent it to the printer. Beveridge says: "Obviously Lincoln had been unrestrained while delivering his speech; and, when he came to write out his remarks for the Congressional Globe, had left out the violent part which so incensed the newspaper correspondent." Beveridge goes on: "The version by the newspaper correspondent resembles the language of Giddings and Corwin. The reporter's account was from memory of what he heard Lincoln say, and not from the speech as it afterward appeared in the Globe. Speeches published in the Appendix of the Cong. Globe were always written out, either before or after delivery....Often speeches as delivered differed widely from the printed version in the Globe. (Beveridge, "Lincoln" vol 1 p 430) The Springfield Democratic newspaper (the Register) editorialized:

I think Lincoln will find that he had better remained quiet. He will . . . regret that he voted that' Illinois officers [naming them] 'fell while leading brave Illinoisans to ROBBERY AND DISHONOR . . . "IN AID OF A WAR OF RAPINE AND MURDER". . .; that he has thrown upon the escutcheon of Illinois the stain of having sent six thousand men to Mexico "to record their infamy and shame in the blood of poor, innocent, inoffending people, whose only crime was weakness". . .; that he has declared by his vote that the "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just." Rjensen 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Beveridge

died in 1927. Other historians have since questioned some of his conclusions. His work was notable, but not the final word. Skeptic99 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Beveridge did a good job (he's the only major biographer who served in Congress), but more to the point: no one disagrees with him. Rjensen 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that "no one disagrees" with Beveridge, when Lincoln himself disagrees with Beveridge? When the State Register's version of the speech is different from Lincoln's version of the speech, then neither version can fairly be claimed as undisputed. Skeptic99 Skeptic99 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The section "Antiwar activist" confusingly discusses Lincoln's speech of January 12, 1848, as if it were two different speeches. The first mention of the speech is in the first paragraph, and has a footnote linking to Lincoln's official version, as published in the "Globe". The second graf of the "Antiwar activist" section mentions "an intemperate speech" and should be made clearer to show that this is actually the same speech. The second graf contains a direct quote attributed to Lincoln but not footnoted. A footnote is required. In addition to a second footnote, the first and second grafs of the "Antiwar activist" section should be rewritten to make it clear that they are about two different versions of the same speech, not two different speeches, and the article should also make clear that the second version is the unofficial version published by a virulently anti-Lincoln newspaper, the "State Register", but endorsed by Beveridge, in whose judgment the "demons from hell" words were "obviously" authentic. Skeptic99 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Antiwar activist" section should at least acknowledge the possibility that maybe Lincoln didn't speak extemporaneously on January 12, 1848 -- but maybe stuck to his prepared text, which he then submitted to the Globe, and which might actually be the valid version of his speech. Skeptic99 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

dating of last picture of Lincoln

The picture of Lincoln in your article with the caption "last picture" is dated in your caption as April 10, 1865. According to "Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural" by Ronald C. White, Jr. (Simon & Schuster, 2002) "[the photo] was taken by Alexander Gardner in Washington on Sunday, February 5, 1865 ..." White goes on to say, "For many years the photograph was misdated ..." (page 129, caption of picture). The author, Professor White, is listed on the inside back jacket of his book as the dean of American Religious History at San Francisco Theological Semincary. He offers evidence for his dating in his book. I offer his view as to the dating of this picture for Wikipedia's consideration. 70.108.0.36 15:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC) D.J.J.

Both dates are noted on the image's own page. We had an editor awhile back who was adament that the April date is correct, and she wore out everyone's patience on the matter. Rklawton 15:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And I am not finished yet Lawton....Matter of fact there's a new book coming out soon proving the validity of tthe last picture shown in death, of mine that you personally tried (unsuccesfully) to trash, taken by Bachelder,By G-D, I will have the last word over you and those other doubters! cathytreks 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• We don't care what your last word is; what matters, and the only thing that has mattered all along, is reliable sources; when this new book comes out, we'll evaluate it as we would any source. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Marfan's?

[1] Just from looking at Abe's stature and body structure, it's apparent that he could very well have had Marfan's Syndrome, and historians are now beginning to suspect he did. Should the article reflect this? --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I also read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3065140

In 1959, Marfan syndrome was diagnosed in a distant relative of Lincoln's (a third cousin four times removed). Sharing 1/4048th of Lincoln's genetic material, it is difficult to ascribe much significance to this fact. Although the world's greatest authority on Marfan syndrome thinks it's '50-50' that Lincoln had the condition, other geneticists think it unlikely

Marfan page said he didn't therefore ths statement shold have that added on:"It is often debated whether Abraham Lincoln had Marfan syndrome, an autosomal dominant disorder of the connective tissue characterized by long limbs and great stature, among other things."--Nateinbliss 14:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Assassination

In the section on the assassination, it is stated: "On stage, a character named Lord Dundreary (played by Harry Hawk) who has just been accused of ignorance in regards to the manners of good society, replies, ... " Hawk was playing the part of Asa Trenchard, not Lord Dundreary. Sfcjack 03:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good eye. I made the correction. Edeans 16:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are the underlying conspiracy and the conspirators (other than Booth obviously) omitted from the assassination story? Their existence (and names) should be included as an integral part of an accurate Lincoln assassination story. This section of the Lincoln entry lacks depth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegomgarcia (talk • contribs) 19:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Because that is covered in a separate article, Abraham Lincoln assassination, which is cross-referenced here. JGHowes ^talk - 19:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethiopian ancestry

Well, rather than continue a cycle of reversion, let's discuss the issue of Lincoln's ancestry. For starters, I see here no authoritative Lincoln scholars here that supports this claim. The sources provided for this claim do not come from reliable academic sources. Therefore, it is my believe that these claims do not belong in an encyclopedic article about Lincoln. The sources provided are more along the line of "conspiracy theory" cruft that non-scholarly folks put out from time to time in order to sell books. Rklawton 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate your point that the issue has not made it into any scholarly biography of Lincoln that I am aware of. Apparently there was an attack of this sort made on Lincoln during the 1864 election by an anonymous source (the same type of charges were made against Hamlin). However it seems well beyond the scope of this article to go into the minutiae of unfounded campaign claims.

The challenge for anyone wishing to include the article would be to describe exactly what research was done by Dr. Leroy Vaughan et al (the sources quoted in the article)to arrive at their conclusions. The place to do this, first, is here on the Talk Pages. Tom 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am extremely suspicious of the claim of Ethiopian ancestry for Lincoln. While it is not that unusual for whites in the US to have some African ancestry, the chances of Ethiopian ancestry for Lincoln are so infinitely small as to not be worth any serious consideration without extraordinary proof. Ethiopia (also formerly called "Abyssinia") was an independent kingdom all during the period African slavery was legal in European nations and their colonies. It was also rather isolated during that time. The vast majority of Africans taken into slavery and transported to the Americas were West Africans. The comparatively few East Africans sent to the Americas came from the Portugese colony (later nation) of Mozambique, which is several hundred miles south of Ethiopia. I am assuming, of course, that the contributor pushing for this section is referring to Ethiopian ancestry occurring during the historic period. As I understand it, many anthropologists now believe that all modern humans are descended from a small interrelated group of humans that lived in what we now call Ethiopia about 250,000 years ago. In that sense, we are all part Ethiopian. Edeans 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

well you are right that we all maybe part ethiopians. Anyway the reality is we should try to come up with sources that directly disagree with Lincoln's Ethiopian background. I have studied a lot about Ethiopia but even i don't know enough about Lincoln's relation with Ethiopia as much as the biographer of Lincoln Mr.William Herndon who said Lincoln has Ethiopian ancestry. So it is hard for me disagree with the biographer of Lincoln until i find some extraordinary evidence doing so.

Secondly, about the above comment regarding slavery, i don't think Mr. Herndon or others implied Lincoln's ancestry being from that of slaves. I think he and others who study the tri-racial phenomena are connecting Lincoln's lineage to a wider range of ethnic mix, including Native American. Let us try to bring atleast equivalent sources to disagree with the biographer's claim before we remove that section again. Thank you. Jack248 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I support keeping this information out. Despite what Jack248 says, there no reputable scholarship supporting this claim. There is also no need to provide sources refuting this claim because the claim is so far out there that no reputable scholar has bothered to refute it. This info simply doesn't belong.--Alabamaboy 01:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well ofcourse everyone else would support its deletion because this is taboo in the West so no one would like to see this here. Also i don't think concensus should overrule clear evidence. If we are going base this on concensus, of course it will be deleted because nobody in the WEST would like to see an American President who has an African lineage. Do what you want, i guess. But i think it is not right to delete this detail about Lincoln given by his own biographer, just because of our opinion and feelings.Jack248 01:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to wait for any evidence that directly states Lincoln long ancestry is NOT Ethiopian. I also suggest reading about Melungeon I really hope someone can give evidence to disprove Lincoln's biographer. Please, we don't need just guessworks, opinions, or conjecture in here. I will wait.Jack248 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it works here. Wikipedia's standards aren't that we prove negatives as you suggest we do above. We don't get to say "XYZ" is "ABC" and it stays that way until you prove it isn't. Instead, we must source positives to reliable and verifiable sources. In the case of Lincoln, a crackpot with an M.D. and an M.B.A. has nothing to add to the work of dozens of Ph.D. historians. Without reliable and verifiable sources, any affirmative statement regarding Lincoln's ancestry is not appropriate. Rklawton 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• As an American "white" man with documented African ancestry, I have no problem with Lincoln being identified as part African, just as long as there credible evidence for such a claim. That simply does does not exist (for the historical period, anyway). I have recently read Herndon's Abraham Lincoln, which does not postulate any African ancestry for Lincoln. I also have the understanding that the Melungeon people have West African ancestry, not East African. Edeans 08:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jack248, please avoid suggesting that we are not allowing this info because it's "taboo" or b/c we're racist. My family is more ethnically diverse than you can even image. In addition, I have no problem accepting info like this on Presidents and others where there are reliable references to support it (such as in the case of Thomas_jefferson#The_Sally_Hemings_controversy). In Lincoln's case, though, the evidence does not rise to the level of Wikipedia standards. I would also add that the consensus appears to be to not add this info.--Alabamaboy 14:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, so far i have not read any evidence suggesting the opposite of what Lincoln's own biographer said. It seems like most of the reasoning above appear like this JUST CAN'T BE REAL or along the lines of "no way, there is no chance of this" etc... Well,i hope we can keep our discussion based on evidence and also with fairness for non-Westerner viewpoints. Also the wild claim that Melungeons only have "west African ancesty" is false. Notice that Melugeons have sub-saharan ancestry as well as Middle Eastern. Similarly, the nation that has Semetic groups in Africa is Ethiopia, formerly known as Abyssinia (Which was an empire that stretched from Eastern sub-saharan Africa all the way to southern parts of what we now call the Middle East) Also i am afraid both Abraham Lincoln's biographer and the Melugeons resources affirm Lincoln's Ethiopian ancestry. Also about the third evidence...well insulting the educated man who wrote that book by calling him a "crackpot" is not a very nice thing to say at all. I don't know what more to say about this one. I guess i will wait for somebody else to bring some kind of evidence before i edit the page and put back the resourced info. Thank you and i would really appreciate getting professional reply here. I realize it is a taboo subject but we have to address it in a civilized manner. Thanks. .--Jack248 1:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the overwhelming consensus here is to not add the info. Unless you can present evidence which changes the views of editors here, do not add this info back in. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I will reiterate what another editor has already said -- Herndon DOES NOT in his biography of Lincoln claim that Lincoln's parents had Ethiopian (or any African) ancestry. Tom 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

First President With Facial Hair

Lincoln was the first president with facial hair, and was the first in a 50 year long streak of Presidents (McKinley and Johnson being the only exceptions)with facial hair, ending with the close of William H. Taft's term. Since then, there has been no presidents with facial hair. Does this bear mentioning in the article? PS. Do Van Buren's fantastic sideburns constitute facial hair? What about John Quincy Adams' slightly less pronounced ones?74.67.228.2 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant both Hayes and Garfield sported long beards, both after Lincoln and in the 19th century. McKinley and Johnson? They both came after Lincoln.A mcmurray 23:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You've unfortunately misunderstood. I apologize for any lack of clarity. Lincoln was the first president to sport facial hair unless you count the sideburns of Van Buren and Q. Adams. After Lincoln's presidency, every president, until Woodrow Wilson, had facial hair, except for McKinley and Johnson. 74.67.228.2 23:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

They all had facial hair. It's just that some of them chose to shave it off every day or so. Rklawton 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 74.67.228.2 [did I number your name right ?]. I think your observation, apart from the arguably included Van Buren and Q. Adams, that Honest Abe was the first American president to shun his Norelco beard burner is worthy of being included in the main article, possibly under a subheading of " Lincoln Trivia. " A category, I am sure, the curious president would have, himself, enjoyed. --Curious2george 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Ha at Lawton. I still am not sure it is relevant to the article though interesting trivia, maybe in the article beards?A mcmurray 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit there already, but I would consider it culturally significant enough to merit a place on either Lincoln's or the US Presidents page. The president's style, fashions, and mannerisms can in many ways be considered a representation of more widely pervading attitudes of the time, and thus are important.74.67.228.2 00:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you do don't add a trivia section, I guarantee it will get deleted. See WP:TRIVIA

A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Huh? Just pointing it out. Add it in. I don't care.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. With all due respect, the topic should be closed until someone comes up with a credible citation. Xiner (talk, email) 14:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have very little experience here. Does anyone know where I could find information on whiskers and presidents?74.67.228.2 14:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln's First Law Partner?

I am concerned in the article where it says Lincoln practiced law in 1837 with Stephen T. Logan I cannot find any evidence to back this up but have found multiple references to John T Stuart being his first law partner including Lincoln in his own autobiography.I have also found one reference to a William Herndon as a possible option. Can Anyone confirm who it was Lincoln practiced law with?TAA 07:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct; numerous sources (including the biography by Lincoln's third and final partner, William Herndon) confirm that John T. Stuart was Lincoln's original law partner. Logan was his second partner. I made the correction. Thank you for your post. Edeans 00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Him being gay

Where is that in the article? Falconleaf 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to ask that question as if it were an established fact that Lincoln was gay. That is not the case. There have been rumours and speculation, that's all. There's a reference to this debate at the end, linked to this sentence: "It was in 1837, that Lincoln met his most intimate friend, Joshua Fry Speed.[10]". JackofOz 03:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The mention of Joshua Fry Speed seems to have disappeared. I see that there is a wikipedia article about this, Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. I wonder why it is not linked from this article. --Timtak 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because that is the most unencyclopediatic piece of crap every written. I love the part on the talk page where an editor says that in a few years more and more material will be fleshed out on this topic. Yeah right, in 5 years their will be film footage of ol' Abe with his ass piston partners who he "shared a bed with" on youtube, right? Give me a freakin break. I thought I had seen it all in this project until I can across that piece of dog crap article. Unless you have explicit photos or a sworn statment from one of Abe's lovers, thats garbage, and has ZERO business here, imho. Again, it ain't about the truth in here but verifiability by reliable sources it seems.--Tom 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln was violently hated during the war and the most terrible things were said about him. But even then no one ever said he was gay. It's a 20th century invention. Rjensen 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No! That can't be, could it? Anyways, I going to strike the above since I am not usually that pissed off but I saw this article yesterday and flipped out today. I am going to bed, enough! --Tom 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the link to Speed. There is no scholarly, detailed biography on Lincoln, whatsoever, that does not mention Speed. We are not here to censor just because a topic is touchy. Wjhonson 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You say that like the lightbulb shouldn't have an article because it's a 20th century invention. There's plenty of published reputable sources on the topic of lincolns sexuality, the fact that it was not controvertial then is a matter of changing scholarly concerns, not validity. Lotusduck 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Article as of now states "It was also in 1837 that Lincoln met his most intimate friend, Joshua Fry Speed" with no other details seems at least slightly imbalanced to me. They shared a bed for four years at least as young men so at expanding on the friendship would seem in order. As to being gay even gay people did not openly use that term (or many others) because homosexuality was an even bigger taboo than it is now - and people are still killed today for being gay so being entrenched in a highly constructed society back then meant you followed certain protocols like keeping your bedroom door closed and business private. Personally I wouldn't be terribly surprised either way, gay or not, we may never know or some diary or letters or proof might surface, time may tell. Benjiboi 09:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The amount of space devoted to this friend is comparable to the amount devoted to Mary Todd Lincoln. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the details of every significant person in Lincoln's life -- many of whom, such as Ann Rutledge, are not even mentioned. Tom (North Shoreman) 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Length of the Intro

I removed the unnecessary heading "Lincoln Presidency in History", but I agree with the sentiment apparent in the person who inserted it. The intro needs to be pared down, and the information found in it synthesized into other sections.K. Scott Bailey 16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see your point. I had another go at it. Edeans 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Elected"

While it's common usage in current parlance to say a president was elected on "Election day" Lincoln wasn't elected president until the Electors of each state met and sent their results to Washington. When the results were tallied and read in front of a joint session of congress, he was elected. Rebsiot 07:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I'll look it over in more detail tonight, but can someone either find a source for the fact tag or get rid of that part of the lead/reqrite that part?--Wizardman 17:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

McPherson in "Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution" makes the point that Lincoln was instrumental in shifting the focus of American Liberty from negative liberty (i.e. freedom from government intrusion) as embodied in the Bill of Rights to positive liberty -- the utilization of the government to expand, in McPherson's words, "notions of equity, justice, social welfare, equality of opportunity." (page 64). In Lincoln's words (from his July 4, 1861 speech to Congress), the war was "a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all."

Harry Jaffa in "A New Birth of Freedom" looks at the same speech from Lincoln and concludes that it is consistent with Lincoln's consistent position, in Jaffa's words, was that "the Declaration of Independence had formed the 'sheet anchor' of American republicanism." (page 399) Jaffa concludes that this is a specific rejection of the Southern conception of republicanism in general and Calhoun's philosophy in particular.

While I did not write the phrase in question, it seems like the above provides specific support for the claim that a significant change in the concept of the role of republican government had changed. I will add the footnotes as soon as I'm finished here. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is not sufficient to find a source that seems to deal with this "redefining republican values" - it needs to be fleshed out in the article what this is supposed to mean. It is not appropriate to have it in the intro if there is no explanation AND it is not even in the main article--JimWae 04:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point by JimWae and so I tried to flesh out the republicanism theme with citations--brieflt in the lede and in more depth in the text. Rjensen 04:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

A very long article, but under-referenced. Work towards over 100 cites for such a well known figure. WikiNew 21:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hanging

The section on the hanging is not vandalism. Obviously Lincoln's body wasn't used as it is federaly protected. A figurine of Lincoln was used in the hanging. This section was added by me, but was deleted by someone else most likey because of Political Correctness. And I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased. --Mark D. 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The number one reason is that you did a copy and paste, that is clear copyright violation. Number two, this is an event that took place just as something to do, and was posted on Keene Free Press, whatever that is. So really, it this has nothing to do with being unbiased. It is information that doesn't need to be added. If we were to add everything that involved someone doing something with Lincolns name, this article would be endless. This is an encyclopedia.--Kranar drogin 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This information is relevent, I only copied and pasted the bloody charges, which can't be changed. But, whatever, I am totaly over this crap, obviously Wikipedia has gone bad, to politicaly correct. Now I know why the educated and the educators don't view Wikipedia as an acceptable source.--Mark D. 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually was looking at this discussion page because I am upset by how biased and innaccurate the article is. Lincoln was not a strong opponent of slavery, nor a defender of Republicanism. There should be a large list of criticisms about Lincoln as he is very unpopular among a large contigent of the population. Fragility 16:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. There are several books that document proof that Lincoln was not concerned about abolishing slavery, but preserving the Union. Also his belief in "colonization" can easily lead to this conclusion. Destroying habeus corpus during the war is also never mentioned. This article is clearly biased and needs to be adjusted to reflect legitimate criticisms. Keith K. 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is biased and often inaccurate. Hopefully a consensus can be built to bring the article closer to the documented record. Gwen Gale 20:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that brings about a very interesting question. A huge amount has been written about Lincoln - just in the academic press alone (a generally respected source as far as encyclopedia articles go). How do we accomodate all the various academic views? Rklawton 20:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And that's a helpful question too. Maybe this could be done with sub-sections, within the existing sections, each dealing with a different take on AL, as fitting. Gwen Gale 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we support all published academic views equally or just those accepted by mainstream academics? And how do we tell the difference? Rklawton 20:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All published academic views should be included (WP:V). The strong PoV of mainstream academics can be given sway in the overall narrative (WP:WEIGHT), the research of dissenting historians should be mentioned and cited. Gwen Gale 07:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

lincoln sexuality in see also

I have reverted the removal of Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln from the see also section. The person who removed it said it was not relevant to this article. An article about Abraham Lincoln is relevant to the central article on Abraham Lincoln.Lotusduck 23:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is beyond a piece of dog crap and that is being nice. The help section also says " See also WP:NOT Please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so see also sections should only include links directly pertaining to the topic of an article and not large general pieces of information loosely connected (or not at all connected) to the subject." That garbage is WAY beyond "loosely connected". Don't you want this project to be taken HALF seriously? If so, you'll seriously consider removing that trash. Thanks, --Tom 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur per WP:NOT, specifically WP:SOAP. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Simply discussing the fact that some revisionist historians (I do not use "revisionist" here as a pejorative, but rather in its technical sense) believe Lincoln may have had homosexual inclinations in a separate article, linked in the "see also" page violates either WP:NOT or the more specific WP:SOAP. It's certainly not given any undue weight, being relegated to a link in the "see also" section. And the article is most certainly NOT "beyond a piece of dog crap" by any means, and calling it such is not "being nice." It clearly violates WP:CIV to speak so pejoratively about other editors hard work.K. Scott Bailey 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you bring up a good point. What is our threshold of evidence concerning revisionist (again, not perjorative) histories on Lincoln? Such a well-known public figure has literally hundreds of various theories about him, very few of which are encyclopedic and worthy of note. Simply b/c one historian published a book on the topic does not necessarily make it worthwhile. What is required is several supporting independent sources. (Note: articles about the book do not count.)Djma12 ^(talk) 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen speculation in more than one place regarding Lincoln's sexuality. However, I do not wish to take a hard position in this discussion, as it's not an area of expertise for me, and I currently have my hands full over at James Buchanan with a similar issue. Ironically, I'm perceived as on the other side of this same debate there, though that's not my position at all. As for what the standard should be, I would say that a "vocal minority" would do, as long as the speculation was well-sourced per WP:REDFLAG.K. Scott Bailey 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on lincolns sexuality conforms to every wikipedia standard, including Soap Box since it's all attributed to multiple reputable published sources including the NY Times. An article sourcing that many experts in the field writing about Lincolns life is connected to an article on lincoln, far more than the article also in see also "list of lincoln/kennedy coincidences" is.75.161.139.51 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Lotusduck

Because one disagrees with a certain premise doesn't mean a topic shouldn't be covered or included, your opinion of the article's quality isn't relevant, I don't think. Clearly it is connected, the article is titled "Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln". IvoShandor 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on our discussion relating to policy the link will be re-included. The support of some users is cool, but of course wikipedia is not a consensus and adherence to policy trumps trying to get everyone to agree.Lotusduck 02:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think you need to demonstrate WP:REDFLAG concerning this. What are your sources and why are they extraordinary? Djma12 ^(talk) 02:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What on Red Flag applies to this article? The claim is well known, I've never heard a lincoln biographer appear on television and not be asked their position on these ideas. The article has 22 reliable sources including the new york times. The article does not make any claims disupted by the academic community, it discusses attributed disputes in the academic community--there is a difference. Lotusduck 02:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, every Lincoln biographer is asked about Lincoln's ass piston partners? Please give it a rest. This is obviously a case of agenda pushing. Just come clean that the agenda here is to give some sort of creedance to the rumor/gossip that Lincoln performed homosexual acts. Get some good glossies of him in action and then link the article. Until then its still dog crap and there are a bizzilion other web sites that would love this bull. Cheers, --Tom 13:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing this in the wrong place. Articles should link to other article about the same subject. Lincoln articles should have links to other Lincoln articles. If you have a problem with the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln article, you need to edit that, or discuss on its talk page, or AfD it. For one thing it would be useful if those with access to biographies of him to provide more information about his relationship with his wife to aid the balance of that article. WjBscribe 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I am arguing this in the right spot. People with an agenda are pushing to have that article linked to this. Just because they share the same name in the article does not mean it automatically or deserves to be linked. This is well poisoning by association. Why is so important that this other article is linked here? --Tom 14:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To aid navigation between related articles. The point of the "see also" section is to link related articles. In this case other articles about Abraham Lincoln are clearly relevant and the reader should be made aware that there is more content available on the subject of "Abraham Lincoln". And please assume good faith about your fellow editors, you are making rather strong accusations. WjBscribe 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are currently only seven references in the "See Also" section. In the category page “Abraham Lincoln” there are 92 different articles referring to Lincoln. I was under the impression that this was the primary avenue for making a reader aware that there is more content available on the subject of Abraham Lincoln. The category page is intended to be all inclusive whereas the “See Also” obviously is not. I would think that the point of this discussion should center on whether this single article about the opinion of primarily one non-biographer and non-historian merits special reference, in and above the other 92 articles on the category page. Tom (North Shoreman) 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That would make too much sense and be too reasonable. I, on the other hand, would like to get back to the agenda pushing issue here and would like editor(s) to come clean on WHY it is so important to have this article linked under "See also" rather than listed as a category of Abe? Thanks, --Tom 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I mostly started this, and I am "coming clean" and explaining why this belongs in see also, other than that most people agree-- It belongs in see also because this page is largely a lincoln biography, and sexuality of abraham lincoln centers on several written biographies of different viewpoints on the subject. It is also a subject of controversy featured on many political news discussion shows on radio and television. Ease of navigation is important because Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is not the term anyone would assume to type into wikipedia. If someone were looking for that article, they would read the section here on his early life first. And so, nobody has accused you of having an agenda, in accordance with good faith, likewise nobody has removed the list of kennedy-lincoln coincidences and accused whomever put it there of having a supernatural conspiracy agenda. The article on Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is based on the work of biographers and historians, and more biographer and historian articles could be sourced for it, according to a quick peruse of what google scholar gives me on the subject. You are the last hold out on this issue. I feel the talk page has resolved that the link be included, except for you. So seriously cut it out.Lotusduck 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure who you are talking to, but to say that this is "featured on many political news discussion shows on radio and television" is beyond a stretch. Not every fringe theory that can't be proved needs to be linked to this article.--Tom 18:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Including myself, I come up with three people at least contesting the link. Contrary to your claim, there should be no problem finding the article using the wikipedia search. Someone typing in "Abraham Lincoln gay" in the wikipedia search will come up first with "No page with that title exists", but when you then search the words from that page "Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln" is the first article that comes up. If you use "Abraham Lincoln sex" for the search it is the second article that comes up. Not to mention the fact that, as I've noted earlier, the article can be identified from the "Abraham Lincoln Category" page. Why should this one article be specially listed when all of the 94 other relevant articles are not? Tom (North Shoreman) 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Accompanied, as it is, by several eruptions of intemperate language, I don't get Tom's point for deleting the link. User convenience ought to be one of the desirable editorial criteria. It's a convenience thing, Tom, and your charge of agenda-pursuit is not only discourteous but wrong and irrelevant. CoppBob 04:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually the agenda pushing about this is VERY relevant. Having that fringe theory article in the category Abe Lincoln is more than fair. Every fringe article should not be listed under "see also". Should I repeat more slowly? Again, until I see the 5 by 8 glossies of Abe in action, that article is beyond fringe, imo. --Tom 13:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The other users (as well as yours) concerns have been addressed, and they have essentially consented. This is you against both policy and other users. Your criteria for "fringe" is not relatable to policy, guideline or common sense. The New York Times and many other news sources that have written on the topic at length are not fringe. If someone was looking for this information they would first read the biography in this article. There are then essentially two simple and convinient options for navigation: a see also link to sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, or a sentance referencing the scholarly debate on lincolns letters etcetera with a link to that page. In the meantime, even if you had an argument that worked with policy, it is not okay to repeatedly revert going against the talk page conclusion.Lotusduck 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy is to go with the experts, who have rejected these claims. Let's keep the junk history out. Rjensen 18:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please cite to the exact policy to which you refer. "Junk History" to my knowledge is not anywhere in our policies. Secondly, that it's junk history is your own personal opinion, not shared by others, including reliable sources. Constant harping on the issue isn't going to change anything. It's here, it's staying. That should be apparent by now. Wjhonson 20:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Historian Richard Brookhiser (footnote number 1 in the Sexuality article) has this to say about the book:

“Tripp died in May 2003, after finishing the manuscript of this book, which means he never had a chance to fix its flaws. The prose is both jumpy and lifeless, like a body receiving electric shocks. Tripp alternates shrewd guesses and modest judgments with bluster and fantasy. He drags in references to Alfred Kinsey (with whom he once worked) to give his arguments a (spurious) scientific sheen. And he has an ax to grind. He is, most famously, the author of The Homosexual Matrix. Published in 1975, it was a document of gay liberation. Since the other president sometimes thought to have been gay is the wretched James Buchanan, what gay activist wouldn't want to trade up to Lincoln? Still, obsession can discover things that have been overlooked by less fevered minds.”

While he doesn’t actually say “junk history”, he comes awfully darn close. None of the historians, even the two who contributed to the introduction and one of the “afterwards” to the book, attempt to argue that Tripp actually made his case. There is not a single historian (these would be the most reliable sources I would guess) quoted (there are probably about 10,000 or so works on Lincoln to choose from) that claims Lincoln was gay. The discussion of Lincoln as potentially gay has been around for about 15 years according to Tripp. Considering how many books by historians have been written during that time about Lincoln, the silence on the subject by professionals is deafening.

I agree that the Tripp work warrants its own article. I have yet to see, however, anyone address my question concerning why this article warrants special attention in the “see also section” above the other 94 articles that also refer to Lincoln (I think some folks are mistaking my comments for another editor who also signs himself as “Tom”). I am sure that it is possible to overwhelm this discussion with folks who want to expand Tripp into the main article, but that doesn’t change the fact that historians overwhelmingly either disagree with, or ignore, Tripp’s conclusions. Tom (North Shoreman) 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki rules insist on reliable sources. Many experts say Tripp is UN-reliable and none say he's reliable. Including him violates the basic Wiki rule. Rjensen 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your uncited opinion on many, most, some or anything else is just that. There is no "basic Wiki rule", you should read the policies we have and cite them if you're going to try to use them. Finally your red herring argument is just that, Tripp is not the sole authority in this area, and you know this. We've been over it many many times. The reference is not going to go away. So you need to figure out how to live with it. Wjhonson 06:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And Tom when you say that Wikipedia has 94 other articles which "refer to Lincoln" do you actually mean to state that we have 94 other articles which are "completely about Lincoln" ? Because if you do I, for one, would certainly like to see that list of 94. In fact we should have a [[Category:Lincoln]] if that's really the case. Now if you really meant "refer" than I would submit that Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is in a class entirely relevant to this article as it's entirely about Lincoln, not merely referring to him. Wjhonson 06:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a Category:Abraham Lincoln -- top right hand corner of the main article. Like two other articles from that page, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream and The Real Lincoln, Tripp's work falls into this type of fringe Lincoln "scholarship" -- it exists so let's acknowledge its existence, as we've done, without giving it a prominent place in the main article on Lincoln. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Red flag

Don't think WP:REDFLAG can apply to the link to another article. You might apply that policy to question the content of the other article, but it seems natural for articles about subject X to link to other articles about subject X. There is no claim being made by the "see also" link. Its just a link. I suggest you take up problems you might have with Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln on that article's talkpage. WjBscribe 03:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation Link

Should it say "other persons named Abraham Lincoln" when in reality it links to Lincoln-related events and other various non-specifically person related pages? Brett 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone is changing dates... Apparently Mr. Lincoln is going to be born in the future.

His views on freeing the slaves

Why was the link Abraham Lincoln on slavery deleted? --Uncle Ed 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the one that deleted your work. The following is what you added:

"Lincoln expressed his opposition to slavery, from his first public statements in 1837, and never wavering.He recognized that the whole country did not share his views, and he did not force the issue. The closest he came to compromising his views came during his debates with Douglas, where he subordinated the cause of Abolition (slavery) to the principle of maintaining the Union.

In actuality Lincoln was silent on the issue of slavery for much of the time between 1837 and 1854. Since he never proposed, until the Emancipation Proclamation, the abolition of slavery it is inaccurate to label him as an abolitionist even though Lincoln always thought slavery was wrong. In fact if you go back to 1837 you will find that he spoke out against abolitionists. In the Lincoln Douglas debates Lincoln was maneuvered into making many statements that, by today's standards, are racist, but the issue of subordinating the slavery issue to preserving the Union didn't really arise until after the war started (perhaps you had the exchange with Greeley in 1862 in mind). Tom (North Shoreman) 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your edit, and for sharing your opinion about Lincoln's life. Can you provide a source for your assertion that he "silent on the issue of slavery for much of the time between 1837 and 1854"? If it's true, there must be countless of sources that would back that up, possibly even using the exact same words you did.

I added my two cents after seeing a list of quotations, dated during that period. In fact, the one that got me going was (hold on to your hat) in protest of a measure against abolitionists. I hope it's not "original research" to parse a double negative.

Anyway, I won't revert your change, since you were kind enough to explain it. --Uncle Ed 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

When you referenced 1837 I assumed you were referring to the instance in which Lincoln indicated that abolitionists tended to aggravate rather than alleviate tensions over slavery. From 1837 until 1854 the two major public speeches of Lincoln were his congressional attacks on the Mexican War and his later eulogy on Henry Clay which did mention Clay's views on slavery -- although I believe he probably would have spoken out regarding the Wilmot Proviso. My intent was to differentiate Lincoln's career during this time period from Free Soilers and actual abolitionists in the 1840s who were starting to make slavery a primary focus of their politics. It was really not until Kansas-Nebraska that Lincoln chose to direct his focus in that area. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln was far from silent on the issue of slavery between 1837 to 1854. http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/slavery/al01.htm

Although Lincoln could never be called a true abolitionist during this time I believe Uncle Ed was correct to state, "Lincoln expressed his opposition to slavery, from his first public statements in 1837, and never wavering."

If you check out the link you provided you will see that the site happens to also skip right from 1837 to 1854. I have also already clarified what I meant in my original statement. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

PS What is the deal with deleting part of my earlier statement? Tom (North Shoreman) 19:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete anything. I did not touch the article.

I just wanted to make the point that claiming Lincoln was "slient" on salvery from 1837 to 1854 is not correct. He made numerous statements during that time period and not to get to anal about this but the fact is, if Lincon made just one public statement he could not be called "slient" on the issue. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slave07.htm

POV in the intro

I removed some stuff that just seemed to be written from a very anti-Lincoln perspective. It wasn't neutral. --Revolución hablar ver 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding a creative / fun link

I just created an Abe Lincoln Mad Lib based on your article. If you think it might be funny to others, feel free to add it to the links, otherwise, forget I ever was here!

Abraham Lincoln Mad Lib —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.233.38.152 (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

1946?

why is abraham's lincoln early life to 1946? someone should fix that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.176.6.8 (talk • contribs). of 12.07.07

Fixed it it is 1854. Thanks. --Bhadani (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

National Union Party reference

I am thinking that this article would be more accurate by stating somewhere within the first inroductory paragraphs that Lincoln was the 1864 presidential candidate of the National Union Party (United States) (a political collaboration with "War Democrats") and elected to his second term in office as a National Unionist.

Lincoln also died not as a Republican, but as a National Unionist as well...4.129.71.205 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

famous dream?

From the article:

Without his main bodyguard Ward Hill Lamon, to whom he related his famous dream regarding his own assassination...

Sounds interesting. Authoritative? (redacting blacklisted URL during reversion)

article content copied to yahoo.answers

Looks like someone copied the article and pasted it here: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070404222751AAwTJUR

image = Lincoln with Inscription.jpg

This text: image = Lincoln with Inscription.jpg, is obviously accidentally inserted right before the last line of the article. Needs to be removed.

• Yep! Thanks! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Depression

How come there is no mention of the fact that Lincoln suffered from depression most of his life? There is ample evidence of this. He had a couple breakdowns in his life and was even suicidal. I think it would just be helpful to know that throughout his life he dealt with a lot of mental anguish, even while doing great things.MJKent 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I give you the same answer I give every "How come there is no mention of ..." question I run across:

Because nobody's gone there yet. If you can type, and have sources you can cite, and can work within Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and standards, then you have good contributions to make and I urge you to go to it!  :)

That is what Wikipedia is all about. --7Kim 05:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

POV section title

Mexican American War to Anti War Activist? You decide. I don't edit here but watch and it seems the change has been made. I won't edit war, so I am not reverting it again, but you can discuss it here if needed. IvoShandor 07:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Letter from Greeley and its Missing Section

Although I realize that the missing portion may not be directly relevant to the section of the article in question, it is pretty common practice for people who want to mischaracterize Lincoln to do so by quoting only the portion of the letter in question which is quoted in this article.

I feel like the last sentence (which clarifies that the above words described only his official position and not his actual beliefs) should be included somewhere as well. Kevinatilusa

Lincoln in art and popular culture

It looks like this article is locked, Under Lincoln in art and popular culture I would like to add the fact that The Simpsons writer Mike Reiss created a parody Flash cartoon of Abraham Lincoln for Icebox.com called Hard Drinkin' Lincoln where President Lincoln is portrayed as an Alcoholic, Irish hating, public masturbator who is shot in the head in each episode by John Wilkes Booth. 68.160.106.24 02:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Very long link.

Resolved

Is there any chance that we can get another reliable source besides this link? It makes it hard for me to see the difference on revisions, when there are changes close to the location of this link. TheBlazikenMaster 16:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind that. A new feature takes care of this anyway. TheBlazikenMaster 21:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bicentennial coverage

Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois will be engaging in Lincoln bicentennial celebration and events starting in February 2008. Perhaps this should be covered here? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Does this seem out of place since its only one line and one source?? Thanks --Tom 18:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a one sentence section that says, basically, Lincoln was a racist but so was everybody else back then is really out of place. There is a separate article on Letrone Bennett (the source footnoted) under the general category of Abraham Lincoln, and a separate article on Lincoln and slavery as well as the Lincoln-Douglas debate -- all better places to discuss the nuances of Lincoln's views on race. I've gone ahead and deleted the section. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent and thanks! --Tom 19:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose the section is brought back and expanded upon. And believe me you, I can DEFINETLY expand upon it --Darrin (Thorsmitersaw) Sept. 27 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Marriage and Family

I changed the section back to its original title -- this was changed with no explanation offered but it was apparently another attempt to provide a prominent cross reference to the Sexuality article. That article as it stands has little or nothing to do with either Lincoln's marriage or family and the cross reference placed there was inappropriate. The current section of this article does not discuss Lincoln's marriage other than name who his wife was. Tom (North Shoreman) 17:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious and philosophical beliefs

I rewrote the section to include both religious and philosophical beliefs rather than strictly religious. I included the ideas of Miller, Wilson, Guelzo, and Jaffa who are among the leading historians today exploring Lincoln's intellectual and moral life, with emphasis on how it effected Lincoln's public life. I purposefully eliminated specific references to what Lincoln read and church he belonged to. I think that once that door is opened, this section would need to be vastly expanded in order to discuss the matter more fully. There is a separate article on Lincoln's religious beliefs that is better suited to go into those details and arguments. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dakota comment

In section Fighting begins: 1861–1862 / Domestic measures, there is a sentence that reads, "Presented with 303 death warrants for convicted Santee Dakota who had massacred innocent farmers, Lincoln affirmed 39 of these for execution (one was later reprieved)." The latter part, which details Lincoln's specific involvement and influence, seems appropriate. But as there is a link to the Sioux Uprising article in the preceding sentence, the detail "who had massacred innocent farmers" seems like an insidious detail (of what kind I need not specify). After all, why make an uncited judgement when the sentence already identifies that those Santee Dakota were "convicted" and when the sentence provides a link to more details? I will not edit, but I suggest that "who had massacred innocent farmers" is ommitted to keep focus.--24.13.242.3 16:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Blacklisted URL deleted

Due to a series of vandalism edits from an IP editor, I reverted this talk page to the last good version, from Deskana on 1 June 2007. However, I had to delete a URL in the "famous dream" section because it was blacklisted. You'll need to check the history if you have a need to access it. Sorry. Horologium t-c 05:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Smallpox is Missing!

The article is missing Abraham Lincoln's case of smallpox in year 1863!

Articles:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273560,00.html

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_healthblog/2007/05/lincoln_had_sma.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18727435/

Ready to be featured for the second time?

It seems well sourced, currently has no maintance tags. So I'm asking is it ready to be re-featured? I'm not an expert, so that's why I'm asking you guys first before nominating it. I will nominate it tomorrow, first I need to know if it's a good idea. TheBlazikenMaster 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s ready. A main reason for its downgrade in October 2006 was the lack of footnotes. While the number has more than doubled, there are still some sections where footnotes are needed (i.e. the sections on “secession winter” and “fighting begins”). The March 2007 rejection of GA status suggested working toward 100 footnotes and while this seems arbitrary, there are certainly areas where more footnotes would help, especially considering this is a controversial subject (although I think the article’s NPOV is its strongpoint). The references section should probably be broken down into sources actually used and further reading and the manner of listing them should be consistent (i.e. some authors are listed last name first while others aren’t, some include publishers or ISBNs and others don’t). There are works listed in the footnotes that apparently aren’t in the bibliographical section.

The following paragraph from lede to the article:

Lincoln's leadership qualities were evident in his close supervision of the victorious war effort, especially in his selection of Ulysses S. Grant and other top generals. Historians conclude he brilliantly handled the factions of the Republican Party by bringing the leaders into his cabinet and forcing them to cooperate. In crisis management, he defused a war scare with the United Kingdom (1861), he outmaneuvered the Confederacy and took control of the border slave states in 1861-62, and he managed his own landslide reelection in the 1864 presidential election.

is a fine paragraph but it is not supported in the main body of the article. Giving the issues raised in this paragraph proper attention would require quite a bit of new writing and leaving the paragraph out would leave a significant gap in the article. Other areas need more attention (i.e. no reference at all to the Cooper Union speech, no mention of troubles with Fremont and Hunter, very little on Mary Todd Lincoln, too little on the election of 1864). Tom (North Shoreman) 23:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Al right then. Good point. Sometime in the past I idioticly nominated featured articles when they weren't ready, that's why I'm from now on just asking via talkpages first. TheBlazikenMaster 00:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Early life and career

Lincoln's law career, especially his connection with railroad litigation, is an important part of his life and development and needs to be treated with some detail in the main article. I have restored the 2-3 paragraphs that were deleted and could serve as an introduction to the separate article. The separate article on his early life and career was created simply by cutting and pasting from the main article -- nobody has done much to expand it and as it stands it serves no real purpose. Tom (North Shoreman) 23:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So why don't you nominate that particular article to WP:AFD? Template:Unsignesd

I certainly won't object if someone wants to do it, but personally I imagine at some point in the next year I might want to expand it myself. Tom (North Shoreman) 23:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Next year? I think it's too long time. But don't rush yourself though, just do it when you feel like it. I personally don't care if or when this will happen. But I still suggest that waiting til next year is ridiculous. TheBlazikenMaster 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"especially economic liberalism"

Lincoln’s religious skepticism was fueled by his exposure to the ideas of the Lockean Enlightenment and classical liberalism, especially economic liberalism. - would it be too much to ask for a citation of the relevant text in the claimed source? This seems like propaganda. 75.183.8.246 03:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you go to the actual source referenced (there is a footnote there) if it seems like "propaganda" to you. I have summarized in one sentence what is covered in three rather long paragraphs and have no intention of transcribing them here. Partial quotes which do not capture the complete context are, "The second of these contexts was the Lockean Enlightenment, which made Lincoln religiously skeptical ..." and "The last of these concepts was classical liberalism, especially the economic liberalism ... ." What facts and sources do you base your opinion on that this is "propaganda"? Tom (North Shoreman) 12:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In "Early Life" the sentence following the first paragraph should probably not be there.

Got it -- thanks. Tom (North Shoreman) 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Photograph of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inauguration

The caption you have under the photo of Lincoln's Second Inauguration is unproven. This is particularly true of Ned Spangler who was never shown to even know Booth's coconspirators let alone hang out with them. Please see my web page at http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton1/Lincoln64.html

"It should be noted that many Lincoln assassination experts do not agree with the Kunhardts’ analysis of this photograph. For example, in The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies, Dr. William Hanchett writes, "In Twenty Days (1865), Dorothy Meserve Kunhardt and Philip B. Kunhardt, Jr., have combined hundreds of magnificently reproduced contemporary photographs and other pictures with an informed and judicious narrative of the assassination, its background and aftermath. One regrets only their claim to have identified Booth and some of the men associated with him in an enlarged (and well-publicized) photograph of the ceremony at Lincoln’s second inauguration, March 4, 1865."

12.77.213.59 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Roger Norton

Crow's nest

Please verify/quote the recent addition to Crows Nest. BTW, if this is true, what/where is written about this in wikipedia? `'Míkka 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Last Photograph of Abraham Lincoln in life

I am writing regarding your photo caption which reads,"One of the last photographs of Lincoln, likely taken between February and April 1865." This is somewhat misleading as that photo was taken by Gardner on Sunday, February 5, 1865. The last photo of Lincoln was taken Monday, March 6, 1865, by a photographer named Henry F. Warren. I have a web page devoted to this subject at http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton1/Lincoln71.html

12.77.224.231 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Roger Norton, August 3, 2007

Quite right. One of the problems, however, is that so many sources can be found giving the April date for the image, that it's hopeless to try to update it here - too many editors make "drive by edits" without bothering to check the talk page. The result is the unfortunate compromise you've spotted. Rklawton 02:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange paragraph

Why is this at all necessary:

Historian Allan Nevins argues that Lincoln made three miscalculations in believing that he could preserve the Union, hold government property, and still avoid war. He "temporarily underrated the gravity of the crisis", overestimated the strength of Unionist sentiment in the South and border states, and misunderstood the conditional support of Unionists in the border states.[27]

It just expresses an opinion and is out of place--Southern Texas 16:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it should be deleted but maybe placed somewhere differently. I'll try to find a place--Southern Texas 16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If Nevins is arguing that Lincoln's actions in the crises concerning Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens were rooted in miscalculations, that is very specious, and certainly not unopposed. I would refer to the discussion in "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James M. McPherson, including the footnotes. His "holding and posessing" government property was not just a ploy, but was based on two things: principle and also maneuvering the South into a position where it had to fire the first shots of the war. Maybe initially Lincoln had some miscalculation, but McPherson says that there is good evidence to support that shortly before the time Fort Sumter was fired upon, that Lincoln had soured on the idea of lingering Unionism (at least in the state of Virginia), and had reason to believe the Confederates would fire first without direct provocation. At least Lincoln was able to prevent his being blamed for the start of the war in the North. This is a legitimate viewpoint that I may add in in response to Nevins assertions. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by John ISEM (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Execution

Do we know the names of those involved with Booth and did they get fair trial and when was their execution?>

External links

The "External links" section is way too long. Wikipedia is not a directory of links and this section needs to be trimmed down. Anyone else want to give it a stab? --ElKevbo 03:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree one hundred percent, but I can't do anything about it. I don't even know which site is important and which isn't. Perhaps we should tag the section somehow? TheBlazikenMaster 10:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Breaking News- Lincoln- Hemifacial microsomia

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2007-08-13-lincoln-facial-asymmetry_N.htm This discovery is certainly worthy of entry into the article. 71.60.175.60 04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the published synopsys[2] It's better to go with the original publication than with a 2nd party report on it - so long as the original publication comes from a reliable source. If we had an article on his health, it might go there. There are several other health-related topics that might help round out a nice article on the matter. Rklawton 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The name

Could someone please record the name "Abraham Lincoln" and add it WC?--Alnokta 08:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Lincoln‎

If anybody is interested they probably should comment here. This is an article about one of Lincoln's first American ancestors that might be on the verge of deletion.--Southern Texas 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your heads up -- I've added my two cents. Tom (North Shoreman) 00:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted. If anybody feels it should be undeleted please comment here.--Southern Texas 03:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Recommend changing "During his term, he helped preserve the United States by leading the defeat of the secessionist Confederate States of America in the American Civil War." to "During his term, he helped preserve the unity of the United States by leading the defeat of the secessionist Confederate States of America in the American Civil War." as it's more accurate.-no tildes on keyboard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.70.124.194 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

the duel

The letters were written by Mary Todd according to several sources including; The Boys Life of Abraham Lincoln, by Helen Nicolay; Our Martyr Presidents, by John Coulter 1901; and The Every-day life of Abraham Lincoln, By Francis F. Brown 1886. The Brown book has an eyewitness account by Major J.M. Lucas who was "was an eye-witness of the duel which took place—or, rather, which did not take place—at Alton, across the Mississippi river, in 1842". In the Coulter book, Chip Chapman, a family friend of the Lincoln's, recounts the story as told by Lincoln himself, in which the letters are again verified as written by Mary Todd.

Acccording to all three accounts, the editor of the newspaper, upon being confronted by Shields demanding the name of the author of the articles, was unsure what to do. Unwilling to release the name of the true author, Ms.Todd, but afraid of a confrontation with Shields, he asked Lincolns. Lincoln told him to tell Shields that Lincoln had written the letter, and so took the blame for Ms.Todd's actions.

These events are verified by first hand account of the incident and a first hand account of Lincoln's telling of the story. These details, including the nature of their veracity, should be included in the main article. The event as currently described portrays Lincoln as having began the trouble and writing anonymous slander. The truth of him accepting the blame as a matter of honor portrays a completely different, much more honorable, and more accurate picture of Lincoln.

Please correct immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincolnfactsfactsfacts (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just grammar

213.233.159.69 09:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC) "Scholars rank Lincoln among the top three U.S. Presidents, with the highest of those surveyed placing him at number one. " Is this saying that some of the Scholars were high when surveyed and those placed him at number one among US presididents? I think a simple statement that some scholars regard him as "top" president (by what criteria) and many view him as one of the "top" three to date.

I assume the writers try to convey that "those" here means "scholar rankings" and the highest result of those put Lincoln at the top. But the sentence is ambiguous, admittedly. And wtf this page protected so long? 58.187.106.176 12:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Because whenever this page is unprotected all kinda unregistered people add all kind of bullshit about him. This kinda bullshit is called vandalism, for more info read this: WP:VANDALISM. TheBlazikenMaster 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a minor edit to that ambiguous sentence: "with the highest *number* of those surveyed placing him at number one." This is my understanding of the intended meaning, based on reading the referenced article about presidential rankings by historians. Forestgarden 22:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree the sentence is poorly worded. Changed to "... majority of those surveyed..." How does that look? Unimaginative Username 04:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing Historical rankings of United States Presidents, I modified the above to "... greatest number..." A "majority" would mean that more than half of the scholars surveyed ranked him as #1, and that is not at all certain. He scored #1 in half (6/12) of the surveys listed, but note: "although some politicians and celebrities also took part." ... There is no breakdown of the votes cast by each "scholar" in each survey, so "majority" or "more than half" is not known, but it is very evident that Lincoln received a greater number of votes than any other President. Unimaginative Username 05:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC), (member, WP:LoCE).

Vice Presidency

I wanted to change a part of the entry on Abraham Lincoln. Under the election of 1864, it says that Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson as his running mate in an attempt to garner widespread electoral support. My problem is: Lincoln purposefully did not indicate a preference for vice president before the Republican nominating convention. Though many asked him whether he preferred Hamlin, Johnson, or others, he refused to answer. Therefore, the entry should read: the Republican Party "selected Andrew Johnson, a War Democrat from the Southern state of Tennessee, as his running mate in order to form a broader coalition."

Thoughts?

Hstrybff 04:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Omitting facts to misrepresent Lincoln in a positive light (and hiding behind a lie of neutrality)

NOTE (december 2007): Below, months ago, I challenged this articles nuetrality and questioned the threatening tactics of previous writers. If my tone seems angry then it must be noted that I wrote this very soon after recieving shallow threats of ban and block. Darrin (Thorsmitersaw)

I am concerned that this article portrays Lincoln in a "positive" light and excludes inconvenient facts to that end and utilizes flattering (and very biased) language. In essence, by eliminating any "negative" (read:inconvenient) facts about him, a biased and false positive image of him is portrayed. I would say that this itself is a clever violation of the neutrality Wikipedia requests, and counter to the claims of those who have threatened me, putting a positive spin on Lincoln is inherently not neutral, and omitting "negative" facts about him is enforcing that and is NOT "vandalism".

I had attempted to add some content to this article before and it was deleted so I started this discussion in order to gain some support for adding criticisms and to end the omission of important historical facts about his presidency and his policies both in war and without. Perhaps this is more professional and conducive to the community sort of atmosphere Wikipedia attempts.

specific concerns: "However, as a strict follower of the constitution, Lincoln refused to take any action against the South unless the Unionists themselves were attacked first"

This sentence alone is absolutely erroneous and misleading to the point of insanity. It is an outright lie and contradictory to even the position taken later in this article that he derived his policies from the Declaration and not the Constitution. He violated the constitution in SO many ways during his presidency and provoked the south into firing upon Fort Sumter. I will elaborate in some ways below...

Fighting begins 1861–1862

The background to the battle at Fort Sumter is omitted. By not mentioning that several attempts were made to purchase the fort, by not showing that Lincoln sent a warship to resupply the fort, it appears that the south acted aggressively when this is in fact not the case as every opportunity to leave was given.

Mention of Union slave states

It is omitted that Marylands government was overtaken and ejected by Lincoln and they were in effect forced to stay within the Union. Baltimore's mayor was imprisoned. West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved from Virginia as well, forcing it into the territory of the north.

War policy

It is omitted that Lincolns policy of war was switched to that of Total War. Civilians were considered legitimate targets, cities and farms were razed and conservative estimates of around 50,000 southern civilians lost their lives directly or indirectly as a result. There exists an edit by myself here which states the 50,000 bit and needs citation. I have a source, however, I am unfamiliar with how to do so and would appreciate the help or I can provide it myself and you can do it...

Civil Liberties Suspended (the "Reconstruction" section as well)

These sections are so short as to be laughable. His transgressions against basic civil rights and constitutional law are so numerous and glaring that this section really is childish in its coverage. What is further, the section ends with "Nearly all of his actions, although vehemently denounced by the Copperheads, were subsequently upheld by Congress and the Courts." This gives an impression to me that the Courts and Congress were total in support and that this somehow justifies all that he did. Whats more is it omits his illegal threats and expulsion of judges and congressmen. (in particular I believe a Ohio congressman or senator... it escapes me at this moment... was ejected from the country upon his orders). Add to this his mistreatment of captured prisoners and the American style gulags set up for them and civilians. Basic rights of southerners in the reconstruction area being violated to an extreme degree. Nearly 300 newspapers were shut down which would do great justice to display the breadth and severity to the quick mention of this in this article. Democratic northern voters were threatened with federal troops and protesters were gunned down by them. The acts of the Union army under his presidency towards native Americans also cannot be left to the ages. I can go on...

Lincolns Philosophy

What is portrayed here is severely distorted. It leaves the impression that he was a supporter of classical liberalism when he was not in any sense. Economically (economic agenda of mercantilist high tariffs, pork in the form of internal improvements, and the promotion of a central bank) or philosophically. His personal and often expressed hostile views towards blacks (Lincoln is on record opposing equality for blacks, and was a lifetime proponent recolonizing slaves back to Africa). Opposition and obvious transgressions against individual liberties as listed above more than show that despite such cherry picked and flowery language as is presented in their article, he was not liberal in any sense.

Legacy and memorials

This section makes it seem as though he is universally regarded as a hero and as a great president. This assertion has been hotly contested by many for ages. However no mention of this is given or the reasons why.

Darrin (Thorsmitersaw) September 27, 2007

I'd guess that in time these mistakes will likely be fixed, hopefully sooner rather than later. However, since this is a very high profile article on a very public wiki, a consensus of many editors will be needed for this to happen. Gwen Gale 07:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention sources, sources, sources. IvoShandor 07:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of verifiable, reliable and independent secondary sources, much more than enough for WP:RS and never mind all the primary sources to be had, to support an assertion Lincoln was a genocidal tyrant who by his own account had no interest in ending slavery in the United States (slavery ended peacefully in most other countries during the 19th century). Rather, Lincoln repeatedly endorsed and accepted slavery as an institution and was interested only in consolidating and protecting northern business interests which were politically connected to him and his party. This has been unsuccessfully brought up here before and stopped cold by abusive and intimidating vandalism warnings like this. As I said, this is a high profile article and only the consensus of many editors will ever have any sway. I think this will likely happen someday. Hope so. Cheers to all! Gwen Gale 08:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And that ends my involvement in this conversation. The result of the "g-bomb." IvoShandor 13:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean this? Never mind this? No worries. Those words are only sloppy shorthand, I'd never stand for putting them in the text. Meanwhile your helpfully short answer hints at the kind of overwhelming consensus needed to even begin fitting this article to the documented record. I've only spoken up as a reminder that under WP:WEIGHT, this stuff appears in lots of reliable secondary sources and should be brought up on this public wiki. All the best to you! Gwen Gale 19:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to Darrin (Thorsmitersaw)'s criticism's of the article, I'm throwing in my two cents.

"Strict constitutionist" is not a great phrase for Lincoln. To describe Lincoln that way is problematic, but Darrin's solution's have problems of their own>

Fort Sumter: Lincoln "provoked" the South into firing the first shot?

1. Lincoln may have manipulated, to an extent, Davis into firing the first shot. But that's not the same as "provoked".

2. Lincoln believed that secession was "illegal" and that Union sovereignty should be maintained. But so did much northern opinion, and even his predecessor, Buchanan, took the same view. But in light of this, Lincoln would've never sold Ft. Sumter; that would've undercut a symbol of Union sovereignty.

3. The mission to resupply the fort did involve warships, but Lincoln told the SC governor by letter that they were not bringing military supplies, just non-military supplies like "food for hungry men". And the warships would stand by while the fort was resupplied, but would not fire unless agressive action was taken by the South.

4. The bombardment of Ft. Sumter was done before the arrival of the warships and other ships associated by the resupply mission; Davis did not respond to their presence, but took agressive action on their own.

5. Davis fired the first shot not because he was provoked, though he was outmaneuvered. He would have liked to have responded to agressive action from the North, but was not able to create that perception. But he had to deal with the fact that the presence of Ft. Sumter was (in his mind, at least) hurting the resolve of the 7 Confederate states and was also hurting the chances of bringing in more states (Virginia, NC, TN, etc.). To view his action here as being "provoked" is too strong. but "provoked" seems to come from a point of view that it was "right" or that the South was ultimately right. "Maneuvered" into firing the first shot would be a better word, but ultimately Davis fired the first shot for his and the Confederacy's own survival in peace time, not because Lincoln held a gun to his head.

6. James M. McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom discussion of the Ft. Sumter crisis is instructive here.

7. Did Lincoln keep Maryland from joining the Confederacy? It depends on whether MD would've joined or not, if he left them alone. Certainly he went against the Bill of Rights, using the war as a justification or excuse. Of course, this was in line with Lincoln believing that secession was illegal. And if he kept Maryland in the Union, it certainly is consistent with his policy of fighting a war to bring a whole region back into the Union. The question is whether he acted too harshly; if Maryland would've stayed in the Union without his interference, it makes his policy seem more uneccessary. But, whether he was right or not in doing it, if MD would have become part of the Confederacy, in his mind, he was justified in keeping them in the Union. Not to mention it made sense pragmatically, since they were right next to Washington, and he was trying to keep Washington itself in the Union, and safe.

8. Not sure how Reconstruction policies could be blamed on Lincoln. His view of reconstruction was much "nicer" to the South than the Radical Republicans; in any case, Lincoln was assasinated before Reconstruction, and the Radical Republicans view prevailed.

9. Yes, Lincoln did engage in total war. He felt it was the best way to win. I'd like to see the source about 50,000 people.

10. He did kick the Copperhead leader and governor of Ohio out of the US; he sent him to Canada. At one point he was let back in. Lincoln justified it this way by asking whether he should have a deserter from the army shot, and not touch someone who compels him to desert. And that Copperhead leader may have been involved in domestic terrorism plots; if this is true, he was hardly a supporter of non-violence.

11. As to notions (maybe Gwen Gale's) about Lincoln supporting and endorsing slavery; certainly the notion that he was "unwavering" in his anti-slavery beliefs as the article says is problematic. But ultimately he was much better than most of the country on his position on blacks. Are there statements where he denies equality for blacks? The one in the Lincoln-Douglas debates stands out, but he also said they were equal, in a way. It can be argued that ultimately Lincoln was personally anti-slavery, but he acted certain ways politically. He never seemed to waver, though, in being against the expansion of slavery, the main plank of the republican party. His "spot resolution" concerning the Mexican war was an anti-war gesture going along with not wanting to bring slavery territory into the Union. He believed that if slavery was left where it was, it would eventually die out in the best way; he was sensitive to the economic consequences of southern abolition, and did not want to see that. Of course, the war changed things. Did the South see Lincoln as unfriendly to blacks. Hardly, they called him a "Black Republican", and this was the reason they seceded, because they saw his election as being a blow to slavery. There was a change in Lincoln and the North's overall attitude toward slavery politically; his main point was Union, but if Lincoln did not care about slavery otherwise, why did he endorse the 13th amendment which abolished slavery, including in Union slave states (KY, MO, MD, DE)? Certainly he may not have embodied "modern" racial attitudes, but he, like I said earlier, was closer and smarter on the issue than a lot of people. And "colonization" may have been a political ploy; the northern attitude toward slavery and blacks evolved in stages through the war. One quote, not by Lincoln, embodied this "In practice, colonization is a damn humbug. But it will take with the people."

12. Whether the g-word is used in the article or not, I'd like to see how Lincoln was genocidal. Toward blacks? Toward Southerners? Toward Northerners? His point was to win the war, and he would've preferred it with much less loss of life. He did approve of "total war", but as a means of ending the war. The war was bloody because of the skill of the Southern generals. As far as black soldiers were concerned, if this is an issue, in the Battle of the Crater, the Union army witheld black troops from fighting to not give the impression that they just wanted to butcher them. And I don't think he was genocidal toward northerners.

13. Nevertheless, I don't think Lincoln was the white knight that many and the article portrayed him to be. But he was often a humble, smart, and shrewd president (he was not always "Honest Abe", certainly, particularly in his dealings with Chase).

14. For much of what is here, McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom is instructive.

15. My main concern throughout here is that the article needs changes. But if it is biased, substituting another form of bias for the one in the article is no better.John ISEM 21:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations from published writers are all that's needed. Gwen Gale 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Darrin (Thorsmitersaw), it also helps to avoid such inflammatory words as "childish" and "insanity". Calmly stating your objections and the reasons and sources for them will gain them a greater ear than Ad hominem, or personal, attacks against the previous writers. Regards, Unimaginative Username 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I do support what Unimaginative Username says. Please follow WP:CIVIL, it truly does keep editors engaged and makes it much easier to talk about stuff in a helpful way. Gwen Gale 12:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yo will have to excuse my anger protrayed here, it was fueled by several "vandalism" and threatening remarks left upon my discussion page Darrin (Thorsmitersaw),

Regarding #9, the 50,000 civilian deaths, one source is McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 619. This is part of a footnote that says "... a fair estimate of war related civilian deaths might total 50,000, which should be added to the 260,000 Confederate soldier deaths to measure the human cost of the war to the South." (You can see the full context at Amazon.) I asked Dr. McPherson what the source for that claim was and he told me it was simply a guess. (Note the weasel words he uses, "fair estimate," and "might total.") Although it is legitimate to include this number with the proper citation, it needs to be understood in its context. These were not deaths that were caused by soldiers shooting civilians or Southern cities being subjected to artillery bombardment, as some have claimed in discussions of "total war." There are very, very few documented instances of such cases. These are most likely people who suffered the privations of being refugees from war zones, which is a phenomenon present in every war. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

correction: there are very very few DIRECTLY documented cases. More over I did add the qualifier of 'directly or indirectly'. Many of them died through famine, disease, prisons, and direct expulsion (killing) of "seccist" protesters. The southern citie being subjected to bombardment is not topic that is disputed if you are attempting to do so. Darrin (Thorsmitersaw)

Elsewhere on this page two editors are touting the scholarship of the Lew Rockwell folks. Your analysis shows just how irresponsible these folks can be. DiLorenzo makes the following use of the McPherson estimate by writing:

“In his book Battle Cry for Freedom: The Civil War Era (p. 619), Lincoln cultist James McPherson wrote that some 50,000 Southern civilians perished during the War to Prevent Southern Independence. Others have made estimates that are much higher. The only way this could be possible is that if thousands were murdered in cold blood by the U.S. Army.”

Characteristically, DiLorenzo does not explain the remarkable intuitive leap he makes to draw the conclusion that the only way for McPherson’s estimate to be true is if thousands were murdered. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Change Title

self explanatory Pel99 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Enloe rumor

It is notable because it is a widely discussed part of "Lincoln lore," if you will. Most pieces that I have read on Lincoln give the topic at least a cursory mention. A Google Books search for "Abraham Enloe Lincoln" returns 165 hits, and that is only the books available on Google. Is it true? Probably not, though most likely we'll never know for sure. Did Catherine the Great engage in bestiality? No, of course not. Did Marie Antoinette ever utter the phrase, "Let them eat cake?" Not a shred of proof. Were Christians really fed to lions at the Colosseum? No. But when these stories are discussed enough, they gain notability, apocryphal though they may be. Surely a line or two is warranted in Lincoln's article to address a once widely-held belief regarding his parentage? faithless (^speak) 08:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A line or two maybe. WP:V with WP:WEIGHT as a damper. Gwen Gale 10:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If the best that you can say about the Enloe claim is that it was a rumor, then it has no place in the article -- unsubstantiated Lincoln rumors are legion. What might be relevant is a reliable source that says conclusively that Enloe was Lincoln's father. I found an old NY Times review of one of your sources (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D07E1D8173AE532A25752C3A9669D946195D6CF) and far from supporting your claim, the reviewer says Barton discusses seven such rumors and concludes, "It is, of course, hard to prove a negative. But Dr. Barton shows so clearly the wide inconsistencies and impossibilities of these stories as to accomplish that feat." I could not find a review of the Young book on JSTOR -- I have read the Schwartz book but do not own it and I certainly do not remember him making the claim as fact. As far as the Enloe claim being widespread among Lincoln biographies, David Donald does not discuss him, nor do Herndon, Stephen Oates, Doris Kearnes Goodwin, Robert Carwardine, William Harris, et al. I have reverted the section. Tom (North Shoreman) 13:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, and you certainly seem like you know more about Lincoln than do I, I have serious doubts about the accuracy of what you've said. First, the Schwartz book is available on Google Books, you can look it up; you have insinuated that I have falsified a citation, which is unnecessary and offensive. I can't claim to have read all of the authors you listed, but as you don't recall Herndon ever discussing this subject, I doubt that you can either. (As a matter of fact, Herndon was Schwartz's source for the statement regarding Enloe.) The fact is it is a well known rumor, well documented and sourced (yes, properly sourced; next time look it up instead of accusing another editor of lying about a source). As far as rumors having no place in Wikipedia - you're just wrong. Per the examples I've already given and countless others, if a rumor is widespread and widely-discussed in reliable, published sources, they do gain notability. What you don't seem to understand is that no one is suggesting that this be presented as fact, nor did my edits portray it as such. I addressed the rumor, and named it as such, giving several sources. Nero didn't actually play a fiddle while Rome burned (the fiddle hadn't even yet been invented); do we remove that from his article? Your argument is insulting, holds no water and I have serious doubts regarding the truthfulness of your statements. faithless (^speak) 13:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Herndon, I apologize. He used the name "Abraham Inlow" rather than "Abraham Enloe". However none of the sources support your claim that it was "a widespread rumor during Lincoln's lifetime". Herndon suggests that the rumor surfaced around the time he was writing his biography (the 1880s) and Barton says the first written example was in 1893. Do you have any support for your claim that it was "widespread" during Lincoln's lifetime? It appears that an accurate description of the rumor would be that a single person made the claim and efforts made to verify this claim have failed? Tom (North Shoreman) 14:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note, doesn't matter if it's true, WP:V. What matters is if the assertion itself is notable and verifiable as a published assertion, with WP:WEIGHT influencing what proportion of the article deals with it. Moreover, if it's strongly contested by some sources, those can be freely and copiously cited to let readers know how strong/weak historians think the evidence is (or whatever). Gwen Gale 14:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC

You have edited the article to claim, "There was a widespread rumor during Lincoln's lifetime that his biological father was Abraham Enloe." As the originator noted, two of the sources listed are included on Google books (Schwartz and Barton -- see http://books.google.com/books?id=R_uF3rafYYQC&pg=RA1-PA203&dq=Abraham+Enloe#PRA1-PA203,M1 and http://books.google.com/books?id=7hL8-GLkHaYC&pg=PA157&dq=Abraham+Enloe&sig=MoUup7ZQI4T6Hm8jWm1w4qgg71w). Neither of these sources claim that the rumor was "widespread" "during Lincoln's lifetime. Would you like to correct your assertion?

I did not add the word "widespread," that was already in the text when I smoothed it.[3] Cheers! Gwen Gale 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This refinement of the search you kindly provided does seem to support use of the phrase widespread rumour. Gwen Gale 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Spent some pleasant time further perusing the Barton book and Google books in general. I actually found two instances in which Google found mentions of Enloe from works that the paper indexes, and my memory, did not reveal. For example, Stephen Oates does actually mention the name in a sentence in which he denies, without any discussion, that neither John C. Calhoun (yes the John C. Calhoun) nor Enloe were Lincoln's father. Barton is particularly vitriolic in dismissing the rumors, likening them to rumors that anyone could start and suggesting that it made as much sense as claiming that Lincoln and Jeff Davis were twins separated at birth. I have rewritten the section to more accurately reflect the contents of Barton's book. I still don't believe, given the length of the article and the wealth of details available on Lincoln's life that are not in the article, that this rumor, that nobody has shown that any reliable source believes it is true, has any place in this article and hope others weigh in. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As one of the reverters of the rumors section, I concur with the above editors who argue against inclusion of unsubstantiated rumors. K. Scott Bailey 16:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To quote from WP:Weight:"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." The advocates for inclusion seem to think that simply calling something a rumor relieves them from the burden of establishing that ANY reliable source actually considers that rumor credible. The guidelines suggest making a distinction between "small minority" (include in appropriate proportion) and "tiny minority" (exclude) -- to date even TINY has not been established.Tom (North Shoreman) 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not bold your text, it looks like shouting. WP:V: Truth is not the pith, only verifiability of the source. This single sentence is supported by four citations, most of them recent. Gwen Gale 17:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Tom's latest comment, I believe you are misrepresenting (or at least misunderstanding) the policy. No one is trying to give equal weight to this rumor; one or two lines is not giving equal weight whatsoever. For a comparable example, consider JFK. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, you accept that Oswald acted alone in the assassination. Does that mean we shouldn't mention the various conspiracy theories? No, but we should write in a way which makes absolutely clear which is the accepted version of history, and which is the fringe theory. I believe that my addition made this distinction. I can understand the reluctance to mention every single trivial theory about Lincoln's life in the main article; to include them all would make the article quite large, a chore to read and make finding information in it difficult. As a compromise, I propose moving the mention to Abraham Lincoln's early life and career. I can agree that such a minor footnote in Lincoln's life probably doesn't warrant mention on his main page, but I strongly disagree that it doesn't believe in Wikipedia at all. The other article seems the perfect place for it. faithless (^speak) 23:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading the latest edits by Tom and Gwen, I'm satisfied with it if it's agreeable to everyone else. faithless (^speak) 23:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording, but my preference is still that the material be eliminated from the main article, and I hope a consensus develops for that. Including the material in the separate article on Lincoln's early life would be ideal as would simply including it in a footnote in this article as another editor suggested. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm becoming more and more convinced that including a rumor that basically NO scholar believes is true is rather ludicrous. Veracity may not be the controlling point, but it should bear in at least SOME part on the question of inclusion. K. Scott Bailey 13:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No scholar?[4] There are other perspectives on this. WP:NPOV. Gwen Gale 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think a man who refers to Lincoln derisively as "the Holy Trinity" can be counted on per WP:RS. Just my take. K. Scott Bailey 13:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A derisive characterization of an historical figure does not disqualify a source. Gwen Gale 14:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it does. This "source" has a vested interest in bringing discredit on Lincoln, based upon his clear distate for the man. K. Scott Bailey 00:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Distaste for an historical figure does not disqualify a source. So far as vested interests go, this would apply to writers and historians who have favourable takes on AL too. Gwen Gale 05:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The writers who chronicle the life of Lincoln favorably don't do the same type of crap that this guy did. You don't see them making him out to be some kind of god or something. This guy was openly mocking the subject of his essay. This disqualifies his work as a WP:RS. K. Scott Bailey 05:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of that source is WP:OR. Cheers! Gwen Gale 05:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Critiquing a source's reliability does not violate WP:OR. Though your last post probably violated WP:POINT. K. Scott Bailey 06:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You have presented zero evidence the source is unreliable, except to make it clear you don't agree with the source's conclusion (by calling it "crap"), which I think is your own original research, among other things. Gwen Gale 07:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I must strongly disagree with your accusation that I have "probably violated WP:POINT" on this talk page. My posts are firmly linked to specific matters of article content and I am posting on this page for the purpose of discussing sources and improving the article. Please understand that there are editors who disagree with your take on some of the available sources on AL. Moreover, please do not misrepresent WP policy for the purpose of curtailing discussion or avoiding the inclusion of sources with which you seem not to agree. Thanks. Gwen Gale 07:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Kscottbailey, I repeat some previous examples: no one believes Catherine the Great actually engaged in bestiality, it isn't even possible that Nero played a fiddle while Rome burned, etc. Should these bits of trivia be removed? After all, they're rumors that have absolutely no support. While I don't buy the Enloe theory, it is at least plausible, if far-fetched. That being said, I think the other article probably is the best place for it, and will make the move unless someone beats me to it. faithless (^speak) 00:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the Enloe claim is interesting and perhaps could be resolved in the future but given the state of current research, it seems like more of a distraction to me (I have no opinion on its merits, for example). Hence, as an editor, if it winds up in the other article I'll have no worries. Gwen Gale 07:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To everyone involved in this discussion, I'm glad it came to an amicable end. I never imagined that my edit would create so much controversy, but at least we were able to reach a consensus rationally, with tempers pretty much kept in check, a pretty rare feat on Wikipedia (or the internet in general). Cheers, faithless (^speak) 14:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Amnesty Proclamation

This is a redlink, and instead of removing the redlink like an ignorant I'm gonna do something useful.

I know many editors of this article are historians, so could any of you use your knowledge to make this article? I'm not a historian myself, so I can't do crap about it. Stub would be fine, but I just wanna know if it's notable enough to warrant its own article, (as redlinks are encouraging people to add articles), thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already a stub article called Ten percent plan which should, but doesn't, reference Lincoln's Amnesty proclamation by name with an appropriate link (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Amnesty_and_Reconstruction) to the actual proclamation. An additional problem with the proposed article titled Amnesty Proclamation is that Johnson also issued a separate proclamation regarding amnesty (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1919 and . Tom (North Shoreman) 20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if nobody else will change the link by the time it's tomorrow, I will. TheBlazikenMaster 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln gay?

A few years back wasn't there some nonsense about Lincoln being gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.0.146 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. faithless (^speak) 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Should a link to this article be placed in the text, rather than merely in the "see also" section? It seems like noteworthy biographical speculation supported by at least some evidence, and an active topic of debate among historical scholars. It seems like it would fit in well adjacent to the mention of Joshua Speed. (16 January 2008)

Lincoln, Musharaff, and Civil Liberties

At issue is the addition by editor Gwen Gale to add the following to the section Legacy and memorials:

In November 2007 the president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, citing Lincoln during a television address about his suspension of Pakistan’s constitution and the arrest of thousands of protesters, said, "Abraham Lincoln... to preserve the Union... towards that end, he broke laws, he violated the Constitution, he usurped arbitrary power, he trampled individual liberties."

The issue is whether this news story about a modern military dictator’s self-serving analysis of Abraham Lincoln warrants any coverage at all in this article.

Verifiability is not the issue. The issue is whether the purpose of this section of the article should be to include news items whenever a public figure, positively or negatively, refers to Abraham Lincoln. Checking Google news I come up with 2,720 references to Abraham Lincoln in the past month. Are all references includable simply because they are verifiable? The editor to this point has provided no justification for adding this to the article, although she is on record as claiming Lincoln was a "genocidal tyrant."

Excluding a discussion of Abraham Lincoln and civil liberties from the article is not the issue. The current article has a single paragraph on Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties. A fuller discussion of this issue, using reliable sources from professional historians and political scientists, is certainly warranted – either in this article or a separate article. Considerable scholarly work has been done on the subject and working up an objective analysis of the subject for Wikipedia could easily be as long as this current article is. Indeed, just to add accuracy and proper nuance to Musharraf’s claims would require at least five paragraphs.

The way to expand on this issue is not by culling the headlines for the opinions of folks interested in abusing history in order to promote their own political agendas as Mr. Musharraf very clearly is. The way to do it is to hit the books and add a NPOV analysis of the subject. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Musharraf's government is wholly supported by the United States government, which often invokes Lincoln's legacy (as thoroughly documented in this section of the article). Hence, this citation is relevant to Lincoln's legacy and strongly supported by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. As for self serving and abusing history in order to promote their own political agendas, how many organizations and politicians aren't doing these things whenever they reference AL? Gwen Gale 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the talk page post in which I said there was support for an assertion AL was a genocidal tyrant, I would like to remind editors that PoVs on talk pages and cited passages expressing PoVs in articles are wholly supported and encouraged by WP:WEIGHT. Cheers to all! Gwen Gale 19:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea referring to WP:WEIGHT in an attempt to make your point. This section clearly states, “Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” While few historians of the era fail to find some problems with the Lincoln administration’s handling of some civil liberty issues, none do it with the extreme language used by Musharaff. “Genocidal tyrant”, while possibly occasionally used in Internet material designed for various neo-confederate types, is a term I doubt any legitimate historian has applied to Lincoln. In any event, the place to discuss Lincoln and civil liberties is elsewhere, and the material to be used is written by historians. I believe that the opinions of Pakistani politicians should be given no weight at all (unless you have some information that he is also a noted American Civil War scholar).

As far as your claim that “Musharraff's government is wholly supported by the United States government,” I have yet to hear any political leader in this country approving of the arrests in Pakistan. In any event, a single speech, that is small part of the much bigger story, may be of interest for a few days but it hardly constitutes a “legacy”. It hardly equates with Mount Rushmore, the 19 states that have named counties after Lincoln, or other lasting memorials. Even the bicentennial commission reference that you deleted is going to be around for at least the next two years. Your “logic” seems to be:

The United States in the past has supported Musharaf’s government.

The United States has supported many memorials and commissions supporting Lincoln’s legacy.

Therefore, Musharaff’s speech automatically has become part of the Lincoln legacy promoted by the United States for the past 142 years.

You ask, “As for ‘self serving’ and ‘abusing history in order to promote their own political agendas’, how many organizations and politicians aren't doing these things whenever they reference AL?” My answer is that quite a few are, and historians have thoroughly explored the whole issue of the Lincoln legacy. Again, this may warrant a separate article, but it is not justification for prominently featuring this particular quote in this particular article. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How is Musharaff's language extreme? I think the section could be expanded with other examples of widely-known government officials who have accurately cited Mr Lincoln in support of their policies, since this is very much relevent to his historical legacy. Meanwhile, I think you have very helpfully expressed your take on this and I would like to see what other editors have to say. I stand by WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS (sorry about the alphabet soup though). All the best to you! Gwen Gale 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whenever Lincoln is mentioned by anybody it doesn't need to be mentioned here that he was mentioned.--Southern Texas 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Gwen Gale 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the man. Everytime somebody talks about George Bush should we add that to his page. Be reasonable and don't add garbage about the president of Pakistan because he said "abraham lincoln". People say "abraham lincoln" all the time and its not revelant to Abraham Lincoln.--Southern Texas 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with Lincoln and his historical/political legacy when the leader of a country financially supported by the United States suspends the civil liberties enumerated in its constitution and accurately invokes Lincoln as a precedent especially when so many historians claim Lincoln was morally justified in doing so. Gwen Gale 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody in the United States supports this, any madman can claim that he is doing something because of "abraham lincoln". Crazy people bring up "Jesus" a lot as their reason for committing acts so with this logic should we make a list on the Jesus page of all the times people mentioned "Jesus" when committing an act?--Southern Texas 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a citation supporting your assertion Nobody in the United States supports this, thanks. Gwen Gale 23:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Provide a citation showing somebody that does. I live in America, I know how it is and somebody that supports this would be committing political suicide. Address the issue at hand and answer the question, it was not rhetorical.--Southern Texas 23:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I didn't make the assertion, you did. Please provide a citation supporting your assertion Nobody in the United States supports this. Meanwhile, are you asserting Musharaff is a madman? Gwen Gale 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Its irrelevant plus the only rational thing to do would be to prove that somebody does support this rather than that nobody does. America today is not the same America of Lincoln's time, that was over 140 years ago. Crazy people bring up "Jesus" a lot as their reason for committing acts so with this logic should we make a list on the Jesus page of all the times people mentioned "Jesus" when committing an act?--Southern Texas 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean your assertion Nobody in the United States supports this is irrelevent?
• I think we can agree it would be unhelpful to cite the ravings of crazy people in this article.
• I think it's relevent to quote Musharaff's invocation of Lincoln because his government, which is a nuclear power, is currently supported by the United States and threatened by civil war and Lincoln's suspension of civil liberties in the United States has been widely supported by historians. IMHO this is an important aspect of Lincoln's legacy. Gwen Gale 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

From Adolf Hitler:"In later life, Hitler often praised the Christian heritage, German culture, and a belief in Christ. In his speeches and publications Hitler even spoke of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism..." Ergo, Jesus' legacy was Nazism and anti-Semitism, and the article on Jesus should reflect His influence on Hitler. Ridiculous? Of course. Wasn't it Barry Goldwater who said that "An idea is not responsible for who believes in it"? A similar thing is occurring at the Ron Paul article -- the fact that some white supremacist group has a web banner supporting Paul isn't a reflection on Paul, absent convincing evidence that the feeling is mutual. Everyone needs to study the Fallacy of Argumentum Ad Hominem very carefully. Regards, Unimaginative Username 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ridiculous because Paul has never advocated racist policies, Christianity is not a an individual politician, Goldwater was referring to ideas, not political legacies. My remarks are not ad hominum. I am neither replying to an argument nor "attacking" or "appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim." I'm only citing Musharaff's invocation of Lincoln's suspension of civil liberties in response to civil war, which was an act, not a belief or characteristic, as Musharaff does likewise. Musharaff is the leader of Pakistan and is financially supported by the US government. He is not a babbling street person or a talk show host. His verifiable statement regarding Lincoln's approach to the constitution is relevant to Mr Lincoln's political legacy and its inclusion in the article would be helpful to readers. Gwen Gale 02:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the comments should be there. Musharraf is not an expert on US civil war history. If it goes anywhere, it should go into the Musharraf article or the related articles about his power grab. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A politician doesn't need to be an expert on US civil war history to invoke the legacy of another politician as justification for a political act. In the context of civil war, Lincoln suspended civil liberties and Musharraf did likewise. Lincoln arrested thousands and Musharraf did likewise, citing Lincoln. That's political legacy. Gwen Gale 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if Musharraf thinks there is a legit parallel, then that is his presentation and attempted justification for his actions, so it goes in the Musharraf and Pakistani articles. Not here. Here we are discussing Lincoln, so it should follow the contributions of experts on 19th century US history, which Musharraf is not.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The article text reads, Many American organizations of all purposes and agendas continue to cite his name and image, which clearly refers to much more than "experts on 19th century US history." Aside from this statement being uncited, its presence in the article seems to conflict with your assertion. Hence, this section of the article either needs some rethinking and/or appropriate citations, or perhaps some helpful examples of how "organizations of all purposes and agendas continue to cite his name and image," organizations such as the government of Pakistan which has invoked Lincoln's political legacy in suspending its constitution, as Lincoln did. Moreover, I see no reason to limit these examples to Americans, for obvious reasons.

Lastly, as for "experts on 19th century US history," many (if not most) of these seem to support Lincoln's suspension of civil liberties and unconstitutional arrests of thousands of potential political dissidents, so this political legacy clearly has widely described support within that segment of the academic community. Since Musharraf is supported by the US government, whose current form is traced by many historians back to Lincoln's conduct of the civil war, I don't see why mentioning Musharraf's reference to Lincoln would be unhelpful or misleading to readers. Gwen Gale 03:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• This article is already quite long (almost 100kb) and should, as a biography, not go off on a tangent like this. Over the past three years, the article has deteriorated from a Main Page FA, to failing GA, partly due to overlong length. The main biography Article about A Lincoln should be just that – a biography. Accordingly, I Propose a Fork of 21st century allusions to him by contemporary figures to a separate article, say, "Lincoln in popular culture" or whatever. Consensus?JGHowes ^talk - 15:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is already an article Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln which includes a section on the 21st Century. That entire article, however, seems to be very little more than one large trivia collection. I'm afraid an article made up of simply allusions to Lincoln by contemporary figures, without some scholarly, reliable secondary sources to provide context and a unifying theme would also be largely trivia. Lincoln's legacy and the changing perception of him is a subject that has been much written about and, as I said above, would probably be a fit topic for a separate article. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It could be the article has fallen so far from FA because Wikipedia is growing up and the article is flawed with astonishingly single-minded PoV. Meanwhile the section Legacy and memorials mostly has to do with memorials, name-afters and sites of secular worship along with some uncited, fuzzy shreds about legacy. When I tried to help out by starting to add cited examples of his political legacy, I was reverted. Hence, I respectfully suggest the section be re-named Memorials and the uncited text brushing on "legacy" be removed. Cheers to all! Gwen Gale 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, it could be that the article has fallen so far because editors insist of inserting irrelevant material about petty dictators, while excising uncontroversial, sourced material. Perhaps that could be it, no? K. Scott Bailey 04:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Naw, the US government has sent Musharaff billions of dollars to prop up his government. Even so, he's facing civil war, so when he suspends civil liberties and arrests thousands of dissidents, as Lincoln did, he accurately cites Lincoln, a former president of the government which is financially sustaining him, as support. I know it's unpleasant, but it's directly related to Lincoln's political legacy. Gwen Gale 05:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And at last your POV-pushing agenda becomes clear. It's not only "unpleasant", it's untrue. Musharraf is a dictator. Lincoln was a democratically-elected leader, whose actions were approved by congress. I will now be reverting your POV-pushing insistence on the irrelevant Musharraf info as just that: POV-pushing on Lincoln's legacy. K. Scott Bailey 08:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if Musharref is a jerk, or Francis of Assisi. What's so untrue about Musharraf citing Lincoln as justification for suspending civil liberties and arresting dissidents? He did it and said Lincoln did it too, which is all true. Moreover, he's supported by the United States government, whose present form most historians agree can be traced straight back to Lincoln. Like it or not, it's a thread in Lincoln's political legacy. This image, a quick editorial copy paste-up by Salon, is unsettling to me. Is Salon PoV pushing? I'd rather call it something akin to WP:NPOV but either way, consensus will have sway on this public wiki, so let's let other editors have their say too. Gwen Gale 08:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your POV (or Salon's) aside, Musharraf is not Lincoln-esqe in any sense, which was what his self-serving comparison was trying to imply. It's appropriate for his article, or Pakistan's article, but not for this article. No one agrees with you. It's not going in. This one is over. K. Scott Bailey 08:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if he is or is not Lincolnesque, self-serving or Christlike. I strongly disagree with your sweeping assertion "no one agrees with" me, nor can you possibly end a discussion like this by unilaterally declaring it "over." I think you've strayed from WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL but there's no need to go on about it. Terse, civil disagreement is ok if it happens now and then, however I'm not interested in stark disputes, much less simmering, back and forth edit wars, even the low level kind. I edit through consensus and abide by it and I'd like to see what other editors have to say, is all. Cheers anyway. Gwen Gale 10:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone was engaging in an attempted "edit war", it was you. You haven't "edited through consensus" in this case at least. You replaced a frivolous fact tag, without consensus, and when it was removed again, you simply deleted the entire sentence, again without consensus. When citations were provided, you asserted they weren't good enough, attacking the author for an unrelated controversy. When I provided the full-text of the Cooper Union Speech as a citation, you somehow concluded that didn't support the sentence either. No, you haven't displayed the characteristics you demand in others, nor the ones that you CLAIM to possess in this "terse discussion." K. Scott Bailey 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? Two editors asked for the tag and two editors have been involved in removing it. Sounds to me like so far there's no consensus for anything. Meanwhile the citations you have provided indeed do not support the text (which is discussed in another thread below). You're cite spanning, which is WP:OR. Lastly, you continue to comment on (and attack) me as an editor instead of discussing the edits themselves. Gwen Gale 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your edits and arguments are without merit. This article is a biography about Lincoln. Musharaff has no place in this article. Rklawton 14:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing clearly referenced and uncontroversial material

I would ask the two editors who insist on adding frivolous fact tags to uncontroversial and widely accepted (as well as well-sourced) material to not remove that material until consensus to do so can be reached on the talk page. Very few people would assert that Lincoln was not, in fact, against the expansion of slavery, and one of the most outspoken proponents of this assertion. That you do doesn't really matter all that much, at least in the context of what does, or does not, belong in this article.K. Scott Bailey 04:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the assertion:

As an outspoken opponent of the expansion of slavery,[1] he won the Republican Party nomination in 1860...

The assertion so far is unsupported and not at all clearly referenced. Wikipedia policy wholly allows an editor to remove unsupported text from articles.

Please provide a citation which clearly supports the notion that Mr Lincoln was an outspoken opponent of the expansion of slavery in 1860 and that this was the factor which held sway in his winning the Republican Party nomination that year. If it's so uncontroversial, it should be easy to find an unambiguous citation. Thanks. Gwen Gale 04:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note, my last edit summary reads if it's so uncontroversial, find a citation from 1860 which describes him as an "unspoken" opponent and pls stop reverting when I should have typed if it's so uncontroversial, find a citation which describes him as an "outspoken" opponent in 1860 and pls stop reverting, sorry about that and either way, cheers to everyone participating in this discussion. Gwen Gale 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So, let me make sure I clearly understand your position: you are FOR including irrelevant information about Musharaf referencing Lincoln, but against including uncontroversial material about Lincoln's position against expansion of slavery. Is that a decent summation? And are you claiming that Lincoln's position changed in the six years from 1854 to 1860? That's a bit ludicrous, I would think, given his actions after election. You are removing well-referenced material. Stop doing so. K. Scott Bailey 04:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a "decent summation" at all. I believe the Musharraf citation is keenly relevent to Lincoln's political legacy. However, that discussion is not at all relevent to this one.

If this material is so uncontroversial, supporting it with a couple of citations should be cake. I'm making no assertions about AL in this discussion. I am only asking for citations to support a specific assertion made in the article text, under the policies of this public wiki (WP:V, WP:RS). Thanks for asking though. Gwen Gale 04:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is "cake", which is what hisses me off so much about this frivolous fact-tagging and deletion of uncontroversial, and sourced material. In Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin, on page 91 (and many other places), it refers to Lincoln's outspoken stance against the expansion of slavery. Anyone who knows anything about Lincoln--or cares what is "keenly relevant" to his political legacy (which doesn't include Musharraf misappropriating his actions for his own gain)--would know that. It's in every biography I've read of him, and both that I currently have on my bookshelf. Your obstinance in the face of uncontroversial facts about Lincoln's life, and insistence on inclusion of the ruminations of petty dictators as somehow relevant, is not becoming at all. K. Scott Bailey 04:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Doris Kearns Goodwin is an admitted plagiarist and no longer a widely accepted interpreter of American presidents. I mean, you can include a citation from her but I would ask for a second citation since her credibility has waned so much. Please refrain from characterizing good faith edits as frivolous. As for your other comments, all I'm asking for are citations, please provide them. Gwen Gale 04:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No.

This is becoming ridiculous. She quotes directly from his 1860 election autobiography. You asked for a cite. You got a cite. Let it go. K. Scott Bailey 04:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL. The DKG citation you provided does not support the notion that he was "outspoken" nor does it provide any support that he received the nomination as a result of his (self admittedly rather thin) political position on slavery. For these reasons, the citation is not acceptable as support for the text as worded. If he was "outspoken," let's see a citation characterizing him as "outspoken." If his position on slavery was so key to his getting the nomination that mention of it should come in the same breath (sentence), then I'd like to see a citation supporting that too. Gwen Gale 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from quoting unrelated wikipolicy in a content dispute. And the man put it in his campaign biography. If that's not "outspoken" nothing is. Are you simply against including adjectives that aren't a direct quote from a source? And stop attacking Team of Rivals based on unrelated issues relating to the author. It qualifies as a reliable source. So does Lincoln's own "Cooper Union Speech." You asked for a reference for an uncontroversial statement of fact, after replacing a frivolous fact tag. I provided one. Then I provided another. It's over. Please let it go. K. Scott Bailey 05:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You have not yet supplied any citations which support the text. Moreover, unsupported adjectives are not acceptable if unsupported and challenged as such, since they may be WP:OR. The raw text from the Cooper speech does not support any assertion that AL was outspoken or that his position on slavery held meaningful sway on his nomination. So far, the assertion is unsupported. Again, I ask you, please, to stop throwing around the word "frivolous," which is starting to border on disruption and personal attack. Thanks Gwen Gale 05:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Start an RfC on it then. I doubt that I would be the one judged as being "disruptive" to this article. I've provided citations that Lincoln did, in fact, hold what could, in good faith, be noted as an "outspoken" view on slavery. WP policy does not require that every single word in an article be sourced directly. However, since you are being wiki-lawyerly about it, I will remove the adjective that troubles you so deeply. K. Scott Bailey 05:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have rm'd the adjective "outspoken" from the text so readers will not be misled into thinking the three citations you provided support its inclusion. I also suggest that his other political positions be summarized before the header mentions his nomination, since the supplied citations don't support any assertion that his position on slavery was key to his nomination or election. Gwen Gale 05:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The current wording simply says that he was an opponent of the expansion of slavery when he was nominated. This is categorically true, and completely substantiated by the refs I provided. I will provide more as necessary to quell your disquiet over the inclusion of the fact that Lincoln was an opponent of expansion when he was nominated for the presidency. On p. 224 of Rivals, Goodwin even explicitly states (as do many other Lincoln authors, as you would know, if you'd read widely on him) that this position was integral to him winning the nom over his more hardline opponents. K. Scott Bailey 05:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No? Do you mean you don't want to discuss his other political positions in the header? Meanwhile, I'm familiar with the sources, which is why I'm asking for explicit citations for explicit wordings in the text. Thanks for understanding. Gwen Gale 05:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. As for your knowledge--or lack of it--on the Lincoln-lit, I don't really care. You aren't showing a very deep knowledge of what is accepted as uncontroversial fact about his position against expansion, which would seem to belie your claimed knowledge of the sources, but whatever your reasons, you're simply wrong. The sentence could read "Lincoln was nominated in part because of his stance against the expansion of slavery" and it would still be NPOV, and completely accurate, according to all the major bios, including Team of Rivals, your ad hominem against Goodwin notwithstanding. Now I'm done. Please leave the introduction stable, now that four different cites from two different sources have been added in support. K. Scott Bailey 05:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DKG, WP:RS. As for your knowledge--or lack of it..., WP:CIVIL. what is accepted as uncontroversial... WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. your claimed knowledge of the sources... WP:AGF. The sentence could read "Lincoln was nominated in part because of his stance against the expansion of slavery"... that would be much more helpful and sustainable. ...your ad hominem against Goodwin... again, WP:RS, if I have a worry about a source, it's not ad hominem to express it. Please leave the introduction stable... I think the introduction is mostly helpful, but misleading about Lincoln's position on slavery, which while sincere (he truly didn't want slavery expanded into new states), was subtle, cannily developed, measured and only tangental to his nomination and election. Gwen Gale 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First, you called Goodwin an "admitted plagerist [sic]", which, in the context of her book on Lincoln, has no bearing. Thus, ad hominem. As for all your wikipolicy links, you can lawyer me as much as you want. If you think I have crossed some imaginary "line", start an RfC. You replaced a fact tag that was, in my opinion (and another editor's as well) frivolous. I have now cited the statement. As far as I'm concerned, that matter is closed. As for Lincoln's position on slavery, you're just wrong. His position on expansion was one of the main reasons he was nominated, as per the sources cited. But if you wish to replace the current sentence with the hypothetical one I proposed, I would not oppose that. It basically says the same thing as the current sentence, but if you feel like it complies better with your ... umm ... interpretations of wikipolicy, and your understanding of Lincoln's have at it. K. Scott Bailey 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You've offered some citations which don't support the assertion, which speaks for itself. Gwen Gale 06:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. The fourth one explicitly state that very fact, while the other three are certainly supportive of the assertion. Did you even bother to look at the cites? Have you even read Goodwin's Rivals? If not, how can you judge it unreliable? This is a circular argument if ever there was one. You asked for refs. I gave you four. Now they aren't GOOD enough refs. I'm quite done with you, as it appears you may be more interested in arguing about minutae than improving the article. K. Scott Bailey 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The citations you provided do not support any use of the adjective "outspoken" (which you subsequently agreed to remove) and while they do express AL's position on the expansion of slavery (which I never challenged in this thread), they do not support the notion Lincoln secured nomination and election mostly because of his position on slavery, as the wording of the original assertion strongly and unavoidably implies. Gwen Gale 06:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I only "agreed" to remove it because you badgered me (wikilawyered) me into it. As for the cites, I have pointed you repeatedly to the one that EXPLICITLY connects Lincoln's position on the issue to his election. Either you are refusing to read it, or you simply don't care. It's explicit in the claim that his position was a major reason for his nomination. K. Scott Bailey 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you felt I "badgered" and "wikilawyered" you into following WP:V and WP:RS, I wonder why you didn't wait for other editors to give us their thoughts instead?

I should have answered your earlier comment about "minutae." The little things are what writing's all about. Readers pick up on this kind of stuff and build sweeping opinions and thoughts from it, quick. That's why "spin" and so-called "sound-bites" have such a strong effect on folks. Knowing this, I think there is much we can do to helpfully skirt away from misleading readers.

Meanwhile, DKG aside, none of the cites you provided support the original assertion. I mean, you seem to be making a good-faith leap, muddling what you sincerely believe to be true with what the citations say. Gwen Gale 07:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're going to badger me into including the entire graf that the quote in the citation is pulled from that explicitly cites his position on expansion as a major reason he was nominated? Is that what you're looking for? Me to include the entire paragraph to prove what is evident to those who know Lincoln and his biographies? And there's no "leap"--good faith or otherwise--to be made to the conclusion that every major biographer comes to as well: his position on expansion played a major role in his nomination. K. Scott Bailey 08:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

All you've shown so far is the cites I can verify don't support the assertion Lincoln was "outspoken" in his position on slavery or that his position on the expansion of slavery was unique or important enough to win him the presidency. I'm still wondering why we can't wait for other editors to say what they think. Gwen Gale 08:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the citations I've posted. First, as to "outspoken", what would qualify as being "outspoken"? Would putting it in his autobiography, written specifically for the 1860 campaign not qualify? What would he have to do, get it tattooed on his considerable forehead?!? Set that aside though, as you've pestered me into removing that adjective. The fourth citation I posted clearly sets out (if you force me to post the entire graf that does so, I will), the fact that Lincoln's position against expansion played a significant role in his nomination for the presidency. Are you being willfully obtuse, or do you simply want to force me to post the entire graf? Please answer that, because if the answer is affirmative I will do so. You're completely, totally wrong about this, and have wasted hours of my insomniac time on this, simply for your concern with minutae. K. Scott Bailey 08:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I've weathered too many personal attacks in this thread for me to carry on with it. I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale 10:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You spent the better part of three hours pestering me into providing four citations for an innocuous, uncontroversial statement about Lincoln in the intro. What you are perceiving as "personal attacks" is nothing more than the brusqueness of a busy editor when forced to deal with trivialities. Sorry, but being brusque does not equal "personal attacks" or even "incivility." K. Scott Bailey 14:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. You've been coomenting on me as an editor as much as on on the edits themselves. Please review WP:CIVIL. Gwen Gale 17:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored the word "outspoken" to the section in question and provided an additional footnote making it clear how Lincoln at Cooper Union brought the issue of the expansion of slavery clearly onto center stage. In fact, it is not at all controversial to note that from 1854 with his opposition to Kansas-Nebraska (all about western expansion of slavery), through his debates with Douglas (which because of the articulation of the Freeport Doctrine forced on Douglas led to the 1860 split in the Democratic Party), and finally with his speech at at Cooper Union (a printed version of his speech was widely circulated throughout the 1860 campaign) that Lincoln was widely identified with this issue. He was certainly "outspoken" enough on the subject that the South got the message on the significance of Lincoln's election to their "peculiar institution." Tom (North Shoreman) 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of the five citations now tacked onto that sentence, none of them even come close to supporting an assertion AL was outspoken in his position on slavery in 1860. Moreover if a position on slavery had sway in his successful election it's more likely the opposite was true. Either way, these citations don't even address the use of "outspoken" or the relationship of his position to his election in 1860. Attack me, put me down, say what you like, whatever, but this article has lots of PoV and OR issues. Please stop accusing me of what you yourselves are doing. All the best. Gwen Gale 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: You may have interpreted my having said it's more likely the opposite was true... as a reference to some kind of secret agenda. All I meant was that while he was indeed personally opposed to the notion of slavery (like most northerners and many southerners), his political position on slavery was extremely measured and calculated, centering mostly on the expansion of slavery in new states. Gwen Gale 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

From Webster-Merriam Online:

Main Entry: out·spo·ken

1 : direct and open in speech or expression : frank <outspoken in his criticism — Current Biography> 2 : spoken or expressed without reserve <his outspoken advocacy of gun control>

These definitions of "outspoken" fit perfectly with Lincoln's often expressed opinions on the expansion of slavery in the period from 1854-1860. The Lincoln position as well as the Republican Party position on the issue was well known well before the voters went to the polls -- rather than being part of some secret agenda as you suggest, anyone at all familiar with the time period realizes that this was the single most important issue that led to the birth of the Republican Party in the first place.Tom (North Shoreman) 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the diff where I talked about any kind of secret agenda (truth be told, I think the agenda here is wide open and, erm, rather outspoken), but first, please see my new note under my last post above. Meanwhile the dicdef has nothing to do with Lincoln and your interpretation is original research. If this is so self-evident I'd think it would be much easier for you to come up with a citation which supports, either by synonym or otherwise, the use of the adjective outspoken. You have yet to do so but I'm only interested in helping out with the article by consensus and would like to hear what other editors have to say. Gwen Gale 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive

This talk page is getting extremely long. And it's keeping up going and going. So I think it would be a good idea to archive it by now. TheBlazikenMaster 20:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion re: POV pushers

My suggestion is that we simply let them play, and revert their additions of POV-pushing as just that: POV pushing. I think any editor who would call Lincoln genocidal has earned being ignored. The sentence is adequately cited. Every major biographer agrees that this position (anti-expansion) was a major reason Lincoln was elected. I think that we should simply maintain our silence, and respond only when the non-neutral POV starts being inserted into the actual article. K. Scott Bailey 20:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're still attacking the editor rather than discussing edits in a civil manner. This article has deeply skewed PoV issues and errors of both fact and ommission. Meanwhile, varying PoVs are encouraged by WP:WEIGHT and while any kind of name-calling on this wiki is a violation of its policies, I think "PoV-pushers" falls flatter than most. I'd say I'm more of an NPoV-pusher but whatever. Passionate editors, unable to defend the text with citations, have responded by attacking editors who question the article's conformance with WP policy. In the past, some good faith editors have even been given vandalism warnings, although this tapered off a few months back when the editors giving those warnings were themselves warned they had violated WP:Vandalism. Consensus will have sway. Maybe someday the consensus will have something to do with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Gwen Gale 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just baiting me. I have posted 4 citations, and Tom has posted one. You're ignoring the substance (for instance, ignoring the fact that he included his opposition to expansion in his campaign biography) because they don't use the word "outspoken." That's frivolous pettifoggery, and I'm through dealing with pettifoggery. Good bye, and good luck to you. And while I hope your real-world life goes well, any edits attempting to push through your POV onto this article will be removed. K. Scott Bailey 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You say the interpretation is self-evident but it's not, you blend a sentence together and claim it's for readability when in truth it's for spinning a brief, distorted and incomplete interpretation not supported by the primary sources and hard to find even in the secondaries, then you revert fully cited edits which don't add unsupported analysis or spin at all, but which run against your PoV regarding Mr Lincoln. Meanwhile, you continue to attack me. Please review the Wikipedia project page on personal attacks, thanks. Gwen Gale 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm through with pettifoggery.K. Scott Bailey 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More name calling. Gwen Gale 21:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No. WP:DUCK. K. Scott Bailey 23:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That policy also invokes, "...but be sure to use discretion and politeness when you do." Anyway it sounds like name calling to me, only so you know. Gwen Gale 23:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Calling your demands for over-sourcing even uncontroversial statements of fact "pettifoggery" is neither a personal attack, nor is it inaccurate. What you have spent the last 24 hours or so doing here is a classic example of it. K. Scott Bailey 23:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The assertion in the header is misleading and unsupported by the citations. Lincoln advocated the continuation of slavery in the south during his 1860 campaign and the header does not say this. Gwen Gale 23:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is an obvious fallacy to state that "varying PoVs are encouraged by WP:WEIGHT" what the policy actually states is that points of view should be given an amount of weight in the article that reflects this point of view's prominence in reliable sources. Tim Vickers 00:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of this passage from WP:WEIGHT: Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Gwen Gale 00:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The significance being decided by conducting good research and consulting reliable sources. It is not up to us to decide what facts are significant, in a well-reviewed subject such as this a multitude of reliable secondary sources exist that give an expert assessment of the facts. Sticking to the interpretations and balance given by these expert reviews is the core requirement of the NPOV policy. Tim Vickers 00:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Gwen Gale 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Added a sixth ref to the uncontroversial sentence in the first graf

Hopefully this quells the pettifoggery, and we can go back to actually trying to improve the article. K. Scott Bailey 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is.... At Cooper Union Mr Lincoln advocated slavery in the southern states be left in place. This does not implicitly create an impression of an outspoken policy on slavery, but a measured and politically crafted one. I'm familiar with most of the rationalizations offered for this in the secondary sources but the header does not make it clear Lincoln openly advocated the continuation of slavery in the United States during his campaign for the presidency. Gwen Gale 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That is rather ignorant, as it is a known fact that Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery into the West which is why the South seceeded.--Southern Texas 22:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a citation which supports your assertion the southern states seceded because Lincoln "opposed the expansion of slavery into the West" (even while he openly advocated that slavery be left intact in those very same southern states). Thanks. Gwen Gale 22:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Southern secession was triggered by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a moderate in his opposition to slavery. He pledged to do all he could to oppose the expansion of slavery into the territories (thus also preventing the admission of any additional slave states to the Union)" [5]

Thanks. That citation goes on to explain, In addition to Lincoln\'s presidential victory, the slave states had lost the balance of power in the Senate and were facing a future as a perpetual minority after decades of nearly continuous control of the presidency and the Congress. Southerners also felt they could no longer prevent protectionist tariffs such as the Morrill Tariff, which generally placed a greater burden upon the South.

The Southern justification for a unilateral right to secede cited the doctrine of states\' rights, which had been debated before with the 1798 Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, and the 1832 Nullification Crisis with regard to tariffs. Gwen Gale 22:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your point? They believed States' rights gave them the constitutional authority to seceed because they did not want to lose Slave-state representation in the Senate from new western non-Slave states (the reason why they created a new nation). --Southern Texas 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not what the citation says. It discusses states-rights and the south's thwarted desire to prevent protectionist tariffs due to their eroded representation in the US congress. Gwen Gale 22:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Lincoln ardently opposed slavery's expansion in the West, believing that if confined, the peculiar institution would wither and die...In the months following Lincoln's election, southern states seceded from the Union. Southern partisans had approached the election of 1860 as a litmus test in American political life. Lincoln's election could only mean that the people of the North had decided to trample slaveholders' rights. Only secession could address such a grave insult." [6]

This is a tertiary source and a rather weak one. The key passage is, Lincoln had also made it plain that he intended to preserve the Union. Lincoln's firm faith in the Constitution extended to its guarantee of the Union as well. While Lincoln did not seek to eradicate slavery in the South, he utterly rejected the idea of secession.

In the months following Lincoln's election, southern states seceded from the Union. Southern partisans had approached the election of 1860 as a litmus test in American political life. Lincoln's election could only mean that the people of the North had decided to trample slaveholders' rights. Only secession could address such a grave insult.

This source's conclusion is that while Lincoln supported the continuation of slavery in the southern states, they seceded because of a "grave insult." Gwen Gale 22:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a grave insult by diminishing their ability to pass Slave legislation by western eradication of the practice and eventually the eradication in the South.--Southern Texas 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln advocated the continuation of slavery in the south and your original assertion was they seceded because of his opposition to slavery in the western states. Gwen Gale 22:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, they seceeded because of his views on the elimination of the expansion of slavery which they (the south) felt would ultimately lead to the elimination of the practice in their states and diminished their influence in the Senate.--Southern Texas 23:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, this is a rather weak tertiary source. For example, "grave insult" is a polemic, not a credible rationale for secession and civil war. Gwen Gale 23:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• "The chief reason the South opposed Lincoln's election was that he was a Republican. The Republican Party, which was founded just 6 years before, had one main issue: it staunchly opposed the spread of slavery. The South felt threatened by Republicans, thinking that they would find a way to end slavery (which they felt would end the Southern economy and way of life).Truth was, the overwhelming majority of Republicans opposed the immediate freeing of the slaves (because they were hard pressed to think of what they would do with all of them). But the Republicans opposed any expansion of slavery into the western territories, which everyone realized would eventually mean the end of slavery (in about 100 years)." [7]

This is what amounts to an "answer-back" note on an "experts" web site and I don't think it's acceptable as a source under WP:RS. It says rather vaguely, The combination of the loss of political power and the looming end of slavery was such a threat to the South that 1) Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in the Southern states and 2) many of the southern states seceded before Lincoln even took office. Ultimately, this was as much an emotional reaction as a political one.

Since Lincoln advocated the retention of slavery in the south on constitutional grounds, the source's statement about "the looming end of slavery" is unsupported. Gwen Gale 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this will educate you on American History as it appears somebody didn't teach it to you correctly.--Southern Texas 22:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please try to limit your comments to the edits and citations being discussed and not about me as an editor, since this is not in keeping with WP:CIVIL and WP:PA, thanks. Gwen Gale 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We must learn by our mistakes to become better editors. For the betterment of wikipedia editors must know the facts and be educated so that better edits will be made. You seem to have a lack of knowledge on the subject so I as an individual must educate you on the subject because you express an interest in editing this article. Don't take it as a personal attack, I am trying to help you :) --Southern Texas 22:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The citations you provided do not support your assertion the south seceded because of Lincoln's opposition to the expansion of slavery in the western states. Gwen Gale 23:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They don't? Well I tried to show you the truth but you won't accept it. Goodbye and enjoy the rest of the evening.--Southern Texas 23:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The single acceptable/reliable citation you provided mostly discusses states' rights relating to southern opposition to proectionist tariffs. Gwen Gale 23:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They do, ST, but you would do well to simply ignore GG. She has shown a willful disregard for what's actually true and cited in favor of pushing a POV, by focusing on pettifogging editors who are actually attempting to improve the article. She has stated on a usertalk page that she could find reliable sources that would support that Lincoln was "genocidal", and she's attempting to remove even the smallest thing (like being an "outspoken opponent" of the expansion of slavery) that portrays Lincoln in a positive light. It's better to simply ignore this type of pettifoggery, rather than feeding into her game, simply removing any damage she causes to the main article. K. Scott Bailey 23:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually true? This implies you're advocating a transcendent truth which leaps beyond the availbale sources and citations. You might want to read what Wikipedia policy has to say about assertions of truth. Lastly, your characterization of my limited edits to the article as "willful disregard" and "damage" represents continued name calling, personal attacks and disregard for WP:AGF. Gwen Gale 23:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Very soon, you will realize that I'm no longer engaged in your pettifoggery. K. Scott Bailey 23:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln advocated the continuation of slavery in the southern states during his 1860 campaign. The header doesn't mention this, only his political opposition to the expansion of slavery in new states, which could easily mislead the casual reader into a mistaken belief Lincoln meant (and said he meant) to promptly end slavery in the southern states once he was elected. Gwen Gale 23:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No. It says what it says, not what you think someone might think it says. More pettifoggery. K. Scott Bailey 23:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What the header doesn't say is Lincoln advocated the continuation of slavery in the southern states during his 1860 campaign. Gwen Gale 23:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Edit Warring"

I'll thank you to stop referring to the good faith deletion of external links per WP:EL as "edit warring." Read the policy before simply readding those links. K. Scott Bailey 03:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Looked like edit warring to me. Gwen Gale 14:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you don't know what edit warring looks like. Deleting external links per WP:EL is pretty standard. K. Scott Bailey 16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your deletion under WP:EL. This is a big article and most if not all of the links you deleted were indeed "meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." Moreover, whether you understand it or not, you are edit warring without end and continue to engage in low level personal attacks. Please stop edit warring. Please stop engaging in personal attacks. Please stop mis-applying Wikipedia policy. Please stop using belligerent and misleading edit summaries and please stop forum shopping. Thanks. Gwen Gale 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your issue now? "Forum shopping"? "Misleading edit summaries"? What are you talking about? I removed those links per WP:EL. And for the record, if you think I'm doing those things, start an RfC. And you DO realize that accusing people of violating various wikipolicies without merit is ITSELF a violation of policy, right? K. Scott Bailey 18:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the editing behaviours which I mentioned above. It does seem to me like you mean to be helpful and I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale 18:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't stop "editing behaviors" that I'm not doing. I would ask that you stop referring to good faith contributions to the article as "edit warring", though, as well as referring to my edit summaries as "belligerent", which they are not. K. Scott Bailey 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting in good faith to the limit of 3rr is still edit warring. I'm not happy about having to go on about this but the edit summaries you've made while reverting my edits have been both belligerent and misleading. Please stop this behaviour, along with the the other things I mentioned above. Thanks again. Gwen Gale 20:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I have not done so. I have made various changes to the article over the last 48 hours. "Change" does not equal "revert", and not every "revert" counts toward 3RR, since they were done over several different changes, not consistently over one. You would do well to either start an RfC on your perceptions of how I am violating policy or quit accusing me of things I did not do. K. Scott Bailey 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt into the conversation, but I got something to say to Gwen Gale. I'm sorry, but I agree with K. Scott Bailey. Ok, he might have violated 3RR, but I can clearly see that K. Scott Bailey didn't mean any personal attacks. If you are offended by them, just ignore them. Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly community. I don't care what policy you lead Scott to, but as long as it isn't the personal attack policy. Yeah, sure he might have made some small personal attacks, but you shouldn't take everything so seriously. I'm just giving you an advice. If you two disagree try to discuss things nicely, instead of arguing. This is all I got to say, unless necessary, I'm not going back to this discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 22:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, I have violated no policy in my work on this article, not even WP:3RR. To be sure, I went back and examined every edit I have made in the past 24-48 hours. It's not there. And no amount of pettifoggery will make it so. As I said, I appreciate your defense of me, such as it is, but I didn't violate 3RR nor NPA, and GG knows it. K. Scott Bailey 00:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile I don't think it's pettifoggery to say the header asserts AL's "outspoken" opposition to the expansion of slavery during his 1860 campaign while the header does not note Lincoln simultaneously advocated the continuation of slavery in the southern states. Gwen Gale 02:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is. First, what you claim is not true. There is a stark difference between advocating for the continuation of slavery in the southern states (which you claim), and recognizing that the pragmatic solution was to prevent the expansion of slavery, while not provoking the south by demanding emancipation (which was what Lincoln believed). [No, I'm not going to provide cites for that, as this is a talk page, and I don't have to.] Second, it was his moderation (opposing expansion while not being a fiery abolitionist) that allowed him to become the Republican nominee, and eventually to win the presidency. This has nothing to do with what you are claiming he believed. Please stop with this pettifoggery--and it IS pettifoggery. Look it up. You'll see. K. Scott Bailey 02:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

K. Scott Bailey, I understand from your posts there's lots of stuff you don't think you "have" to do but the primary sources are clear, AL advocated the continuation of slavery in the southern states during his 1860 campaign. Gwen Gale 02:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, what you claim isn't true. The primary sources don't say he "advocated the continuation of slavery in the southern states." I explained what his ACTUAL position was to you. I don't have to cite it on a talk page, and you don't get to dictate what goes in the introduction, simply because you want to have it there. Even if I grant you your false claim that he "advocated" (that's the key word, which implies that he went out and actively proselytized for the postion) the continuation of slavery in the south, it still had no effect on his being elected president. The sooner you realize that your pettifoggery isn't going to force your will upon this article, the better off we'll all be. K. Scott Bailey 02:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

--- No, he asserted that the federal gov't had no power to stop slavery in states where it already existed. He did not encourage or argue that people in the South continue it. He did NOT "advocate it continue" there - in fact he made it clear that stopping it in the territories would put slavery on the path to eventual extinction--JimWae 02:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim, she has shown repeatedly that she doesn't care. I could have been half-way through this mess of an article if I didn't have to keep coming back here addressing her pettifoggery toward me so often. As it is, I'm barely into the body of the article. K. Scott Bailey 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

He did, repeatedly and clearly. Countless citations are available. In 1862 he wrote (Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862), "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it" Gwen Gale 03:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Talk about your original research. "Neither save or destroy" = "advocate for the continuation of" exactly how, again? Look, Gwen, we all understand you don't particularly care for Lincoln, and that you feel this article is overly-complimentary of him. On that last bit, I partially agree. However, the pettifoggery with regards to the introduction has to stop. Please. K. Scott Bailey 03:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Like him? Dislike him? Doesn't matter. I'm only noting what he said about it. It's not pettifoggery to note Lincoln accepted slavery in the southern states and advocated its continuation there on constitutional grounds. He strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which extended the "rights" of slave owners into the northern states. In an 1858 debate with Douglas he said, "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position... Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals." In Springfield that same year he said, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." In his inaugural address as president he supported the constitutional amendment which had cleared the U.S. Senate and House, that would have forbidden the federal government from ever being able "to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In the same speech he said he wanted this to be "express and irrevocable." Sounds like advocacy to me, but his own words are more meaningful than adjectives. Gwen Gale 03:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec, because GG revised and extended the above) I really enjoy how you cherry-pick quotes, rip them from their context, and claim it proves your pettifogging point. And with that, I'm done. I may get some more actual work done on this article this evening, but perhaps not. Have fun trying to reason with someone who despises Lincoln so much that she referred to him as a "genocidal tyrant" further up the page. POV-pushing has no place here, nor does pettifoggery, Gwen. The sooner you understand that, the better off we'll ALL be. K. Scott Bailey 03:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at your user page to try and understand something about your general thoughts as an editor and found you have an entire section of your user page which describes what seems to be your own definition of pettifoggery[8]. I'm linking to it here only because you've used the term over a dozen times in sundry posts in these threads and I found the consistent repetition of this single word remarkable. For comparison purposes, here is a standard dicdef [9]. Reading both, I think your constant use of this term could be interpreted as routinely straying off from WP:AGF. All the best, I know you're trying to be helpful and sincere. Gwen Gale 04:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's another: In the summer of 1861 he wrote, "We didn't go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back." He accepted slavery in the southern states, advocated its continuation for political reasons (and supported a constitutional amendment which guaranteed the perpetuation of slavery in the south), believed in strict segregation and strongly advocated sending masses of black people back to Africa. The article header is very misleading. I think it should at least mention that he supported guaranteeing the continuation of slavery in the southern states through a constitutional amendment when he was elected president. Gwen Gale 03:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, he didn't. That's how you interpret his words, which is in direct violation of WP:OR. Your agenda is transparent throughout this talk page, with no need to assume bad faith making that statement. It's not bad faith for you to have an agenda. It just has no place in the article. The article needs to be down the middle, and your suggestions are not so. You are in favor of cherry picking quotes and interpreting them in ways no serious Lincoln biographer does. I'm sorry, but that doesn't fly here. There's no consensus for it, and every editor that has weighed in on the issue thus far has said you are wrong. There have been several now. Please let this issue die. Not doing so is the definition of pettifoggery, which is why I use that word here a lot. I've seen this type of thing happen in other places on WP, which is why I wrote my little talk page missive. These kind of "discussions" that you've forced upon this talk page in the last 60 or so hours distract from the work of encyclopedia building, and I have a problem with that. These discussions are much ado about nothing, and I MUST be done with them now, for two reasons: first, I have to sleep; and second, I really would like to get back to editing the mainspace. If you have constructive ideas, that you can build a legitimate consensus behind, then we'll talk. Currently, I see nothing of the sort. K. Scott Bailey 06:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You begin many of your posts with the word no and in most of your posts, you use the word pettifoggery which I discussed above as likely straying from WP:AGF. Lincoln is widely quoted in the primary sources as having advocated the continuation of slavery in the southern states, that he "didn't go into the war to put down slavery" and in 1862 wrote, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it." There are many more verifiable quotes which confirm his position on slavery was clear and consistent throughout. Giving readers wholly verifiable direct quotes is not original research. Gwen Gale 08:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've explained pettifoggery to you, and why your contributions to this talk page are accurately described as that. I'm finished with that. As to adding block quotes, cherry-picked and ripped from context to the article to support your interpretation that Lincoln "advocated" the continuation of slavery, well, it's not happening. There's no consensus for it, and that's how WP works. K. Scott Bailey 08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I noted (and cited) above that you have a personal definition of pettifoggery and that under either definition you're likely straying from WP:AGF with your constant repetition of the word. Meanwhile I never said anything about adding block quotes. Moreover, the quotes I've cited are neither "cherry picked" nor "ripped from context." I'd like to hear what other editors have to say. Gwen Gale 08:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Have I not made it clear enough that I'm not falling back into this discussion with you? The one where you accuse me of various and sundry violations of policy, without any proof, and I tell you that if you really believe I'm doing the things you accuse me of, to start an RfC? Oh wait, I just did. Oh well. As for "other editors", several have weighed in already. No one agrees with you. And whether you want to admit it or not, cherry-picking and ripping-from-context is exactly what you're doing to the quotes. I'm back to trying to make the article better now. K. Scott Bailey 08:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Could it be anyone who might agree with me is wary of all these endless personal attacks, revert warring and utter disregard for the primary sources? Gwen Gale 22:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been no personal attacks, and I'll thank you to stop accusing me of that, as well as the other various and sundry unfounded accusations you have leveled at me. As I subscribe to the Occam's Razor way of viewing things, I believe the simple explanation is that your views are fringe, and that would make the explanation of why no one who has commented agrees with you quite simple: it's because very few people agree with you. Simple as that. K. Scott Bailey 23:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this something we might vote on? Rklawton 23:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean the content issues, and not whether I have been engaging in "personal attacks" (and the other things she's accused me of) on GG. If so, then I still wonder, what would we be voting on? She has put forth some pretty off-the-wall theories, such as that Lincoln was a "genocidal tyrant" among other things. If we could come up with some clear criteria to be voted on, I would have no problem with this though. K. Scott Bailey 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This thread has been mostly about Lincoln's position on slavery, specifically in 1860, along with K. Scott Bailey's general edit warring. I never accused AL of anything, much less proposed any theories at all, but some time ago, only pointed out there are available citations in the secondary sources to support an assertion AL engaged in tyranny and genocide. I haven't proposed these be included in the article text, so I think K. Scott Bailey may have kept mentioning that single post only to stir up emotions about me generally as an editor rather than thoughts about the article text. I would also like to point out the consistent emotional tone in K. Scott Bailey's posts here. I only bring it up because it seems so strongly and consistently expressed, seeming to bleed over into personal attacks, revert warring and so on. I think that for some editors, an objective look at the sources can be an emotional experience so I think I can more or less understand his reaction but I don't think this talk page is the place to express those emotions. ...Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot.

Anyway, I don't know how helpful any kind of vote would be. I'd rather wait and see if other editors have articulate thoughts on the article header and Lincoln's position on slavery. I can wait, I'm patient. Either way, the article has a long way to go. Gwen Gale 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You will either stop with the unfounded accusations, or I will be asking an administrator to look into the matter. K. Scott Bailey 01:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've said all along I'd like to hear from other editors on this. Gwen Gale 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• as far as content goes, you already have - you are the only one who thinks your content edits are supported --JimWae 02:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken.[10]

Moreover, I haven't made any article content edits aside from trying to restore that fact tag[11], trying to rm the word outspoken[12] and then at least tying to split one sentence into two[13], which resulted in immediate, double reverts (aka edit warring, 3rr) and the long flurry of personal attacks above.

Per your further accusations of "edit warring" and "3RR", after I had specifically asked you to stop making such accusations, I have asked a couple of administrators to review both mine and your actions on this talk page. K. Scott Bailey 05:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been so overwhelming, I haven't even had time to talk much about K. Scott Bailey's disputed application of WP:EL in removing[14] many useful and relevent external links.Gwen Gale 03:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking of an administrator reviewing your behavior in constantly accusing me of policy violations that I have not committed. If you don't cease in doing so, that's what I'm saying will happen. K. Scott Bailey 02:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to repeat anything. Gwen Gale 02:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent)As an un-involved party, I see nothing remotely resembling a personal attack on the part of K. Scott Bailey. I suggest that Gwen tone it down and try harder to seek consensus for her edits. Ronnotel 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

K. Scott Bailey has very graciously removed the distracting term from his user page and moreover, has not used it lately. I take this both as an unbidden sign of his steadfast good faith (which I always believed he had) along with a sincere desire to communicate effectively. I withdraw all my remarks about personal attacks since I think he has subsequently shown this was not his intent and that's way more than enough for me. Gwen Gale 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My removal of my paragraph on pettifoggery had nothing to do with you. A friend recommended I remove it, and I did. You had nothing to do with it. Also, you accused me of far more than just personal attacks. And I've heard back from one of the three admins I asked to look at our interactions, and was informed that I had violated none of the policies you have accused me of on this page. K. Scott Bailey 22:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Way to go :) Gwen Gale 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You have nothing more than an emoticon grin to say in defense of your baseless accusations? I should not be surprised at this. K. Scott Bailey 23:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano said it rather more pithily I guess. Gwen Gale 23:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That you cite Giano, and in that circumstance, in a blatant attempt to bait me, says much more about your intentions than it does about me. K. Scott Bailey 23:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)