Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Slow motion

The steps taken by president Lincoln about slavery honour him and the nation who gave him the power to accomplish such highly ethical task. However, he was not the first in this, and some USA-related countries had an slow pace in implementing anti-slavery changes in their law. Slavery was abolished in the 1812 Vienna convention, but in spite of this, when the UK joined the EU in the XXth century, they were forced to change or eliminate some regulations about the recruiting, work conditions and type of contract for people in ships, as the EU considered these rules close to some kind of slavery. Sometimes news take a while to spread. Salut + jgrosay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrosay (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Removed editorial rant on Lincoln. This discussion page exists for the purpose of improving the article, based on secondary sources. It's not an opinion section. Please familiarize yourselves with these conditions and respect them. 36hourblock (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Good article button

I have noticed that the good article button Symbol pops up and then disappears in the AL article. Has anyone else noticed this? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. When does it occure?--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 19:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Every time I log onto the page the GA button appears then disappears. I do not have that issue with the other GA articles. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed now. The template was inside a navbox, so it was displaying incorrectly. Ajstov (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ajstov! The GA button is remaining on the page. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tonirrab, 1 October 2011

This is a very minor change in the 'straight-forward changes' category. Could someone please change "The Lincoln's in Springfield usually hired domestic servants" to "The Lincolns in Springfield usually hired domestic servants". Thank you!

Tonirrab (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Vsmith (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thirteenth Amendment "Deal"

I believe mention of the Thirteenth Amendment "deal" would improve the article. There was apparently a railroad deal involved in order to remove slavery from America. Here is the source: The Slaves Freed.

"With the outcome much in doubt, Lincoln and congressional Republicans participated in secret negotiations never made public—negotiations that allegedly involved patronage, a New Jersey railroad monopoly, and the release of rebels kin to congressional Democrats—to bring wavering opponents into line."

Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there more than one source to back this up? Let's concentrate on making the article presentable for another FAC instead of adding these nitpicky factoids. Brad (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with finding an alternative source. I disagree with calling a railroad deal to end slavery a "nitpicky factoid". Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I found another source: Gillette (1995), Jersey Blue: Civil War Politics in New Jersey, 1854-1865, p. 300-301. This source stated that there was rumor the U.S. Senate would stop an anti-monopoly railroad bill in order for House Democrats, controlled by railroad lobbiests, to pass the Thirteenth Amendment. The source believed that this rumor was unfounded by voting records or was made only to pressure Republicans to squash the anti-railroad bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Brad. As far as Lincoln is concerned, this is a minor factoid that even his biographers seem to have ignored. This article wouldn't be improved by adding it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a closed session of Congress that Lincoln attended. An anti-monopoly railroad bill was rumored to have been squashed. The Thirteenth Amendment failed to pass the first time. This answers why the Thirteenth Amendment passed the second time. Thadeus Stevens stated that the Amendment to end slavery was passed by corruption. If other editors disagree, that's fine. I am for editor consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

At least some mention of the rumored deal I believe is important, since readers are left to believe that Senate and Congressmen passed the Amendment to end slavery without any political motivation. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

These additions really need to stop. They're inconsequential entries. This latest one you're campaigning for belongs in the article about the amendment. I still disagree with the mention of servants in his household because the way you inserted it into the article is sending a double message. First we say that Mary Lincoln did the household chores herself after being used to having servants do this for her and then a few sentences later the article is saying the Lincolns had hired servants. WTF?? The quality of this article has actually deteriorated with all of the additions that editors have been throwing in without taking into consideration the continuity of article. I'm getting annoyed here. Brad (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Brad. A focussed article cannot include every rumour about every aspect of every topic connected to Lincoln. --JimWae (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not intended to annoy anyone and I apologize if I have. I am for continuity of the article. To present Mary Lincoln as a modern housewife who did not use any domestic help is misleading. Since there is no editor consensus, I would not put the rumored railroad deal in the article. The closed session of Congress with Lincoln in attendance is not rumored. Can that information be put in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The other purpose to put in that the Lincoln's hired domestic servants is to mention the Lincoln's never owned slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wilmot Proviso

Given the importance of the Wilmot Proviso, during Lincoln's session in Congress, and in its furthering sectional differences, and in the developing party positions among democrats, whigs and (the future) republicans, it seems Lincoln sustained support for it is significant enough to mention in Congressmen Lincoln section, perhaps with this cite:

Lincoln also supported the Wilmot Proviso, banning slavery in new US territory won from Mexico. Newton, Jospeh Lincoln and Herndon p. 37 (Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 1910)

Thoughts? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

yes but use Holzer as source. He says, "The amendment never passed, but the “Wilmot Proviso” earned Lincoln's admiration and support; he later reckoned that during his only term in the House of Representatives, he voted for it more than forty times." Lincoln at Cooper Union p 63 online Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Northern "the violence" ?

I put the clarification tag in the third para. of the Abraham Lincoln#Assuming command for the Union in the war section. What events, why, done by who, where, are being discussed, "in part?:"

"This decision, in part, prevented the secession of Kentucky while incurring the violence[clarification needed] in the North.[151]"

Any help is appreciated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome. I looked up the Donald source in the reference and expanded the reference pages and information in the article. The Northern press was angered at Lincoln for reversing Fremont's emancipation. There was no "violence" as alluded to in the previous edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Reorder marriage section and early career section

At present, these two sections chronologically should be switched. Any other opinions on this? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My personal preference is for the current order, as it keeps the family oriented material together. Hoppyh (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is such a reason to link those (sub) sections, than they should be under a higher level section heading, making the link explicit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the sections more closely, the early life section probably needs a trim. The one large paragraph explaining Lincoln's ancestors. The information is also found in Early life and career of Abraham Lincoln. This article here is at 12,000+ plus words which is a bit over the 10,000 word limit. Brad (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Trim attempted Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes section

Would a notes section improve the narration continuation of the article? For example, the edit on the Lincoln's not owning slaves could be put in a note. That way the narration would have continuation and also the information that the Lincolns did not own slaves would be kept in the article. If the article needed elaboration, then the information could be put in a note. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a note section would be usefull. That way any relevant info that does not neccessarily flow with the narative could be looked at there. Meatsgains (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I added note section.Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing but lipstick on a pig. It was better off as it was. A notes section is used to clarify more important things other than inconsequential trivia. Brad (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

African American and Irish servants are not "inconsequential trivia". Native American history is important. I would hope this discussion would remain civil. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Brad could/should have been more polite, but currently this article does not need small additions about servants, Native Americans, etc. It needs references added, references formatted, the prose scrutinized, etc. If you do some of that work, I for one would be willing to give greater leeway to your ideas. Until then, it is not time to worry about small issues that may be dear to our hearts. This article has settled into a somewhat equilibrium state after thousand of edits and editors have added and removed and re added information. The things you mention have probably been added and removed several times over the years. We need to work on the basics before those things, and they are currently somewhat of a distraction. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the servants in the article to let the reader know that the Lincoln's used servants. Not putting in the servants, in my opinion, presumes that the Lincoln's did not have servants. Native American wars did take place while Lincoln was President. I believe for the reader the importance is in knowing Lincoln had to contend with wars in the Trans Mississippi West in addition to the American Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I am all for adding formatted references. I would have to check biographical sources on Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing about servants is a red herring. Here's how to know how much time to spend on a topic: look at how much time the general sources spend on it. Do Lincoln's biographers spend a ton of pages discussing his servants? I haven't read any in a while, but I don't remember that kind of digression. It doesn't matter if we think it's important or not. Our job is to summarize existing scholarship and distill it into an encyclopedia article of reasonable length. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall Donald spending any time on it. I suggest the external links section be used to refer the reader directly to a source for this type of thing. The scope of such links needs to be finite.Hoppyh (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy you continually ignore the fact that there were several editors against the addition of this servant thing in the original conversation above here. Please remove the notes section you created entirely for including this material, which several editors have voiced opposition to. This is beginning to look like a pov campaign. Brad (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Brad, there is no need to bully myself or make any insinuations. The source Prockopowicz is a Lincoln scholar. Meatsgains approved of the notes section in the article. I find it interesting that the mention of servants has caused controversy. There is no POV campaign. Lincoln had servants. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed notes section. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all notes and any controversial edits. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Prockowicz is a Lincoln scholar. That is where I got the information on Lincoln having servants. Of course, Lincoln's views on slavery are the central issue. I believe people want to know if Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, owned slaves. He did not. Understanding the servant class system in 19th Century Illinois is valid. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that it's fairly tangential. Would some people be interested? Maybe. But there are thousands of books on Lincoln with new ones written every year. Most are full of things people (at least some people) want to know. We can only afford to include the general, mainstream info, or else the page gets unmanageable and unencyclopedic. Gerald Prokopowicz is a legit scholar, I don't dispute it, but the subject of his book fits better, if anywhere, at Abraham Lincoln and slavery. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The edits have been taken out of the AL article. I have been adding references where there is a citation. Putting that information on Lincoln and servants in the Lincoln and slavery article would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The matter of Lincoln's "ties to slavery" brings up another question: What ties did Jefferson Davis have to abolitionists? His father-in-law offered the Territorial governership of Oregon to Abraham Lincoln, a man who associated with abolitionists. See the Wiki bio on Davis for more updates. This is important research. 36hourblock (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Davis's wife/Taylor's daughter died many years before. Davis was a Democrat and President Taylor was a Whig and they did not consult on patronage. Lincoln "associated" with everybody in Illinois and had no particular ties to the abolitionists in 1848. Rjensen (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think 36hour was sarcastically making the point that everyone is connected to everyone, and none of these connections are particularly noteworthy. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Underneath sarcasm there can be a bit of hostility, although the point was taken. Lincoln was not an abolitionist and as Rjensen stated did not have "particular ties" with abolitionists. President Lincoln freed the slaves out of military necessity. Davis's father-in-law, was not Jefferson Davis. Everybody had ties with everybody, yes, however, I believe information on Lincoln's servants is significant in the Abraham Lincoln and slavery article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: The Davis family had ties to Kentucky, Lincoln's original state. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Davis' first father-in-law was Zachary Taylor from Virginia. Davis's second father-in-law William Burr Howell's was from Mississippi. Howell's extended family was originally from New Jersey. One could argue that Davis had ties to the North by his second marriage. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Davis's father-in-law William Burr Howell may have been born in the North, but then migrated to Mississippi. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me make the point more explicit: lots of people are connected to other people, but none of those connections have any relevance to this article unless the connection is covered by Lincoln's major biographers, which it is not. Can we please stop discussing this nonsense and let it be archived, never to be seen again? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

One more note for clarification: William Burr Howell was born in Trenton, New Jersey, and by 1823 had moved to and married in Mississippi. Secretary of State, John M. Clayton, appointed by President Taylor in 1849, offered Lincoln the position as Governor of the Oregon Territory. Lincoln refused since the Oregon territory was Democratic Party entrenched. Yes. This conversation can be archived. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

habeas corpus redundancy

The issues over Lincoln and habeas corpus and the copperheads is discussed in both the War begins and Assuming command for the Union in the war sections. This is redundancy that needs to be resolved. Each entry essentially explains the same issues. Brad (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Corrected by c/e. (cites are ok) Hoppyh (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Civil rights

I believe Black historians acknowledge Lincoln as 1 of 3 19th Century Civil Rights Presidents, including Lincoln, Grant, and Benjamin Harrison. I believe this information is important in the Historical reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you bring up a fact you think is important, someone on this talk page is going to leave the same comments: provide a reliable source and show that the information is important enough to understanding Lincoln's life that we need to shoehorn it into this already-long article. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please provide a proposed sentence or clause, and cites. And your specific reason for thinking it important in that place in this article. Then we can all discuss it. We may indeed need it, but we have to be very specific and intentional, at this point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Source: Walton, Smith (2000) American Politics And The African American Quest For Universal Freedom, pg. 200 Cmguy777 (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "civil rights" emerged shortly AFTER Lincoln's death and is a main theme for later articles (Reconstruction Era). So it can be left out of this article. Some historians use "civil rights" as a more general concept covering the abolition of slavery, which is well covered in this article.Rjensen (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction: I believe the source stated Presidents who implemented "anti-racist" policies. Lincoln then would be considered an anti-racist President. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

RJensen: we don't have to use those terms but do we need this to balance the critique of Lerone Bennet -- even if just the cite included, with the next sentence (or is it not significant enough?) 64.150.17.6 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the information is important since Lincoln was the first "anti-racist" policy President. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I say no. We don't have room for every textbook author's opinion of Lincoln, and there's nothing to suggest that those two authors' opinions are more or less notable than any others. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Recommended top limit word count of 10,000. This article is at 12,7xx. It needs to be trimmed; not added to. Brad (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Walton and Smith's textbook takes an excluded group point of view and does counter Lerone Bennet. A majority of black historians believe Lincoln had "anti-racist" policies. I believe 44 African American political scientists and historians were polled in this textbook. Presidency: How Do African-American Scholars Rank Presidents?, History News Network Cmguy777 (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories on talk page

It seems like we have too many categories here. Not sure which ones might be removed, but with my screen resolution there's about 25 lines of categories, maybe more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The cats on this page are generated by the project templates. Not much can be done about that. Brad (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tagg (2009) ref

What is currently ref number 2. Does anyone know the page numbers? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Rjensen worked on that, you could ask him. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

the entire book is referenced--it's all needed to support the text that says he came under attack from "all sides". Rjensen (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Citing an entire book or entire chapters will not cut the mustard at a FAC. Brad (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

when we summarize an entire book or chapter then that is the proper citation. Rjensen (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I used "passim" when citing an entire article, and it passed FAC. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the current statement is properly sourced. I agree with the following, which was posted elsewhere:

"Where a statement is sourced to a particular conclusion in a work, the conclusion's position in the work must be indicated for verification purposes. This can include text searching, paragraph numbering, lines of code or law, page numbers (with an edition specified including the city of publication). Where a statement is sourced to the primary motive of an extended work, this should be cited against the introduction, thesis, conclusion with the position in the work indicated. Where a work is cited multiple times for different matters, on each occasion the place in the work needs to be indicated. Where a work is merely cited as existing at all, "Kevin published a book, "On ducks,"" only then is it legitimate to cite the work as a whole. Even then, I'd suggest citing the bibliographic page. The idea that the "vibe" of a work is contained in the work as a whole, but never made explicit by the author, and so the work as a whole should be cited is a very bad one leading to original exegeses of the meaning of the work. Authors who make claims with their whole work, usually take the pain to do so with an introduction or conclusion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)"

Since there is no present desire on the part of Rjensen to give a direct cite, unless a direct cite is provided, I propose to change the current sentence to attribute the contention to the author of the book. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha. One of the reasons why I'm so fanatical about referencing is because I learned from Fifelfoo.. :). But beside all that the Tagg issue may not even be an issue because citations are not required in a lede section unless that lede mentions something that is not written about and cited in the main body of the article. I tried to point that some months back but nobody listened. Brad (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War

I just noticed that Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War (ALATCW) is some sort of Frankenstein's Monster of pasted gunk from other articles and it covers more of his Presidency than it does the CW. The article actually contains less information than the article here does about ALATCW. This is all bassackwards. Anyway, I don't think we should be pointing to ALATCW as a main article from the Assuming command for the Union in the war section as it won't help a reader learn more. Brad (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the first half of that article is not "pasted gunk" but was created uniquely for that article (by me). The intent was to create an article that would live up to the title given it, but, as you can see, nothing much has been added in the last 25 months. If it ever gets finished the title should probably be changed to Presidency of Abraham Lincoln.

In any event, I agree that the existing reference to this article should be eliminated. I do think, however, that there would be value in adding a reference from the main article section 1860 election and secession to Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War#Secession winter 1860–1861. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I took a slower second look at the page and it does contain more extended information than is shown here. I propose moving ALATCW to Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (POAL) (currently a redirect to Abraham Lincoln) and placing the link to POAL underneath the AL main article section Presidency. In addition, the current article content here about POAL could simply be copied into POAL in order to fill out the article. Yes? No? Brad (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. a great deal happened in his administration that is not part of his biography--actions by Treasury and Congress, for example. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Tom (North Shoreman) before making a move. He appears as the main editor of that article. Just to clarify, there's no requirement that text from this article has to be copied over to POAL. Brad (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the name of the article. I'm not sure what benefit there would be from further copying of material from this article into POAL. The material that I haven't changed was previously copied into the article and then never followed up on -- the followup is the problem. My vision of the future development of the article is at [[1]]. Right now I'm ambivalent about my future involvement with wikipedia so I don't know how much I'll be working on it in the future. Give me a week or so to see what I can do about filling out the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

And probably this entire discussion should be copied or linked and continued on that talk page for all those interested. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Presidency of Abraham Lincoln is a good idea. I believe that way the Western and Eastern part of the American Civil War can be addressed, along with Foreign Policy, Economy, and Indian Wars. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

While these issues would certainly be covered in more depth, an article on Lincoln's presidency is still going to be primarily about Lincoln's actions. The place to create a thorough history of the Union during the Civil War is probably at Union (American Civil War) -- an article that at present has very little purpose (see Talk:Union (American Civil War)#Why have this article?). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I agree and have started to beef up Union (American Civil War). Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Abraham_Lincoln_and_the_Civil_War#Abraham_Lincoln_and_the_Civil_War Brad (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

References formatting requires monitoring

As with the compliance with MOS: images, the references sections require constant monitoring for consistent formatting. Alot of time/effort has been invested by editors (other than myself). My understanding is that while there may be different acceptable formats, the article needs to be consistent. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

During the last FAC I spent about three hours standardizing the refs and removing overlinking. I see that hasn't been followed in kind during work on the article. I'll look it over again. Brad (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Current citation #53 only leads to a generic search page. Nothing can be verified. Brad (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it and added some better cites Rjensen (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well that's good but you just exploded the citation style we're trying to standardize. Please follow the manner that other Donald and Simon refs are laid out. Pay attention to spaces, periods and dashes with page numbers. p. for one page and pp. for multiple pages. Brad (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves, it has to be an mdash for page ranges, not an ndash. I'm embarrassed to be raising this so I'm not signing!

No, endash for page ranges. On your keyboard hold down the alt key and on your right-hand number pad type in 0150 (endash) and release the alt key. For an emdash use 0151. Or there is {{endash}} and {{emdash}}. An emdash is a very long dash. See alt key codes. Brad (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks–I think I have the right one but misnamed it. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Around #258 and following there are several cites with no publisher information. That should be included, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

the publication info (city, publisher, isbn, online location, DOI) should be in the bibliography, not the footnote. That will keep it neater and shorter. Rjensen (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case the cite should have a link to the bibliography entry but around 258 and subsequent they seem to stop doing that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm working through the refs top to bottom. Eventually I will work my way down to that area. The refs were so nice after I did them the last time but after that they were put together with the fabled WP manure launcher™. Brad (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Current citation #198 fails verification ie: reference does not back up the paragraph it's citing. Brad (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Current citation #102 says: Allan Nevins, The Emergence of Lincoln: vol. 1, Douglas, Buchanan and Party Chaos [Ordeal of the Union vol 3] (1950) pp. 374–99. What exactly is being used here? Listed is both vol 1 and 3 but there is only one range of page numbers. Please clarify. Brad (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

it's one book, but was published both as vol 3 of Ordeal of the Union series and vol 1 of Emergence of Lincoln. Very confusing, indeed, but different libraries catalog it in the two different ways. I'll fix itRjensen (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Citation #54 says David Donald, Lincoln's Herndon (1948) p. 17 but I see no 1948 editions of a book by Donald or anything similar in the bibliography. Please clarify. Brad (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazon.com is a good source. This is a famous book--Donald's PhD dissertation--published by Knopf in 1948 Rjensen (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Current status

I stopped working on this issue because while I was fixing things up there were editors destroying the layout I was attempting to establish at the same time. This particular issue is the 2c criteria of the featured article criteria. The article will not pass that criteria presently. Brad (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that still the current status? Could you point out a couple refs, and how they should be? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are still problems. Uniformity of citations means that they're consistently the same throughout the article in every way. Brad (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The high volume of traffic here makes the uniformity a constant work in progress. Certainly no one has devoted more effort to helping this than you two!! Hoppyh (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm back to work on this issue but from here on out anyone that breaks the established format will be reverted with fire. Eventually I will have to post a list of problems that I can't fix on my own. Brad (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad a higher level of protection is not on this article, but my understanding is that such a status is just not possible based on the open forum philosophy of WP, despite the cost in quality. Hoppyh (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's looking better than it did a week ago. I agree with the reverting idea. I'll do that to if I catch it in time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Maintaining and adding cites

 Done

Since, for lack of any other system, Brad is the guard of uniformity in citation on this article, is there a way to make his chosen format clear with hidden instructions or otherwise. My understanding is Brad does not like the Cite form templates that are standard on wiki editing windows, which creates a problem for me since I use those templates. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing cite book in the bibliography section. Do we have other plans? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, plans, need to be explicit, with specific steps. I take by what you say, that for a book you:1) put "author last name, page" as the inline citation; and then add to bibliography in some partiular format. What is that format? Also, does what you do matter where the cite is not to a book, but a web cite or other document on the web, like from the National Park service? If it does, how does "proper" referencing occur for that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've said before that I'm not a fan of the [[#Author|Author]] type of citations but since this article was established with that format then it should remain that way unless there is some strong disagreement. To follow this format it's <ref>[[#Author|Author]] p. 1.</ref> or <ref>[[#Author|Author]] pp. 1–2.</ref> For authors that have more than one book cited the year of publication needs to be added <ref>[[#Author|Author]] (1994), p. 1.</ref> so that the particular book is pointed out. It's especially important to notice where commas and periods are placed in the citation. Page range numbers: pp. 1–2 are separated by an endash which can be done by 1{{endash}}2 or by holding down your alt key and typing 0150 on your right hand number pad and releasing the alt key (that is my preferred way). Otherwise you end up with 1-2 which is incorrect in WP land. The [[#Author| part of the citation should correspond with the entry in the ref= parameter of books cited in the bibliography. Does this help? Brad (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. I can see why you don't like it, as maintenance and (my main concern) adding cites, is more difficult. Thanks. You explained this well, except, what steps need to be taken to add to the bibliography (the ref= parameter ?) I am not sure, I got that part. Also, what do we do with no author, such as at least one NPS reference? Also, I have seen standard warnings on other articles about cite format, does anyone know of a warning for this cite format? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The best way to figure that out is to open up the biblio section for editing and look at the entries. {{cite book}} explains the parameters. If you wanted to cite Heidler's 2006 book then you would have to cite <ref>[[#Heidler|Heidler]] (2006), p. 1.</ref> and if you wanted to cite Heidler's 2000 book: [[#Heidler2|Heidler]] (2000), p. 1.</ref> For web sites use {{cite web}} and they can stay in the references without being added to the biblio. For Journal citations use {{cite journal}}. Just keep in mind that there are still a lot of messed up formats on this article so following the above directions may still lead to disaster. Brad (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If we don't like the format, we can change it. Except that's probably too much work. The story is that a few years ago I tried to take Jackie Robinson through FAC. I failed, another editor fixed it up enormously but wouldn't bow to trivial FAC suggestions and also failed. I made the adjustments in a few hours, took it to FAC, and it passed easily. I then started to try and get this article up to FA levels, asked that user for help, and they came in and converted everything to this fancy style of referencing, and then quit working on it. I think it looks cool to the reader, but is a pain to the editor. So, we can do whatever we want, but we're kinda stuck because of the effort involved. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My first objection to the current format was that it added tons of blue links to the article with little benefit. Now that I've actually sunk my teeth into working with this format I object over the amount of work needed and the difficulty in maintaining uniformity. This format might work ok for an uncomplicated article of much smaller size but imo it has failed to hold up here.

Changing the format now would be a lot of work but it would be uncomplicated work and more than one person could do it. All that needs to be changed is the <ref>[[#Heidler|Heidler]] (2006), p. 1.</ref> to <ref>Heidler (2006), p. 1.</ref> It's just a matter of removing the wikilinking. I'll stop working on the refs until there is agreement on changing the format or not. Brad (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Support simplification the better to promote citation and maintenence, imo (not to turn this into a vote but just trying to get everyone to notice). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Another point I left out is that with the current format all 290+ citations would have to be checked to make sure they click through to the correct edition of a source. bleh Brad (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I support changing it if that's what you guys want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Will start changing the format from here on out then. Brad (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if there might not be a BOT out there to run on this. For example, I seem to recall someone with a BOT that converted all the page ranges to use the ndash. I can't remember the article but it was a president I know that. Hoppyh (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point we're over 50 percent changed on the format. Doing it by hand has helped me find other little typos etc. No bot needed imo. Brad (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(od) Essentially I'm finished except for the areas where unanswered maint tags and questions about sources remain. I have to say that this article was one of the most horribly screwed up ones I've ever worked on in regards to 2c requirements. Brad (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Jstor help needed

 Done

The following jstor articles need the specific page number that backs up the text they're citing. The total page range currently given is too wide for a specific citation. I don't have jstor access therefore someone who does needs to supply the page numbers. Brad (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Press Opposition to Lincoln in New Hampshire
• Lincoln and the Territorial Patronage

1= pp 326-341 2= pp. 77-90 the page range is not too wide. Rjensen (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources only cited once issue

 Done

There are several cited sources which are only cited once in the article. In the past I've excluded sources like this from a bibliography and allowed the full source information to be placed in the references section. The article currently has a mix of single cited references in the biblio and some are in the references. This is another point about uniformity and the question is which way we want the article to go. Put them in the biblio or in the references section? Brad (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I used to do it the way you do, but lately I've put them all in the bibliography. I think it looks cleaner to have the notes all be short cites to the longer references in the next section. My last FA, Chester A. Arthur, is organized that way. But that's just my opinion; I don't think there's a rule either way. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The only rule is uniformity :) Brad (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think every book should be in the bibiography. Mostly because once it's there, it's done. If a book is used once, then at a later date it's used a second time, we don't want to have to shift stuff around a bunch. Even if a book is used once, and it goes to zero, I say leave it until the FAC in case someone reads the ref. It sounds like we're all on the same page anyways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Will start following this as I work. Brad (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Authors with multiple books

 Done I love that crazy long dash thing that was added for the subsequent books of authors cited more than once, like Donald for instance. I wonder if some indentation could make it even easier to see that it's the same author. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree the dash is confusing w/o an indent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

the dash is ok in bibliographies in printed books that do not change, but here where the text changes daily it is unwise and will confuse readers and editors. I suggest every citation should be able to stand alone & contain the author's name.Rjensen (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

And then we're left with a biblio section that repeats the author name several times with no benefit. Eventually the addition and removal of sources and text will come to a halt once everything is settled. Brad (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think repetition has a benefit--it clearly tells people who wrote what. Students are likely to get confused otherwise. the amount of space "saved" is trivial. Rjensen (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I indented the Donald books. How does that look? Brad (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Better, but I agree with Jensen on this one. Better to repeat than to risk confusion if one gets edited out. It's the same reason we don't use ibid. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess we should be careful of stuff that can change and mess up the dashes or indents. Which brings up a good point. I added a few books, and I didn't know what to alphabetize them by. I think I went with title, but maybe I did year. Anyways, how should it be done? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have always sorted by year when an author has multiple books. According to some citation reading I've done, the case where an author has two books in the same year are sorted by (2001a) and (2001b). The letter being assigned by title. Brad (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove the indentations and the emdashes the next time I have the biblio section open for editing. I'd forgotten that WP articles have to be dumbed down because of aesthetics and the chance that some reader might get confused and have a breakdown. Brad (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

we have a lot of high school students who may never have seen this peculiar format before and wonder who is ____ -- maybe anonymous? Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I fear for the current education system if that's the case. Brad (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

FAC article getting the ref shakedown

This current FAC should serve as an example for how important the 2c criteria is these days. Please look through the editor comments there. I'm hoping that my work here will eliminate large problems in this area. So when I'm being a persistent PITA about having correct authors, years, volumes, sources and editions it's not something I've just invented to make everyone miserable. Brad (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. I ended up on wikibreak when I tried to fix all the refs. I've only recently become brave enough to work on them. Mostly because of all the awesome effort everyone else is doing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Calling Ghostbusters...I cannot find ref #231 in the body of the article. Hoppyh (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It and #232 cite the cabinet box. I would delete both. Those boxes don't need citation, or at least they haven't on any FA presidential biography I've seen. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell how to edit that box. Anyone know? But, I think having cites is always better than no cite. I would suggest replaceing both with this one.

Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The citations are within {{Lincoln cabinet sidebar}}. I went mad trying to find them myself. If it's decided to keep references I suggest citing written references from books. The online ones have a habit of going dead or changing. Brad (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, I substituted with an archived copy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I still say we may as well delete the ref. Not every fact needs citation, only those that someone might reasonably require proof of. I'm a chronic over-citer, and even I think it's excessive. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence improvement

I believe the following sentence in the lead can be improved:

Radical Republicans wanted harsher treatment of the South, War Democrats desired more compromise, and Copperheads despised him—not to mention irreconcilable secessionists in reunited areas.

Tagg,

There is no way to validate the reference since the reference is not complete. Also, the Radicals are viewed as the "bad guys", by the words "harsher treatment". Maybe stating the Radicals wanted to give African Americans citizenship rights or equality is less biased. The Radicals did want to destroy the Southern Slave system, that is true, however their goal was the enfranchisement of former African American slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"harsher treatment" is what the Radicals demanded as punishment for treason. They wanted to take the vote away from Confederates because those people were not true Americans. That is separate from and in addition to giving the votes to Freedmen. I rephrased it a bit and specified a page number of Tagg. We should keep the book title in footnote because it explains a lot: he Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: The Story of America's Most Reviled President. Rjensen (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe that needs to be inferred into the sentence, in terms of taking away voting rights from Southerners and giving voting rights to Freedmen. My concern is that the term "harsher treatment" is general and is not defined specifically. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

the lede is being kept short and focused on Lincoln, so there's really no space in the lede to discuss the Radicals' counter-proposals such as the Wade-Davis plan (which is covered in the main text), or land seizures, or hanging the leaders. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Only Confederate Henry Wirz was hanged. Jefferson Davis was shackeled for three days and imprisoned for two years. Yes. Prison life is terrible, however, he was not publically hanged. There were no mass Confederate executions or Confederate prisoners. Grant paroled Lee's army. I understand the need for space in the lead section. Did Charles Sumner and Thadeus Stevens demand that the Confederates be hanged for treason? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

lots of Radicals -- including VP Andrew Johnson--called for hanging the Confederate top leaders. There were no treason trials. One problem is that a treason trial had to be held in a southern state with a local jury, with a high risk of acquittal.Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That gives better perspective Rjensen. If the Radicals demanded hangings, I would consider that harsh treatment. Maybe adding somewhere in the article that the Radicals demanded hangings would be good. Again, I would like to read the Tagg source, if available, to get better understanding of the sentence, yet the page number has not been given. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

see for Tagg page xiii VP Johnson spoke of "hanging" traitors. Stewart says, President "Johnson sounded like a man bent on vengeance, repeatedly insisting that “treason must be made infamous and traitors punished.” When Wade suggested hanging a baker's dozen of Confederate leaders, Johnson objected that the number must be higher." see full cite Rjensen (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Great edit Rjensen! The paragraph and sentence are stronger and makes more sense. Thanks for the reference. From what I read in the reference Benjamin Wade and President Johnson seemed the most adamant for hanging. Were there any other Radicals that can be sourced for hanging, or did Wade in essence reflect what other Radicals demanded? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks :) "Lincoln made it clear that he wanted "no bloody work," no war trials, hangings and firing squads — not even for rebel leaders." Charnwood says, "No one need expect me," said Lincoln, " to take any part in hanging or killing these men, even the worst of them. Frighten them out of the country, open the gates, let down the bars, scare them off." " Shoo," he added, throwing up his hands." That is he wanted them to escape to Europe, as many did. Rhodes (vol 6 p 50) notes that Sumner and Stevens opposed executions. Public opinion narrowed the list down to Jefferson Davis, who was held for a few years and released. Rjensen (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This gives good insight into President Lincoln. I know there are space issues, but I believe this information would be good for the readers. I am not sure if this side of Lincoln gets much publicity. Good go know Stevens and Sumner were against executions. Wade seems to have been the most Radical. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ended slavery statement

The lead currently states that Lincoln ended slavery; "while ending slavery". Is this accurate? He supported the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that ended "involuntary servitude". His Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to all the states. Lincoln freed the slaves in certain states is more accurate then ended slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln was the #1 proponent of the 13th amendment--he got it passed and it finalized the end of slavery. He also worked hard to get the border states to end slavery (most of them did so). and he killed off slavery in the Confederacy. That adds up to one of the great achievements in world history. Rjensen (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's not overthink it: Lincoln defeated the CSA and worked for the passage of the 13th amendment. Those facts alone add up to more of a role in ending slavery than any other American. --Coemgenus (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the lede says he led the country; for a summary (as the lede needs to be) it is accurate. He was the leader of the country, when slavery saw its demise, and he had everything to do with that, as the nation's leader. Because of him, freeing the slaves became a war aim, and the war won.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the facts given. My concern was with phrasing. The Ulysses S. Grant article stated that Grant won the passage of the 15th amendment. Does the 13th Amendment need to be mentioned in the Lincoln article lede or that Lincoln won passage of the 13th amendment? Cmguy777 (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't add up. We have the following comment from 23 June, 2011: "Keep in mind Lincoln did not oppose slavery in the border states." (Rjensen (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC))

Now we have "He also worked hard to get the border states to end slavery..." (Rjensen (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)) So which is it? 36hourblock (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the sources show that as a matter of public and private morality, and of political principal, he did oppose slavery everywhere (and supported ending it everywhere), but as matter of constitutional law, he did not see a sanction for opposing it (or forcing its end) in any state (absent the dread war power), which is why he supported the amendments to the constitution that he did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Semantics are important, I agree. But does the Sockpuppet agree? Sockpuppetry violates wiki rules. 36hourblock (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln's position changed. He never liked slavery but when to get rid of it was a political issue. He did not challenge slavery in the border states in 1860-61. In 1862-64 he helped and encouraged the border states to abolish it (most did so, but not Kentucky). An equally important issue was making the ban permanent, which the 13th amendment did. Different constitutional rules applied in different places (eg different rules applied to DC, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Missouri & Kentucky & Maryland & Del, West Virginia, the Confederacy) so he had to use different procedures. Rjensen (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Lincoln's position changed.." I agree. But how, when, where, why? Jefferson Davis changed his position in 1865 and authorized the arming of slaves to fight for Confederate independence. Now that's a "change".

"He never liked slavery..." Nor did much of the slaveholding gentry.

"He did not challenge slavery in the border states in 1860-61." I'll look into this. He may have taken steps to move the state of Delaware towards emancipation in 1861, before the Radical Republicans elected in 1860 took their seats in Congress in December of that year and began to take more agressive action toward the institution.

"In 1862-64 he helped and encouraged the border states to abolish [slavery]..." I think the word emancipate word be more precise.

"Different constitutional rules applied in different places (eg different rules applied to...New Mexico...)" Writing to Sec. of State Seward on 1 February, 1861, “Lincoln hinted that he might accept the admission of New Mexico as a slave state” Lincoln: ‘…'Nor do I care much about New Mexico, if further extension is hedged against.' (Kenneth M. Stampp, Lincoln and the Strategy of Defense in the Crisis of 1861, (1945)). 36hourblock (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked into the statement: "He did not challenge slavery in the border states in 1860-61."

In fact, Lincoln did put pressure on - "challenged" - Delaware Rep. George P. Fisher in early November 1861, to promote compensated emancipation in his state. (Allan Nevins, The War for the Union (1960), p.6). William Lee Miller also reports this in President Lincoln: the Duty of a Statesman(2008), p. 256) 36hourblock (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Abbreveation 'Abe' for Abraham Lincoln

Could it be that the abbreveation 'Abe' for Abraham Lincoln is common in the US? e.g.: de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Abe_Lincoln My simple Question is, why is nothing found about it on the page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln ? (jaybear from Europe 18:49, 04 Nov. 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.29.41.30 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ties and the Talk page

Please remember that the purpose of the talk page is NOT to discuss Lincoln (see talk page guidelines, above). It's to discuss improvement of this article. These and the previous "ties" discussions do not seem to be addressed to the purpose of the talk page because they either don't discuss sources for the various ties theses, or discuss how such sources should be used in the article. They are rather set up as general debate society propositions. General discussions of Lincoln risk being refractored. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing the comments don't improve anything in this case. The "scatter gun" approach to claiming Lincoln's so-called "ties to slavery" was challenged, both for a definition and sources to support it. How about reposting the comments, Mr. Walker? 36hourblock (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No one has yet refractored comments, but several have asked for suggestions related to the the text of the article, which you have not provided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have mention before that I believe the best source for Lincoln and "ties to slavery" is the book by Lowell Hayes Harrison (2000), Lincoln of Kentucky. I believe this is a good source on Lincoln and his Kentucky roots. Link Lincoln of Kentucky Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic sockpuppetry accusation

Lincoln’s “ties to slavery” and President Zachary Taylor

The term “ties” has not, to date, been defined by the editors who originally introduced it into the discussion, so I will put it in parentheses until they clarify the meaning of the phrase in this context. That Lincoln "...worked for the election of Taylor (1848)..."(Rjensen (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2011 UTC) is offered as evidence that AL had “ties to slavery” because Taylor was a “slave owner”. Here, it seems the editor’s use of the word “ties” might mean an interest on Lincoln’s part – personal or political – in perpetuating slavery. Lincoln was said to have "...no particular ties to the abolitionists in 1848..." the year that he "worked" for the slaveowner Taylor’s presidential run. (Rjensen (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2011 UTC). But General Taylor apparently did have such "ties". According to historian Eric Foner (The Fiery Trial, 2010), Senator William Seward (MA), an abolitionist, was a key advisor and confident of the slave-holding candidate. Seward urged him to include gradual emancipation as a plank on the Whig platform (p. 56). Although rejecting this, in the interest of party unity, Taylor did support free-soil in California and New Mexico Territories. Lincoln flatly rejected any accomodation inserting slavery-based issues into the Whig Party politics. Indeed, he joined the tiny minority of Whigs who rejected resolutions to end slavery – or even the slave trade – in Wash. D.C. (p. 64). My apprasials of “ties” to slavery or abolitionism are far less simplistic, or at least less crude, than the syllogism: 1) Lincoln supported Taylor for President. 2) Taylor owned slaves. 3) therefore, Lincoln had “ties” to slavery. 36hourblock (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

36hourblock is going too far in suggesting implications that are not there. Lincoln had pretty close ties to slavery late in the war--his Todd brothers in law owned slaves until after Lincoln died. That is not hypocrisy: Lincoln did not think that owning slaves was a sin. He wanted the support of slave owners and wanted THEM to abolish slavery not the president. As for Taylor, he owned slaves in 1848.Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. I have written that "sympathies" maybe a better word the "ties". I believe his ties to slavery began to break in mid 1862 with the Emancipation Proclamation. However, because he wanted to compensate slaves, $400,000,000, I believe that Lincoln's ties with slavery never completely broke. He believed in limited suffrage for the black soldiers, not the whole African American race that were freed. Lincoln also attempted many times to establish African American colonies throughout the world, rather then give all the freed slaves U.S. citizenship. The present value of $400,000,000 (1865) is $5,520,000,000.00 (2010). The Radicals were completely opposed to any compensation and wanted unconditional citizenship and suffrage. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln, Grant and "Ties to Slavery"

Another of the curious example of the "ties to slavery" theme is leveled at AL because “[h]is major appointments late in the war included men who had owned slaves...Ulysses Grant, among others." (Rjensen (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2011 UTC) The unstated thesis here is that any appointment to government service of a former slave owner during the war effort was an act of hypocrisy and evidence of Lincoln’s "ties to slavery". Specifically, that after issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, AL promoted Grant to General-in-Chief in 1864 – "late in the war". Grant had owned a slave, who he manumitted in 1859. The conclusion is unmistakable: even as Grant defeats Lee at Appomattox, Lincoln is ever tainted by his dependence upon a former slave owner to save the Union. The cynicism of this logic is intellectually dishonest, whatever the intention of the editor might have. This requires documentation, rather than speculation about purported “ties to slavery”. In a letter to Elihu Washburne, Aug. 30, 1863 Grant wrote: “I was never an abolitionist, not even what could be called anti-slavery, but I try to judge fairly and honestly and it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North and South could never be at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace established, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until the question is forever settled.” (Allan Nevins, The War for the Union, 1960, p. 524) The following is a conversation between Otto von Bismarck (the founder and first chancellor of the German Empire) and General Grant that occurred in June, 1878. "You are so happily placed," replied the prince, "in America that you need fear no wars. What always seemed so sad to me about your last great war was that you were fighting your own people. That is always so terrible in wars, so very hard." "But it had to be done." said the General. "Yes," said the prince, "you had to save the Union just as we had to save Germany." "Not only save the Union, but destroy slavery," answered the General. "I suppose, however, the Union was the real sentiment, the dominant sentiment," said the prince. "In the beginning, yes," said the General; "but as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle." The term “ties to slavery” remains to be defined by those who introduced it; please do so. 36hourblock (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions about alternative wording to correct the issue? Brad (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln had Southern "sympathies". Maybe that is a better word then ties. Remember, Grant also said Lincoln was the South's best friend in his Memoirs. I believe these sympathies included colonization of blacks and compensation to slave owners. Lincoln initially was reluctant to free the slaves in the border states. A majority of black historians, however, believe that Lincoln was the first U.S. President to have anti-racist policies, i.e., the Emancipation Proclamation, the Freedman's Bureau, and implementing the 13TH Amendment to end slavery. Lincoln shared white supremacist views, however, white supremacy was rampant in the North and South. Lincoln's ties with slavery began to break down in mid 1862, believing he had to free the slaves in order to win the American Civil War. He was a moderate. His position changed on emancipation and limited suffrage for slaves as the war progressed and wound down. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Virtually every American had some kind of "connection" or other to slavery. "Sympathy" implies being favorably disposed towards slavery - evidence for which I do not see. "Ties" could mean either of the 2 and is thus too easily confusing. What is it you are trying to find? Maybe it would be more appropriate to figure out a title after it's clear there's something worth saying. What facts you think could form a new section of the article that covers things not already covered? Then we could figure out how to title it and whether to do it at all. I do not think "Connections to slavery" is worth a section. --JimWae (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy's agenda is to make sure that every little minority opinion is included so that any figure in US history that lived during the years of slavery is properly punished for holding common views of the age and associating with those who owned slaves or owned slaves themselves. Brad (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not Charles Sumner. I am not here to punish any slave owners and have no agenda other then having a balanced article. Another user has brought up this issue again. I have not restarted anything. Rjensen believes that Lincoln had ties with slavery. Rjensen is a reputed and balanced editor on Wikipedia. If Brad is refering to minorities as African Americans, I do believe their view point is signifigant, particularly when refering to racism or Civil Rights. Lincoln is exceptional for having the first anti-racist policies in U.S. History. Concerning JimWae, "sympathy" means Linclon did not want to punish the slave owners and believed compensation was fair. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Is any of this about a possible edit to the article? If so, propose an edit. If not, it's just off-topic blather. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln was a complicated man and his views on slavery are difficult to fully understand, in my opinion. If there was a source that specifically stated Lincoln had ties or sympathies with the South, particularly, related to compensation of the slave owners, that is fine. Obviously Lincoln wanted to handle Reconstruction from a Presidential point of view. Why? Would this forestall the legislation that the Radicals wanted to implement. My only hesitation is that Lincoln was assassinated and that this makes it impossible to know, only speculation, how Lincoln would have progressed during the Reconstruction Era. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So, are you thinking about an article and/or section entitled "How Lincoln really felt about slavery"?--JimWae (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

36hourblock and cmguy need to state the problem that needs correcting in the article and propose a change with sources or I'm closing this thread. Brad (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned before, Brad, I did not bring this issue up again. I have been looking for current sources on this topic. Maybe Rjensen can find a recent valid source. I am for editor consensus. As mentioned before JimWae, Lincoln was a complicated man and I do not believe there are simple explanations for his views on slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link: Lincoln of Kentucky Harrison (2000), p. 221. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln, and Grandmother and Grandfather Todd

“As Congressman one year [Lincoln] sent his wife and children to live in the Todd slave household…” (Rjensen (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2011 UTC) Here we have Lincoln exposing his wife and his young children (Robert and Edward) to the degrading influence of slavery, presided over by their materal grandparents, Robert and Elizabeth Todd. As a member of Congress, Lincoln had an altenative: he could have found lodging for his family in the nation’s capitol – safe from the unsavory influence of the in-laws. In Washington, D.C. the Lincoln boys could accompany their father to work and observe firsthand the auctioneering of slaves within sight –and sound – of the U.S. House and Senate. This way, the boys would gain valuble insights into the civil and natural rights accorded to African-Americans in the United States of 1848. (The slave trade would not be outlawed in D.C. until 1850). Lincoln had voted against resolutions to end either slavery or the slave trade in the capitol, in the interests of Whig Party unity. He supported, however, the Wilmot Proviso and its subsequent permutations, to prohibit the spread of slavery aquired through conquest during the Mexican War (1846-1848). This is key to understanding his position on slavery. The moral of the story is not 'if everyone is guilty, no one is guilty'. On the contrary “Lincoln's position changed.” (Rjensen (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2011 UTC) (The exchange that carried this quote was suppressed, I regret). It did change; it changed when Lincoln stepped forward in October 1854 (Peoria, Ill speech), in the aftermath of the K-N Act, to formulate and disseminate to the American public an outlook on slavery that insisted upon a “strategy of containment” that would lead to its ultimate extinction. (Arthur Bestor, The American Civil War as a Constitutional Crisis, American Historical Review, January 1964). One salient fact needs to be acknowledged, as stated by Historian Richard H. Brown: “From the inauguration of [George]Washington until the Civil War, the South was in the saddle of national politics. This is the central fact in American political history to 1860. To it there are no exceptions…” (The Missouri Crisis, Slavery, and the Politics of Jacksonianism, South Atlantic Quarterly, Winter 1966). To invoke the “ties to slavery” canard outside this, and other statements, is unhistorical. Inevitably, these unexamined charges of “ties to slavery” that imply hypocrisy on Lincoln’s part find their way into the article, with predictable results. 36hourblock (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No one is alleging hypocracy concerning Abraham Lincoln and slavery. Lincoln grew up in Kentucky; married a Kentuckian, and had Kentuckian connections. Lincoln stated his purpose was to save the Union. The link previously given, Lincoln of Kentucky, does a real good job explaining Lincoln's views on slavery and specifially focuses on his upbringing in Kentucky, a slave state. Compensation for slaves is what I was refering to as a tie to slavery. Lincoln wanted to give what would be today billions of dollars to pay the slave owners for their slaves. The Radicals wanted nothing to do with empowering or what they would view as legitimizing slavery through compensation, not one cent. If one makes a payment, then, there is a tie to slavery, in my opinion. However, I do not want to keep going over this issue, as 36hourblock, seems to keep bringing up. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What we have here is likely some Troll and Sockpuppet action. It appears to be well-established - the motif is good cop/bad cop. The question has been all along - not who had "ties to slavery" - but who has "ties to Conservapedia"

"Please do not feed the trolls". 36hourblock (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Killing Lincoln" book unreliable

this book isn't used in the article at the moment and shouldn't be as it has been reported as being unreliable: [2] [3][4] thanks Tom B (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Because of the author's position in the media, the book's RS will bear scrutiny. But the reports of reliability, or its lack, must likewise bear scrutiny. Hoppyh (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Open issues

This is a consolidated list of issues still needing correction. Brad (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

maintenance tags

 Not done

I've identified many problems with citations missing various information with maint tags. There are several maint tags in the article body that need attention as well. These can be worked on anytime. Brad (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This is going to be an issue. I've also added tags. We have to do this, so we can tell what each ref actually references. There's two ways to fix ref tags: add a reference, or remove the unreferenced information. I think doing some of the latter would be good for this article. Also, adding a tag doesn't prompt action from the many watchers of this article, but removing sentences starts them discussing things. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Basler source problems

 Not done

There are several citations credited to Basler but none of his books were listed in the biblio. Searching on world cat I believe this to be Roy P. Basler. The citations are to two different books published in 1953 and 2001 respectively. Only trouble is that the Basler listings for 1953 and 2001 show multiple books under different titles for those years. Therefore I cannot determine what books were cited here. Brad (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's 2001. the 1953 is to the 8 volume definitive edition (which is also online); the 2001 is a reprint of the one vol selection that first appeared in 1946 & has a preface by Sandburg. Rjensen (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Which one of the two is called "Collected Works" and which is called "Speeches and writings"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

1953 = 8 vol = "Collected Works"; the other is a one volume "Speeches and writings" (1946 and several later editions)Rjensen (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but more info needed. The 2001 edition of Abraham Lincoln : his speeches and writings shows publication by two different publishers. We need to cite the version with the correct publisher. From the 1953 editions of The collected works of Abraham Lincoln we need the exact edition you cited. If this cannot be supplied then the source will have to be replaced. Volume numbers are especially important too. Brad (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There is only one edition each year and so there is no ambiguity--and the texts are identical. I used Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings ed Basler, Cleveland: World Publishing, 1946. Other editors may have used other editions. There are online editions as well. I suggest Brad101 get one of the editions and see for himself, because bibliographical details are hard to explain to someone who has not seen any edition. The local public library will have one. Rjensen (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Page size

Per the request by Brad on my talk page, here is the page size data (I've bolded the portion most relevant):

• File size: 58 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 129 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 31 kB
• Prose size (text only): 80 kB (12957 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1403 B

This is an awesome undertaking, and I wish you guys the best of luck in working on it. Let me know if you need anything else, Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dana! For everyone else the "text only prose" is part of WP:SIZERULE which says that articles over 60 and up to 100 should be split off or reduced. The exception would be an article like this on an important historical figure such as Lincoln. So 80 is ok here but this article is about as full as it can be without going over. This is a criteria 4 requirement for FAC. Brad (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Updated numbers:

• File size: 502 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 122 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 18 kB
• Wiki text: 141 kB
• Prose size (text only): 78 kB (12644 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 1380 B
• Brad (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"who?" tag bombing for weasel wording

 Not done

I have recently placed {{who}} tags and its variants in the article text. The Religious and philosophical beliefs section is currently considered full of "weasel words" by using phrases such as "Some historians" etc. The section directly below, Historical reputation is a good example of not using weasel words and directly pointing out what historian said what and when etc. Brad (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I spoke too soon on this matter. I found more problems in the Historical reputation section with weasel wording. Here is a good example of a couple of passages that aren't weasel worded:

• Randall concludes that, "he was conservative in his complete avoidance of that type of so-called 'radicalism' which involved abuse of the South, hatred for the slaveholder, thirst for vengeance, partisan plotting, and ungenerous demands that Southern institutions be transformed overnight by outsiders."
• Donald in his 1996 biography opined that Lincoln was distinctly endowed with the personality trait of negative capability, defined by the poet John Keats and attributed to extraordinary leaders who were "content in the midst of uncertainties and doubts, and not compelled toward fact or reason."

I've marked weasel wording where I thought I should. This doesn't mean that it is weasel worded; just that it reads suspiciously. Brad (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed some of Wilson's analysis to a more conditional form, to see if that answers your concerns re presentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are in the right direction but I'm no prose expert. Brad (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm honestly fine with the words "some historians". Most historiographical positions taken on Lincoln are held by a number of notable historian. To list all the people who hold the belief would be impractical. So you'll say, "why don't you just pick one?" Well, there's two reasons for not doing that: a) people will think an argument held by multiple historians is more credible than an argument held by a single historian; and b) How are you going to objectively decide which historian to pick? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Words to watch. This article wouldn't get its hoped for goal of featured article in its current condition. Brad (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2011

Missing preposition 'to': "critical need control strategic" --> "critical need to control strategic".

217.95.230.36 (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I'm trying to work a bit on some of the tags. Starting with this part:

In recent decades[when?], Lincoln became a hero to political conservatives (apart from neo-Confederates)[clarification needed] for his intense nationalism, support for business, his insistence on stopping the spread of un-freedom (slavery), his acting in terms of Lockean and Burkean principles[clarification needed], and his devotion to the principles of the Founding Fathers.

There are three sources, the first two are not available except in snippet view on google books, and the third kinda contradicts most of the sentence (it's about conservatives being racists, so it's not going to just let them have Lincoln as their hero). It is used to support the Lockean and Burkean part, whatever those things are. Here's the ref.[5] The second ref also has a huge range of pages.

So, I'm thinking about finding some other source, rewriting and simplifying that passage, and removing those sources. Maybe basing it on page 99 of this book which seems to summarize how conservatives and Lincoln relate from back in the day to recently. Any objections? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The when tag is fairly obvious to the problem. I placed the clarification tags because the passage as a whole assumes that the reader is familiar with neo-Confederates and Lockean and Burkean principles. Brad (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Peregrin Fisher, I encourage you to proceed. A couple of weeks ago, I requested that RJensen take care of the tags (as I think he is responsible for much of that) but it appears he does not agree with FA criteria or is not much interested. So, please proceed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the passage; it usually grabs attention when it's deleted. I'm leaving it below with refs intact. Brad (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• In recent decades, Lincoln became a hero to political conservatives (apart from neo-Confederates) for his intense nationalism, support for business, his insistence on stopping the spread of un-freedom (slavery), his acting in terms of Lockean and Burkean principles, and his devotion to the principles of the Founding Fathers.

I cleared it up and added some cites Rjensen (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Havers? cleanup

Cite 261 mentions a book by a Havers (no publisher) and the book is not in the bibliography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

it's Grant N. Havers, Lincoln and the politics of Christian love (U. of Missouri Press, 2009) Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 Jan 2012: Lincoln autos

The section about memorial use of the name -- would that include the Lincoln cars used as presidential limousines etc? Manytexts (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the messup was mine. Manytexts (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There isn't room in the article to include every honor ever made to Lincoln. The more trivial and inconsequential mentions should not be listed. The major ones have been concentrated on. Brad (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reply - fair enough. Manytexts (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012

Hello: Note 261 references Grant Havers's book "Lincoln and the Politics of Christian Love." Can this book be added to the bibliography that also includes all other books cited in this article?

Thanks, Grant Havers

96.55.40.214 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

Hello editors interested in Abraham Lincoln. I just created a proposal for a new WikiProject with a focus on Lincoln, similar to the WikiProject that exists for Barack Obama. Please feel free to comment on my proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Abraham Lincoln‎. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln and Grant

Would the article be improved by expanding on and discussing the relationship between Lincoln and Grant? According to John Y. Simon, Grant may not have understood Lincoln himself nor Lincoln's military plans since Lincoln spoke indirectly. Grant and Lincoln hardly met each other. There is the issue of Grant allowing Lincoln's son, Robert, on his staff. Mary Todd Lincoln's tantrums kept the Grants and Lincoln's apart. There is also the difference between the two men's styles, although both came from the Western states. Lincoln was more country and used course language. Grant did not like to hear course jokes and was considered egalitarian. Here is the source link: Grant, Ulysses S. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Last sentence of Lead

Propose to eliminate the word "three." Otherwise someone could claim we have to list the three and it may satisfy the editor who keeps changing that sentence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The passage itself is problematic because when it's repeated in the historical reputation section it isn't backed up with a citation. The passage is original research because it's pointing towards Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States and using the charts located there to make the conclusion. It needs removal or some sort of a hard data citation. Brad (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have updated one cite and added another so this should be in better shape now (except for possible poor formatting in the cites themselves). Hoppyh (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Greatest president of the Unites States

Under the Wiki ranks, Lincoln is listed, by majority, as the no. 1 president of the United states; and I will continue to edit the article as so like I have 3, 4 times already. shyjayb 23:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

Sorry. That is not a proper source. You can't cite wikipedia for article sources, it has to be a third party reliable source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry?! But it's a badge of honor among the sockpuppets and trolls who occupy this site to omit sources. Since when has a source on the discussion page been required - until now.

But wait. I know how to solve this; just dump any commentary you don't approve of into a "show/hide" format.

No doubt the administrator who presides over this article approves of these methods. 36hourblock (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The Presidential polls are done by a select Presidential scholars. Lincoln has consistently rated at the top, 1 or 2, in the Presidential polls. I believe that mentioning scholars is accurate. Are the polls a source in themselves? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't always agree with the Presidential polls and I believe a few such as Harding, Benjamin Harrison, and Arthur are underated. However, I believe that the reader can make their own independant views of each President. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. shyjayb 15:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

I removed the passage in question since there isn't a source except for the historical ranking article itself. Brad (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean that all Presidential articles need to take out historical Presidential rankings? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. But Lincoln's IQ has been estimated at over 180, highest of all US presidents. "[Sources]? We ain't got no[sources]. We don't have to show you no stinking [sources]!!" (John Houston's film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,1948)

And if you don't believe it, ask your friendly sockpuppet. 36hourblock (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a good source by George Gallup that says he's in top 3 in scholars' polls. Rjensen (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"and Wikipedia articles are not a reliable reference" This is DESPOILMENT. shyjayb 13:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)

And still the greatest

Now make it 28 and 1/2 times. This is ridiculous, and it's absurd. Abraham Lincoln is: within dispute amongst Washington which is why they are dually named in February in their own holiday; one or two, and not just by Wikipedia rankings, the greatest president the country has ever seen.shyjayb 20:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing an opinion, which is pointless, instead of citing a reliable source, which might actually make a difference. Do you have a verifiable point, or are you just trolling? --Coemgenus (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "Historians have regarded Lincoln in an extremely positive light, and he is usually ranked as the greatest U.S. president." JimWae reverted it claiming that "'usually' is unnecessarily vague - 'consistently' is clearer" which makes no sense, since if that was the case, Pedro II of Brazil which I wrote wouldn't be a FA. And that's from where I took the sentence. I also removed a picture which is clearly misleading since it leads anyone to believe that it portrays Lincoln as a young politician, when he was in fact 50 years old. The picture is back and on the very same place. I have noticed a team tag by a few editors on this article that makes it almost impossible to someone else to improve it. It's called "article ownership". You want to keep it as it is? Fine. But it won't be ever a FA. You'll keep nominating it and it will always fail because of this kind of behavior. The articles has many, many issues. And I'm Brazilian, which means that I'm not influenced by the usual argument over who was greatest: Lincoln or Lee? Or who was the worse person, etc... But if you want to continue with this farse, then fine by me. --Lecen (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Consistently" was fine. It means he has never been lower in any of the ratings. "Usually" does not say that. "Consistently" makes it completely clear where he has "usually" been ranked - and is more specific than "usually". You have made no case to prefer "usually" other than that it appears in some other article. We cannot tell from "usually" whether Pedro always been ranked even in the top half. --JimWae (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As if I were looking down from (something to the effect of) a bird's-eye view upon monkeys' backs the monkeys who think they own the opinions of others too, you're an Aweful A** and a Da** fool; and some clowns are just not compatible with compromise (of the TRUTH). Trolls don't have delusions of wiki ownership, apes do. Lincoln is the GREATEST president the country has ever seen in accordance with the exact same site that Ranked the U.S. presidents; along with myself, and most other sentient beings. Thank you.shyjayb 21:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit warring with this issue. Consensus is against you. Next step will be ANI. Brad (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think not. Ask Wikipedia my friend; and However, and with multiple 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and other sources that historians and 'scholars' rank Lincoln as, I will pursue through the proper channels and cite sources. And your not the consensus; unless, you guys own Wikipedia. But I conclude and will comply.--shyjayb 11:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Shyjayb: All other editors are asking for is that you properly source the information, see WP:Verify: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." If you click through the links, you will see that what everyone knows to be true is not the initial standard for inclusion in articles, and Wikipedia articles are not a reliable reference for other Wikipedia articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The term "consistent" is best when referring to ranking Lincoln as the best President. Possibly, best overall President is more accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with you. shyjayb 07:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)