Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 12

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)"


 * 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."


 * 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)."


 * 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. 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 . 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. ...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.


 * Moreover, I haven't made any article content edits aside from trying to restore that fact tag, trying to rm the word outspoken and then at least tying to split one sentence into two, 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 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)