Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 14

RN
I have received an angry e-mail from RN because I removed links to his self-published website (http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/). His basis for including the links is 1) that he is an "expert", and 2) that his website ranks high on Google searches for Lincoln.

1) RN does not claim to have a Ph.D., nor does he claim any peer-reviewed research or citations in other's research. (claims now made and validated)

2) As far as Google is concerned, it is my contention that ranking high on Google is not an indicator of expertise but rather, an indicator of popularity.  Wikipedia's article on Lincoln ranks #1 on Google, yet many schools ban using it as a source for research papers (for good reason).

As a result, I see no reason to include links to RN's website – preferring instead to use this article's external links section to point to useful academic undertakings that students might be encouraged to cite rather than to self-published websites authored by self-appointed experts. Rklawton (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the listed link is a blank page at this time, I'm not sure we should be too concerned about litigation on the subject. Good idea to share your experience and the link, however. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad - I posted the link to the root of his account with AT&T. The link to the page in question is here:  http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html.  Also, RN has been notified of this thread.  Rklawton (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

RN's website is listed as a reference here: "The Undergraduate's Companion to American Writers and Their Web Sites". His work is also cited in two or three scholarly books. The link itself is not to disputed content (as far as this talk page goes), so I see no reason why I shouldn't re-add the link. Rklawton (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

criticism
I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have a section entitled Modern criticism of Lincoln, in which it is acknowledged that over a century following the death of his opponents during the war, he still is a magnet for heated criticism in some quarters, not only in the South, but by some strains of libertarians. I noticed that at least two of his current critics, Lew Rockwell and Thomas DiLorenzo, are prominent enough to have Wikipedia articles themselves. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to describe the main points of their criticism and allow these links to be the gateway through which Wikipedia readers examine their views, in contrast to uncommented references in the External links section. (Note: since I claim little interest in Lincoln other than as commander-in-chief, I am not volunteering to write such a section.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is actual criticism from reasoned Lincoln scholars to be found. Rockwell and DiLorenzo are not among these. D is an economist, and R is a publicist (basically) for Ron Paul. Mr Which??? 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I could even envision an entire article devoted to the subject, and in that pagespace I could see Rockwell and DiLorenzo as deserving mention and citation. If such an article were created, I could see myself as an enthusiastic participant, and could add some much more mainstream citations than ones referenced on the Rockwell political site. BusterD (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Or a better idea is to simply start a special "Libertarian" section at either Neo-confederate or Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Their views are nothing but warmed over Lost Cause rhetoric and there is nothing from reviewing their works to suggest that they are engaging in serious scholarship. Exactly where in our policy does it say we should steer readers to fringe scholarship -- very different from simply acknowledging their existence in separate articles because of their notoriety. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Seriously, Tom. We could have an entire Wikipedia page devoted to weighing the value of Rockwell's varied almost 40 "authors and scholars" against the very small amount of reputable Abraham Lincoln scholarship online these days. BusterD (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

not completely accurate
I am referring to Benjamin Thomas' biography - in it he states that lincoln abolished slavery in ONLY states that were in rebellion, maintaining slavery in states that were loyal to the Union (e.g. Delaware and a few others). He also believed that it was the right of each state to determine the slavery question and that the release of slaves was SOLELY to help the war effort - after all, it was only the slaves in the rebellious south that received their freedom. Slaves were not released on a point of morals etc - though lincoln did state his own personal opinion on the matter, that slavery should be abolished. he even tried colonisation of Negroes in some island - the survivors making it back by federal boat, where thereupon he realized that the negroe and the white man must somehow learn to co-exist.

this article makes Lincoln sound like an abolitionist - (which today sounds right and just etc, while opinions remotely contrary are presently rightly denounced - how times have changed!)- and he clearly was not an abolitionist. he was a moderate man by politics and it make sense..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaPanasonic (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the extent of the Emancipation Proclamation and the justification for it, the fact that Lincoln was a moderate on slavery rather than an abolitionist, and the fact that he had supported colonization are all mentioned in this article and discussed in greater depth in side articles. What is missing, and should stay missing, is neo-confederate rantings about genocide and efforts to confuse the historical significance of Lincoln's actual antislavery positions by judging Lincoln's nineteenth century racial attitudes by 21st Century standards.  The ultimate goal of course, as one of the dissenting editors made clear above, is to pretend that the war had nothing to do with slavery and was actually about tariffs. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on Lincoln's debate rhetoric, I think it's clear that he was a unionist who believed that slavery and maintaining the union in the long run were incompatible. In the short term, he based his decisions on what was best for the union at the moment.  For example, he favored the Missouri Compromise, opposed the Kansas/Nebraska act, freed slaves only in areas under rebellion, refused to end the war (once it was clear to all the North would win) until all slavery was abolished, etc.  Each of these positions were oriented around the same theme - keeping the union whole and strong.  Rklawton (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln is listed on the chart as a Republican, but there wasn't officially a Republican Party at the time. At least the article does not specify under what president did the party form.

Lincoln's Congressional Seat and 1848
My changes were reverted -- unfairly, I believe.

Warned by his law partner, William Herndon, that the damage was mounting and irreparable, Lincoln decided not to run for reelection.

Herndon may have warned Lincoln about the damage, but the idea that his anti-war statements doomed his re-election is simply false. As David Herbert Donald and scores of other Lincoln historians have noted, the Whigs in the Seventh Congressional District agreed to one-term limits for their candidates, and the rule was iron-clad. Moreover, the Democrats won the seat in 1848 but lost the district to Taylor -- if Lincoln's anti-war stance was really that disastrous, the whole ticket would have fallen.

The edits were reverted for "muddying the issue." It's not muddying the issue to state over 100 years of Lincoln research.--Idols of Mud (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with you, but would add page 124 from Donald in the footnote. Here Donald wrote, "Now feeling very much at home, he began to think of Washington as a very pleasant place, and he regretted his pledge that he -- like Hardin and Baker before him -- would serve only one term." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree. I reverted because you replaced the current explanation instead of supplementing it. I'm sure that you honestly believe the antiwar activism explanation to be wrong. That doesn't mean it is, nor does it mean you should wholesale replace it with a new explanation. Mr Which??? 21:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly believe it because the research of historians like David Herbert Donald and others has repeatedly proven it. It's not choosing to believe something.  The passage said Lincoln did not run because of the reaction to his anti-war activism.  Whatever Herndon told him, the Whig Party would not allow him to stand for re-election.  It's true, as North Shoreman pointed out, that Lincoln would have preferred to stay, but if I recall my Donald correctly, he worked hard against Baker when Baker suggested running again in 1846, and Lincoln was nothing if not a party loyalist.  Moreover, his attempt to seek a federal job was a response to that one-term arrangement, and the fact he probably could not move any higher in Illinois politics -- Democrats had a lock on the governor's mansion, he didn't want to go back to the state Legislature and (at the time) northern Illinois, more sympathetic to Whig views, was not as developed and could not give the Whigs the support that they would give the Republicans in 1858.  Lincoln would not have seriously sought a spoilsman's position with Taylor if he had the party behind him to run for a second term.  But he made a pledge and ultimately stuck by it, and that -- not his opinion of the Mexican War -- led to his stepping down.--Idols of Mud (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm playing by memory here, as I don't have my Lincoln sources right at my fingertips, so I may not be totally accurate. I seem to remember reading that Lincoln was seriously considering challenging this one-term agreement, and that he had begun to think it was detrimental to the party's continued success. After the vitriolic reaction to his opposition of the war, he chose not to challenge the status quo in the Whig party. If my memory serves me, this would mean both explanations -- not either/or -- are true, as far as they go. Mr Which??? 23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * William C. Harris in "Lincoln's Rise to the Presidency" (page 46) writes of the pledge that "The likelihood of this pledge still being in force was remote ... . But by April, Lincoln realized that his opposition to the war would probably prevent his reelection, though he refused to admit it." Harris' source seems to be a 1978 article by Mark Neely Jr.  Of course, Lincoln faced the same problem that all Whigs faced after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was submitted for approval to the Senate -- their opposition to the war and to the acquisition of territory as a result of the war had been undercut by events. Indeed, t s probably a good reason why Taylor, a war hero with no known position on most other political issues, was the Whig candidate for president.  It seems that the "agreement scenario" is supported by the written record generated by Lincoln, but that the alternative explanation is a reasonable interpretation.   Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lincoln vetoed a rival's proposal to use a series of independent candidates before 1846, saying he was pleased with the current system (Donald, 114), and sounded out Baker to ensure he would stand by his pledge to run for a single term. He told Herndon he would allow himself to be elected if no one else stepped forward (124) but always stood by his pledge.  Herndon (276) quotes more extensively from this letter, where Lincoln said he felt both bound his pledge and by the need to keep the party together within his district.  Herndon, it is true, suggests that his anti-war stance hurt him in the district, but Lincoln, not one to dissemble, always insisted the one-term system kept him from a second go at the office.--Idols of Mud (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not anti-Lincoln man (as is clear from my participation thus far in the article), but to not at least mention that his constituents' anger at his anti-war position had something to do with the decision seems a bit much, I think. Mr Which??? 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Presidency
I splitted the Presidency part of the article into its own article because it's getting too large. We have similar sections for George Washington and George W. Bush. It was reverted, and I think I need a second opinion on this. December 21, 2012 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe in principle such a split, under the proper circumstances, might be warranted and is possibly inevitable. I personally would like to see a spinoff article such as "Abraham Lincoln and his military leadership." However simply copying what is already here, unless you plan to followup with some immediate and substantial additions, doesn't really accomplish much of anything. What exactly are your plans for expansion? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The other way to prevent content-forking would be to significantly cut down the detail on this page so that any reader could clearly see that the contents here were a mere synopsis. I have no objection to that course of action but think that there should probably be an explicit consensus here (or at least an opportunity during which no one objects) before making that dramatic a change to the page.  As North Shoreman said, copying was the problem, not the idea of splitting the page.  Rossami (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Length -- Proposed Deletion of the Religion and Philosophy Section
Given that the message says the article is too long, should we shorten? I'm thinking that the section on Lincoln's religious beliefs could be deleted entirely except for a "see Lincoln's religious beliefs" link, after insuring that all the info is in that 2nd article, and that the section on memorials and such could be shortened, given that that is also a separate article. Vidor (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. I've been thinking about this for awhile as well. A fork of the "Religious beliefs" section would probably be a good place to start. That's such a contentious area that a forked section would allow for a fuller, fairer article to be crafted. Mr Which ??? 19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. The current separate article on Lincoln's religion is not very good and really has no central theme.  It seems to reflect a POV attempt to make Lincoln a mainstream Christian with other editors countering it.  The section in the current article (which I largely wrote) includes both religion and philosophy  and, IMO, gives a more accurate and concise summary of Lincoln's view than the larger separate article.  I can't imagine that a bographical article with absolutely no discussion of Lincoln's religious beliefs would ever measure up to GA or FA standards. A far as being controversial, I haven't noticed any controversey at all over the current section -- thecontroversey is with the spinoff article.


 * Same with the legacy section (I did not write it). The separate article is non-encyclopedic and almost takes on the look of a triva section.  There is a lot more that could be written on Lincoln' legacy that would justify a separate article, but until it gets written I think the current artcle should retain the legacy section. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The follow-up question would be, do you have a problem with the texts in this main article? Because the obvious option would be to take the material in those sections and transport them to the separate articles, then edit the newly expanded separate articles to make them smooth and readable.  In any case, "Lincoln's religious beliefs" is something that probably doesn't belong in the article in any case.  Lincoln faced no church/state issue.  There is no direct evidence that he took any action he took because of any religious doctrine.  I can't see how "Lincoln's religious beliefs" is any more worthy of inclusion than, say, "Lincoln's marriage and sexuality".  That subject has been spun off into a separate article, and since separate articles already exist for the topics we're talking about, why not move all that information--interesting to many, I'd think, but not closely relevant to Lincoln's career--to those articles? Vidor (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the reasons Lincoln's religious beliefs are important is the biblical references and tone present in many of his speeches -- a point that is made over and over again by Lincoln scholars. The main article, however, combines both religious and philosopical beliefs together and does, in fact, establish his motivation for some of the most sigificant actions of his presidential career -- providing a balance between his religious and philosophical backgrounds.  Unlike his sexuality, that only a few non-historians speculate about, the religious/philosophical underpinnings of Lincoln are part of the mainstream scholarship -- Lincoln is studied as a man of ideas.  Your opinion that it is not "closely relevant to Lincoln's career" is not supported by the literature. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * the biblical references and tone present in many of his speeches. In other words, a source for rhetoric.  Obviously not meriting an entire, very long section that pushes the whole article to 100K.  Obviously extraneous material for trimming, which I will do probably some time after the new year, when I have the time to make the separate article on "Lincoln's religious beliefs" look nice.  Vidor (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're not familiar with the significance of Lincoln's "rhetoric" then perhaps, your "valuable" contributions on the Department of Agriculture and its "great" significance to Lincoln's career notwithstanding, you aren't really qualified to contribute to the article at all. I doubt any American has had his speeches covered in the depth that Lincoln's have. If you paid a little more attention to what is actually written, you would notice that the section contains more than simply religion. If you check the footnotes and have any familiarity with LIncoln scholarship, then you would realize that all the sources are significant historians who disagree with your contention that his religious views are insignificant.  You might also check the articles on the nation's first three presidents and notice that all of them have religion sections.  I also like the way you have decided to proceed with your plans despite the issue only being introduced in the last 24 hours.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Unindenting. If you're not familiar with the significance of Lincoln's "rhetoric"--I am, so we can dispense with that insult. your "valuable" contributions--You want to make this personal? Very well, we can make it personal. the Department of Agriculture--One sentence. One sentence that you wish to equate with an entire section.  I doubt any American has had his speeches covered in the depth that Lincoln's have.--That's super, awesome, and lovely. Unfortnuately the subject at hand is the long, long section on "Lincoln's religous beliefs", and whether or not that long, long section should continue to take up space in a 100K article WHEN A SEPARATE INDEPENDENT ARTICLE ALREADY EXISTS FOR THAT VERY TOPIC. If you paid a little more attention--If you check the footnotes and have any familiarity--Insults and more insults. the nation's first three presidents...all of them have religion sections--Awesome! Super! #4 doesn't. #7 doesn't.  #11, possibly the most unjustly forgotten, doesn't.  #26 doesn't.  #32 doesn't.  #33 doesn't.  #37 doesn't.  #40 doesn't.  Even #43, who cited Jesus in a debate, doesn't.  Those were all important folks.

One more thing: I also like the way you have decided to proceed with your plans. The awesome thing about Wikipedia is that you don't have to ask permission from other people before you edit an article.

In summary, and despite the insults above, I'll just quote that big ugly message atop the article, the one by the picture of the broom: "This article may be too long. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and help summarize or split the content into subarticles of an article series." And hey, look at this: "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up". What silly person wrote that? Vidor (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Once the main article meets whatever the optimum size is (saying it MAY be to long is the same as saying it MAY NOT be too long), there will still be material remaining in this article. Some articles are going to be at the extreme end simply because of the subject matter -- logic would dictate that Abraham Lincoln because of his personal historical significance, the historical significance of the events he was caught up in and influenced, and the incredible continuing interest in him as reflected on the steady flow of scholarly and popular histories that flood the market would be one of the longer articles. You have failed to make the case why the material you want to delete does not belong in the main article and you continue to pretend that the section is solely about religion -- which it isn't.  You yourself just added material to a section of the article that has its own spinoff (see my reply to JimWae below) -- the cotton speculation issue (which you vastly oversimplify), the Dept of Agriculture (which you fail to establish was deemed by Lincoln to be of any significance, and war financing (which you cover only a small part of and neglect to say how much Chase was a free agent in finding a workable policy) should all have been added to the separate article, expanded on, and sourced. Additions that are well themed and documented such as the section in question add value to the article while they add size -- the sporadic, undocumented, incomplete addition of anecdotal factoids add size while detracting from the overall quality.


 * You continue to refer to the article as if it were strictly about religion, when in fact the title is clearly “Religious and philosophical beliefs”. Far from being “long, long”, the section is 7 paragraphs of moderate size and two moderate size block quotes.  Less than half of these are primarily about religion, are they?  In act, the section covers the influence of Locke,  the significance of the Declaration of Independence to Lincoln, Whig economic philosophy, the lack of any significant mentor to a developing Lincoln, and his own reliance on private reading in the development of his personal philosophy.  On religion, the section discusses the Calvinist influences, his own religious skepticism, and his search for solace as personal and public tragedies came his way during the war years -- all pretty basic stuff that is part of any basic biography of Lincoln.  Why do you refuse, or neglect, to discuss the actual SUBSTANCE of the section you intend to ATTEMPT to delete.  Perhaps you have some sources, other than Donald, Guelzo, Miller, Jaffa, or Wilson that clam such information is inaccurate or insignificant -- please share them.


 * And, contrary to your assertion, especially on articles such as this one, major changes should be DISCUSSED rather than just ANNOUNCED, especially from editors who have no prior association with the article and have yet to add a single footnote to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * in fact the title is clearly “Religious and philosophical beliefs”.--I think the phrase most appropriate here is "distinction without a difference". Perhaps you have some sources, other than Donald, Guelzo, Miller, Jaffa, or Wilson that clam such information is inaccurate or insignificant -- please share them.--Now the problem starts to become clear.  You seem to believe that this is a biography of Abraham Lincoln, in which it would be only appopriate to plumb the depths of his belief system and examine each source from which he drew inspiration.  It isn't.  It's an encyclopedia article, which, by Wikipedia guidelines, is quite clearly too long.  editors who have no prior association with the article--Wow!  So now you have to have a "prior association" with an article to edit it!  What news!  Shall we notify all the other people who use and edit Wikipedia?  Or is it possible that a certain North Shoreman thinks that he owns this article and gets to decide what's in it?   saying it MAY be to long--Oh dear.  It seems somebody was too busy insulting people to read the sentence which I posted above, which I will post again: "100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up."


 * the Dept of Agriculture (which you fail to establish was deemed by Lincoln to be of any significance--Delete it, if you like. I promise not to throw a tantrum.  and war financing (which you cover only a small part of and neglect to say how much Chase was a free agent in finding a workable policy)--Someone is not grasping the whole "article needs to be shorter" idea. Vidor (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can’t help but notice that you continue to avoid discussing the merits of the material that you plan to unilaterally delete. You were presented by me and anther editor mre likely areas to cut, yet you neglected or refused to address them.  You’re stuck on article size and keep pointing to the actual guidelines.  Very well, let’s go to the guidelines.  You claim that the guidelines say that “"100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up."  Howevr you apparently missed the part that says exactly what that 100 KB includes.  In fact, it only includes READABLE PROSE, doesn’t it?  And it explains how to calculate READABLE PROSE, doesn’t it?  What it says is:


 * “Specifically, for stylistic purposes, readable prose excludes: External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting. To quickly estimate readable prose size, click on the printable version of the page, select all, copy, paste into an edit window, delete remaining items not counted in readable prose, and hit preview to see the page size warning.”


 * Following those procedures, the size of the article is not 100 KB, but actually only 61 KB. So we still have a large article, but it is a long, long, way from the 100 KB limit that you were so concerned about, isn’t it?  It’s probably a good idea, don’t you think, to read carefully the applicable guidelines and get a firm grasp of all the details before you start lecturing others on the substance of those guidelines? So we can now look elsewhere in the guidelines and read:


 * “Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.”


 * So if you wish to still pursue this, it seems like you need to show where the information you wish to unilaterally delete is not “valid and useful”. I judge it is “valid and useful” because it is basic information on the life and public career of Lincoln that respected historians consistently include in their treatments of Lincoln.  Is there anything besides your “original research” that suggests this material is not “valid and useful”? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "deletion" was not a good word choice in the section title?? The section that takes up by far the most is that on his early life - and there is a separate article for that. Important & interesting topic, but it really delays "getting to the things he is most well-known for". No matter what is done to the "religion" section, the article will still be too long. How about some discussion of "what else needs to be shortened"? --JimWae (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree there are more logical areas to start large scale reduction. There is a separate article Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War that is basically a reprint of a large section of the main article -- this certainly creates a lot of potential for reducing the size.  There is a large article on the assassination that would allow further reduction of this main article.  There is a separate article on the Emancipation Proclamation.  There are numerous areas to cut if the most important consideration is the size of the article.  Common sense would suggest that these large cuts, which involve mainly the elimination of duplicate material from this article, would be the first priority.  I particularly agree with the focus on the early life section of this article as a place to reduce, and have started a revision and expansion of the existing early career article (see User:North Shoreman/Sandbox for an incomplete rough draft).


 * The section that has been targeted for deletion goes beyond strictly religious views and contains material not available elsewhere and not appropriate for the separate religion article. In fact, it replaced as I recollect a section that was strictly about religion and occurred, I believe, around the time you were trying to maintain balance in the separate religion article.  Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah! The owner of the Lincoln article has responded! Splendid. I can’t help but notice that you continue to avoid discussing the merits of the material that you plan to unilaterally delete. I would have hoped that recommending portions of an article for deletion would have given a hint that one does not think that material is very useful. But by all means, let's hear more about what Lincoln thought about John Locke. I was originally drawn to this article out of curiosity to see what it said about Lincoln's presidential policies on matters other than the war. Answer: almost nothing. Not nearly as much as what it says about John Locke and the Declaration of Independence. You were presented by me and anther editor mre likely areas to cut, yet you neglected or refused to address them. You as a Wikipedia user are free to cut anything you like. You’re stuck on article size Kind of gets to the heart of the "article is too long" problem. So we still have a large article, but it is a long, long, way from the 100 KB Super! Now you've gotten us down to "Probably should be divided". if you wish to still pursue this, it seems like you need to show where the information you wish to unilaterally delete is not “valid and useful”. Actually, no. I can delete anything anytime I want. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? Is there anything besides your “original research” that suggests this material is not “valid and useful”? Tsk tsk. Somebody doesn't understand what "original research" is. Here's a hint: it doesn't involve editing decisions. Vidor (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are still non-responsive and wrong -- the deletion of properly sourced material requires more than your desire to delete it.  Other than your unsupported, and unsupportable, feeling that religion, the Lockean Enlightenment, the Declaration of Independence, Whig economic principles, etc. were insignificant, you have failed to provide any sources that would require other editors to take your speculations seriously.  So, once again, why don’t you tell us what you’ve read that supports your claims that the material to be deleted is not "valid and useful".


 * Whether the article should be split is not the issue here, is it? The article has already been split, hasn’t it? And like you completely misread the section on article size, you also apparently don’t understand what happens under Wikipedia guidelines when an article is divided.  You claim that only a reference and link to the spinoff article should remain, yet WP:SS says something quite different, doesn’t it?  And until the spinoff article on Abraham Lincoln has a proper lede (WP:LS) section, it really isn’t possible to determine whether any of the material in the main article should be reduced.  And, of course, much of the sourced and documented material in the section is not about religion (your claim that religion and philosophy are the same thing notwithstanding) and would remain on its own right.


 * As I demonstrated earlier, the burden lies with you to show that the sourced material you want to delete in full, under Wikipedia guidelines, is not “valid and useful”. Thus far you have totally failed to do so. The issue is not whether you CAN physically TYPE something, but whether you SHOULD indisciminately bang away on your delete key. This is a discussion page so quit ANNOUNCING and start DISCUSSING, using actual reliable sources to support your pronouncements. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)