Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 15

Question
Can we use this image in the "Lincoln in art and popular culture" section. If not, could I still upload it and use on my userpage?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008  20:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it looks like some kinda prison combat, or guys fighting in a prison. We can't add it here unless you start explaining the picture. Explain what's going on and explain how it's notable enough to be in the main article. Why is it important? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think male-on-male prison violence exemplifies Lincoln's personality and legacy well, but without some citations to go along with it to make the link clear, it might not have a place in this entry. I don't know of any off-hand, perhaps another Lincoln scholar can chip in? Trollaxor (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is too long, why don't we....
If this is too long, why don't we delete the information that was repeated over and over. Plus, why can't we delete the extra info and move it to a subpage. If this takes too long and we dont follow the guidlines like User:North Shoreman (talk) said earlier, this won't be a discussion anymore. Ziggymarley01 (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Lincoln's speech showing Booth and accomplices.
There must be almost 200 people in that picture! All it says is that Booth is at the top and his accomplices at the bottom. And the quality of the photo makes it hard to distinquish what people look like. There should be some more guidelines showing where Booth and his accomplices are, cause' I don't think to many people can see them.68.81.252.24 (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)68.81.252.24

I think a bot would be a good idea.
This talk page gets new comments literally faster than anything else that's on my watchlist, and I must say, there are quite many articles that attract attention that are on my watchlist. So my suggestion is to get a bot to archie(sp?) any discussion that hasn't been replied to in 3 weeks, who agrees? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Untitled section
Lincoln also had 2 brothers that wikipedia will not sem to put in there at all so some one needs to put it in here and i dont really now it what if you are doing something on him and you dont now what his brothers names are so wat are they going to do and we do something bout this adn some one that has good in them self. maybe if we do something bout this they will have some good in them self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.24.125.51 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln and the Dakota in Minnesota
The current article states the following regarding Lincoln's relationship to American Indians: In 1862, Lincoln sent a senior general, John Pope, to put down the "Sioux Uprising" in Minnesota. Presented with 303 death warrants for convicted Santee Dakota who had massacred innocent farmers, Lincoln affirmed 39 of these for execution (one was later reprieved)."

To anyone familiar with this history, the war was far, far more complicated than "massacred innocent farmers." The American government from the local agent, to the governer, to Congress swindled and starved this tribe, even to the point that the writers in their day saw their treatment as cruel and inhumane.

In this article, Lincoln's decision appears to be somehow just, given that the state originally wanted 303 men killed. Lincoln did in fact ask for the trial transcripts, for what they were worth (these trials often lasted only 10 minutes, without legal representation), to determine which prisoners did in fact kill "innocent farmers," but found only 9. But 9 deaths would not appease the blood lust of the "innocent farmers" in Minnesota, so they found 30 more who were guilty of something else (of whom 1 was commuted). Were 29 men then killed because of Lincoln's political decision, not truth and justice?

I understand that Lincoln is a revered figure, but the largest mass execution in the history of the United States is one of the greatest injustices of the man, the office, and the nation. As Joseph Ellis points out in his American Creations, the two great failures of the Founders were slavery and American Indians. Lincoln did well on one of these counts, certainly not the other.

For more information, I refer you to the Wikipedia article on the "Dakota Conflict." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Conflict —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeldwilson (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

James Shields Duel
I think this little tidbit is worth adding into the article. Mainly because of the implications it could of had if they had gone through with the duel. Not to mention, not many people know about the duel in the general public.

Here is the paragraph from the james shields article

Shields almost fought a duel with Abraham Lincoln on September 22, 1842. Lincoln had published an inflammatory letter in a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper that poked fun at the Illinois State Auditor—Shields. Taking offense to the article, Shields demanded "satisfaction" and the incident escalated to the two parties meeting in Missouri to participate in a duel. Just prior to engaging in combat, the two participants' seconds intervened and were able to convince the two men to cease hostilities, on the grounds that Lincoln had not written the letters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Americans of Welsh descent
Can someone verify that the category tag "Americans of Welsh descent" is accurate? AL's patronym, Lincoln, is from Norfolk in England, and his female ancestors through his great-grandmother bore the names Hanks, Herring, and Harrison, which are all English names. (See Abraham Lincoln (captain) and linked articles.) If no one can defend the tag, I think it should be deleted. -- Janeky (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with the general points regarding the Englishness of the name, I would suspect that the name originates in Lincolnshire, rather than Norfolk. Mbalmer (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of homosexuality
I have removed the following claim made by Contaldo80:

“The sexuality of Abraham Lincoln continues, however, to be a topic of lively debate amongst historians, most notably discussion over possible homosexual relationships enjoyed by Lincoln.”

My reasons:

1. It represents fringe scholarship advocated by a small number of non-historians. From WP:FRINGE: “We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth.”

Anyone who attempts to keep up on the continual flow of books about Lincoln could not fail to note the overwhelming absence of any support for, or even discussion of, the allegations of homosexuality.

2. The claim that there is “a lively debate among historians” is neither true nor documented. Historians have almost unanimously rejected the claim where they have bothered to comment at all -- although Contaldo80 is certainly welcome to present documented information on actual historians and biographers who claim Lincoln was gay.

3. Where there is an actual debate among historians on anything relating to Lincoln’s love life, it would involve either his relationships with Mary Todd Lincoln or Ann Ruttledge. The claim that the fringe references to homosexuality are the "most notable" is simply not true. Yet in this already long article, there is no discussion of these romantic relationships which have been part of the historiography about Lincoln for over a century -- or any number of more significant events from Lincoln’s life that would have more relevance to the article. You can't include everything in this article -- there is only room for the most notable aspects of his life and career.

4. Contaldo80 claimed in his edit summary that the reason he added it was “a case of better cross-referencing between articles.” In fact, this is the reason presented for including the link in the “see also” section of the article. This link should be sufficient. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The "lively debate" is only true of people who are trying to use the issue for self-promotion, IMHO. I've been reading about the subject my entire adult life, and I've never come across anyone who repeats the story who has any serious academic standing. Provide a good source, and this comes under consideration again. Until then, I'll revert any attempt to insert such comments or links in the AL page as vandalism. BusterD (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln truly was not against slavery just how slaves were being treated. Lincoln was one of the few people in his time who was not racist yet believed some people were better than others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.94.122 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have considered the arguments put forward by Tom (North Shoreman). I am content, however, that the changes made did not contravene Wikipedia editing policy.

They are consistent with the Neutral point of view policy which states:

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

As the sources cited have been published, they do not contravene the policy on not publishing original research (OR) or original thought.

"This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."

Finally it meets the policy on verifiability:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

Finally, Tom (North Shoreman) refers to fringe theory policy. This states:

"In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents."

The theory of Lincoln’s sexuality has been considered in a serious manner in the book by A C Tripp The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. It has subsequently been debated by among others the Pulitzer prize winning author David Herbert Donald (in We Are Lincoln Men: Abraham Lincoln and His Friends) who put forward arguments against Tripp’s thesis, and the historian Michael B. Chesson who made the argument for the historical significance of the work (in a second afterward to the book titled “An Enthusiastic Endorsement”). This affirms the assertion that “the sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is a topic of debate”. Proven by the fact that we ourselves are having this debate.

The issue, however, is not really about the issue of the sexuality of Abraham Lincoln as there is a separate article on Wikipedia that deals with that. The issue is about ensuring there is proper referencing between articles on Wikipedia. Otherwise it looks very odd to see a link to the sexuality article, but nothing in the main biographical article to suggest why such a link would be needed. This looks even odder when one considers that there is an extensive section in the main biographical text about Lincoln’s religious and philosophical views which are also, as is inevitably the case with personal views, speculative.

As a professional historian (with a university degree in modern history) I challenge the assumption made by BusterD that "I've been reading about the subject my entire adult life, and I've never come across anyone who repeats the story who has any serious academic standing". Historical debate is always evolving as new primary and secondary sources emerge or are reinterpreted in the light of modern scholarship. This allows historians to examine the evidence to support more developed and sophisticated levels of understanding of historical events and of individuals. It is of no surprise that has been little discussion of Lincoln's sexuality over the past 100 years, as the majority of people writing on the subject will have not considered this an issue to research or would have been extremely uncomfortably discussing it because of personal beliefs.

Under Wikipedia’s Edit warring policy it states:

"If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise, or seek dispute resolution. Don't just fight over competing views and versions."

I’m happy to consider a compromise to this discussion, as the changes I made did not violate Wikipedia policy in any way. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue has been the subject of debate in the past -- the last major debate ended with the compromise that there be a reference in the “see also” section. You have failed to explain why this is not adequate to address your concerns about linking the two articles.  I believe (as do at least two other editors) that the status quo should remain until there is a consensus reached that it should be changed.  You had to know that your edit would be controversial -- the time to bring it to the discussion page was BEFORE you changed the text.


 * You have failed to show that there is any significant debate on the issue among historians as to whether Lincoln was a homosexual. You cite Chesson (a quote that I added to the sexuality article), but all he says is that Tripp “has not proved his case conclusively” and some readers “may well have a reasonable doubt about the nature of Lincoln’s sexuality”.  Hardly a ringing endorsement.  I don’t believe the standard for inclusion is intended to be anything that can’t be proven wrong “beyond a reasonable doubt.”


 * The plain fact is that until you have historians on both sides of the issue, you don’t have a debate. Simply mentioning something has been raised and shooting it down is not debate.


 * Your discussion of POV is irrelevant. This is an already long article -- the issue is whether any discussion of a fringe issue is warranted in the main article.  Lincoln’s religious and philosophical beliefs, for example, are relevant because they are frequently discussed and analyzed by recognized historians and biographers -- books have been written about the subject by historians.  This is not the case with the allegations regarding homosexuality.  As I noted and you failed to address, the most enduring debate over Lincoln’s romantic life involves Mary Lincoln and Ann Ruttledge, yet you want to emphasize a very minor part of the story.


 * Your response to BusterD’s comments is off the mark. I agree, of course, with your statement:


 * “Historical debate is always evolving as new primary and secondary sources emerge or are reinterpreted in the light of modern scholarship. This allows historians to examine the evidence to support more developed and sophisticated levels of understanding of historical events and of individuals.”


 * What I disagree with is the relevance of the above to this debate. The words that are significant are “historical debate” and “historians”. The historical community, as reflected in the reaction to those reviews of the work by historians in popular magazines ( as far as I can tell it isn’t even being reviewed in scholarly journals), is overwhelmingly negative. Tripp’s main premise (the one that Donald casually dismisses), that the sleeping arrangements are significant and determinant regarding Lincoln’s sexuality, is simply not accepted by any historian.  The time for wikipedia to say that this issue is basic and must be discussed in a general biographical discussion of Lincoln is when the relevant historical community decides it is. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Assasination Date
I just wanted to confirm that this is the correct date. I was also wondering if this is a little over the top. Leave comments at my talk page please.  Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Nominee
I have just nominated this article for GA. Let's give it a run and if it doesn't work, we'll do our best to fix it up.  Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions 16:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still in several unsourced categories, isn't that a problem? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick-failed Good Article nomination
According to the quick fail criteria, any GA candidate that has cleanup or expansion banners (such as the one in the introduction of the article) must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy any issues brought up by such banners and remove them before renominating the article. Other problems with article include, but are not limited to: the improper use of cquote for block quoting and multiple fact tags in the article. If you feel this review was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, Van Tucky 20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew it, I knew it couldn't become good with all those fact tags around. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple facts tags isn't a disaster, the quick-fail criteria specifically says that only "large numbers" of fact tags and such can require a quick fail. I would not (and did not) fail the article based on the fact tags alone. Van Tucky 22:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * True. Like I said, if we fail we work on it.  So let's get to work!   Meldshal42 Comments and Suggestions My Contributions  15:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Currency?
Maybe this has already been covered, but why isn't there a mention of Lincoln's face being on the penny and dollar bill? --user.lain (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Lincoln is on the 5-dollar bill. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hurf durf, lol posting without thinking. But that doesn't answer my question! --user.lain (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Electoral History
Recently, user "Darth Kalwejt" added what appeared to be a comprehensive and encyclopedic entry detailing Lincoln's performances in various elections through the course of his political career. Though I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the content (I can research if need be), it seemed like a worthy addition to the article. However, this was reverted almost immediately by user "TheBlazikenMaster" with a comment "This looks like a list of people with Lincoln in it. How is it relevant to Lincoln besides the fact that he is one of the listed people?". This comment seems to indicate that TheBlazikenMaster did not actually take the time to read what a fellow editor had apparently taken some time and effort to come up with--of course it is relevant! The edit included a comprehensive breakdown of vote percentages, was properly wikified, and appeared to summarize various facts not included in the body of the article, such as details of the 1856 RNC and so on. I have no desire to engage in an edit war on what appears to be a contentious article, but if others agree with this view, I can reinstate (manually, unless the wiki allows selective rollback of arbitrary past edits) that section. Traumerei (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I just couldn't see how it was relevant. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should be re-added, as interesting, relevant, and verifiable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I did not mean to remove relevant information. If you wanna re-add it, re-add it, there is no reason to discuss this with me, I admit I did a mistake, we all can. Also believe this: I would never fight in an edit war on Wikipedia, I have better things to do. So if you want discussion because I reverted an edit, just re-add it. I was wrong to remove this. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We've all been hasty in reverting things. I just wanted to make sure it was cool with everyone before I re-added it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Sorry if I seemed too critical! Traumerei (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The table as posted for the 1860 RNC showed Lincoln with less than a majority of the votes which was the early case on the third round balloting. I corrected it to reflect the final votes on the third round after delegates changed their minds. The table really doesn't tell the story without a narrative to back it up. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Granted, but it's better than nothing. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Length -- clean up of Bibliography section
A simple way to modify the article length would be to shorten the bibliography, which is long and unwieldy. Cited sources should be included of course, and a brief list of the standard works on Lincoln (if one can be agreed on), as well as a brief, non-redundant, list of his own writings. But does every biography and "Specialty topics" book really belong on this page? Lincoln scholarship is a topic in its own right, and should have a Wikipedia article. The exhaustive book list could reside on that article page. The "Lincoln in art and popular culture" list and sublists would be appropriate for a stand-alone list. Janeky (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Lincoln scholarship" is so tremendous that a separate article is called for, and much of the bibliography information can be moved there. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 18:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Willie Lincoln
I noticed that the article on Willie Lincoln really makes no mention as to his cause of death. The Abraham Lincoln article only devotes two sentences two him, one describing his birth, the other about the moral hardship Lincoln may have faced after his death. This really has to be improved for the article to be promoted. MrPrada (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraph of intro.
A few days ago I removed the last paragraph of the intro. Said paragraph contains two points. The first has to do with rankings of the presidents. I removed this because ranking of the presidents is a silly parlor game that really doesn't have any historical respectability. This past winter, I went to an American Historical Association panel on the subject of presidential rankings. The universal judgment of the historians presenting at it (including Eric Foner and Sean Wilentz) was that it's a silly activity with no real merit. And these were historians who have actually participated in presidential ranking surveys, and such. Obviously, this material is sourced and can certainly be mentioned somewhere in the article, but mentioning it in the intro gives the notion of presidential rankings an intellectual respectability it does not deserve.

The second point in the paragraph was a rather obtuse statement that Lincoln had changed notions of republicanism. This is a very weird statement, and does not belong in the introduction. In the first place, it makes little to no sense without context, which there is not room to provide in the introduction - republicanism is a complicated idea, and a one sentence mention of this is not at all useful to the reader. In the second place, mentioning this in the introduction is an instance of undue weight. This notion about Lincoln reconstructing republicanism isn't really one of the key points about him that needs to go in the introduction. Again, this material probably belongs in the article somewhere, just not in the introduction.

I hope that my removal of this, given the above explanations, does not constitute removing something because "I don't like it." john k (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the first point that has me concerned that this is an "I don't like it" removal. Your opinion is that presidential ranking is a "silly parlor game", yet it's a fact, and it's frequently reported, therefore pertinent.  I might agree this subtopic doesn't belong in the lead, but not covering it at all would leave an obvious hole, as Lincoln does indeed rise to the top of most historians' ranking lists.  That is notable and certainly easily documented with minor effort.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion that it's a silly parlor game. It's the opinion of virtually every academic historian in the United States, including the very historians who participate in the surveys.  As I said, it's fine to include it in the article somewhere, but it should not be in the intro. john k (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article continuity and chronology
I agree that this is a fairly well-written article, but it suffers from a lack of concision and temporal chronology. Instead of saying anywhere that, "Lincoln serves as legislator from xxx-xxx and then as lawyer from xxx-xxx and then ran for president", etc., things seem out of order and confusing there is no real timeline of his life or political career that can easily be followed. And that would be extremely useful, since Lincoln is almost always used as an example when people guage the relative "experience" of different political figures. 206.218.218.58 (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A frequent problem with biographical articles. john k (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

King Cotton
Can someone provide more info or references about the following statement contained in this article: "During the war, Lincoln's Treasury Department effectively controlled all cotton trade in the occupied South — the most dramatic incursion of federal controls on the economy."

I thought the Union blockade was a Union tractic that impacted the cotton trade, and that the Confederates had instituted embargoes themselves in trying to leverage King Cotton, particularly with England. What was the role of the U.S. Treasury? Thanks! 165.189.169.190 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

what do you think?
Victuallers (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's a great picture, it's already in the article, what's your point exactly? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Move your cursor over the picture ... Victuallers (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)