Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fighting begins 1861–1862

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

Mention of Union slave states

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

War policy

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

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

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

Lincolns Philosophy

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

Legacy and memorials

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

Darrin (Thorsmitersaw) September 27, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change Title

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

Enloe rumor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did not add the word "widespread," that was already in the text when I smoothed it.[1] Cheers! Gwen Gale 14:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No scholar?[2] There are other perspectives on this. WP:NPOV. Gwen Gale 13:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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