Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Amnesty Proclamation

This is a redlink, and instead of removing the redlink like an ignorant I'm gonna do something useful.

I know many editors of this article are historians, so could any of you use your knowledge to make this article? I'm not a historian myself, so I can't do crap about it. Stub would be fine, but I just wanna know if it's notable enough to warrant its own article, (as redlinks are encouraging people to add articles), thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already a stub article called Ten percent plan which should, but doesn't, reference Lincoln's Amnesty proclamation by name with an appropriate link (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Amnesty_and_Reconstruction) to the actual proclamation. An additional problem with the proposed article titled Amnesty Proclamation is that Johnson also issued a separate proclamation regarding amnesty (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1919 and . Tom (North Shoreman) 20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if nobody else will change the link by the time it's tomorrow, I will. TheBlazikenMaster 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln gay?

A few years back wasn't there some nonsense about Lincoln being gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.0.146 (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. faithless (^speak) 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Should a link to this article be placed in the text, rather than merely in the "see also" section? It seems like noteworthy biographical speculation supported by at least some evidence, and an active topic of debate among historical scholars. It seems like it would fit in well adjacent to the mention of Joshua Speed. (16 January 2008)

Lincoln, Musharaff, and Civil Liberties

At issue is the addition by editor Gwen Gale to add the following to the section Legacy and memorials:

In November 2007 the president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, citing Lincoln during a television address about his suspension of Pakistan’s constitution and the arrest of thousands of protesters, said, "Abraham Lincoln... to preserve the Union... towards that end, he broke laws, he violated the Constitution, he usurped arbitrary power, he trampled individual liberties."

The issue is whether this news story about a modern military dictator’s self-serving analysis of Abraham Lincoln warrants any coverage at all in this article.

Verifiability is not the issue. The issue is whether the purpose of this section of the article should be to include news items whenever a public figure, positively or negatively, refers to Abraham Lincoln. Checking Google news I come up with 2,720 references to Abraham Lincoln in the past month. Are all references includable simply because they are verifiable? The editor to this point has provided no justification for adding this to the article, although she is on record as claiming Lincoln was a "genocidal tyrant."

Excluding a discussion of Abraham Lincoln and civil liberties from the article is not the issue. The current article has a single paragraph on Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties. A fuller discussion of this issue, using reliable sources from professional historians and political scientists, is certainly warranted – either in this article or a separate article. Considerable scholarly work has been done on the subject and working up an objective analysis of the subject for Wikipedia could easily be as long as this current article is. Indeed, just to add accuracy and proper nuance to Musharraf’s claims would require at least five paragraphs.

The way to expand on this issue is not by culling the headlines for the opinions of folks interested in abusing history in order to promote their own political agendas as Mr. Musharraf very clearly is. The way to do it is to hit the books and add a NPOV analysis of the subject. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Musharraf's government is wholly supported by the United States government, which often invokes Lincoln's legacy (as thoroughly documented in this section of the article). Hence, this citation is relevant to Lincoln's legacy and strongly supported by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. As for self serving and abusing history in order to promote their own political agendas, how many organizations and politicians aren't doing these things whenever they reference AL? Gwen Gale 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the talk page post in which I said there was support for an assertion AL was a genocidal tyrant, I would like to remind editors that PoVs on talk pages and cited passages expressing PoVs in articles are wholly supported and encouraged by WP:WEIGHT. Cheers to all! Gwen Gale 19:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea referring to WP:WEIGHT in an attempt to make your point. This section clearly states, “Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.” While few historians of the era fail to find some problems with the Lincoln administration’s handling of some civil liberty issues, none do it with the extreme language used by Musharaff. “Genocidal tyrant”, while possibly occasionally used in Internet material designed for various neo-confederate types, is a term I doubt any legitimate historian has applied to Lincoln. In any event, the place to discuss Lincoln and civil liberties is elsewhere, and the material to be used is written by historians. I believe that the opinions of Pakistani politicians should be given no weight at all (unless you have some information that he is also a noted American Civil War scholar).

As far as your claim that “Musharraff's government is wholly supported by the United States government,” I have yet to hear any political leader in this country approving of the arrests in Pakistan. In any event, a single speech, that is small part of the much bigger story, may be of interest for a few days but it hardly constitutes a “legacy”. It hardly equates with Mount Rushmore, the 19 states that have named counties after Lincoln, or other lasting memorials. Even the bicentennial commission reference that you deleted is going to be around for at least the next two years. Your “logic” seems to be:

The United States in the past has supported Musharaf’s government.

The United States has supported many memorials and commissions supporting Lincoln’s legacy.

Therefore, Musharaff’s speech automatically has become part of the Lincoln legacy promoted by the United States for the past 142 years.

You ask, “As for ‘self serving’ and ‘abusing history in order to promote their own political agendas’, how many organizations and politicians aren't doing these things whenever they reference AL?” My answer is that quite a few are, and historians have thoroughly explored the whole issue of the Lincoln legacy. Again, this may warrant a separate article, but it is not justification for prominently featuring this particular quote in this particular article. Tom (North Shoreman) 20:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How is Musharaff's language extreme? I think the section could be expanded with other examples of widely-known government officials who have accurately cited Mr Lincoln in support of their policies, since this is very much relevent to his historical legacy. Meanwhile, I think you have very helpfully expressed your take on this and I would like to see what other editors have to say. I stand by WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS (sorry about the alphabet soup though). All the best to you! Gwen Gale 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whenever Lincoln is mentioned by anybody it doesn't need to be mentioned here that he was mentioned.--Southern Texas 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Gwen Gale 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with the man. Everytime somebody talks about George Bush should we add that to his page. Be reasonable and don't add garbage about the president of Pakistan because he said "abraham lincoln". People say "abraham lincoln" all the time and its not revelant to Abraham Lincoln.--Southern Texas 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with Lincoln and his historical/political legacy when the leader of a country financially supported by the United States suspends the civil liberties enumerated in its constitution and accurately invokes Lincoln as a precedent especially when so many historians claim Lincoln was morally justified in doing so. Gwen Gale 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody in the United States supports this, any madman can claim that he is doing something because of "abraham lincoln". Crazy people bring up "Jesus" a lot as their reason for committing acts so with this logic should we make a list on the Jesus page of all the times people mentioned "Jesus" when committing an act?--Southern Texas 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a citation supporting your assertion Nobody in the United States supports this, thanks. Gwen Gale 23:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Provide a citation showing somebody that does. I live in America, I know how it is and somebody that supports this would be committing political suicide. Address the issue at hand and answer the question, it was not rhetorical.--Southern Texas 23:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I didn't make the assertion, you did. Please provide a citation supporting your assertion Nobody in the United States supports this. Meanwhile, are you asserting Musharaff is a madman? Gwen Gale 23:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Its irrelevant plus the only rational thing to do would be to prove that somebody does support this rather than that nobody does. America today is not the same America of Lincoln's time, that was over 140 years ago. Crazy people bring up "Jesus" a lot as their reason for committing acts so with this logic should we make a list on the Jesus page of all the times people mentioned "Jesus" when committing an act?--Southern Texas 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do you mean your assertion Nobody in the United States supports this is irrelevent?
• I think we can agree it would be unhelpful to cite the ravings of crazy people in this article.
• I think it's relevent to quote Musharaff's invocation of Lincoln because his government, which is a nuclear power, is currently supported by the United States and threatened by civil war and Lincoln's suspension of civil liberties in the United States has been widely supported by historians. IMHO this is an important aspect of Lincoln's legacy. Gwen Gale 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

From Adolf Hitler:"In later life, Hitler often praised the Christian heritage, German culture, and a belief in Christ. In his speeches and publications Hitler even spoke of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism..." Ergo, Jesus' legacy was Nazism and anti-Semitism, and the article on Jesus should reflect His influence on Hitler. Ridiculous? Of course. Wasn't it Barry Goldwater who said that "An idea is not responsible for who believes in it"? A similar thing is occurring at the Ron Paul article -- the fact that some white supremacist group has a web banner supporting Paul isn't a reflection on Paul, absent convincing evidence that the feeling is mutual. Everyone needs to study the Fallacy of Argumentum Ad Hominem very carefully. Regards, Unimaginative Username 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, ridiculous because Paul has never advocated racist policies, Christianity is not a an individual politician, Goldwater was referring to ideas, not political legacies. My remarks are not ad hominum. I am neither replying to an argument nor "attacking" or "appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim." I'm only citing Musharaff's invocation of Lincoln's suspension of civil liberties in response to civil war, which was an act, not a belief or characteristic, as Musharaff does likewise. Musharaff is the leader of Pakistan and is financially supported by the US government. He is not a babbling street person or a talk show host. His verifiable statement regarding Lincoln's approach to the constitution is relevant to Mr Lincoln's political legacy and its inclusion in the article would be helpful to readers. Gwen Gale 02:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the comments should be there. Musharraf is not an expert on US civil war history. If it goes anywhere, it should go into the Musharraf article or the related articles about his power grab. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A politician doesn't need to be an expert on US civil war history to invoke the legacy of another politician as justification for a political act. In the context of civil war, Lincoln suspended civil liberties and Musharraf did likewise. Lincoln arrested thousands and Musharraf did likewise, citing Lincoln. That's political legacy. Gwen Gale 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if Musharraf thinks there is a legit parallel, then that is his presentation and attempted justification for his actions, so it goes in the Musharraf and Pakistani articles. Not here. Here we are discussing Lincoln, so it should follow the contributions of experts on 19th century US history, which Musharraf is not.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The article text reads, Many American organizations of all purposes and agendas continue to cite his name and image, which clearly refers to much more than "experts on 19th century US history." Aside from this statement being uncited, its presence in the article seems to conflict with your assertion. Hence, this section of the article either needs some rethinking and/or appropriate citations, or perhaps some helpful examples of how "organizations of all purposes and agendas continue to cite his name and image," organizations such as the government of Pakistan which has invoked Lincoln's political legacy in suspending its constitution, as Lincoln did. Moreover, I see no reason to limit these examples to Americans, for obvious reasons.

Lastly, as for "experts on 19th century US history," many (if not most) of these seem to support Lincoln's suspension of civil liberties and unconstitutional arrests of thousands of potential political dissidents, so this political legacy clearly has widely described support within that segment of the academic community. Since Musharraf is supported by the US government, whose current form is traced by many historians back to Lincoln's conduct of the civil war, I don't see why mentioning Musharraf's reference to Lincoln would be unhelpful or misleading to readers. Gwen Gale 03:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• This article is already quite long (almost 100kb) and should, as a biography, not go off on a tangent like this. Over the past three years, the article has deteriorated from a Main Page FA, to failing GA, partly due to overlong length. The main biography Article about A Lincoln should be just that – a biography. Accordingly, I Propose a Fork of 21st century allusions to him by contemporary figures to a separate article, say, "Lincoln in popular culture" or whatever. Consensus?JGHowes ^talk - 15:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is already an article Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln which includes a section on the 21st Century. That entire article, however, seems to be very little more than one large trivia collection. I'm afraid an article made up of simply allusions to Lincoln by contemporary figures, without some scholarly, reliable secondary sources to provide context and a unifying theme would also be largely trivia. Lincoln's legacy and the changing perception of him is a subject that has been much written about and, as I said above, would probably be a fit topic for a separate article. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It could be the article has fallen so far from FA because Wikipedia is growing up and the article is flawed with astonishingly single-minded PoV. Meanwhile the section Legacy and memorials mostly has to do with memorials, name-afters and sites of secular worship along with some uncited, fuzzy shreds about legacy. When I tried to help out by starting to add cited examples of his political legacy, I was reverted. Hence, I respectfully suggest the section be re-named Memorials and the uncited text brushing on "legacy" be removed. Cheers to all! Gwen Gale 18:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, it could be that the article has fallen so far because editors insist of inserting irrelevant material about petty dictators, while excising uncontroversial, sourced material. Perhaps that could be it, no? K. Scott Bailey 04:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Naw, the US government has sent Musharaff billions of dollars to prop up his government. Even so, he's facing civil war, so when he suspends civil liberties and arrests thousands of dissidents, as Lincoln did, he accurately cites Lincoln, a former president of the government which is financially sustaining him, as support. I know it's unpleasant, but it's directly related to Lincoln's political legacy. Gwen Gale 05:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And at last your POV-pushing agenda becomes clear. It's not only "unpleasant", it's untrue. Musharraf is a dictator. Lincoln was a democratically-elected leader, whose actions were approved by congress. I will now be reverting your POV-pushing insistence on the irrelevant Musharraf info as just that: POV-pushing on Lincoln's legacy. K. Scott Bailey 08:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if Musharref is a jerk, or Francis of Assisi. What's so untrue about Musharraf citing Lincoln as justification for suspending civil liberties and arresting dissidents? He did it and said Lincoln did it too, which is all true. Moreover, he's supported by the United States government, whose present form most historians agree can be traced straight back to Lincoln. Like it or not, it's a thread in Lincoln's political legacy. This image, a quick editorial copy paste-up by Salon, is unsettling to me. Is Salon PoV pushing? I'd rather call it something akin to WP:NPOV but either way, consensus will have sway on this public wiki, so let's let other editors have their say too. Gwen Gale 08:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your POV (or Salon's) aside, Musharraf is not Lincoln-esqe in any sense, which was what his self-serving comparison was trying to imply. It's appropriate for his article, or Pakistan's article, but not for this article. No one agrees with you. It's not going in. This one is over. K. Scott Bailey 08:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if he is or is not Lincolnesque, self-serving or Christlike. I strongly disagree with your sweeping assertion "no one agrees with" me, nor can you possibly end a discussion like this by unilaterally declaring it "over." I think you've strayed from WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL but there's no need to go on about it. Terse, civil disagreement is ok if it happens now and then, however I'm not interested in stark disputes, much less simmering, back and forth edit wars, even the low level kind. I edit through consensus and abide by it and I'd like to see what other editors have to say, is all. Cheers anyway. Gwen Gale 10:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone was engaging in an attempted "edit war", it was you. You haven't "edited through consensus" in this case at least. You replaced a frivolous fact tag, without consensus, and when it was removed again, you simply deleted the entire sentence, again without consensus. When citations were provided, you asserted they weren't good enough, attacking the author for an unrelated controversy. When I provided the full-text of the Cooper Union Speech as a citation, you somehow concluded that didn't support the sentence either. No, you haven't displayed the characteristics you demand in others, nor the ones that you CLAIM to possess in this "terse discussion." K. Scott Bailey 14:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? Two editors asked for the tag and two editors have been involved in removing it. Sounds to me like so far there's no consensus for anything. Meanwhile the citations you have provided indeed do not support the text (which is discussed in another thread below). You're cite spanning, which is WP:OR. Lastly, you continue to comment on (and attack) me as an editor instead of discussing the edits themselves. Gwen Gale 17:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your edits and arguments are without merit. This article is a biography about Lincoln. Musharaff has no place in this article. Rklawton 14:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing clearly referenced and uncontroversial material

I would ask the two editors who insist on adding frivolous fact tags to uncontroversial and widely accepted (as well as well-sourced) material to not remove that material until consensus to do so can be reached on the talk page. Very few people would assert that Lincoln was not, in fact, against the expansion of slavery, and one of the most outspoken proponents of this assertion. That you do doesn't really matter all that much, at least in the context of what does, or does not, belong in this article.K. Scott Bailey 04:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the assertion:

As an outspoken opponent of the expansion of slavery,[1] he won the Republican Party nomination in 1860...

The assertion so far is unsupported and not at all clearly referenced. Wikipedia policy wholly allows an editor to remove unsupported text from articles.

Please provide a citation which clearly supports the notion that Mr Lincoln was an outspoken opponent of the expansion of slavery in 1860 and that this was the factor which held sway in his winning the Republican Party nomination that year. If it's so uncontroversial, it should be easy to find an unambiguous citation. Thanks. Gwen Gale 04:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note, my last edit summary reads if it's so uncontroversial, find a citation from 1860 which describes him as an "unspoken" opponent and pls stop reverting when I should have typed if it's so uncontroversial, find a citation which describes him as an "outspoken" opponent in 1860 and pls stop reverting, sorry about that and either way, cheers to everyone participating in this discussion. Gwen Gale 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So, let me make sure I clearly understand your position: you are FOR including irrelevant information about Musharaf referencing Lincoln, but against including uncontroversial material about Lincoln's position against expansion of slavery. Is that a decent summation? And are you claiming that Lincoln's position changed in the six years from 1854 to 1860? That's a bit ludicrous, I would think, given his actions after election. You are removing well-referenced material. Stop doing so. K. Scott Bailey 04:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a "decent summation" at all. I believe the Musharraf citation is keenly relevent to Lincoln's political legacy. However, that discussion is not at all relevent to this one.

If this material is so uncontroversial, supporting it with a couple of citations should be cake. I'm making no assertions about AL in this discussion. I am only asking for citations to support a specific assertion made in the article text, under the policies of this public wiki (WP:V, WP:RS). Thanks for asking though. Gwen Gale 04:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is "cake", which is what hisses me off so much about this frivolous fact-tagging and deletion of uncontroversial, and sourced material. In Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin, on page 91 (and many other places), it refers to Lincoln's outspoken stance against the expansion of slavery. Anyone who knows anything about Lincoln--or cares what is "keenly relevant" to his political legacy (which doesn't include Musharraf misappropriating his actions for his own gain)--would know that. It's in every biography I've read of him, and both that I currently have on my bookshelf. Your obstinance in the face of uncontroversial facts about Lincoln's life, and insistence on inclusion of the ruminations of petty dictators as somehow relevant, is not becoming at all. K. Scott Bailey 04:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Doris Kearns Goodwin is an admitted plagiarist and no longer a widely accepted interpreter of American presidents. I mean, you can include a citation from her but I would ask for a second citation since her credibility has waned so much. Please refrain from characterizing good faith edits as frivolous. As for your other comments, all I'm asking for are citations, please provide them. Gwen Gale 04:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No.

This is becoming ridiculous. She quotes directly from his 1860 election autobiography. You asked for a cite. You got a cite. Let it go. K. Scott Bailey 04:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:CIVIL. The DKG citation you provided does not support the notion that he was "outspoken" nor does it provide any support that he received the nomination as a result of his (self admittedly rather thin) political position on slavery. For these reasons, the citation is not acceptable as support for the text as worded. If he was "outspoken," let's see a citation characterizing him as "outspoken." If his position on slavery was so key to his getting the nomination that mention of it should come in the same breath (sentence), then I'd like to see a citation supporting that too. Gwen Gale 04:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from quoting unrelated wikipolicy in a content dispute. And the man put it in his campaign biography. If that's not "outspoken" nothing is. Are you simply against including adjectives that aren't a direct quote from a source? And stop attacking Team of Rivals based on unrelated issues relating to the author. It qualifies as a reliable source. So does Lincoln's own "Cooper Union Speech." You asked for a reference for an uncontroversial statement of fact, after replacing a frivolous fact tag. I provided one. Then I provided another. It's over. Please let it go. K. Scott Bailey 05:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You have not yet supplied any citations which support the text. Moreover, unsupported adjectives are not acceptable if unsupported and challenged as such, since they may be WP:OR. The raw text from the Cooper speech does not support any assertion that AL was outspoken or that his position on slavery held meaningful sway on his nomination. So far, the assertion is unsupported. Again, I ask you, please, to stop throwing around the word "frivolous," which is starting to border on disruption and personal attack. Thanks Gwen Gale 05:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Start an RfC on it then. I doubt that I would be the one judged as being "disruptive" to this article. I've provided citations that Lincoln did, in fact, hold what could, in good faith, be noted as an "outspoken" view on slavery. WP policy does not require that every single word in an article be sourced directly. However, since you are being wiki-lawyerly about it, I will remove the adjective that troubles you so deeply. K. Scott Bailey 05:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have rm'd the adjective "outspoken" from the text so readers will not be misled into thinking the three citations you provided support its inclusion. I also suggest that his other political positions be summarized before the header mentions his nomination, since the supplied citations don't support any assertion that his position on slavery was key to his nomination or election. Gwen Gale 05:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The current wording simply says that he was an opponent of the expansion of slavery when he was nominated. This is categorically true, and completely substantiated by the refs I provided. I will provide more as necessary to quell your disquiet over the inclusion of the fact that Lincoln was an opponent of expansion when he was nominated for the presidency. On p. 224 of Rivals, Goodwin even explicitly states (as do many other Lincoln authors, as you would know, if you'd read widely on him) that this position was integral to him winning the nom over his more hardline opponents. K. Scott Bailey 05:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No? Do you mean you don't want to discuss his other political positions in the header? Meanwhile, I'm familiar with the sources, which is why I'm asking for explicit citations for explicit wordings in the text. Thanks for understanding. Gwen Gale 05:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't. As for your knowledge--or lack of it--on the Lincoln-lit, I don't really care. You aren't showing a very deep knowledge of what is accepted as uncontroversial fact about his position against expansion, which would seem to belie your claimed knowledge of the sources, but whatever your reasons, you're simply wrong. The sentence could read "Lincoln was nominated in part because of his stance against the expansion of slavery" and it would still be NPOV, and completely accurate, according to all the major bios, including Team of Rivals, your ad hominem against Goodwin notwithstanding. Now I'm done. Please leave the introduction stable, now that four different cites from two different sources have been added in support. K. Scott Bailey 05:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DKG, WP:RS. As for your knowledge--or lack of it..., WP:CIVIL. what is accepted as uncontroversial... WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. your claimed knowledge of the sources... WP:AGF. The sentence could read "Lincoln was nominated in part because of his stance against the expansion of slavery"... that would be much more helpful and sustainable. ...your ad hominem against Goodwin... again, WP:RS, if I have a worry about a source, it's not ad hominem to express it. Please leave the introduction stable... I think the introduction is mostly helpful, but misleading about Lincoln's position on slavery, which while sincere (he truly didn't want slavery expanded into new states), was subtle, cannily developed, measured and only tangental to his nomination and election. Gwen Gale 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First, you called Goodwin an "admitted plagerist [sic]", which, in the context of her book on Lincoln, has no bearing. Thus, ad hominem. As for all your wikipolicy links, you can lawyer me as much as you want. If you think I have crossed some imaginary "line", start an RfC. You replaced a fact tag that was, in my opinion (and another editor's as well) frivolous. I have now cited the statement. As far as I'm concerned, that matter is closed. As for Lincoln's position on slavery, you're just wrong. His position on expansion was one of the main reasons he was nominated, as per the sources cited. But if you wish to replace the current sentence with the hypothetical one I proposed, I would not oppose that. It basically says the same thing as the current sentence, but if you feel like it complies better with your ... umm ... interpretations of wikipolicy, and your understanding of Lincoln's have at it. K. Scott Bailey 06:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You've offered some citations which don't support the assertion, which speaks for itself. Gwen Gale 06:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. The fourth one explicitly state that very fact, while the other three are certainly supportive of the assertion. Did you even bother to look at the cites? Have you even read Goodwin's Rivals? If not, how can you judge it unreliable? This is a circular argument if ever there was one. You asked for refs. I gave you four. Now they aren't GOOD enough refs. I'm quite done with you, as it appears you may be more interested in arguing about minutae than improving the article. K. Scott Bailey 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The citations you provided do not support any use of the adjective "outspoken" (which you subsequently agreed to remove) and while they do express AL's position on the expansion of slavery (which I never challenged in this thread), they do not support the notion Lincoln secured nomination and election mostly because of his position on slavery, as the wording of the original assertion strongly and unavoidably implies. Gwen Gale 06:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I only "agreed" to remove it because you badgered me (wikilawyered) me into it. As for the cites, I have pointed you repeatedly to the one that EXPLICITLY connects Lincoln's position on the issue to his election. Either you are refusing to read it, or you simply don't care. It's explicit in the claim that his position was a major reason for his nomination. K. Scott Bailey 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you felt I "badgered" and "wikilawyered" you into following WP:V and WP:RS, I wonder why you didn't wait for other editors to give us their thoughts instead?

I should have answered your earlier comment about "minutae." The little things are what writing's all about. Readers pick up on this kind of stuff and build sweeping opinions and thoughts from it, quick. That's why "spin" and so-called "sound-bites" have such a strong effect on folks. Knowing this, I think there is much we can do to helpfully skirt away from misleading readers.

Meanwhile, DKG aside, none of the cites you provided support the original assertion. I mean, you seem to be making a good-faith leap, muddling what you sincerely believe to be true with what the citations say. Gwen Gale 07:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're going to badger me into including the entire graf that the quote in the citation is pulled from that explicitly cites his position on expansion as a major reason he was nominated? Is that what you're looking for? Me to include the entire paragraph to prove what is evident to those who know Lincoln and his biographies? And there's no "leap"--good faith or otherwise--to be made to the conclusion that every major biographer comes to as well: his position on expansion played a major role in his nomination. K. Scott Bailey 08:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

All you've shown so far is the cites I can verify don't support the assertion Lincoln was "outspoken" in his position on slavery or that his position on the expansion of slavery was unique or important enough to win him the presidency. I'm still wondering why we can't wait for other editors to say what they think. Gwen Gale 08:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the citations I've posted. First, as to "outspoken", what would qualify as being "outspoken"? Would putting it in his autobiography, written specifically for the 1860 campaign not qualify? What would he have to do, get it tattooed on his considerable forehead?!? Set that aside though, as you've pestered me into removing that adjective. The fourth citation I posted clearly sets out (if you force me to post the entire graf that does so, I will), the fact that Lincoln's position against expansion played a significant role in his nomination for the presidency. Are you being willfully obtuse, or do you simply want to force me to post the entire graf? Please answer that, because if the answer is affirmative I will do so. You're completely, totally wrong about this, and have wasted hours of my insomniac time on this, simply for your concern with minutae. K. Scott Bailey 08:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I've weathered too many personal attacks in this thread for me to carry on with it. I do wish you all the best. Gwen Gale 10:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You spent the better part of three hours pestering me into providing four citations for an innocuous, uncontroversial statement about Lincoln in the intro. What you are perceiving as "personal attacks" is nothing more than the brusqueness of a busy editor when forced to deal with trivialities. Sorry, but being brusque does not equal "personal attacks" or even "incivility." K. Scott Bailey 14:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. You've been coomenting on me as an editor as much as on on the edits themselves. Please review WP:CIVIL. Gwen Gale 17:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored the word "outspoken" to the section in question and provided an additional footnote making it clear how Lincoln at Cooper Union brought the issue of the expansion of slavery clearly onto center stage. In fact, it is not at all controversial to note that from 1854 with his opposition to Kansas-Nebraska (all about western expansion of slavery), through his debates with Douglas (which because of the articulation of the Freeport Doctrine forced on Douglas led to the 1860 split in the Democratic Party), and finally with his speech at at Cooper Union (a printed version of his speech was widely circulated throughout the 1860 campaign) that Lincoln was widely identified with this issue. He was certainly "outspoken" enough on the subject that the South got the message on the significance of Lincoln's election to their "peculiar institution." Tom (North Shoreman) 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of the five citations now tacked onto that sentence, none of them even come close to supporting an assertion AL was outspoken in his position on slavery in 1860. Moreover if a position on slavery had sway in his successful election it's more likely the opposite was true. Either way, these citations don't even address the use of "outspoken" or the relationship of his position to his election in 1860. Attack me, put me down, say what you like, whatever, but this article has lots of PoV and OR issues. Please stop accusing me of what you yourselves are doing. All the best. Gwen Gale 17:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: You may have interpreted my having said it's more likely the opposite was true... as a reference to some kind of secret agenda. All I meant was that while he was indeed personally opposed to the notion of slavery (like most northerners and many southerners), his political position on slavery was extremely measured and calculated, centering mostly on the expansion of slavery in new states. Gwen Gale 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

From Webster-Merriam Online:

Main Entry: out·spo·ken

1 : direct and open in speech or expression : frank <outspoken in his criticism — Current Biography> 2 : spoken or expressed without reserve <his outspoken advocacy of gun control>

These definitions of "outspoken" fit perfectly with Lincoln's often expressed opinions on the expansion of slavery in the period from 1854-1860. The Lincoln position as well as the Republican Party position on the issue was well known well before the voters went to the polls -- rather than being part of some secret agenda as you suggest, anyone at all familiar with the time period realizes that this was the single most important issue that led to the birth of the Republican Party in the first place.Tom (North Shoreman) 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the diff where I talked about any kind of secret agenda (truth be told, I think the agenda here is wide open and, erm, rather outspoken), but first, please see my new note under my last post above. Meanwhile the dicdef has nothing to do with Lincoln and your interpretation is original research. If this is so self-evident I'd think it would be much easier for you to come up with a citation which supports, either by synonym or otherwise, the use of the adjective outspoken. You have yet to do so but I'm only interested in helping out with the article by consensus and would like to hear what other editors have to say. Gwen Gale 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)