Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

FAC battle continues

At User:Peregrine Fisher/ALFA2Archive, if anyone cares. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories

This talk page seems to be in about 40 categories. Is that necessary? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copyeditors

Hi Everyone! I'm excited about copyediting this article. I've printed it out and I'll start by doing an offline copy edit, so you might not hear anything for me for 12-24 hours. However, then I'll start editing, section-by-section, and it should be pretty quick to upload my edits. Then I'll probably do one more once-over to make sure everything flows together. I'll use the GoCE tag that shows copyediting is in progress, but I'll do it per section, so you know where I'm working. I'm not going to put it on the main article right now, since I'll be working on it off line first, but if you can avoid any major construction over the next day or so, it would be appreciated. Thanks! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 12:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, frickin awesome! We'll give you some time so as to prevent edit conflicts and wasted work. Thanks again. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just want to add my word of thanks for your contribution. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There was actually a "copyediting conflict" and S Masters (talk started working on this about an hour before I did. Rather than step on his toes, I'll let him proceed, but if you don't hear from him in a couple days, let me know on my talk page. :) Good luck! Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 03:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A full copyedit has now been completed. Cheers. - S Masters (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious and philosophical beliefs

The tenor of this section is somewhat at odds with its main article, and somewhat disappointingly seems to be constructing a narrative of an initially irreligious Lincoln who later found his faith by selectively quoting references to God in his later work, not necessarily the best portrayal of a complex personal situation. I think this section needs to be reworked to more closely follow Abraham Lincoln and religion. I'll volunteer for that if nobody has any objections. Slac speak up! 04:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

not a good idea, I fear. the Abraham Lincoln and religion article is full of original research and very old fashioned interpretation and relies too little on the latest scholarship. (I suspect it is based on an old pamphlet somewhere). For example, Guelzo and Carwardine get only one sentence each and there is only a half-sentence on the Second Inaugural. Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's what I was going to say:

If you don't have an agenda, then go for it. It's a controversial subject, so it needs the utmost care, with someone who's read the relevant sources. I have no idea if Abraham Lincoln and religion is weighted correctly, so you can't just go by it blindly. Why don't you mention what you've read, and how it conflicts with what we have now.

I have a feeling that Rjensen is right, though. This article is way better than that one, so discuss here first. You might think about fixing that one instead. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a new opening to the section summarizing what scholars have been saying recently. Rjensen (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed a difficult one to edit. I reworked the section a couple of weeks ago and probably am at fault for the "tenor" mentioned above. I tried hard to stick with Donald's direct quotes from Lincoln..I have been reading that as I have been editing. Prior to my edit the section seemed to be leaning decidedly in the other direction without Lincoln's quotes, but I am not intimately familiar with the other sources. If they have statements from Lincoln I would personally go with that as well. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Cutting links

To trim excessive length, I suggest we drop footnotes that are merely links to websites when we already have an article on that topic--like the Lincoln Memorial, say--which has plenty of links. The result will be to cut the number of footnotes and shorten the article, with no loss to the readers.Rjensen (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes to lead

[1] Generally all right, but I have a few concerns. The "rededicting the nation to freedom. democracy and equality." part might be overly strong without a cite, and has incorrect punctuation. "modest means" to "poor" also changes some meaning, although maybe it matches the body's text better, not sure. And I think I like the previous version of this:

" His tenure in office was largely dedicated to the defeat of the secessionist Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. This led him to exercise unprecedented war powers, including the arrest and detention, without warrant, of thousands of suspected secessionists."

better than this

"As president he concentrated on the military and political dimensions of the war effort, always seeking to reunify the nation after the secession of the eleven Confederate States of America. He vigorously exercised unprecedented war powers,'

I won't revert, becaue Rjensen did this stuff, and how knows way more than me, but I'm concerned on this particular edit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Peregrine's concerns. The "rededicating the nation to freedom. democracy and equality." echoes the Gettysburg Address and reiterates what that section says (I'll make it an exact copy of nationalism, equal rights, liberty and democracy.) . "Modest" sounds like middle class--her was living in a cave for a while in Indiana. I dislike the passive voice in His tenure in office was largely dedicated and This led him to exercise -- we need to use more active verbs--he was an active president. Rjensen (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Thousands of Confederate sympathizers"

He used his war powers to ... suspend the writ of habeas corpus, arresting and imprisoning thousands of suspected Confederate sympathizers without warrant.[Neely, p. 253, n. 7.]"

I don't have Neely to hand but I am about 99% sure that this basically the opposite of what he says. It is absolutely true that Lincoln had thousands arrested without warrant, but the overwhelming majority of those arrested were held for desertion, draft evasion, smuggling, fraud, sabotage, and so on – not for being "Confederate sympathizers," and if I remember correctly, this was proven by Neely himself! It should probably be changed to something like, "imprisoning thousands of citizens without warrant, some few for purely political crimes." 174.91.175.225 (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Abraham_Lincoln#States_admitted_to_the_Union

This is too small for its own section, but I'm not sure what to do with it. Any ideas? [ Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'd like to merge it with the above section Abraham_Lincoln#Administration.2C_cabinet_and_Supreme_Court_appointments_1861.E2.80.931865, but I can't think of a good section name. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article

No refs for this part. I though we used to have refs, maybe I'll look through the history to see what happened to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The ballistic missile submarine Abraham Lincoln (SSBN-602) and the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) were named in his honor. Lincoln has been memorialized in many town, city, and county names,

including the capital of Nebraska.

quotes

"Every man is proud of what he does well; and no man is proud of what he does not do well. With the former, his heart is in his work; and he will do twice as much of it with less fatigue. The latter performs a little imperfectly, looks at it in disgust, turns from it, and imagines himself exceedingly tired. The little he has done, comes to nothing, for want of finishing."— Abraham Lincoln September 30, 1859 in Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

quotes

"Adhere to your purpose and you will soon feel as well as you ever did. On the contrary, if you falter, and give up, you will lose the power of keeping any resolution, and will regret it all your life." Abraham Lincoln

quote

"Adhere to your purpose and you will soon feel as well as you ever did. On the contrary, if you falter, and give up, you will lose the power of keeping any resolution, and will regret it all your life." — Abraham Lincoln June 28, 1862 in letter to Quintin Campbell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

These would be better off on Wikiquote rather than overloading the article. Rodhullandemu 21:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Larry Tagg, The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: The Story of America's Most Reviled President (2009)

Anyone know what page number it is? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentence covers all of 1861-65 as does the book. see the TOC on amazon.com Rjensen (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you know about the Boritt, Gabor S. (1978). Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream. reference? Is it the whole book? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the Boritt book--the chapters are chronological and each one deals with the same themes (like banks and tariffs and RR) at different points in Lincoln's life, so the reference should be to the whole book, not to specific pages.Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies. Keep an eye out, because I may have another similar question. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is another one where the whole book is the cite. Not sure. I found pages for the specific dates, times, and number of words. See dif.[2] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the Tagg cite- it now references a magazine piece he did covering the point being made in the article and hopefully now we don't have a page problem (I didn't include an external link). I didn't know you were on this, since it wasn't on the GA page. Not too sure about how good a reference Tagg is, but that's another issue.Carmarg4 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Images

Per GAN review (see above) the following images apparently lack proper WP licensing/exemptions. If they are not in compliance with WP licensing guidelines, I would propose removal of these from the article - more expert advice on this, please:

Mary_Todd_Lincoln_1846-1847.jpg

Young_Lincoln_By_Charles_Keck.JPG

TheApotheosisLincolnAndWashington1860s.jpg Carmarg4 (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Birth Controversy

An edit has today added this sub-section which raises the old rumor that Lincoln was born of the Enlow family in N.C.. The source used for this is the web site of a N.C Lincoln museum in the county where he was alleged to have been illegitimately born. The renowned Lincoln biographer David Donald states that the Enlow "legends have long ago been exploded, and the story of Lincoln's bastardy is utterly groundless." (Donald, 1996, p. 605[n]). This subsection should be removed for lack of reliable or verifiable sources, and also in light of the consensus of reputable historians dismissing the "local lore" inserted. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality

Why is his questioned sexuality not mentioned here? It's notable enough over at Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln... DaAnHo (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See AL archives. Carmarg4 (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha! DaAnHo (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln's sexuality, if legitimate, should be mentioned in the main article. He did sleep in the same bed with a man for four years. I will agree that there needs to be a valid source for any reference. Wikipedia should not promote fringe theories, however, if there is a valid source Wikipedia should not shy away from any perceived controversy. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He was a lawyer for the Circuit Court and went from town to town and had to stay in lodging. It was common then to share a bed to keep expenses down. No one thought anything of it at the time. The fact he was cheap like everyone else at the time is not notable. --Javaweb (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

If a legitimate source questions Lincoln's sexuality, then it should be briefly mentioned in the main article. Lincoln's erotic poem suggests there was some homosexual attraction. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument that people were cheap back then and no one thought anything about it only applies to Speed. That arguement does not apply to Lincoln as President and Derickson. Lincoln was President, he had money, no need to be cheap. Lincoln was married. If he did sleep with a man while married that would imply that he was homosexual, in my opinion. The question is did people in the 19th century accept homosexual practices? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To see what refs are available, here is the Wikipedia article section relating to this: Lincoln and Derickson. --Javaweb (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

The overwhelming number of biographers/historians of Lincoln do not support the allegations of homosexuality. The separate article shows the speculation is pressed by non-historians and non-biographers and should not be considered as reliable sources. It is, at best, a fringe claim and as such has no place in the main article. Nothing should be added to this article absent a consensus to do so. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would not add anything without consensus. I believe Tripp is a reliable author, even though his view on Lincoln is controversial. My only intention was to mention that Lincoln's sexuality has been challenged through circumstancial evidence by one historian. That is not stating that Lincoln is gay or homosexual. Wikipedia should represent alternative views in articles. I do not consider Tripp to be on the fringe, yet the theory is without direct evidence. Matthew Pinsker who authored Lincoln's Sanctuary: Abraham Lincoln and the Soldiers' Home, also discussed Lincoln's special relationship with Derickson. Lincoln's actions did create scandal in Washington. Virginia Fox said "there is a Bucktail Soldier here devoted to the President, drives with him & when Mrs L. is not home, sleeps with him. What stuff!” Major Chamberlain said "Captain Derickson, in particular, advanced so far in the President's confidence and esteem that, in Mrs. Lincoln's absence, he frequently spent the night at his cottage, sleeping in the same bed with him, and—it is said—making use of His Excellency's night-shirts!" Derickson almost communicated everyday with the President. Having the President's attention in the middle of the Civil War from a Captain is very signifigant. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

sleep in in the same bed?? --very common, there was a shortage of beds. Historians consider Tripp a fringe -- here's the NY Times review: "Tripp alternates shrewd guesses and modest judgments with bluster and fantasy. He drags in references to Alfred Kinsey (with whom he once worked) to give his arguments a (spurious) scientific sheen. And he has an ax to grind. ...." Lincoln was perhaps the most hated man in America in 1861-65 but his many many enemies never accused him of being a homosexual. (in contrast to opuinion about his predecessor Pres Buchanan). Rjensen (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the book review. From reading the review, the book is speculative. --Javaweb (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Cmguy777 suggests that Pinsker supports Tripp. In fact Pinsker (see [3] -- I needed to go to JSTOR to verify that this was written by Pinsker) has the following to say about the book:

In this widely publicized book, the late C. A. Tripp argues that Abraham Lincoln was "predominantly homosexual" (p. 20) and that his secret sex life contributed to "the qualities of his genius" (p. 214). Despite a bold and occasionally intriguing thesis, this monograph quickly degenerates into an embarrassing mess. The finished product manipulates its rather flimsy evidence, lacks historical context, contains examples of plagiarism, and makes a number of bizarre assertions. One chapter suggests a parlor game, asking readers to "jot down a list, of say, ten names of individuals who are remembered as geniuses" and then to "subtract the names of those persons known to be either homosexual or Jewish or both—and see how many are left" (pp. 209–10). Another passage compares Mary Todd Lincoln to Adolf Hitler. In short, it is not a work of serious scholarship. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In his book, Lincoln's Sanctuary: Abraham Lincoln and the Soldiers' Home, Pinsker does not dismiss Tripp's theory and in fact calls Derickson, Lincoln's "companion". Pinsker writes "Without doubt, it was David Derickson, above all others, who emerged as the president's favorite new companion. In the good-natured officer from Meadville, Pennsylania, Lincoln found someone who shared his background as a former small town resident and Republican politician. Derickson even occasionally spent nights at the cottage, reportedly sharing a bed with the president—a fact that surprised and amused his fellow officers." Then Pinsker mentions the two above quotations that Derickson slept with Lincoln and even wore his bed clothes. The scandal was that Lincoln was sleeping with an officer. Pinkster says that according to Derickson's recollections of Lincoln there was a close relationship, "The available contemporary evidence fully supports these recollections of a special relationship." Lincoln even wrote on the Bucktail unit and Captain Derickson, "are very agreeable to me; and while it is deemed proper for any guard to remain, none would be more satisfactory to me than Capt. D and his company.” Pinkster does not outright dismiss that Lincoln was not a homosexual. I am not here to argue whether Lincoln was a homosexual, but rather that his sexuality has been historically evaluated. Pinkster says "There is something remarkable about the speed with which Derickson became an important part of Lincoln's personal life. More than anything else, their instant friendship seems to testify to the president's deep-seated need for support during a trying period." --Pinkster (2003), pp. 84-87 Cmguy777 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I am all for concensus. The article on Lincoln's sexuality adequately covers the topic. If other editors are against addressing Lincoln's sexuality in the main article, then the issue should just be kept in the sexuality article on Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Religious views

Hi. I found an outright statement and cited that, from Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers (2004). It was so great to have Ms. Jacoby state the fact, that I thought it belonged here (I see some editors have spent years on the subject). -SusanLesch (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And it's been removed as "vague". I will wait until tomorrow to add it again, during which time the editor who removed it may find this discussion, which would be nicer than simply removing it. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've read the quotation (and the book she wrote), and the quotation adds zero to this article. For that matter the book is pretty confused as well.Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think she's explained a lot in this quote, that "everybody's right" about Lincoln, as she says later in the chapter. You are asking the reader to read all of this section, "Religious and philosophical beliefs", and then all of the article, "Abraham Lincoln and religion", to arrive at their own conclusion. I prefer to give the reader that conclusion up front. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

the Jacoby quote does not talk about the Wikipedia article and it conveys no new info on Lincoln--it is phrased in confusing paradoxical fashion and it seems to suggest that Wiki endorses her anti-religious viewpoint. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confused. No, Jacoby is open on whether or not Lincoln was Christian. No, she doesn't discuss Wikipedia. Why you think she would, I don't have any idea! My last reply above explained why the article needs this: the article is long-winded on religion, and points to yet another whole article about Lincoln and religion. No reader could deduce any conclusion, and so, I think a one sentence conclusion up front does belong. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

the article is not long-winded on religion -- it concisely summarizes the scholarship. Jacoby does not do that (she is hung up on 19th century debates by Herndon, Mrs Lincoln, etc) and instead she poses a question in terms favorable to her anti-religious beliefs. Rjensen (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's important to let the readers draw their own conclusion from the best references to L's own specific acts and utterances, especially on this subject. It's far too easy for a writer's own preferences to cloud things here. I can plead guilty to this very problem in my own editing on this subject in this article, which has since been corrected. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the Wikipedia perspective becomes something like, "You said all that to say what?" We have a 38K article supplementing a 6,000 character section here. How about rewording what I've added? Without changing the meaning, it may be possible to soften the words so people of faith aren't offended.

Ms. Jacoby may have concentrated on 19th century sources, but she doesn't exclude modern accounts (she mentions hundreds of books written on the subject of Lincoln's faith, several by name). She only mentions Mrs. Lincoln once, to say she despised Herndon. Also, she said the person who wrote the second inaugural address could not have been an "unbeliever" in the 20th century meaning of that term. (Just making corrections because we ought to characterize her work fairly. I think she is a valuable source, because she is a secularist.) -SusanLesch (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

instead of leading off with the speculation of an avowed atheist who wishes to cast doubt on Lincoln's Christianity, I revised it to open with a scholar who attempts to be fair and balanced and takes a NPOV approach that is consonant with Wikipedia's goals.Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, it seems you have a problem with atheism. You repeatedly state an author's viewpoint in a negative light—and yes, she is a reliable source. When an author gives a point of view, that doesn't mean they can't be right. I'm sorry but I am tired of arguing with you. Take care. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the contentious statements from Abraham Lincoln and religion as well. It is not correct to say that the question of Abraham Lincoln's religious convictions has never been answered. Rather, it has been answered but some scholars disagree on the conclusions drawn from those answers. I'm going to have to agree with Rjensen on this one and let the scholarship speak for itself. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

When you guys have authored ten books each, and both of you have been finalists for a Pulitzer Prize, then perhaps you'll be able to judge Ms. Jacoby as her peer. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Having now read the polemic in question, I can conclude that not only are the claims of Lincoln's supposed atheism overwrought, but that you have misrepresented Jacoby's argument entirely to promote this fantasy on Wikipedia. At no point does Jacoby ever suggest that Lincoln was atheistic, only that he displayed a healthy skepticism of organized religion, which is not a revelation. The issue is sufficiently addressed in the current revision of this article and at Abraham Lincoln and religion. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I object to Uncle Dick saying I misrepresented anybody. Take care. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you didn't dispute it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Taney Arrest Warrant

Perhaps some information about the Taney Arrest Warrant should be added to the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I have nominated the article for deletion because there are no citations that can be easily checked and questions about the validity of the conjectures. Also, if we add everyone's theory about what Lincoln did, the article would be a mess. --Javaweb (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Legacy Section: correct cabinet member

Sec of State Edward or Edwin Stanton is not correct. William H. Seward was Sec of State. Could someone look up who is being refered to.--Javaweb (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

It was Stanton; (Seward was a moderate who supported Lincoln's policies). Anyway the point lacks a RS and is not needed; Stanton was one of many Radical republicans who used Lincoln's death as a political weapon against the South. Rjensen (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If I put Seward in, then that was a mistake. The source mentioned Stanton. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln's Diseases

I had a hard time finding any mention of Lincoln's diseases on this page. His well known depression, or "melancholy," is only mentioned in Marriage and family. And there is no mention at all of the debate as to whether or not he suffered from Marfan syndrome. There (the Marfan article,) this quote: "Abraham Lincoln may or may not have had Marfan's syndrome, although he undoubtedly had some of the normal characteristic features.[50][51][52] According to a 2007 theory, it is perhaps more likely that he had a different disorder, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B, that caused skeletal features almost identical to Marfan syndrome.[53]" I remembered I'd seen it on WP, but couldn't even find that through "What links here;" I had to Google it from outside WP.

Seems to me there should be a section about his medical conditions, including the symptoms he suffered from, and the possible diagnoses commonly suggested today. If it's best to put it on a separate page, (this page is really long,) then there should be a leading paragraph here, or at least a wikilink under See also. -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 23:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

yeah; Medical and mental health of Abraham Lincoln covers that and it's linked under Marriage and family. Brad (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Media portrayal section

A media portrayal section would be good for Lincoln, since many movies and other media have portrayed him. Also, Director Steven Spielburg is currently making a movie on Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a list of portrayals by imdb in case you want to research it. --Javaweb (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Thanks! Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinion based assertions vs clear undeniable fact

Opinions should not be featured in the lead, and should be moved to the body of the article. Facts that can be tested and proven correct through scientific and historical documents should always be used in favor of common opinions.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What opinions are you thinking of? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The ambiguous opinion that I had changed to actual factual verifiable without question wording.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia does not deal in "facts" and "opinions" -- it deal with statements that come from reliable sources, regardless if someone calls them a fact or an opinion. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Then the wording should reflect the opinion of the source, which is an opinion regardless of the source. Yet facts are indisputable and cannot be questioned, which is what an encyclopedia should be aiming for. As it is written now, if purely presents an opinion as a fact without attributing the opinion to any single source or person.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah but we lack a convenient list of facts that we can use. So it's no help to say just state the facts. Rjensen (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No list is needed, only a change in wording from what is now clearly an opinion, to what is clearly a factual phrase.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This whole issue was previously beaten to death -- see archive 17. The final result there was that numerous sources were produced supporting "greatest internal crisis" and none were produced suggesting anything else. This is non-controversial language. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually several were produced saying something else if you wish to look again.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

no editor, not even Jojhutton, has access to the true facts. All we have are reliable sources. So appeals to "facts" do not carry any weighht in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

don't know what that meant, but OK.

it us a fact that more people died in the civil war than a any other internal conflict in the United States. Do I need to cite that or are we Able to avcept that. This fact is undeniable and has millions if sources and canny be refuted. Calling the Civil War "the greatest internal conflict" is an opinion being worded ad a fact. The word "greatest" should have been everyones first clue. --Jojhutton 14:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I agree with what you said back in 2008 when you brought this up before. You said:

Lets just see if we can cut away all of the jibberish and get down to what the disagrement is really about.

This is a discussion on what the first sentence should say, agree or disagree?

The two versions of this discusion are:

1. Lincoln succesfully led his country through its greatest internal crisis

2. Lincoln succesfully led his country though the bloodiest war in U.S. history

I agree with both of those statements, as I am sure most historians would, so arguing citations is pointless, because there are hundreds of citations that say both of these things.

Since there is no controversy among reliable sources about the language that you want to omit,the language should stay. There is no need for an "according to" characterization when it is, in fact, undisputed. Whether or not "bloodiest" should also be added is a separate issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Who said that the first statement, which is the current wording, isn't disputed? Of course some may argue against this particular time period as being the "greatest", especially when it is undefined by any standard. I can think of at least 3 other periods in American History that could be considered great, if not the greatest internal crisis when measured by various other standards. The "experiment in democracy" probably came closer to collapsing at around the time of the signing of the Constitution, than at any other time in US history, but that is based on a separate standard. By simply making the statement that the Civil War was the "Greatest Internal Conflict" in US history, and wording it as if it was undeniable fact, is a problematic POV problem because most of us who work on these pages, are in fact Civil War buffs, and are very close to the subject. We are asserting our own bias and POV into the article by stating this as fact. The POV problem could easily be remedied by simply rewording the phrase to an actual factual statement, measured by numbers, rather than POV bias, as it is now.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here. On the one hand the business of facts and opinion. That is meaningless because there are no "facts" in Wikipedia, only reliable sources. Secondly using bloodshed as the criteria of importance trivializes the Civil War into a biological event, rather than the political and moral crisis that the reliable sources consider it. Rjensen 16:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As reliable sources go, both phrases can be impeccably sourced. If that were the only issue,this wouldn't be a problem. Its about a POV opinion over a less POV fact phrase. As far as trivializing the Civil War, I think I know where you may be going with this, but correct if I'm wrong. You appear to want to have the phrase focus on the overall meaning of the war, rather than just the bloodshed of the battlefield. Am I correct? If so, shouldn't we just mention those overall meanings, rather than use the catch all phrase Greatest internal Crisis, which can mean just about anything to anyone. Remember, well respected historian Shelby Foote said that the result of the Civil War was just a foregone conclusion and the South was never going to win that war (I'm paraphrasing). So if the South had no chance to win, how was that the Greatest internal Crisis? If we are going to keep the phrase the way it is now, then I suggest we attribute it to a source of some kind, like according to many historians..., or something like that. Its not a weasel statement in the lead, as long as the sources are provided in the body. A good example would be the phrasing at Citizen Kane which doesn't state a widely held opinion as fact, but phrases it, so that there is a bit of ambiguity about the opinion and even provides a link.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussions by the 13 separate sovereign States before there was a country was not an internal crisis and there was no President at that time. What other event do you have in mind as a great internal crisis in the same league as the Civil War? There was a crisis of succession under Jackson and Calhoun but that is not even in the same league. --Javaweb (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Are you suggesting that the United States was not a country prior to the signing of the Constitution because there was no President? Nope, I have to say that I can't agree with you on that. You may be hard pressed to find anyone who will agree with that.

Moving on. We should not allow our personal POV to interfere with the writing of this article. If not the Pharse: Bloodiest War in United States History, then does anyone else have a suggestion as to make the lead less WP:POV.

There are no POV problems with the language. From WP:NPOV:

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

So where are the reliable sources that disagree with "greatest internal crisis"? Be specific. Back up your POV claim. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

So are you asserting that the Civil War was not the bloodiest conflict in American History? I just want to see who doesn't believe it? If not you, then someone here here doesn't. BTW, how many citations will you need? Just so I can prepared up front.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

King Phillips war was probably bloodier--the great majority of Amwericans (ie Northerners, Texas) were not touched or threatened in the Civil War. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how accurate this site is, however, the website claims WWII has the highest casualties and deaths for American soldiers. The Civil War comes in second in terms of both causulties and deaths.Casualties of War - Putting American Casualties in Perspective Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison

An opinion is needed on the Benjamin Harrison talk page. Two editors are in disagreement about whether or not the last section to the page is appropriate. One editor wants to included an image of the 1st Harrison stamp along with some history associated with it. An other editor feels the information too tangential and does not belong on the Harrison page. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved down from top of page

"For some time, Lincoln continued earlier plans to set up colonies for the newly freed slaves. He commented favorably on colonization in the Emancipation Proclamation, but all attempts at such a massive undertaking failed" I am pretty certain this is only a theory, it has not been proved (yet) so should surely say so? and if it does surely it should mention the fact that these plans were only made (if they were at all) in an attempt to deal with the many lynchings occurring in the New York Race Riots. cheers Witty Beast (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What makes you say that? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

cheers for moving this the correct position - clearly betrayed my inexperience at wiki-editing there! well basically I am doing my A level history coursework on presidential intervention the civil rights movement from 1860 to 1980 and in no reliable source have I read that those were his actual plans. I have read that he suggested it, as a ruse to placate racist voters, but the only place that I ahve read it suggested that he actually intended to authorise the selling of slaves to british colonies is a daily mail article Witty Beast (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Since slavery was abolished in the British Colonies, that was not possible. His 1860 platform was stopping the expansion of slavery, which would make slavery unprofitable. Once that happened, the government would compensate the slaveholders for the value of their "property". He also wanted the freed blacks to colonize Africa rather than stay in America where they had lived their entire lives. Lincoln's views evolved once he became President. See: The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery (W.W. Norton, 2010) by Eric Foner. --Javaweb (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Vote needed

Votes are needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, (1st section) Gwillhickers (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Abraham Lincoln? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

was lincoln bisexual?

there was rumours going round and pictures of lincoln with men and women in the bedroom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.250 (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia publishes reliable information confirmed by reliable sources, not rumors. The topic was discussed at Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#Sexuality

--Javaweb (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Year of admission to the bar - 1836 or 1837?

The records of the Illinois Supreme Court's Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, which keeps the master rolls of all attorneys past and present who have been admitted to the bar in Illinois, indicate that Lincoln was admitted on September 9, 1836. See: https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=252533794

The current version of the article lists 1837 as the year Lincoln was admitted to the bar. The citation for the clause, "Admitted to the bar in 1837, he moved to Springfield, Illinois" is given as "Lincoln (1992), p.17" and there is no full citation that expands on this abbreviated citation. Can anyone verify what text the citation "Lincoln (1992), p.17" refers to, and whether this reference supports the contention that Lincoln was admitted to the bar in 1837?

Moreover, unless there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the official state records indicating the actual year was 1836, I propose that we at least consider the weight of the evidence provided by the state records, and revise the article accordingly (or add additional text describing the conflicting historical evidence about the year of his admission to the bar).

Nizamarain 13:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs)

I can't find the reference either; I would be fine with changing it on the basis of the reference you found. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I will go ahead and make the change, removing the old citation and citing the iardc.org reference. Nizamarain 14:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs)

I think I found the source of the confusion. Donald indicates 2 justices of the Illinois Supreme Ct. licensed AL to practice in Sept. of 1836, but the Supreme Ct. Clerk did not enroll him until March 1, 1837. I added a footnote to this effect.Carmarg4 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

National Union Party (United States)

I am confused about Lincoln's party affiliation in 1864. Did he run as a Republican or National Union Party (United States)? The United States presidential election, 1864 gives his affiliation as National Union. It is not clear that the Republicans and the National Union party were identical. Either way isn't it a fact that he ran under the name National Union Party?69.122.93.13 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

the National Union Party was a coalition (controlled by Republicans) that used the new name to attract War Democrats. People called themselves Republicans or Democrats. Rjensen (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is just as Donald indicates (pp.504-507); Lincoln was nominated at the Republican convention in Baltimore, which was afterwards endorsed by the Union Party. I tweaked the phraseology to clarify a bit. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I rephrased it again. --see Nevins vol 8 p 115 on parties in 1864 Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Joshua Speed

Historian John Stauffer stated that Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed had a romantic relationship and "expressed there affection in spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and often physical ways." Speed also stated that Lincoln and Speed "loved and respected" each other. Lincoln and Speed were "intimate" bedfellows for four years. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of Joshua Speed in the article. At least, even if one avoids the bedroom relationship, then the article needs to mention Lincoln boarded with Joshua Speed for four years from 1837 to 1841. Would there be any objection to mentioning Joshua Speed in the article without mentioning the bedroom? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a proposed sentence: "For the next four years Lincoln boarded with Joshua Speed in Springfield, Illinois." Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That looks good. Donald makes no reference to bisexuality, but does, along with other biographers of that and previous periods, reference the common practice of sharing rooms and beds, out of necessity. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Stauffer states that there was no distinction between homosexuality and hetrosexuality in Antebellum America and that people then were not sexually repressed. I am not even bringing that into the article. However, I believe it is important to know that Lincoln boarded with Speed. Stauffer states that Speed may have been the cause of Lincoln's breaking up with Mary Owens. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Donald doesn't attribute the break up to Speed. That aside, please put Stauffer into the Primary References section in the proper format - we are trying to get the article into compliance for FA and the Stauffer ref. needs fixing. Thanks. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I took out the publisher location, to be consistent (the decision was made some time ago not to include that in the reference format). Would you double check that title and make sure we have the punctuation right. (It just looks like it's missing something to me.) Carmarg4 (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The spelling is correct. I capitalized words. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference looks fine but I just noticed the Stauffer footnotes need fixing. (If helpful, refer to Donald footnotes as an example.) Carmarg4 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Pal. Feel free to jump in on the FAN fixes if you like. The more the merrier. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

FAN review - external links to be culled

I have selected and moved the following links here, per reviewer's request to reduce the number of external links:

• {{Dmoz|Society/History/By_Region/North_America/United_States/Presidents/Lincoln,_Abraham}}
• {{Dmoz|Society/History/By_Region/North_America/United_States/Presidents/Lincoln,_Abraham/Speeches_and_Writings}} – Speeches and writings
• Abraham Lincoln | Quotes, Facts, Biography, Picture & Much More
• Abraham Lincoln: How He Aged - slideshow by Life magazine
• United States Congress. "Abraham Lincoln/Archive 21 (id: L000313)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
• Abraham Lincoln--View Videos Carmarg4 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

FAN review - help needed with images

Please see FAN review where some problems with images have been raised. We need someone who works on images to help fix these. Thanks. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Problems fixed. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In order to deal with potential problems with the electoral map images (which lack documentation on sourcing), I have replaced File:ElectoralCollege1860.svg and File:ElectoralCollege1864.svg with File:1860 Electoral Map.png and File:1860 Electoral Map.png. If these latter maps are ever SVG'd (or the existing SVG maps can be properly sourced) then substitutions could be made for them. Magic♪piano 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 208.70.235.9, 14 April 2011

I noticed the caption under Mary Todd Lincoln's photograph says, "An 1835 photo shows Mary Todd Lincoln, wife of Abraham Lincoln, at age 28." However, the wikipedia page for Mary Todd Lincoln reports her birth date to be December 13, 1818, which would make her only 16 in an 1835 photo. Something is incorrect.

208.70.235.9 (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the photo's file information, the photo is from 1846 or 1847, in which case age 28 would be correct (assuming that if taken in 1847, it was before her 29th birthday that year). I decided to simplify and shorten the caption to "Mary Todd Lincoln at age 28". Thanks for spotting the error and posting it here.--JayJasper (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked it to comply with the FAN reviewer's request. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Simon Cameron

The sentence on Simon Cameron is good, however, I would replace the word "inept" with "war profiteering" and he was not dismissed entirely. He was given a position as Minister to Russia. The word "dismissed" implies to the reader he no longer served in a federal office. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentence looks good. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly "corruption" or "profiteering" could be used in the sentence, rather then dishonesty. A person, Mr. Weed, was authorized by Sec. Cameron as a broker for a powder company. Weed's take was 5% of the contract with the government and the powder company. - [Chicago Tribune (February 3, 1862), The Era of Corruption, Frauds in War Contracts, page 02] Cmguy777 (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent round of changes

What's the purpose of changing photo captions so they describe the photo rather than the subject of the photo? For example, what's the advantage of Sketch of young Abraham Lincol being replaced by Young Abraham Lincoln is seen in a sketch, or Lincoln in 1846 or 1847 replaced by An 1846 or 1847 picture exhibits the shaven Lincoln? We know it's a picture. "Young Lincoln" statue in Senn Park Chicago describes the statue called "Young Lincoln"; The Young Lincoln is sculpted in Senn Park (Chicago) should show a picture of Mr. Lincoln being sculpted, one would think. I'm not sure these changes are really for the better on that article. An 1846 or 1847 picture exhibits the shaven Lincoln -- again, we know it's a picture. Why change he received a patent for a "device to buoy vessels over shoals," which uses the language of the patent, to he received a patent for a flotation device designed to facilitate boats in shallow water, which is more words, and vague (facilitate boats in shallow water to do what exactly?). And why make exactly the opposite photo caption change with editing A photograph of the March 4, 1861 inauguration of Abraham Lincoln in front of the United States Capitol]] to Lincoln is inaugurated on March 4, 1861 at the United States Capitol.? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. The article is under a review for Featured Article Nomination. I made these changes per a reviewer's comment to bring the captions into compliance with WP's FA guidelines. According to the reviewer:"Captions should follow same standards for prose and MoS issues as article text". See link to FA comments above. I would certainly welcome any improvement or other input you'd like to make in response to the reviewers' comments on the FA review talk page. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, the change in the patent description was per request of another FAN reviewer. Feel free to add your comments on the FAN talk page or improve the edit as you see fit. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

In what way do those caption changes better follow MoS? Perhaps a better idea would have been to ask the reviewer which captions did not follow MoS and fix those; the changes don't make much sense in general. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll share your comments with the reviewer on the FAN talk page. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the captions are now improved and in FAN compliance. Carmarg4 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Why did Lincoln patent his buoy device? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty good discussion of it here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Good link Jpgordon. Thanks! Cmguy777 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yosemite

Agreed, Yosemite was a tiny part of his career. But ballistic missile submarines and aircraft carriers didn't figure in his career at all (yet are both mentioned in this article). The point is, he's the president who set aside Yosemite, and the effect of that was to pave the way and set a precedent for Yellowstone and then the rest of the Park System. So, it was a very notable aspect of Lincoln's presidency, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yosemite was not named after Lincoln, of course. He had nothing to do with designing or passing the Yosemite legislation and none of his major biographers mention it. Congress gets the credit, not the president. To give Lincoln credit is to seriously distort history. Rjensen (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that he should get any credit beyond signing a piece of legislation that in retrospect was quite momentous. As an aside, he could easily have balked at taking money away from the war effort.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As David Donald has argued, Lincoln belived in the "whig" theory of government whereby the president had a sphere (such as military and diplomatic matters) and should not interfere with Congress's sphere. Thus he did not veto or oppose legislation (unless it impinged on presidential war powers, like the Wade Davis bill). There is no record Lincoln ever mentioned or talked about or even read the Yosemite bill. -- what's decisive is that biographers have all decided to ignore the topic. And indeed historians of Yosemite (such as Runte) never mention any role by Lincoln except the one-minute signing. Rjensen (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you may be correct, but my feeling is that when a President signs a piece of momentous legislation, it's worth mentioning in a BLP even if the president was oblivious (or smoking crack or whatever). But I respect your opinion. It's worth mentioning to you that the General Land Office (in the Interior Department) was critical in the drafting of this legislation.[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you have both said. Donald doesn't mention it either; that said, the legislation did establish a precedent (though not a president). Sorry, I couldn't hold it back. I have been at this FAN far too much. In all seriousness, it would have to be on the list of things to cull if the article length becomes an issue. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the President signs legislation then the President deserves credit. However, there is not enough weight for a seperate section on Yosemite. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Congress was not in charge of Yosemite Park. California was initially in charge of Yosemite. Lincoln was fighting a war and Yosemite was not a high priority for him. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ken Burns in his National Park series may have over emphasized Abraham Lincoln in the history of Yosemite section. My feeling is that is why there is an effort to mention Yosemite in the Abraham Lincoln biography article. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln statue

I have removed the following image - it is out of place and there is no room for it in the early life section. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln cent

statement from lincoln cent article for inclusion in AL memorials section:

before the Lincoln cent, no regularly circulating U.S. coin had featured an actual person (as opposed to idealized personifications, as of "liberty").

cite:

Carmarg4 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Books in bibliography not used in article.

The books below are listed in the bibliography but aren't used as citations in the article. What needs to be determined is if the books were read while building this article and why they weren't used for citations.

• Browne, Francis Fisher (1995). The Every-Day Life of Abraham Lincoln. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0-8032-6115-2.
• Gildersleeve, Basil L. (1998). Briggs, Ward W.. ed. Soldier and Scholar: Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve and the Civil War. University of Virginia Press. ISBN 0813917433.
• Lincoln, Abraham (2001) [1946]. Basler, Roy Prentice. ed. Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings. Da Capo Press. ISBN 9780306810756.
• Lincoln, Abraham (1953). Basler, Roy Prentice. ed. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (9 vols.). Rutgers University Press. ISBN 9780813501727.
• McPherson, James M. (1992). Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195076066.
• —— (2007). Drawn With the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195117967.
• —— (2008). Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief. Penguin Press. ISBN 9781594201912.
• Neely, Mark E. The last best hope of earth: Abraham Lincoln and the promise of America (Harvard University Press, 1995) online edition
• Angle, Paul McClelland; Earl Schenck Miers (1992). The Living Lincoln: the Man, his Mind, his Times, and the War He Fought, Reconstructed from his Own Writings. Barnes & Noble Publishing. ISBN 9781566190435.
• Burkhimer, Michael (2003). One Hundred Essential Lincoln Books. Turner Publishing Co. ISBN 158182369X.
• Emerson, James (2007). The Madness of Mary Lincoln. Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN 9780809327713.
• Fehrenbacher, Don E. (1989). Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1859–1865. Library of America. ISBN 0940450631.
• Ferguson, Andrew (2008). Land of Lincoln: Adventures in Abe's America. Grove Press. ISBN9780802143617.
• Zarefsky, David S. (1993). Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226978765.

Clarity must be introduced for the remaining bibliography when there are multiple books by the same author published in different years. Additionally, any book that remains in the bibliography will require the location of publication. Brad (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I used the following books, even though they were not footnoted. On many critical points it's important to see how different scholars approach the topic. Usually only one scholar is footnoted--usually David Donald. As to the different editions of Lincoln's works, we need to mention several so that users can find one of them at a local library or online. I used: McPherson, (1992). Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution.; Mcpherson (2008). Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief.; Neely, (1995) The last best hope of earth: Abraham Lincoln and the promise of America; Burkhimer, (2003). One Hundred Essential Lincoln Books.; Zarefsky, David S. (1993). Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery: In the Crucible of Public Debate. Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Years for cites fixed. Just FYI, I recall in the previous FAN (in late 2010 ?) - we were told the references were okay w/o location, as long as we were consistent. Alot of time was spent on that by User:Peregrine_Fisher. Also, I recall we were told to list seperately the references not cited, which I think is when the "General ref." section was created. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Great. This is what I wanted to know so the bibliography can be cleaned up. There needs to be a plain distinction between the books that are cited in this article and books that were consulted but not cited. Right now the books are mixed into both sections plus books that are recommended reading. Seeing as Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln is an entirely separate article then books listed in this article that were neither cited nor consulted for this article should be listed in the main biblio. As for locations of publications I find it strange that they were allowed to be omitted but that's an issue that can be fixed fairly easy if a big protest erupts over it. Brad (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

i could have sworn we cleaned up the cited and non-cited refs on the last review. (I am aware of Gildersleeve - I took the cite out and haven't moved it over to gen ref.) Carmarg4 (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If I am understanding Brad correctly the references in the article need to be the sources. The Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln article could possibly be renamed Inclusive Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

the Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln article is highly selective of the best items. An "inclusive" list would run to thousands of titles. (Amazon.com lists 29,745 books with "Lincoln" in the title) Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Rjensen. How about Selected Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixes applied

I think I've completed the cleanup but I wasn't sure on the status of Gildersleeve. Please check my work. All books listed that were not used in this article have been moved over to the bibliography article. Brad (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen in "co-operate"

The hyphen in this instance is more common in British English than in American English. In the U.S. the hyphen is usually not used in this case. The Associated Press recommends against it.[5] Noting that this is a particularly American article, I'll change it to "cooperate" in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the infobox include info about his service in the Illinois state legislature? He served in the Illinois General Assembly from 1834 to 1842. Might also be worth mentioning that he took an interesting stance regarding prohibition of liquor; in 1840, Lincoln said that he supported temperance, but opposed prohibition. See Behr, Edward. Prohibition: Thirteen Years that Changed America, p. 33 (Arcade Publishing 1996).Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and put the state legislator info into the infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thirteenth Amendment

This amendment is explicitly mentioned in the lead, but apparently nowhere in the body of the article. I'll fix.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FAN review - sources that need work

• The following needs a source before inclusion in article:

"The Lincoln Shrine in Redlands, California is the only Lincoln museum facility west of the Mississippi River". Carmarg4 (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Following needs page ref for inclusion in article: cite for law practice - Billings, Roger; Williams, Frank J. eds. Abraham Lincoln, Esq.: The Legal Career of America's Greatest President (University Press of Kentucky; 2010) Carmarg4 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Following source reliability needs to be established for inclusion in article: DiLorenzo, Thomas J. "Why the Republican Party Elected Lincoln", Lew Rockwell, October 1, 2003, Retrieved November 16, 2010. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Following needs p. ref for inclusion in article. Also, query if this detail is sufficiently pertinent to the article:

A copy of this inaugural address was delivered to California via the newly-created Pony Express in seven days, three days sooner than advertised and in the midst of the Paiute War. Christopher Corbett, Orphans Preferred: The Twisted Truth and Lasting Legend of the Pony Express, Broadway Books, New York, 2003. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Following (duplicate ref) needs completion (ISBN, Publ.) for inclusion in article: Allan Evans, The War for the Union: The Organized War to Victory 1864-1865 (1971) p. 115 Carmarg4 (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Following cite needs complete bibliog. info for inclusion; : Killed on Good Friday, Lincoln was identified as Christ-like. Thomas Reed Turner, Beware the People Weeping: Public Opinion and the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (1991) pp 25–52 Carmarg4 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Following cite needs complete biblio. info, incl. publ., year and ISBN for inclusion: Turner, Beware the People Weeping pp 90–99. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Following statement and cite needs complete biblio. info for inclusion: Lincoln is the only U.S. President honored on a U.S. U.S. Airmail stamp. Scotts U.S. stamp catalogue Carmarg4 (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Following need edition numbers: Allan Nevins (2000) War for the Union - Vol. I, and Vol. IV. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Following sentence needs to identify scholars referred to:

In recent decades, some scholars have emphasized Lincoln's ongoing religious skepticism while others have argued his beliefs evolved during the 1850s and gravitated toward an acceptance of mainstream evangelical Protestantism during the Civil War. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Following taken from Legacy section during edit:

• Allan Nevins published his 8 volume set in 1947-1971. The whole 8 vol set is called "Ordeal of the Union" There was only one edition for each volume, but it is often reprinted with same page numbers. The dates should be to the first edition published by Scribner (the one most libraries own)--never to the 2000 reprint..

1. Ordeal of the Union Vol.1: Fruits of Manifest Destiny 1847-1852 : A House Dividing 1852-1857 by Allan Nevins (1947) ISBN-10: 0684104245
2. Ordeal of the Union, Volume II: A House Dividing 1852-1857. ASIN: B00168ZITS 1947
3. Ordeal of the Union Vol. 3 The Emergence of Lincoln: Douglas, Buchanan and Party Chaos, 1857-1859 / ISBN-10: 0684104156 1950
4. Ordeal of the Union Vol. 4 Prologue To Civil War, 1859-1861 1950 ISBN-10: 0684104164 Rjensen (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

1. The War for the Union Volume I.....The Improvised War 1861-1862 ISBN-10: 1568522967
2. The War for the Union Volume II....War Becomes Revolution 1862-1863 ISBN-10: 1568522975
3. War for the Union : The Organized War 1863-1864 vol III ISBN-10: 0684104288
4. The War for the Union, Vol. 4: The Organized War to Victory, 1864-1865 ISBN-10: 0684104296

FAN review - stamps/pic removed

The following stamp image files have been removed per FAN review:

U.S. Postage, 1958 issue, commemorates the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

The air mail stamp has now been re-inserted into the article. Again, the FAN reviewers wanted to reduce the stamps; it is noteworthy that this was the first airmail stamp to honor a pres. Query, do we have a stamp problem again? Carmarg4 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is a stamp problem again. If a FAC reviewer thought there were too many then the pics shouldn't be reinserted. Pics shouldn't be in the article just because they can. That's why we point towards commons for further materials. Brad (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor who reinserted the stamp, User:Gwillhickers, claims my removal of it was illegal. See his talk page.I don't know how to resolve this. I don't want to start an edit war over it. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Illegal? Who's going to arrest you? Please read MOS:Images and the associated image articles linked from mos:images. FAs must adhere to the MOS in all respects. But besides the stamp pics I've noticed others that aren't meeting MOS. Read up on mos:images and we can go from there. Brad (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Illegal, eh? I hope they don't cart you off to internet jail! Seriously, the stamp-cruft is excessive on this article, among others. If this article is going to make FA it must meet the FA standards, which means excluding tangential stuff. If we put pics of everything with Lincoln's image in it, we'll have thousands of irrelevent photos. --Coemgenus 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Following airmail stamp removed per the above. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln is the only U.S. President ever to be honored on a U.S. Airmail stamp, issued in 1960.

This US Postage stamp was included because it remains, to this day, the only US Airmail stamp in US history with a president's image, Lincoln's. This is unusual and unique to Lincoln's legacy alone and is worthy of an image and mention in the Legacy section at the end of the article, at least. The image was included not simply because it bears Lincoln's picture but because of this unusual historical fact. It was first included June of 2010. By and large presidents and postage stamps, like currency, are directly related to one another. All presidents are honored on US postage. This should be noted with at least one stamp, two or more if it is merited. The stamp was also included because of the national honors that inspired it and because its issuance is an act of the government, the same one Lincoln once presided over. No one wants to write a short essay on the stamp, or include all Lincoln stamps (there are many) but certain ones deserve note and brief mention. There should also be mention and at least one image of Lincoln on currency, as Lincoln is almost as unique to stamps and currency as is George Washington. The stamp is well placed in a legacy section. Other such postage stamps exist in presidential articles, even feature articles, and rightly so. Unless there is a specific MOS violation or someone is simply determined not to have this unique stamp included, I would like to return it to the page, in legacy. Too many stamps is one thing -- but this unique and unusual legacy item will help the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, to make issue with an image simply because it is a stamp is not fair, or rational. There are several paintings of Lincoln. Should we remove one on the basis that it is simply a painting, that we should have a 'fair balance' of sculptures, engravings and printings also? The image in question should be weighed for its subject content and other unique qualities -- not whether or not it happens to be a painting or stamp. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The pictures of Lincoln are useful in the article because they show the reader what the subject of the article looked like. The stamps, by your own admission, are only relevant to anyone insofar as they have some importance to the history of stamps. In the biography of Lincoln, they are irrelevant. To say that an airmail stamp contributes to anyone's understanding of Lincoln, a man who died decades before the first airplane flight, is absurd. This article will never be featured while such clutter remains--Coemgenus 15:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The stamp image was removed out of concern for 'too many stamps', not whether the subject/item itself was appropriate in Legacy, which it clearly is. The item should be challenged for its subject matter and other aspects. The Lincoln airmail stamp, like all the other items mentioned in Legacy (submarine, parks, etc) was issued in his honor and is well placed in Legacy just as much if not more than the "clutter" that is there now. No one made the claim that the stamp will increase one's understanding of Lincoln. Does mention of the USS Lincoln (submarine) increase anyone's understanding of Lincoln? The stamp is also useful as it has a picture of Lincoln on it, helping the reader see how Lincoln looked at various points in his life along with the paintings, which you claim were useful for that reason alone. Also the item is highly unusual, being the only US Airmail stamp ever issued with a president's image. 'That' is an item in of itself that even Washington can not share in. Again, the stamp ties in with Lincoln as it was a historic and national honor given to him by the US Post Office. That is history and part of Lincoln's legacy. -- Unless a clear and specific MOS violation can be cited, the item should be replaced. If the 'FA' reviewers present a MOS or other policy issue regarding that item, specifically, then its removal will perhaps be warranted. Gwillhickers (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I know you're not really familiar with the FA process, but that's not how it works. Reviews aren't limited to whether something meets the MOS guidelines. An article could comply with the MOS in every detail and still be cluttered, poorly written, and generally crappy. Many of the changes an FA reviewer suggests are subjective, not based on Wiki-law. --Coemgenus 13:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I am familiar with the FA process, thank you, I had one of my created articles reviewed by them, and I sort of get around, Coemgenus. Again, if there is a specific MOS issue, or any other specific issue, for the specific item, then please state that issue. I am confident that the FA reviewers will have no issue with the item in legacy, with its informative caption. Again, the item is unique to Lincoln's legacy alone, and was a historic national honor issued by the U.S. Government. This should be one of the featured items in Legacy. I will wait to hear any other objections before restoring the image to legacy where it has been for the past year up until recently. -- As stamps themselves go, they are often the product of a fine engraving and can serve as an illustration just as much as a painting can, esp if it is historically tied with the subject. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Page length concerns

FAN reviewers in the past have objected to the size of the article, now at 132kb., and relevance is at a premium. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is a presidential biography, so its length will 'naturally' be longer than the average bio as it involves a U.S. President, history, other famous people, etc. Since this is Lincoln's biography I would dare say that if his bio' is not on the long side, someone is leaving out a lot of information. Lincoln's bio' is shaping up nicely. If it is well written and thoroughly covers his life and role as a U.S. President I doubt most reviewers are going to make issue with its length, up to a point of course. There are many articles whose length is imperative to the page and reviewers often make exceptions to rules and guidelines regarding page length. There are a number of feature articles out there whose length exceeds the average accepted length, primarily because of their broad and inclusive scope and because they are well written. Reviewer opinion can vary greatly. When the page is submitted for FA review again, you may want to remind them beforehand (in notes/reasons for nomination) that this is the Lincoln biography, and that there is plenty of precedence for exceptions to page length guidelines in Featured Articles, and with good reason.

From: Featured Articles, Politics and government biographies

Barack Obama ...... currently at 198k

Ronald Reagan ... 183k

Gerald Ford ... 142k

John McCain ... 157k

Early life and military career of John McCain ... 114k

As for the unique Airmail stamp, the only one with a president's portrayal, I don't see this as anything that will impact page length. All presidents are honored on U.S. postage. It is an honor whose greatness can be compared to the Congressional Medal of Honor. As historic events go, it certainly doesn't compare to, e.g.Emancipation Proclamation, or the L'D'debates, but this honor is certainly no trivial event either. I believe its inclusion in Legacy will greatly distinguish that section, which by the way needs to be shaped up a bit. Presently it looks like a collection of items put there no doubt by a number of different editors. Now it needs to be solidified and written so it doesn't read like it was auto-generated. At any rate I would like to restore the image but don't want to do so if it will be met with indifference. If the FAN reviewers were to make an issue with that specific item then, as much a I may disagree with the decision, would remove the item myself out of concern for the greater page. The item is unique to Lincoln's legacy alone, won't compromise page length and deserves display in 'Legacy, where this sort of thing is common. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on previous FAN reviewer objections, I would pick one stamp - and the other should be returned to sender. That aside, the cites to Scotts need to be combined and properly placed & fomatted in the primary ref. section. The footnotes also need page #'s. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

When a well-written article is over-length by ordinary standards but each sentence adds important information to the article, you won't get too many complaints. When the article is lengthy because it's larded up with tangential cruft, then you'll hear some complaints. It would be difficult to make Ronald Reagan shorter without losing value; this article, on the other hand, is still in need of the blue pencil. --Coemgenus 14:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reasserting the point. There are legitimate and good reasons for longer articles just so long as they are informative and well written. Well written articles often include a bit of background so the other 'statements of facts' have context and so the article doesn't read like it was written by a bot or someone whose primary concern is to get an award. There are plenty of FA examples to support this advent. -- Regarding the concern for things "tangential", the item (airmail stamp honors, uniqueness) is actually no more or less 'tangential' than most if not all the items in 'Legacy', and perhaps elsewhere. Most of the events surrounding/caused by Lincoln are tangential to some extent. Broadly labeling something as such without this perspective is perhaps not fair to the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC).

Lincoln stamp refs

The reference given for statements made about Lincoln and stamps can easily be verified with the source given, yet the statement have received cite' tags. Also, someone removed the page number to the cite-book ref' to which I had to restore. Before that someone screwed up the Alt message and entered 'dollar bill' where 'postage stamp' was supposed to occur...three times! -- Someone is acting in a fit of haste and it needs to stop now, apparently more concerned about getting a gold star than about providing a good article for the readers. This article will never become a FA if these needless, petty and illegal reverts continue. In the future please discuss these highly questionable and discretionary edits first unless there is a clear MOS/policy violation. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You wrote "Lincoln's prominence in American history has made his name synonymous with U.S. postage stamps and currency. There are more postage stamps issued in Lincoln's honor than for any other president, save that of Washington." The first sentence is nonsensical. Do you mean to say that when people mention Lincoln, they think of stamps? The assertion is not believable, which is why I demanded a citation for it. The second statement, while trivial, may be true. If it is true, it should be no problem for you to prove it. I'll leave them in once you prove that they're not just your opinion or original research. --Coemgenus 19:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A linked article is not a primary source. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Car' I did not refer to or link to that article. Coemegenus, the reference to 'synonymous' was figurative, I will change it so that it says that Lincoln is almost as common to US stamps as Washington is. Will this be acceptable? Being one of the main figures on stamps and currency is a legacy that belongs to Lincoln and Washington and this should be made clear in Lincoln's legacy. Per you concern for edit war, it takes two, and it only takes one to initiate it, as you apparently are doing. Given your highly discretionary edits, without going into discussion first, it can easily be said that you are provoking an edit war. This can be easily be asserted as the source supports the claim. Again, unless there is a clear MOS/policy violation please stop your edit warring and fuzzy claims as excuses for this needless tagging. This is just a stamp, in legacy, with a couple of sentences, well sourced. Yet we have this 'grand issue' all of the sudden. Please provide MOS/policy references for your edits and proof that the cites do not support the statements. I will wait for a response before removing the tags. I want to cooperate but must take exception to the haughty approach you have chosen. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Benjamins" can mean $100 bills, but $5 bills are not called Abes or Lincolns, as far as I am aware. "An Abe" does not ever denote money or a stamp, ASAIAA, and "a Lincoln" seems to suggests a car first, and money/stamps... when?--JimWae (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Benjamins"? "Abe's"? Where are you getting this, and may I ask, what are you talking about? -- Gwillhickers (talk)

The previously-claimed "synonymity" of an American historical figure with money --JimWae (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

just check the edit summary I gave the first time. If you still don't get it, I cannot help you any further--JimWae (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Jim, the term 'synonymous' is not this rigid and narrow term you seem to be trying to confine it to. While my thesaurus equates 'synonymous' with 'equivalent' and 'alike', it also equates the word with 'corresponding' and 'coincident' and 'associated'. The conditional term is often employed in the manner I have used. e.g.Ships are synonymous to oceans. I hardly think anyone is going to read it to mean 'ships are oceans'. Used in a given context it can be applied as I have attempted to do. In any event, does any one have any constructive suggestions as to how to present this idea, that Lincoln is one of the key figures on postage and currency because of his legacy? I have removed 'synonymous' and reworded. Hopefully this will be adequate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A thesaurus is not the best place to find a definition of "synonymous". In any case, there was a dispute over the sentence & removing "synonymous" seems to have been a way out of the dispute. You're welcome. --JimWae (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jim, and I re-worded it. This should get the point across without getting hyperbolic. Does the wording seem reasonable? It still needs citation, but the way it's written you might find one cite that verifies both statements. --Coemgenus 23:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not into philately but found a source (note I've omitted the "R" word - beggars can't be choosers) which supports the first sentence as it now reads. We need (and I beg for) a footnote to specifically support the second sentence on AL, GW and stamps or it should be put in the dead letter office. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I used Scotts Specialized Catalogue of US stamps as a source for this statement: There are more postage stamps issued in Lincoln's honor than for any other president, save Washington. ..yet it has been tagged by Coemgenus with no explanation as to why this most reputable of philatelic sources is not adequate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A footnote referencing Scott is needed at the end of the sentence. Is there a page # that specifically supports the statement? If not, and it's a matter of the stamp counts for each pres. in the catalogue, then you could do the footnote w/o a page # and in the footnote give the stamp counts for AL & GW. See below Brad's comment about AL's image problems. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no specific page that offers this statement verbatim but it can easily be verified simply by counting the Lincoln stamps in the index. Must all statements made on the page appear verbatim in the sources, or is an editor allowed to make overall statements? As image sizes go, some editors seem to think that images in a FA must be (very) small, when in reality, MOS allows an image size up to 500px if there is a good reason to do so. This is the pix limit that will still allow readers with small screens to view the image/page comfortably. Also, (come on guys), the present wording for postage in the legacy section is stunted and looks like it was written by a sixth grader. Is there any requirement for writing/wording quality when the article is reviewed? Or can you get away with simply piling one statement of fact on top of the other with no concern for historical background, literary quality and presentation? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think adding the footnote which includes a stamp count is your answer on it and will allow for an improved description. The reviewers do tend to impose strict standards here. Right down to the ndashes (v. hyphens) in the citation page ranges. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for an actual number? In any event, while we certainly need rules and guidelines I have seen them used to actually justify ruining a page, as was the case with the Thomas Jefferson page before we whipped it back into shape, for a second time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what I would do if I were you. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

An alternative might be to cite the pages that make up the index. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Scotts Specialized Catalogue of US stamps has two indexes: There's a 'Commemorative Index' as well as a 'General index'. Since Scotts comes out with a new catalog every year, page numbers will vary from year to year per the indexes and the other sections. Instead of listing the actual page number of the indexes we could instead simply refer to the indexes, as no one is really going to need a page number to find the index should they decide to look into Scotts. In 'cite-book' the '|pages=' number could read: '|pages=General Index, Commemorative Index'. If this is acceptable then I'll be more than happy to use this referral in 'cite-book'. Most importantly, we should convey the idea that Lincoln's prominence in American History is comparable to Washington's which is why he appears so many times on U.S. postage and currency. This is a feature item in Lincoln's legacy, perhaps comparable to receiving the medal of honor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Use the numbers that stay the same year to year. If the template doesn't work, don't use the template (i.e. subst it and add the field manually). --Coemgenus 01:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The number of stamps per president can be checked (the quickest) via the indexes. Instead of referring to the index with a page number, we can just refer to 'Commemorative Index' and 'General Index'. This way no matter what year Scott catalogue one has, all they have to do is check the index, which can easily be found without using a page number. i.e.'|pages=Commemorative Index, General Index'. What do you think? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

General Grant

Someone with knowledge should fix the "General Grant" section. It is all over the place (geographically and in other ways) and makes little sense. (Also, should that section even be titled that?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Image review

• In the 1860 election section, File:Abraham lincoln inauguration 1861.jpg is hanging a bit into the section below it. It also should be on the left of the section to keep with MOS.
  • Fixed. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• In the 1864 re-election section File:Lincoln second.jpg has the same problems as above.
  • Fixed. I think. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• The assassination section is too crowded with pics for the length of the section. The pics are also in odd sizes; stamp too small, Ford theater too large. It also crowds in on the religion section below it. Depending on screen resolution the user sees three pics all crowded into their screen. Only one pic should be here.

I have been insisting that the stamp in the assassination section appeared disproportionately large relative to the other images. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have increased the size of the stamp. But if we can only keep one pic, I would keep the Ford's theatre pic and remove the stamp. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You had the image forced smaller than the other images, which were and are already too small. Also, pic's can vary in size depending on a number of factors. i.e.A pic should be discernable without having to pop open a window to view it. Sometimes this is impossible (with maps, etc.) but often times it is very easy to effect with just a small increase in pix size. Most if not all readers like to read and view as they go along. This article will require the viewer to pop open a window some dozen times to view a pic' adequately. Also, some pics deserve to be larger than the others. While the airmail stamp should be of average size, Lincoln's first memorial stamp however should be somewhat larger. Lincoln's 1st memorial stamp was born of and then met with great national fanfare at the time and is a historic first for the US gov/post office department, to begin with. Be nice if we could share this with the readers, esp the Lincoln fans, who over all like to see things like this. Hopefully you are more concerned about them than you are the gold star, which, btw, has no effect on bringing more people to the page. As much as I admire and respect (most) awards, I still maintain this perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Legacy and memorials section is too crowded with pics. Only two maximum for this section. The Lincoln stamp pic violates MOS based on Lincoln's "eyes right-left" pose which should overlook the article text and not the side of the article.

Stamp moved to left. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If we have to remove a pic, I would omit"The Apotheosis". Carmarg4 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed "The Apotheoisis" :

The Apotheosis of 1865, Lincoln greeted in heaven by Washington.

Well, you can't sandwich text between two photos so there's another MOS violation. Brad (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Pics should not require have citations or offer more information than the section they're placed in. Information should be in the section text. Brad (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Both of the stamp pics have citations within their captions. Brad (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Assassination memorial stamp fixed - here is the cite: Haimann, Alexander T. "15-cent Lincoln", Arago, May 16, 2006, Retrieved October 28, 2010|alt=A man with a beard is on a postage stamp, with the top of the stamp reading: "U. S. POSTAGE", and the bottom of the stamp saying: "FIFTEEN CENTS" Carmarg4 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Airmail stamp fixed - citation removed. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Most recently we have been pretty much in an edit war over both of the stamps. Based on what your saying, if we must reduce the number of images, I think the stamps are of the least informative value of all the images and should be the ones to go. Maybe we could use input from a couple more senior editors. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I left a note at the FAC talk page that will, I hope, get some experienced editors to drop by and offer some advice. --Coemgenus 13:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I welcome outside consensus but I happen to be confident that we are more than capable of resolving image issues, something that is really straight forward. Some images deserve being large, some average size. Currently the average size is unnecessarily small. The typical illustration size in a hard text encyclopedia is much larger, sometimes taking up as much as 1/4 of the page for introductory images or other important/significant images. A larger average size allows adequate viewing while also allowing the reader to move along without breaking away from the text. If the reader wants to take another glance at the pic while reading along he or she can simply do so without having to open a view window all over again. Captions. All the captions have complete sentences in them, sometimes to describe something that anyone with fair eyesight can see for themselves. e.g. Lincoln, in a top hat, stands with.... The three people in the photo are all standing. You can't miss Lincoln's top hat. It's like seeing a caption under a photo of a red car that reads.. 'A red car, with four wheels' . It reads moronic. I wouldn't go so far as to say there's a policy violation here but if you're gearing this page up for FA status this is something you may want to consider:

• "Most captions are not grammatically complete sentences."

Agreed - with proper punctuation Carmarg4 (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• "It is usually unnecessary to state what kind of image is being shown."
  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But not prohibited - allowance has to be made for the broadest range of the readers' levels of education. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful -- If you add up grades K - 12 along with four years of college (grades 13-16) the average grade level works out to Grade 8. If we were to assume only two years of college the average grade level drops to around Grade 6. Pleeeeeze don't tell me we have to write at the 6 to 8th grade levels. Besides, what sort of an education is required to recognize three people standing, one wearing a top hat? Some of the captions need work. 'A shaven Lincoln'? Is that all we can say about this photo? How about, Lincoln, with eyes open, hair combed? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Do your thing and fix them as you wish (please, no period unless there is a complete sentence). Carmarg4 (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll continue to edit captions briefly, yet informatively. Also, we should move the memorial stamp back to the relevant section so there is no MOS issue: Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate. There is more than enough room for it there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

If the section is it about Lincoln's assassination and funeral/burial, it stands to reason that we ought to have pics of (1) his assassination (which we have already) and (2) his funeral/burial. For the second, perhaps one of the pics at Lincoln tomb would do. --Coemgenus 14:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Additions

Just a suggestion; not a requirement. If there is a pic of Lincoln and McClellan together then one should be placed in the McClellan section. It's a large section without anything to break it up. Same might apply to the Grant section if there is a pic of Lincoln and Grant together. And why was the "young Lincoln" statue pic removed? Brad (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Lincoln_and_McClellan_1862-10-03.jpg is a nice pic I've seen reproduced elsewhere. --Coemgenus 00:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes that is nice. Please freshen up the licensing so it is similar to File:Abraham Lincoln head on shoulders photo portrait.jpg as they are both LoC pics. Brad (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's above my paygrade. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Be nice if we could come up with a photo of Lincoln and Grant together, I did a quick google and only came up with an illustration on a postcard, not a very good rendition at all, so I passed. Commons has a nice image of a painting depictng Lincoln, Grant, Sherman and Porter, entitled The Peacemakers. Seems this classic would do well in the Grant section. As much as I like the famous photo of Lincoln, Pinkerton, McClernand, one of Grant and Lincoln, or at least one of Grant as a general would be more appropriate for that section. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, shortly I would like to return Lincoln's memorial stamp back to the original and appropriate location where there is more than enough room for it. Carm', can we get you to slow the pace down a bit? Just recently there have been multiple changes in image locations, sizes, omissions, some good, almost all by your hand. Before anyone can comment, another change occurs. We need to bring some stability back to the process here. Now the memorial stamp is out there in left field, randomly stuck in among text that has nothing to do with this item. We're all open to good suggestions here, you have made many. Now we should try to settle on what, where and how big. Perhaps first we should all settle on WHAT images, as we had at one point, then settling on WHERE should come easy. As for how big and wording, once the images are in place and settled in as editors go, the wording can then be refined, making it as brief yet as informative as captions will allow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the new problem(s); I had to move the stamps, in responding to each of Brad's review points. My edits did not go beyond his points.Carmarg4 (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of stamps, the citation needed tag in the Legacy section has been there for days. If no satisfactory footnote is provided very soon, the unsourced statement needs to be removed until it is sourced. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Carm' , I already wrote a response to your message about cite-book/page numbers. Perhaps you missed it. The talk page is getting sort of spread out. -- Again, we can simply refer to 'Commemorative Index' and 'General Index' rather than the page number of the indexes, which change from year to year. This will inform the reader of what book (i.e.Scotts Specialized Cat') to check, and where, (the two indexes) regardless of the year edition. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit skeptical about where Gwil' wants to take us on images. Above, Gwil' has referenced Thomas Jefferson as an article that he was able to whip back into shape. I have looked at the TJ article - are we going to be putting a stamp in AL's Early life section, as is now the case with TJ? TJ is not the subject of this talk page; but, to be clear, such a stamp placement would not be in context for AL. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the gigantic undue wight problem that existed on that page, not about its images. Images on that page were rarely an issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

The Jefferson article is a complete disaster. Most of the effort there concerns edit-warring over Sally Hemings. Making this article like that one would be a huge step backward. As to the images, I could see maybe one stamp in the legacy section, but even that is probably wasting space that could be used for a more relevant image. And, yes, I'm still concerned that those statements still lack citation, but let's give him a couple days to come up with a citation for the assertions. --Coemgenus 16:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln's portrayal on US postage and currency is just as "relevant" as any one of a number of paintings, sketches, etc currently on the page. Esp with the first memorial issue released exactly one year later. Since US postage is issued by the US government, as memorials, commemorations and honors to Lincoln, their relevance becomes more so than most of the paintings, which are also artist's renditions. Unless an explanation of how Lincoln's image on a painting, etc is more "relevant" than those found on postage and currency, it would seem the assertion that these images have little 'relevance' was made without any actual basis.
-- Btw, The TJ page has shaped up considerably. I have returned much of the material that was removed by one of the same editors who, during the same period, was loading up the Slavery/Hemings sections to absurd proportions. Page still needs a lot of work. Some help would be nice.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to add stamps in the Early life section plus the See also and References sections. Stamps are just too important to ignore. Might as well throw in the Presidential Dollar Coin series plus the cent and $5 bill too. Maybe we could add in a photo gallery section? Brad (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the tounge-in-check commentary was perhaps not called for. Only two stamps, (out of dozens) are presented here. One for his memorial, one for his legacy. The images don't impact page length to speak of, they are historic government issues and national honors to Lincoln. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)