Jump to content

Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

House Term

The article states that "Lincoln himself was despondent, and he decided not to run for reelection." in reference to his speeches denouncing the Mexican-American War. I've read a few biographies of Lincoln (D.H. Donald, Sandburg, Oates, and Goodwin), and none of them state that this was his reason for not running again. They all, however, talk about how he and two other Whigs, John Hardin and Edward Baker, had agreed to rotate the safe seat between them, and that Lincoln subscibed to this plan and wanted to abide by it (while also taking great pains to convince Hardin to abide by the plan and not try to run again). There never seemed to be a plan for Lincoln to run again. Is there a source saying the poor reaction to his speech was his reason for not running again? Does anyone else remember the rotation plan? I figured I would get some opinions before changing it.Mattweng8:00pm 24 August 2006 EST

I just read that section of the Donald biography, and it looks like you're right. Stilgar135 19:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Railsplitter

"Poor boy makes good" -- is that really the theme they were pushing, as opposed to "poor boy just like most of you"? I'd be more inclined to refer instead to "humble origins" or something like that. What would the contemporary reaction to the rail-splitting iconography have been? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The GOP in 1860 gave heavy emphasis to Lincoln's poverty and rise to the top. It was Lincoln himslef who emphasized "poor-boy-makes-good" theme. Like the log cabin images in 1840, the rails seem to have been effective--they show up in many cartoons for example. Rjensen 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course I know about the log cabin and rail splitting iconography -- I was just wondering about the "poor boy makes good" language. Is "poor boy makes good" mid-19th century phrasing, or might we find something contemporary with the same flavor? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Biographer Thomas (1952) says: "when Abraham Lincoln was a candidate for President of the United States, and John Locke Scripps, a campaign biographer, asked him about his boyhood years, he replied: "Why, Scripps, it is a great piece of folly to attempt to make anything out of my early life. It can all be condensed into a single sentence and that sentence you will find in Gray's Elegy-- 'The short and simple annals of the poor.'" Thomas adds: "Republican organization was thorough. The party's techniques were skilled. Speakers and campaign literature made the most of Lincoln's boyhood poverty, his pioneer background, his native genius, his rise from obscurity to fame. His nicknames, "Honest Abe" and "the Rail-Splitter," were exploited to the full. " (p 216) Rjensen 15:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Good. Now, is "poor boy makes good" mid-19th century phrasing? All I'm asking about now is the particular language; certainly the meaning and intent of the phrase is correct, but it sounds Horatio Alger than Abraham Lincoln to me. (Of course, now that I said that, I notice that the very first entry in our Alger bio is Abraham Lincoln: the Backwoods Boy; or, How A Young Rail-Splitter Became President (1883).) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"poor boy makes good" = first citation of exact quote is about 1900. But the article does not claim the term is older. Rjensen 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Summary

Isn't the lead and the summary serving the same purpose? So in my opinion, the summary heading is redundant and should be eliminated, with some of the essential items moved up to the lead. The lead is rather short for such a long article anyway. Some of the information is even a repeat of the lead, or a repeat with a little more information, which is then fully explained in the article. Superfluous. Civil Engineer III 14:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no response, went ahead and did it. I think it's a little long though. Maybe some of that can come out completely, since a lead is supposed to be a summary of the article to follow...Civil Engineer III 15:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
cut to 390 words and 5 paragraphs Civil Engineer III 18:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Add Lincoln's "Lost Speech" to Abraham Lincoln page

I was just wanting to suggest that you add some information on Lincoln's "Lost Speech" which took place on May 29th, 1856 in Bloomington, IL. "It furnished the setting for one of the most dramatic episodes of Lincoln's life ... A speech by Lincoln was rarely an ordinary occurrence, but on this occasion he made one of the really great efforts of his life. So powerful was his eloquence that the reporters forgot to take notes of what he was saying. Several commenced, but in a few minutes they were entirely captured by the speaker's power, and their pencils were still." Since I am a resident of Bloomington/Normal, it would be greatly appreciated if this information were added. Thank You, dither1987

I found this commented out

As a featured article, this article should NOT have a trivia section, a practice heavily frowned upon on Wikipedia. However, if you find a constructive way to incorporate any of this information as prose elsewhere in the article, please do so.

i see truth in this. GreatChimp 08:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline against trivia sections as such. If there is, please point me to them and I'll stand corrected. What I personally dislike about trivia sections is that they attract lazy "drive-by" additions by people who don't bother to cite sources their items... and, if source citation isn't enforced, tend to accumulate a fair number of inaccurate items.
But I don't see any reason not to keep the sourced items.
Many of the unsourced items are probably accurate and not too hard to source. The burden of supplying references is on those wishing to keep items like "He was born on the same day as Charles Darwin" and "Lincoln was the first President to sport a beard" and "Lincoln stood 6 feet 3¾ inches (192.4 cm) tall," but the burden is probably not very heavy.
Even "according to legend" items are legitimate enough if there's a good source attesting that the legend is widely known. It is quite appropriate for the George Washington article to contain a mention of the Parson Weems' "cherry tree" story... in its Myths and misconceptions section, which is really just a trivia section that selectively contains only inaccurate trivia. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two articles that address trivia sections. The first is a guideline from the Manual of Style that states that trivia sections should be minimized. The second is a proposed policy or guideline (I believe it was formerly an essay) that makes, IMHO, a very good argument for eliminating trivia sections altogether. Rather than repeat that argument I would direct interested editors to that article.
Further, if the burden of proof is so low then I would advise those who wish the material be kept meet that burden and provide a source. --ElKevbo 18:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of the objection to trivia sections stems from having a list of random facts tacked onto the end of an article. I suggest that weherever possible the trivia items be integrated into the article in their logical locations. Some of these trivia items are quotes, which should simply be moved to Wikiquote if they aren't needed here. -Will Beback 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

  • Lincoln stood 6 feet 3¾ inches (192.4 cm) tall (not including his hat) and thus was the tallest president in U.S. history, just edging out Lyndon Johnson at 6 feet 3½ inches (191.8 cm) tall.
  • He was born on the same day as Charles Darwin.
  • The last surviving self-described witness to Lincoln's assassination was Samuel J. Seymour (~1860–April 14, 1956), who appeared two months before his death at age 96 on the CBS-TV quiz show I've Got a Secret. He said that as a five-year-old he had thought at first that he—instead of Lincoln—had been shot because his nurse, trying to fix a torn place in his blouse, stuck him with a pin at the moment of the gun's discharge.
  • According to legend, Lincoln was referred to as "two-faced" by his opponent in the 1858 Senate election, Stephen Douglas. Upon hearing about this Lincoln jokingly replied, "If I had another face to wear, do you really think I would be wearing this one?"
  • According to legend, Lincoln also said, as a young man, on his appearance one day when looking in the mirror: "It's a fact, Abe! You are the ugliest man in the world. If ever I see a man uglier than you, I'm going to shoot him on the spot!" It would no doubt, he thought, be an act of mercy.
  • Based on written descriptions of Lincoln, it has been conjectured since the 1960s that Lincoln may have suffered from Marfan syndrome, including the observations that he was much taller than most men of his day and had long limbs, an abnormally-shaped chest, and loose or lax joints.
  • Lincoln suffered lifelong depression. During one severe episode triggered by the death of his fiancée, Ann Rutledge, in 1835, his close friends, fearing him suicidal, kept constant watch over him. At one point during his presidency, his depression became so severe that he held a cabinet meeting from his bed. He also suffered from frequent nightmares.
  • For a period of years, Lincoln took blue mass pills to alleviate his depression. The main ingredient of these pills was mercury, which is toxic. Some historians now speculate that mercury poisoning may have accounted for the erratic behavior of Lincoln during the years he was taking the pills. He stopped taking them just after his inauguration and his erratic behavior seemed to subside at the same time. Reports of his behavior are consistent with symptoms of mercury poisoning. However, without hair samples from Lincoln during the period in question, it is impossible to confirm or invalidate this hypothesis.
  • He once mentioned one of his haunting nightmares to his friend. Lincoln mentioned that he was standing in a mourning crowd surrounding a train, and when he asked a grieving woman what had happened, she replied, "The President has been shot, and he has died."
  • Lincoln is the only American president to hold a patent. The patent is for a device that lifts boats over shoals.
  • Lincoln was famous for many presidential speeches and quotes, one short quote being "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar."
  • Lincoln was the first President to sport a beard.
  • Lincoln's son, Robert Todd Lincoln, was returning home from Harvard University, when he lost his balance and fell between two railway cars. A fellow passenger reacted quickly, pulling him from certain death. The helping hand was that of Edwin Booth, a brother of the man who would soon assassinate the young man's father.[1]
  • In 1865 Lincoln received a letter from the International Working Men's Association, congratulating him on his reelection and praising his anti-slavery stance. It was penned by Karl Marx.[2]
  • Presidents Lincoln and Zachary Taylor were both descended from Colonel Richard Lee of the Lee family of Virginia.
  • Lincoln's death chair resides at The Henry Ford in Dearborn, Michigan along with the original Logan County Courthouse where he argued cases.

///Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC) ==Let's keep the trivia section. It contains accurate material that people want to know--the sort that is provided at leading museums. The person who removed it was not a long-time editor and apparently knew little about Lincolnia. Rjensen 18:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't much care for the trivia sections in general, but this one's better than most - it's not full of crap like "Abraham Lincoln shows up in part 5 of the video game WhoKaresz", but rather, is stuff about Lincoln. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the claim that Lincoln may have had Marfan's syndrome: The three major indicators of Marfan's syndrome are heart problems, abnormally long arms and legs, and nearsightedness. Lincoln had no heart trouble, had limbs proportional to his height, and was farsighted, not nearsighted. The article should show at least some indication of this. -WikiMarshall 01:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. If he had Marfan's, he sure lived an unusually long time. Gaviidae 07:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Smallpox?

Did he have it? I've heard that he did; weird that it's not in the article... --205.188.117.7 15:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it wasn't exactly a rare occurrence. Lincoln came down with a mild case of the disease two days after the Gettysburg Address; it doesn't seem to have taken much out of him. (And a mild case is the best thing that could happen in those pre-vaccination days: permanent immunity.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good approach. The popculture material always seems like a bad fit for the biographical articles, but it is of interest to many editors. The number of references to a subject like Washington, Lincoln, etc, are adequate to fill an article. -Will Beback 20:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've left notes at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject core biographies. This seems to be the first effort to standardize an approach for this type of material. Editors did some brainstorming months back when the Joan of Arc list was developing in order to find a title that would include both high culture and pop culture. Would anyone object if I created this proposed page? If a better title emerges the list could be renamed. Durova 18:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the Trivia section into the new page. Most of the Legacy section could go there too - I'd suggest summary style. Durova 15:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mother's death???

I read a biography of Abraham Lincoln saying his mother died when he was 10

'I was born Feb. 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. My parents were both born in Virginia, of undistinguished families--second families, perhaps I should say. My mother, who died in my tenth year, was of a family of the name of Hanks....'

It's on this page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html 4th paragraph

  • That's right. She died on October 5, 1818. He was in his tenth year; he was nine years old at his most recent birthday. (Babies are in their first year until they are one year old.) Took me a couple of minutes to figure that out, too... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Census

The Name of the Act passed to prevent more than one son being killed in war

I am writing to try and find out the name of the Act whereas it prevents more than one son being killed in war.

As in the movie "Saving Private Ryan"...

Please email me at *removed*

Thank you, Kelly

  • A couple of misconceptions here. The Lincoln connection, I imagine, has to do with the story (is it a true one?) of a woman who had three sons in the army, two having had been killed, and Lincoln arranges for the third son to be discharged, to the mother's great relief. (It sounds like a cherry tree story to me, but what do I know?) The "surviving son" thing is marginal, and mostly wrong. [1] is the Selective Service's writeup on this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Its sorta true.Check this out for the original story. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Letter_to_Mrs._Bixby mweng 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


2nd Paragraph

"To preserve the Union, Lincoln had to overthrow slavery, which he did through the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment. He took personal charge of Reconstruction, seeking to speedily re-unite the nation. He was opposed by the Radical Republicans who advocated much harsher policies."

-Lincoln did NOT have to "overthrow slavery" to preserve the Union. Before 1861 Lincoln did not want to end slavery. He wanted to preserve the Union with or without slavery in the South. Also, is "overthrow" the best possible word to use? Lincoln did not "overthrow" slavery with the Emancipation Proclamation. He outlawed it.

- Lincoln did NOT take personnal charge of Reconstruction. He was dead during Reconstruction.

This paragraph needs a re-write. Not only are the facts wrong but too many ideas are forced together in order to make a point.--Lester113 16:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph was tweaked to solve the complaints. Lincon did free the slaves and he did so in order to preserve the Union. Reconstruction began in 1862 and Lincoln was the leader--he took personal charge (most famously in Louisiana). He wrote and got Congress to pass the 13th amendment in Feb 1865. The facts are correct. Rjensen 22:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
According to its Wikipedia page, "Reconstruction was a period in United States history, 1865–1877, that attempted to resolve the issues of the American Civil War when both the Confederacy and its system of slavery were destroyed." Although Lincoln was working on policies to restore states to the Union during the war, I do not believe the term Reconstruction is popularly used to describe Lincoln's actions. You could say that he attempted to direct the process of reconstruction through his actions in Louisiana and his language in the second inaugural, but that its actual implementation after his death did not follow his intentions. As to the 13th amendment, I was considering its effective date (December 1865), which was the event that actually ended slavery. If you wish to reword that sentence to indicate he submitted it to Congress before he died, that is fine. Hal Jespersen 22:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
""Reconstruction began in 1862 or 1863 as this Lincoln article and all recent Lincoln biographies state. The "reconstruction" as standard usage; thus "Lincoln's Plan for Reconstruction" by William Hesseltine appeared 46 years ago. The 1865 date is merely a useful dividing line for textbooks. Constitutitional amendments are dated by their passage by Congress--which was the central event after all. What happened AFTER his death is very important indeed, but that's another story. Rjensen 22:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)



Reconstruction did not start until the Civil War was over. Let us use some common sense here. How can Reconstruction start in 1861 if the War was not over? World Book Encyclopedia agrees with me.

" Reconstruction lasted from 1865 to 1877 and was one of the most controversial periods in the nation's history. Scholars still debate its successes and failures." http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Article?id=ar461540

To say, "He took PERSONAL charge of Reconstruction" is just asinine. Lincoln had ideas on Reconstruction. Lincoln had theories on Reconstruction but to say he took "PERSONAL" charge over Reconstruction is the type of gross error that makes people laugh at Wikipedia. Lincoln was not a PERSON during Reconstruction. He was a corpse.

This next sentence might and I say might pass without an error mark in an 8th grade Lincoln essay. But anything beyond the 8th grade and this sentence would be flagged.

"To achieve his main goal of preserving the Union, Lincoln decided to abolish slavery"

Lincoln did not "abolish slavery" through the Eman. Proc. until 1863. Lincoln stated in his famous letter to Horace Greeley in 1862 that abolishing slavery was not his goal in preserving the Union.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

So to suggest that Lincoln decided to abolish slavery to preserve the Union as a declarative statement with no reference to time (the 1862 Greeley letter compared to Lincoln's 2nd inaugural in March of 1865) is such simplistic history it borders on the comic. Come on guys. You can do better --Lester113 03:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We can do better than World Book I hope. Reconstruction began in 1862-3--read Eric Foner's standard history of Reconstruction 1863-1877 for example, Try one of the books listed in our Bibliography. Historians for 50 years have said Lincoln began reconstruction and took personal charge of the planning and policies--and indeed that point is made in our article and in Reconstruction. Look at the big fight over the Wade Davis Act for example. Lincoln of course used the term--as in Lincoln's "Declaration of Amnesty and Reconstruction," proclaimed in 1863. The best book is Harris, William C. With Charity for All: Lincoln and the Restoration of the Union. U. Press of Kentucky, 1997. 364 pp. Or look at the scholarly articles,
for example: Neal, Diane and Kremm, Thomas W. "Loyal Government on Trial: the Union Versus Arkansas." Southern Studies 1986 25(2): 148-162. ISSN: 0735-8342 . Abstract: In June 1864 the US Senate refused to admit Elisha Baxter and William Meade Fishback as members from the state of Arkansas. This was the first stage in the struggle between President Abraham Lincoln and Congress over who was going to direct Reconstruction in the South. The president had begun Reconstruction under the direction of military commanders. In January 1864 a new Arkansas state constitution had been drawn up which outlawed slavery. Congress would probably not have seated any men chosen by a presidential plan, but Fishback's corrupt election sealed the case against Arkansas.
another article: Maslowski, Peter. "From Reconciliation to Reconstruction: Lincoln, Johnson, and Tennessee," Tennessee Historical Quarterly 1983 42(4): 343-361. ISSN: 0040-3261

Abstract: After the summer of 1862, Governor Andrew Johnson moved Tennessee onto a radical path opposed by both the state's Confederate-sympathizing majority and the restoration-minded conservative party dominated by the prewar Whigs. President Abraham Lincoln's continuing support of Johnson's reconstruction plan indicated the president's own radical drift and resulted in Tennessee abolishing slavery, repudiating secession, proscribing the political rights of ex-Confederates, and ratifying the 13th Amendment. In a word, scholars are agreed that Limcoln began Reconstruction abd it was one of his major concerns. Rjensen 03:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Are you going to defend the statement that Lincoln, "took PERSONAL charge of Reconstruction"? You might think I am arguing over semantics here but to keep this statement in an article as pivotal as the Lincoln article makes Wikipedia wish it had the credibility of a 90 year old publication such as World Book.

Lincoln was DEAD during Reconstruction ergo he could not take PERSONAL control over it. I would be be satisfied if just the word "personal" was taken out of that statement.

I can't believe I'm even being challenged on this point?--Lester113 03:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln and Reconstruction--specific cites and links

A good, short textbook treatment of Lincoln ad Reconstruction appears at [2] = Liberty Equality Power with Infotrac: A History of the American People Since 1863 - Page 536 by John M. Murrin, Paul E. Johnson, James M. McPherson - (2004); McPherson is a leading historian of the war. For Foner's views see [3] from his award-winning history of Reconstruction. Also a shorter version of Foner is at [4]. For a book-length history see [5]. In a word: wiki has to include this very important material. Rjensen 03:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Yes, sure that is important let's all read your book list but do you, Rjensen, believe Lincoln took "personal" charge of Reconstruction? I look forward to hear what book you might recommend that proves that Lincoln took "personal" charge over Reconstruction. After all how can you cheat death? Abraham Lincoln 1809-1865.

Why are you fighting this? Geesh. --Lester113 04:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reconstruction was in operation in 1863 and it was high on Lincoln's agenda. Rjensen 05:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Jpgordon, just a few days ago you deleted this whole paragraph. In your own words,"I just deleted the whole thing. What a mess!" Now you are defending it?

This is my last comment on this issue. To say, "To achieve his main goal of preserving the Union, Lincoln decided to abolish slavery, which he did through the Emancipation Proclamation..." is just incomplete history. Lincoln's ideas on slavery and the connection to the preservation of the Union changed over time from the 1862 Greeley letter to his 2nd Inaugural in 1865. So as it stands this sentence is just poor writing.--Lester113 13:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It was an ugly mess -- poor writing, as you say -- but it was not incorrect. It's improved now and is being worked on. Your opposition to it, however, seemed based on an inaccurate perception of what constituted "reconstruction". It's true that Lincoln did not live into the period called "reconstruction"; however, he was a leader in establishing the process. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a retired American history teacher who helps people with their Lincoln-related questions through e-mail. My website, the Abraham Lincoln Research Site, is located at http://members.aol.com/RVSNorton/Lincoln2.html, and I have a special page for students seeking a one page summary of Lincoln's life at http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln77.html My website on Lincoln has had over 8,000,000 visitors since 1996, and during that time I have replied to over 50,000 Lincoln-related e-mails. I am wondering if an administrator would consider adding one or both of my links to the "External Links" section of Wikipedia's Abraham Lincoln article. Thank you for your possible consideration. Sincerely, Roger Norton

  • Not an admin, but I added the first link Mr Norton suggested. While I hesitated in adding yet another link in a rather long article, and while I do have some criticisms of this site, overall it is a good site, which I have visited previously. A GWS on Lincoln will not infrequently link to this site. It is well designed, well illustrated, and would appear to be the result of a good deal of conscientious effort. (BTW, it is preferred that contributions to talk pages are signed with four tildes ("~"). Thanks!) Edeans 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with the procedures RE: Wikipedia, so please excuse me if I am not following protocol. I just wanted to say 'thank you' to Edeans. Sincerely, Roger Norton

Proposal: remove Civil War section

Obviously, the quickest way to get this animal under control is to drop the ultra-lengthy Civil War section. It's already covered aplenty in its own article. any tidbits worth saving can always be accessed later and incorporated in the main article. I plan to remove it in about a week, but would like to hear from others before i do. Stevewk 21:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • i still plan to make the switch late this week, so if anyone else has something to offer, now would be the time. Hal et al., i'm simply going to remove the Civil War section because 1) its not a true deletion anyway (if the need arises, it can always be obtained from History); 2) Wiki already has a very full 'American Civil War' article. anything else i do, will be posted here, so all will know. Stevewk 16:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ultra strong Object. Sure the article is long, but the Civil War section is the wrong place to cut, and removing it entirely is wrong, unless it is indeed moved to a subarticle with a proper reference. On behalf of the American Civil War Task Force, which monitors this and other articles, any attempt to totally remove the Civil War section will be strenuously objected to and will immediately be reverted. Please take this up with the rest of the task force if you still want to discuss this, but for now, removal is not an option. Editing and shortening, sure. Total removal - no way. WP:ACW. Scott Mingus 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There is actually a fair amount of extraneous material that can be taken out (for example, who cares that he was born the same day as Darwin?). I will volunteer to take the snippers and carefully edit this article to shorten it, without sacrificing the essential information. Sound OK, Steve? I may copy this into my sandbox and start playing with shortening it when I get time.Scott Mingus 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • well look, i almost completely disagree with you (you're forgetting there already is a competent and lengthy American Civil War article, and also that nobody is truly deleting anything), but in view of your objection/s, i'll adjust the plan so as to keep the whole thing and move it to a new subarticle called Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War. i'll make sure to reference the subarticle prominently in the body of the Abraham Lincoln article, and also in its "Further Reading" or "See Also" sections. that way, no one will be able to miss it. Stevewk 04:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Object Lincoln is famous for his wartime role and that is why people read the bio. What would be useful is an article on the Lincoln Administration that covers very impt work of his cabinet. Rjensen 18:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong objection. The article on Abraham Lincoln will be one of the most read articles. Elementary and secondary students and teachers as well as collegiate students and teachers will consult this article as they begin studying slavery & civil rights, powerful Presidents (Lincoln is always listed in the top 3 by scholars in the polls) and even the Civil War (causes, consequences, etc). More students know about the Gettysburg Address than the Declaration of Independence. However, to understand the Gettysburg Address the student needs background on Lincoln's role in the Civil War. The beauty of online encyclopedias is that we don't have to worry about space. We need to provide a complete picture and limiting material on the Civil War won't help anyone.

Jozil 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Books about Lincoln

I just finished reading "Team of Rivals" and found it quite interesting. Any other recommendations?

  • I heard very good things about the DKG book. Gary Gallagher (UVa) and James McPherson may be the top 2 Lincoln/CW scholars in the US right now. Stevewk 16:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Although Gary and Jim are certainly two of the most prominent Civil War scholars, neither has attempted a biography of Lincoln that I know of. Jim's 1991 Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution is an analysis in seven essays of how American society was revolutionized by the Civil War; his Battle Cry of Freedom is superb, but it is about the war era in a concise single volume, not focused on Lincoln per se. David H. Donald's 1995 Lincoln has been described as the "best single volume biography of Abraham Lincoln." Carl Sandberg's Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and Abraham Lincoln: The War Years, six volumes published from 1926 to 1939, have been described as a "masterpiece of poetic biography" but they are not known for historical accuracy, particularly about his antebellum life. I understand that Michael Burlingame is working on a four volume biography of Lincoln, to be released in 2007 and 2008. Hal Jespersen 00:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling errors

Hi. "Canoeing" is spelled "canoing" and "leapt" is spelled "lept." I don't know how to edit it. Someone who knows can do an Edit-Find and fix these errors. Thanks.

New page: Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War

ok, the deed is done. the AL page is already much easier to work with. someone else might consider moving the relevant Further Reading, External Links, etc.: Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War. Stevewk 00:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

no the deed is not done. Even if we have a spearate page oin topic the main article--which is all most people read, has to have a full analysis of by far his most important role in War.Rjensen 18:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen on this. There was no consensus in this page on whether to remove all that material, whether it went into a separate article or not. In fact, I believe most of the comments to your proposal were quite negative. If a separate article remains, which I think is neither necessary or desirable, the parent article must retain an adequate summary of the subject. I do not intend to write such a summary because I am perfectly happy with the existing state of the article. Therefore, the burden is on those who wish to make this arbitrary change. If you would like to see an example of how a subarticle is to be treated, look at Battle of Gettysburg, which has very lengthy subarticles, but the main article has adequate detail for people to understand the main points without reading those subarticles. The Lincoln article must follow a similar standard. Hal Jespersen 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Steve, you can't unilaterally make decisions about this article. Furthermore, you have reverted to your preferred verion five times in 10 hours, which is a significant breach of the 3 revert rule, and have been blocked for a day as a result. Rjensen is very close to going over three as well and would do well to avoid edit warring. Remember that edit warring hurts the encyclopedia. Coming to an agreement on the Talk page first is the first and best way of avoiding this harm. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Article shortening

I have alerted the Wiki administrators that we have a serious misbehavior problem here with one editor Stevewk who wants to reject the strong, unanimous decision of all the other editors and remove the Civil war material. See [6] Note that the article on one of the half-dozen most important and most written-about people in American history is not excessively long at all. Rjensen 06:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem but let's focus on the edits, not the editor. Major changes of this type need discussion. Let's hold off on removing material until we've had a chance to talk about it. -Will Beback · † ·
In regards to the use of the verylong template on the article page: First, this is an editorial housekeeping box that is of little interest to the average reader. People with complaints about articles, unless they are warnings to avoid biased or incorrect information, should keep their discussions to the Talk page. Second, I noticed from Special:Longpages that there are 804 pages longer than this one, meaning that we really need not spend much intellectual energy discussing this. The guidelines about lengthy articles indicate that "Long pages are generally good, indicating in-depth and interesting content. However, it can also indicate that several topics have been lumped together." I do not believe it is reasonable to say that this biography consists of multiple topics that have been lumped together and since this is one of the most significant men in American history, I think a lengthy page is quite appropriate. Hal Jespersen 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

blanking user talk pages in retaliation for rejected proposal

I reported this problem to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ Somebody has been using a series of IP addresses to systematically blank user talk pages--he hit mine User talk:Rjensen a number of times as well as User talk:Hlj User talk:Kablammo and User talk:Luna Santin and probably others

What the targets all have in common is we strongly protested Stevewk who tried repeatedly to remove all the information about the Civil War from the Abraham Lincoln article. Stevewk was given a 3R suspension but may be using sockpuppets to hit editors. Thus he may be using 70.110.174.121 151.197.233.65 70.110.155.238 70.110.174.121 etc. Rjensen 23:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What a shame that someone would take Wikipedia so seriously as to take revenge on people! There are far more important issues in the world and in life than in vandalizing someone's talk page. This is supposed to be a collaborative activity, one that both disseminates usuful information, but also forms a small community unto itself. While we may all disagree at times on content, style, and format, none of these are worth the time and aggravation of getting mad (or even). Consensus should be the norm. 8th Ohio Volunteers 23:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Woould it be proper to change the first sentence:

"Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American politician who was"

to read

"Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American statesman who was" ?


Hidden Content

I went to edit the double dash in the Early Life section (apparently wikipedia doesn't like those), and couldn't find the section I was going to edit, at first, because there was more content — more paragraphs even — in the edit box than was on the article page. I am aware of the ability to do this hidden comment thing (with < - dashes etc - > ) but I couldn't find them within the edit page. I don't think I saw all the extra info the other day when I made an edit. Is this hidden commenting?? I liked what I read in the edit box, even though it makes that part of the article (Early Life and Early Carreer) longer. I remember being a kid and I had to do a report on another president. I would have loved to have all this info as a 10-year-old. But anyway, can someone tell me what's going on with the difference between edit page and actual article?? Thx Gaviidae 07:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix it--there was a tiny formatting error that threw whole sections off (a / was missing) . Rjensen 08:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Marfan syndrome

I've read this in several places, but this website has a particularly unbiased (and well-referenced) paragraph on the possibility that Lincoln had Marfan Syndrome. It looks like something that would enhance this article:

Lincoln's height, long legs, leanness, and thin face are skeletal features of Marfan syndrome. Evidence for other features of Marfan syndrome (ocular, cardiovascular) in Lincoln has been presented, but found weak. In 1959, Marfan syndrome was diagnosed in a distant relative of Lincoln's (a third cousin four times removed). Sharing 1/4096th of Lincoln's genetic material, it is difficult to ascribe much significance to this fact. Although the world's greatest authority on Marfan syndrome thinks it's "50-50" that Lincoln had the condition, other geneticists think it unlikely.

MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 14:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Error in Election of 1860

In the second section, it refers to St.Louis, Missouri and Wheeling, Virginia. It should read Wheeling, West Virginia. Since it is a link (and the link does go to Wheeling, West Virginia) i am not comfortable in editing this myself. If someone could do it please. Thanks Jmsseal 01:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not an error. West Virginia was not created until 1861; in November 1860, Wheeling was still part of the original Commonwealth of Virginia. So the article is correct as it stands. Fumblebruschi 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ [7]
  2. ^ [8]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham_Lincoln/Archive_5&oldid=1190101209"