Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 6

message: To illustrate some of the backwards editing style of some wiki editors regarding Lincoln and his religious view, ponder this example:  I tried to remove a statement regarding Lincoln's youthful ridiculing of religion.  My position was that the edit included no reference (at that time) and that he grew out of such behavior. Since then, a reference has been added and I have since left it alone.  This statement is still on the latest Lincoln article under the "Early Life" section.  I plan to add some context to that statement soon.  Later I added a quote from Lincon himself, in which he defended himself against verbal attacks from some individuals which accused him of being an "open scoffer" of religion.  This quote I added to the "religous beliefs" section without no interpretation of my own.  Rjensen quickly had that quote removed because he believed it added "nothing to the article except 2007-style POV."  Isn't this how most people would define as hypocritical?  Rjensen will not allow Lincoln himself to elaborate on the subject of his own religion yet he has no problem with obscure atheist ideas about Lincoln "ridiculing religion" that sincerely add "nothing to the article except 2007-style POV" since they are completely based on secondary sources AND clearly contradict Lincoln's own words as found in his speeches.  So it seems that if Lincoln did ridicule religion at one time, he definitely grew out of it, as is clearly evident in the "open scoffer" quote and his speeches. That is what I call intolerant hypocrisy.  Gaytan 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User Gaytan seems to be on a religious crusade to rewrite history to insert his own version of religion into the lives of famous people. That's OR and POV and not allowed. He should read some serious books--all the major books on Lincoln deal with his religion--instead of pasting his own views into articles. Rjensen 11:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen I'm having difficulty understanding why you removed Gaytan's addition to the article. It was a comment on the matter from Lincoln himself and was validly sourced. How does its inclusion violate either NPOV or no OR rules? WJBscribe 12:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all I get from Rjensen everytime: "Gaytan should read some serious books" or Gaytan's "OR and POV is not allowed".  All I have done with the articles on Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin is show how these men were seriously spiritual men, through their own quotes, always properly referenced.  I usually leave out any personal interpretations on these quotes so that I am not accused of "OR" (original research).  I have never tied any of the Founders directly to any particular religion.  Rjensen has repeatedly deleted my edits from these articles because it disagrees with his own personal 2007 philosophy.  He has openly stated that many of the Founders' views of religion are closer to atheism than Christianity; an erroneous assumption that several Wiki atheists masquerade under the guise of "deism".  Any Wiki editor can see that prior to my edits on any of the Founders' or Lincoln's articles, the religious views of these men were portrayed as if they were anti-religion in general or very similar to today's atheists (without explicitly stating this, of course, since they try their best to be discreet).  They failed to mention any positive statements these men made (primary sources)about religion even though the public domain is full of such material.  That type of behavior is what I call POV.  Failure to insert these men's own words to portray their religious beliefs is blatantly POV.  Yet obscure secondary and tertiary sources that portray these men as atheists is embraced by them.  I think Rjensen needs to seriously evaluate his behavior to assure his 2007 agenda is not blurring his view of history.  He conveniently leaves out parts of history (at least as it relates to religion) in order to push his own POV.  He believes he has no agenda but accuses everyone else of having an agenda.  Gaytan 21:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Gaytan doesn't get it: Wikipedia is not his personal blog or missionary platform. He refuses to read the reliable sources and insists on his own OR, which violates Wiki rules. Rjensen 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still having difficulty understanding why you label Gaytan's addition as his own point of view. The edit in question appears to be a comment by Lincoln himself. Surely that is a valid addition to the article, or are you suggesting that Lincoln did not say this? WJBscribe 00:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wiki rules warn repeatedly that we can only use reliable secondary sources (which Gaytan never does) and NOT use quotes from primary sources except to illuminate that secondary source. That's because the quotes were selected to fit the preconceptions of one POV-oriented editor. Rjensen 01:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you fundamentally misuderstand WP:OR, the use of quotations from primary sources is perfectly acceptable as long as it is not accompanied by comment from editors. In this case a contraversial comment was included in the article which its subject rebutted within his lifetime. NPOV requires that such a response be included if that comment is to be seen in its proper context. Every editor has their own POV, the question is whether the article is neutral and balanced. WJBscribe 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Point is well taken, Rklawton.  But Rjensen "doesn't get it".  I have added material taken from "scholarly research" and Rjensen still removes them either because it simply does not agree with his philosophy or the secondary source is not "reliable" in his view. Yet he still doesn't admit that his failure to input relevant material relating to material is POV on his part.  Gaytan 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The challenge here is that there's tons of stuff written about AL.  As a result, you'll want to stick with the top-tier material.  If he's deleting those citations, then you've got significant grounds for complaint.  Rklawton 21:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaytan is not actually doing original research, I think. Instead he's using a source that he keeps secret. probably a church pamphlet or something like that. All sources have to be listed and he refuses to do that. Rjensen 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a very naughty thing to do.  Rklawton 22:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen has serious personal issues with people of faith.  My fundamental source is the internet, most of which is full of primary source material on the Founders (all of which I always properly referenced).  I have books which I use too, which are written by various trypes of authors, religious and secular.  Yet Rjensen would have everyone believe that the secular view of the Founders, Lincoln, and other great historical figures are only accurately portrayed by the secular authors and that the religious authors are simply a bunch of wack jobs who should not be trusted.  That is what I label as extreme intolerance.  That's naughty of you Rjensen, a good left-wing intellectual, such as yourself, should know better.  Don't you think that is a bit hypocritical of you?  Anyway, Rjensen has suddenly changed his argument now.  He always claimed my edits constituted original research, now he claims my sources are not listed.  So, which is it, Rjensen?  For example, I clearly listed my source for the Lincoln quote he recently removed from this article (the "open scoffer" quote).  Anyone who is on the side of truth can easily go verify this (that is a hint for 'you' Rklawton).  Rjensen's reasoning for removing this source was simply because it didn't agree with his 2007 politics and agenda.   Since Rjensen would like to "think" that my sources come from some imaginary "church pamphlet" of some sort (typical left-wing attack on religion by the way), so I could just as well state that I "think" you are a typical elitist secretly trying to push your Marxist, humanist, debasing agenda all over Wikipedia. So Rjensen, if the "open scoffer" quote is from my mysterious "church pamphlet", why have you not tried to remove it again? Gaytan 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypocrisy regarding Lincoln's religious beliefs

message: There's no tag on this talk page, so many of you might not know this, but this page has been nominated for GA. It's not going to pass, however, because of a few problems.
The prose in this article is far from compelling in places. First, there's the lead. Dissecting it piece by piece,
"Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was an American politician who was elected the 16th President of the United States (serving from 1861 to 1865), and was the first president from the Republican Party."
:This is good. This is obviously his greatest claim to fame during his own lifetime.
"Today, he is best known for ending slavery and preserving the Union through his supervision of the Federal (i.e., Northern) forces during the American Civil War."
:This is good too. This is his legacy, and how most of us remember him when we think of him.
"He selected the generals and approved their strategy; selected senior civilian officials; supervised diplomacy, patronage, and party operations; and rallied public opinion through messages and speeches."
:Now it gets dicey. WP:LEAD says, "In the lead try to have a sentence, clause, or at least a word devoted to each of the main headlines in the article." and "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." Now, the lead doesn't cover any of Lincoln's early life, rise to political power, or legacy and memorials, and barely talks about the actual civil war itself, but launches into talking about his administrative roles instead. True, it's very important, but if you're going to have a lead that skinny, you're going to have to pick and choose better what makes it in. Finally,
"Lincoln's influence was magnified by his powerful rhetoric; his Gettysburg Address rededicated the nation to freedom and democracy and remains a core component of the American value system."
:This isn't covered at any length in the actual article, and though we all probably admire lincoln, the flowery speech seems to be fawning over him a little. If there were indeed a source that argues that it "rededicated the nation... &c. &c." which was cited in the article, it would be a different matter, however that section of the article is without citations.
Furthermore, this article is 80 kb long. While succinctness isn't a requirement for GA, appropriate lead lengths for an article like this are around 3 to 4 paragraphs. It needs to be longer.
Next, the "Major achievements" section comes in out of nowhere and doesn't flow well into the next main section. Now, if it were part of the lead, it wouldn't be so bad, since that's what is needed in the lead, but you shouldn't have that in the first paragraph. Additionally, it's factually inaccurate. The Emancipation proclamation had no effect on the confederacy since they had already seceeded. In fact, except for providing precedence for the 13th amendment, it really didn't have any real effect.
Finally, there are still huge gaps in citations. You can't have 30 citations for an 80,000 character block of text without some major holes. Some paragraphs are very sparsely cited, and after his assassination there are no citations.
It's certainly got promise, but it's got to be shaped up much more before it's GA quality. I think you should also think seriously of splitting this page into multiple pages and summerizing their content onto this page. That would make it much easier to work with and much easier to fix it up to GA and FA status. Thanatosimii 18:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination 

message: "While in New Orleans, he may have witnessed a slave auction that left an indelible impression on him for the rest of his life."
This should be reworded so that it's not speculative. Did Lincoln witness an auction in New Orleans by his own account? Did he say that one left an impression on him? Gazpacho 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slave auction

message: There's not much point in adding negatives--Lincoln did not do this, did not do that, did not believe this or that. Maybe we should have a separate article on AL's religion. Rjensen 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  But we still need to keep a small intro to this topic on Lincoln's primary article.  As for the religious page, who would like to begin that work? Gaytan 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Gaytan would please read some of the books in the bibliography we might move along here. Start with David Donald. Rjensen 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate article on AL's religion 

message: How can the editors decre Lincoln "ended slavery" as a part of the official locked page when, at best, he play a role in the end of slavery?  Historians who  are honest will at least admit there is controversy as to exactly what role he played.  On a locked page, you should stick to that which cannot be argued based on the facts. How can you say that is an unbiased fact when there are respected historians who disagree?
You are supposed to be unbiased. Just say he preserved the Union and played a role in the end of slavery.  Latter, mention that some historians disagree as to Lincoln's views on slavery and link to the controversy, which should include BOTH SIDES, including points raised by  scholars who have actually read his civil war orders.
:Controversy is vandalism when the controversy only exists in the realm of conspiracy theorists.  I'm not saying that's the case in this matter, but it's an example of how "controversy" can be vandalism - and the exception is sufficient to disprove your premise.  Rklawton 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Historians disagree re ending slavery?? No dissenting historians have been cited on the matter. Rjensen 04:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that depends on how you define "historian".  But that was the point to my comment.  Since the controvery doesn't exist except in the realm of nut-cases, it's vandalism.  Rklawton 04:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, I agree with Rklawton on this Rjensen 04:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably because the kids are back in school, and they love to vandalize this article.  Rklawton 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And when an editor resorts to invective instead of citing a source, why argue? Wjhonson 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The unsigned comment is correct. The proclamation was mostly meant as an economic punishment for the states in "open rebellion." I will find a source and insert it where appropriate, if it is not already in there. : )A mcmurray 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lincoln did NOT end slavery! Controversy is not vandalism 

message: Why is this page semi-protected anyway? It appears to have been so since October 2006. Is it still necessary? WJBscribe 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because the kids are back in school, and they love to vandalize this article.  Rklawton 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And when an editor resorts to invective instead of citing a source, why argue? Wjhonson 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The unsigned comment is correct. The proclamation was mostly meant as an economic punishment for the states in "open rebellion." I will find a source and insert it where appropriate, if it is not already in there. : )A mcmurray 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why sprotected?