Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 2

message: I'm surprised to see no mention of Lincoln's life-long depression. See this article for example:
http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-225.htm 62.231.39.150 11:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected your reference to Lincoln's wife's death.  It was a woman who may have been his fiancee.  His wife survived him (He was only married once).Shsilver 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lincoln's Depression 

message: Please resolve this dispute by having a discussion here, rather than having a revert war. Accusations of vandalism and stalking get us nowhere. Continued reversions of this material by anyone will result in page protection and blocking for 3RR if warranted.
* This song by Susan Werner says he's gay.  While I've never heard of her, she seems like a pretty serious musician.  http://strangenation.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
User:65.142.101.214, are you the same person as User:65.136.153.219? android79 14:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are bound and determined to remove any notable article that does not show your POV.  Your statement as to the worthiness of a "credentialled historian" is entirely POV and, if it were true, the article on Lincoln's sexuality would be entirely deleted because it was based on academic fraud and academic POV-pushing.  You can't get any more notable than the cover of Time magazine and the article specifically cites a noted researcher, who can be specifically cited by name except that you edited him out. As I noted, it is fine by me to delete the entire paragraph, but having your POV in there must have at least a tiny bit of balance.--Noitall 04:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Noitall must have me confused with someone else that he has been in conflict with in the past, as I've never tried to remove any "notable article" for POV reasons. There are credentialed historians and academics of all different persuasions; demanding SOME credentials for a person who is to be cited as a source in an encyclopedia article is hardly POV.  Time magazine is notable for its popularity; it's certainly not noted for its scholarship in any notes I've read.  Did the 1911 Britannica cite to the Strand magazine? And if Shenk the part-time standup comic qualifies as a "noted researcher" then I'll eat my stovepipe hat. -EDM 04:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality dispute 

message: Noitall is bound and determined  to get the Shenk/Time magazine perspective in there by name, despite the fact that the point made in the Time article is referenced earlier in this paragraph. Once again: Shenk is a journalist, comedian, and (soon-to-be) popular author, not a credentialed historian, academic, or scholar.  Time magazine is a weekly newsstand periodical with excellent photography and occasionally decent investigative journalism, but without gravitas.  These sources should not be cited by name in an encyclopedic work.  Anyone else care to contribute to a consensus on this? -EDM 04:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are bound and determined to remove any notable article that does not show your POV.  Your statement as to the worthiness of a "credentialled historian" is entirely POV and, if it were true, the article on Lincoln's sexuality would be entirely deleted because it was based on academic fraud and academic POV-pushing.  You can't get any more notable than the cover of Time magazine and the article specifically cites a noted researcher, who can be specifically cited by name except that you edited him out. As I noted, it is fine by me to delete the entire paragraph, but having your POV in there must have at least a tiny bit of balance.--Noitall 04:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Noitall must have me confused with someone else that he has been in conflict with in the past, as I've never tried to remove any "notable article" for POV reasons. There are credentialed historians and academics of all different persuasions; demanding SOME credentials for a person who is to be cited as a source in an encyclopedia article is hardly POV.  Time magazine is notable for its popularity; it's certainly not noted for its scholarship in any notes I've read.  Did the 1911 Britannica cite to the Strand magazine? And if Shenk the part-time standup comic qualifies as a "noted researcher" then I'll eat my stovepipe hat. -EDM 04:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again.

message: After reading that line, I honesty wonder how much of this stuff is accurate, and how much is just urban legend--Q1werty 15:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In rural Kentucky of 1809, I suspect that most people were born in one room log cabins.--Rogerd 17:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Are you serious about wondering about accuracy?  Read a biography on Lincoln.  He grew up under pretty bad circumstances.  Read With Malice Toward None by Stephen Oates.  An excellent and very readable biography on Lincol.  —Gaff ταλκ 07:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: *Lincoln mentions this in his own auto-biography published shortly before his nomination for the Republican ticket, for the 1860 election.  This is attested to by nearly every biography of Lincoln ever written... So unless there is a conserted effort of Historians to make up the legend of Lincoln, it can be taken as variably true.  Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of Team of Rivals, offers a sound description of Lincoln's early life... which includes the meak beginnings.
Yeah, and I've been to the national park of the log cabin that he was born in. It says it there.
-Alex, 12.220.157.93 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in a one room log cabin... yada, yada 

message: Lincoln sidenote.  Anyone from Illinois or interested in Lincoln history may want to write and article on First Presbyterian Church (Springfield).  I found out that it is where the Lincoln family went to church when I was writing an article on pipe organ builder John Brombaugh.—Gaff ταλκ 07:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Presbyterian Church (Springfield) 

message: How many people see a value in this Timeline section that was added recently? I deleted it once and remarked that it was superficial. It is now back and although it has a lot more entries, is still a relatively superficial collection of random dates in Lincoln's life (and rather poorly formatted by Wikipedia standards at that). Are there other significant biographies that include a similar section? I watch over more than 200 American Civil War biographies and cannot recall any, other than a few generals who have lists of command histories. My concern about the section is that when people notice it and see some of the trivial entries, they will pile on and add so many events that it will become unwieldy. Dates of battles, speeches, appointment of generals and cabinet officers, signing of laws, etc. The article is long enough already. Opinions? Hal Jespersen 22:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline? 

message: In a serious encyclopedia it is necessary to stay focused on Lincoln.  Material on the escape of John Wilkes Booth, for example, belongs in the Wilkes entry, not Lincoln's. Furthermore the newly discovered photograph supposedly of Lincoln's body does not belong in Wikipedia unless and until scholars have thoughly verified it.  Rjensen Rjensen 08:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paying attention to Lincoln

message: * Lincoln  viewed negoes as second rate. Period. He joked and made fun of them in numerous speeches. He was opposed to making judges or wifes of any of them. Lincon was a racist. This is a fact. 
He believed the white man was superior. We need not be affraid to speak the truth. He did not believe in laws that would allow for the mixing of the white and black race. 
I've been trying to put these two items in the slavery section but a few editors keep deleting them. They are very relevant to what's being said there. Please assist me in providing a proper account of history instead of continuing to mythologize Lincoln through censorship. And, be thankful that Lincoln is not president or he might shut down Wikipedia for speaking critically of him. Here are the items:
**"However, he stated in a debate with Stephen A. Douglas that he opposed to granting citizenship to blacks and said: "I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." <--I placed this in response to his quote that all men are created equal.
**"However, a few weeks before signing the Proclamation, and after it had already been drafted, Lincoln said in a letter to Horace Greeley: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." <--obviously he was doing this as a means to an end, rather than for the cause of emancipation.
Thank you for your assistance. RJII 06:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: editors who want to censor history

message: People who attend the undergraduate school prefer "Harvard College" just as the lawyers say they went to "Harvard Law School." So avoid "Harvard University," which anyway is an anachronism in 1860 when it was just a college. Rjensen 08:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Harvard College or Harvard University?

message: Should there not be some mention of Lincoln's right-to-revolt speech (Lincoln vs. U.S. Aggression Against Mexico, 12 January 1848), which he made during his one term in the House of Representatives? In this speech, which came to haunt him during the early days of his presidency, he said: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit."
Eroica 15:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Right-to-revolt speech?

message: There is a surge of interest in political ideology in 1850-1870 era, centered on Lincoln.  The recent biographies of Lincoln for example. the article on Republicanism in the United States is just a shell (with a detailed bubliography), and will get fileld in step by step.  AL plays a major role, esp with Gettysburg Address in what it means to guarantee eash state will have a republican form of govt. (That provision of Constitution was central to Reconstruction debates too)
So let's keep it in and see what AL's political philosophy was, and why he paid so much attention to the founding fathers
Rjensen 04:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Republicanism

message: What some have said here regarding my insistance on the truth being revealed is a lie against the very truth of the matter I and many others seek to have shown to the world, lays heavy on my heart and brings me close to tears, sirs or madames.
That is a non NPOV look at what my work here has been about! and what you are saying here regarding my insistance on the truth is a lie against the truth of my words and long research regarding this matter, sirs, or madames.
Fore~ This is not a "one person/insane war of mine" (as some uneducated ones here would try to make my efforts out to be) but instead this effort of mine has always been to reveal the truth about the Bachelder Photograph, and both the genuine and wrongly overlooked nature of it by the unwiilling, and or "thick of skulled" and those who would make a lie of its legitimate nature in spite of many mistatements of the facts sourounding it and its history, sirs, or madames.
I suggest ANYONE who wants to see the facts of its genuineness refer to the Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, . for the complete story, there was a 2004 edition too by the way, I own that copy myself and it is available through "Morningside Books on the web and at quality historicaly oriented bookstores nationwide, We are all seeking the truth and this is simply another piece of the jigsaw-puzzle of the life and death of a great american , Abraham Lincoln....I thank those of you with an open mind to new facts and the courage to look before you condemn me a encyclopedic reporter of a major find wrongly overlooked and , personal attacks made upon me for daring to report on this historical and important find.
(All of this writing here of mine is done in good faith, and with the strict intent of a NPOV edit.)
Let those who are without fear look for themselves, and I dare say that YOU "Lonely Pilgrim", ARE not following NPOV Wiki procedure, by taking a totaly predudical and biased view of which YOU have not even bother to investigate YOURSELF in detail, as I have, and in depth as I have by pouring over the materials available on the Lincoln photograph in question, as the respected life~long Lincoln historian, Lloyd Ostendorf himself did, and his finds, and that of the Bachelder family and their photos they engraved themselves with their own writing, saying it "was John Bachelder himself who took that post mortuem photograph of Lincoln as a study for a later painting", cannot be denied as the facts that they are both historicaly, and in and of it's encyclopedic nature.
In summation I would refer anyone seeking the truth of the matter once more to: Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, 
Thank you for your attention to this very important matter and by the way I never knew about this! (Cathytreks 04:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LINCOLN DEATH PHOTO DEBATE:TAKE 3!

message: The photo vanished decades ago -- very strange! who would mislay such a valuable item? Answer: a hoaxer. Rjensen 05:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The photo does not exist

message: What you say here regarding my insistance on the truth being revealed is a lie against the very truth of the matter I and many others seek to have shown to the world, Sir!
That is a non NPOV look at what my work here has been about! and what you are saying here regarding my insistance on the truth is a lie against the truth of my words and long research regarding this matter, sir!
Fore~ This is not a "one person/insane war of mine" (as some uneducated ones here would try to make my efforts out to be) but instead this effort of mine has always been to reveal the truth about the Bachelder Photograph, and both the genuine and wrongly overlooked nature of it by the unwiilling, and or "thick of skulled" and those who would make a lie of its legitimate nature in spite of many mistatements of the facts sourounding it and its history, sir!
I suggest ANYONE who wants to see the facts of its genuineness refer to the Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, . for the complete story, there was a 2004 edition too by the way, I own that copy myself and it is available through "Morningside Books on the web and at quality historicaly oriented bookstores nationwide, We are all seeking the truth and this is simply another piece of the jigsaw-puzzle of the life and death of a great american , Abraham Lincoln....I thank those of you with an open mind to new facts and the courage to look before you condemn me a encyclopedic reporter of a major find wrongly overlooked and , personal attacks made upon me for daring to report on this historical and important find!!!
(All of this writing here of mine is done in good faith, and with the strict intent of a NPOV edit.)
Let those who are without fear look for themselves, and I dare to say that you and your alter ego "Looney Pilgrim", are not following NPOV Wiki procedure, by taking a totaly predudical and biased view of which they have not even bother to investigate themselves in detail, as I have viewed the photograph personaly and WILL NOT BE CALL A LIAR BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE SIR!
The "in depth" research I have done, by pouring over the materials available on the Lincoln photograph in question, as the respected life~long Lincoln historian, Lloyd Ostendorf himself did, and his finds, and that of the Bachelder family and their photos they engraved themselves with their own writing, saying it "was John Bachelder himself who took that post mortem photograph of Lincoln as a study for a later painting", and that cannot be denied as the facts that they are both historicaly, and in and of it's encyclopedic nature!
In summation I would refer anyone seeking the truth of the matter once more to: Ostendorf, Lloyd, Lincoln's Photographs: A Complete Album, Morningside Books, 1998, 
If this continues I shall consider a law suit against you for defamation of character... Sir!
You are not a Lincoln Scholar as I am, and am in fact a multi degree Proffesor, with a Doctorate in History Sir!
I shall be Thankful to you if you would leave off, Sir!
(Cathytreks 17:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PLEASE STOP EDITING AS A TROLL ON THE REAL LINCOLN DEATH PHOTO ISSUE!

message: Sir or Madame, can you not read?, or see clearly?, I know that the photograph does indeed exist, at long last I have seen it very recently at the residence of one of John B. Bachelders decendants, in Nottingham New Hampshire, where his family once resided.
The only hoax is the cover-up of people such as yourself who are either unwilling, or intentionlly seeking to hide the truth they are afraid to admit to their errors, or are blind!
 (Cathytreks 05:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Details....details. Where is the photograph today March 19, 2006: Name the person who has it? What is their phone number so I can call them tomorrow? Rjensen 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen, I would be more than happy to comply with your wishes, I shall call the Badger/Bachelder owner of said photo myself in the morning (LOCAL TIME), so as to clear this up once and for all so that the photograph may be given its proper respect that is long overdue, since 1998, btw I was not meaning to sound disrespectful to you, but am heartsick over the doubters of what is so clearly a photograph of Lincoln taken through a death shroud at the White House on April 16th, 1865.
(Cathytreks 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm happy to talk to the family. What is the phone number. By the way, does Cathytreks have a degree in history? Rjensen 20:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The photo does exist, in spite of the coverup here and elsewhere!

message: Let's say the photo is somehow real.  So be it.  Why is it necessary to put it here for the world to see.  That would be like putting JFK's autopsy photos on his page here.  It is disgraceful to do such a thing.  It may be alright for a book that people can choose to purchase or not; but is irrelevant for an Encylopedic article on Lincoln's life and SAVING THE UNION as such.  Let us not get off point here.  I see the debate above, fine for a talk page...but my opinion is that Real or Not, it does not belong on this page.  It is morbid and wrong to do so.  --Northmeister 22:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Take on the Lincoln Photo Debate

message: I have watched this dispute go on for awhile and I have to say that I am quite skeptical that this is an authentic photograph. If you do a Google search, virtually the only references that appear are from the Wikipedia and Talk articles. I did a search through Manhunt by James Swanson, the recently published bestseller about the Lincoln assassination and although it includes photographs, this one does not appear. I also checked Questia.com and none of their online books about Lincoln mention it. Although we in the Wikipedia community sometimes will reference claims that appear in only a single book, I think that when a claim is disputed, the burden of proof becomes heavier and we should await further scholarly corroboration. A few additional reasons why I am skeptical: John Bachelder, who keeps getting cited as a famous photographer, in fact is not well-known in that vocation; he is known as a watercolorist, lithographer, and most importantly, military historian and preservationist. The image does not actually look like a real photograph. And, since Lincoln was shot through the left ear, he seems to have had some pretty impressive plastic surgery prior to this.
I would like to take a straw poll on whether to delete these photograph references from the Abraham Lincoln and John B. Bachelder articles. Add your votes below. Hal Jespersen 22:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll on death photo 

message: I have had several views of an old photograph that would clear it up, but some others use my screen name cathitreks or cathy treks or cathytreks , they are NOT me yet why does everybody have it out for me here for trying to show the truth as I believe it to be!?
I only sought the acceptance of my proofs ..........and have miserably failed.
I am leaving your cleec (sp)...now sadly for me, yet maybe happily for many here after the latest attacks and smears for me, for what I genuinely believe in., and now some comments about my credentials that do not dignify a reply, 
Fine...im leaving the Lincoln page you decide upon, and the narrow mindedness forever, here in  what seems to be a ROSE COLOURED Lincoln Candyland only!...But folks, let us never leave the man in our hearts!
 A PERSONAL HERO TO.... ME THAT I LOVE!
             ABRAHAM LINCOLN!
<BR>
I'm sadly leaving this place filled with much misunderstanding from many of the wiki "comunity" and withdraw from all of you, those who dont understand my sincere motives over a issue that seems hopeless to show or debate even amounst most of you, im sorry.,... I'm really very sorry, goodbye everybody.....  I only sought truth.
I am heartsick over some of your attacks upon a sincere belief regardng the evidence I tried to present, my cousin in N.Z. did post under my name with my blessings as she believed too and tried to help show we were right, sorry you dont agree.
I really wonder what Lincoln would say over it all if he could?....
Somehow I believe he'd be sorry for we who sought the truth as some of the few here did, unlike the sheep who followed the wolves
shalom
....."a couple of misunderstood jewish girl's from both the old and new worlds bow from the stage here forever on this debate."
So...see ya round the galaxy!
(Cathytreks 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Cathy, for respecting the rule of the majority. —LonelyPilgrim 01:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A WITCH HUNT AND MY SUBSIQUENT HANGING,OVER A BELOVED PRESIDENT, IS OVER.

message: I've taken the liberty, per the above vote, of reverting edits pertaining to the "Lincoln death photo" from Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln in popular culture, and John B. Bachelder. I propose that the image should now be deleted, both from Wikipedia and from the Commons. —LonelyPilgrim 02:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, WP:NPA.  My understanding is that it was retouched for the book.  If it was retouched at the time it was made, I apologize.  Esquizombi 17:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits reverted; delete the image? 

message: Whether it came across to some as an unintended or intentional "hoax" or as a real and contemperary photograph of the beloved late 16th President, (by me certainly I am drawn in by it's genuinely sad nature and naturalness of HIS face!).....a real photograph, or maybe just a exstraordinary and remarkable likeness via a well done engraving, by a great artist... done post mortem is not known, but the likeness to Lincoln is uncanny as well as haunting in it's portrayal of him.
Without question the photographer or engraver Bachelder, knew Lincolns face very well...HE WAS THERE the day after with Mathew Brady at Lincolns side, the day after Lincolns assasination, and that cannot be debated..for it is a part of the undisputed history all of us may read about in media and letters, and journals of the period being ~April 16th-17th 1865. 
John Badger Bachelder, both an artist and an early photographer, knew his subject well...and while the original photo may have been destroyed, on the order of Stanton, all that may be left is that American Civil War Artist, Engraver & Photographers John B. Bachelders extraordinary undisputed likeness 
of Abraham Lincoln in Death in that hauntingly sad image.
I have updated the description page of the likeness..thusly.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lincolnatpeace2.jpg
(Cathytreks 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photograph?.....or Very well done Engraving of Lincoln?

message: I have viewed the antique photographs and writtings of Bachelder, I made a appt to see the materials at the NEW HAMPSHIRE HISTORICAL society, in Concord N.H. near the state capitol building, ask for directions...better yet, call or email them.
The Bachelder photos/materials are genuine, and Orstendorf was a true Lincoln Scholar, and writer of several important civil war related books, very important, not a "collector"...He spent his entire life studying Lincoln's life and his subsiquent death!
(Cathytreks 15:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I know the authentic history of the lincoln death photo

message: Cathy, let's pretend for a moment that I find this alleged photograph even the least bit credible. The way for you to prove its veracity, and to have it instated at Wikipedia, is not through persistence or insistence, not through empty rhetoric, and not through personal attacks. It is through providing documentation from reliable, scholarly sources. So far you haven't done that. The only source you can cite for your claims is this book by Ostendorf. This presents several problems for us:
# It is not a scholarly source. Now, before you get angry, you should understand that "scholarly" is a technical term in the academic world. It means that the source was written and published through an academic apparatus — i.e. written by a scholar, and published by a reputable scholarly press with an editorial board and a system of peer review.
# Lloyd Ostendorf was not a scholar. Now again, before you get angry, we are not casting aspersions on either the man or his work. A scholar is someone who has an advanced degree in his field of study. Ostendorf did not. He was not a historian, but an artist and a collector of photographs. He had several honorary doctorates, but that is not the same thing as a bona fide academic degree.
# The book, and Ostendorf's claim about this alleged photograph, is not well-documented. So he says there's an inscription on the back. So? Who wrote the inscription? When? How did they know what it was? Where did the image originate? How did Ostendorf come by it? Where specifically is it now? None of these questions are answered in the source. This does not amount to documentable proof, and does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability.
I can anticipate your argument; it's the same one you've had all along. You say you know where the photograph originated (from John B. Bachelder), you know who wrote the inscription (his daughter or niece), and you know where it is now (among Bachelder's descendants). Let's pretend for a moment that I believe you. Your having this knowledge doesn't help us. We can't take your word for it. This is not due to any personal bias; it is official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia strives for verifiability. This means citable sources. If Ostendorf had satisfactorily documented his claim, it might possibly have been citable; he however did not.
Suppose you were willing to share all the information you claim to have (as you have so far refused to do). Suppose you gave us a proper, specific citation for the current owner of the photograph. Suppose you went and had a better copy made of it, or even had your own picture made holding it. Suppose the owner of the photograph appeared to tell us its tradition and provenance — how it was passed down to him, who made the inscription, and when. Suppose all of this was documented extensively. Then we might personally believe you. But this would still present a fundamental problem for us. Wikipedia, by official policy, accepts no original research. Even if you were to come up with all of this, we couldn't use it. All of what you're purporting to have done and proposing to do amounts at best to original research, and is not acceptable at Wikipedia.
So what can you do? You have two courses of action:
# First, you can provide a documented, reliable, scholarly, published source that supports your claim — one that takes this image, answers all of the questions that we all have about it, documents its sources and the provenance of the image, and states with authority that it is what you claim it is.
# Alternatively, if you are indeed convinced of your claim, by all means, keep researching. Have your work published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, then come back and tell us about it. Tell the whole world about it. We'd all be overjoyed to find documentable proof of another Lincoln photograph, and we'd instate it in Wikipedia in an instant.
But until you can do either of these things, I'm afraid there's nothing more we can do here. Your continued insistence, your repeated reverts, your ongoing harping over the same empty rhetoric, and now your personal attacks, are not accomplishing anything positive. They are undermining the integrity of these articles, they are disrupting Wikipedia, and they are annoying us. Please desist. —LonelyPilgrim 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A frank assessment 

message: :The Lincoln automobile is also named after him and, ironically, has been used as the official automobile of the President of the U.S. for over a century.
I removed the bolded portion. The Lincoln car company was founded in 1917, so they can't have been supplying automobiles for over a century. The current Presidential limousine is a Cadillac, and both Lincoln and Cadillac have been supplying the official vehicles for years, apparently.  
 -EDM 22:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential limousine 

message: Yes the story is correct. Lincoln wrote out his pledge, letting no one read it. He sealed it in an envelope and all the cabinet signed the outside,  After the election he released it. Rjensen 19:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Signed Letter

message: Just curious as to why there isn't actually a section (apart from in the introduction) that deals with the large number of criticisms levelled against Lincoln?
::The topic is covered in depth in the Copperheads (politics) article. Rjensen 03:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Don't tell me every single one of those books and websites was used as a source for this article. It seems to me people are conflating "references" with "further reading". The neoconfederate criticism subsection especially seems suspect, considering every one of the books and websites listed in it are by the same author. Johnleemk | Talk 03:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I confess I have used every one of the books listed. I have used most but not all the websites. As for neoconfederate publications, please add some more if you have them.   (footnote: I did not contribue to the section on Lincoln in art and popular culture and have NOT read those items) Rjensen 04:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Lincoln's nomination at the 1860 RNC seems like it should demand more attention than it does in the article.  He employed brilliant strategists, far more so than even Seward who was operating under Thurlow Weed, did not make the same mistakes as some of the other nominees (Seward leaving the US for 8 months prior to the convention, Chase not attenting the New York City Cooper Union addresses, and dozens of other semi-coincidences that led to his nomination over the other three (Seward, Chase, Bates, noteably).  Further, there should be some mention of Lincoln striving to be a second ballot nominee, accepting that the majority would first chose Seward, but that moderate Republicans weren't sure who the runner up to Seward would be--whom they would primarily vote for come the second ballot.  I would write this, and I am willing to, but I'm not sure if this is the right forum for it (possibly the 1860 RNC entry). Mike Murray 07:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the RNC section? 

message: Of course, John Wilkes Booth did not say "Hasta la vista, Abie", as it would have been an anachronism, but it would have been cool if he did. — JIP | Talk 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... gotcha? --Golbez 21:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're next, Chester A. Arthur!130.113.75.47 03:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Wilkes Booth 

message: When I went to do some editing on the article a few minutes ago, I found that it was 78k, and I got the message about that being longer than preferred.  I set about doing some work to break up the article into seperate articles, such as the one on his early life.
JesseG 22:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JesseG 23:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to seek mediation for this.JesseG 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose breaking off entire sections of the subject's life into different articles. We should have one comprehensive biography. Separate articles would be approriate for longer treatments of special topics, but the material should be summarized in tihs article too.  -Will Beback 00:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.  For all the above good reasons NOT to break up this balanced article, which I believe is the appropriate length for Mr. Lincoln. Sfahey 02:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking up the article

message: 1. although perhaps they needed watering down, i don't think the sentences justified being deleted 
2. the most controversial statement ("This move remains one of the great seizures of private property by the federal government.") in this section was inexplicably left in.
Sfahey 22:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: re recent deletions on lincoln and slavery

message: Grammar
"Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865), sometimes called Abe Lincoln and dicknamed Honest Abe..."
Shouldn't it be nicknamed?
67.129.137.94 23:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham Lincoln 

message: We seem to disagree. Why would his overseeing the war belong in intro (without even making clear he was president at the time & not a genreal) - while context for the assassination (something sorely omitted in most articles) be omitted? Lincoln's assassination was not like that of Kennedy - Lincoln's was clearly linked to a plot and to events of his presidency. The JFK article gives context to his asassination, even though it is less clear that the act was anything more than senseless. While other assassinations were committed by apparently deranged people, Lincoln's can be "understood" as part of the Civil War. I see no reason to delete this.--JimWae 04:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people just read the intro so it must tell what they need to know.  The fact that he was assassinated is important only because it shaped attitudes and Reconstruction policies.  As for the hook bit, there are 100+ fascinating things about his life, which people can discover by reading the article. Rjensen 05:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it was a big and important war. foget the hook: this is an encyclopedia. Rjensen 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What would you say were AL's 5 to 10 most important doings? That's what should go in an intro. Rjensen 06:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reconstruction started with Lincoln and was well underway when he died. Likewise abolition. the conspiracy is not nearly as important as what he accomplished Rjensen 06:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: yes the job of the introduction is to say what wass most important. I reject the idea that this encyclopedia should jazz up articles to attract readers who might otherwise watch TV. Lincoln ran the war effort and that's very important. As for public opinion, go to any bookstore like Borders and count the hundreds--even thousands-- of books on display about the Civil War. That certainly proves a demand for info on the civil war. Rjensen 07:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: why are you so smitten by the plot theme? Rjensen 08:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: because you seem less interested in the big issues and instead focused on conspiracy.  Evryone to their own taste but an encyclopedia has to focus on big issues. Which is what I tried to list in the intro. There are of course 100 other topics covered in the article. The challenge it to pick the 5-10 most important ones. Rjensen 08:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: this is a biography of what LINCOLN did, not what the Confederates did. Rjensen 08:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lincoln intro

message: William V. Rathvon's eyewitness audio recollections and reading of the address at NPR.org  at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1045619
Discussion 
I added Rathvon's audio recollections to the Gettysburg Address article and was suprised that they were not already noted in that article. But, actually, NPR only has "part of the story" on Rathvon. William V. Rathvon is the only known eyewitness of both Lincoln's arrival at Gettysburg and his address itself to have left an audio recording of his recollections.
I actually had heard of the audio recording before NPR and have cassette tape copy from a friend who used to sell them on the internet. On one side is a lecture on the subject of Christian Science and on the other side, almost incidentaly, is his recollections of Lincoln.
Who was William V. Rathvon? He was successful Colorado businessman and an accomplished public lecturer. He ended up, of all places, as treasurer, in 1918 of the Christian Science Church in Boston Massachussets in 1918 and a member of its Board of Directors. He and his wife, Ella S. Rathvon, had served on the staff of the founder of that religion, Mary Baker Eddy. By the 1930s that Church had radio broadcasts of its religious services and religious radio shows. As a public lecturer and one of the five top people in that church, Rathvon would have had execellent access to the top quality recording devices of his time. Hence the quality of the 78rpm record. The term "long lost," really doesn't apply, as the Rathvon audio recollections have been known by an extremely small circle of individuals ever since he made them in 1938. To Rathvon, they were actually incidental to what he felt were his more important church-work responsibilities. I suspect that he made them simply for historical posterity as he never promoted them, or even promoted the idea that he had made them nor sold them per my source. I doubt very much that he even realized that they were unique a he, as an adult, saw men such as Lincoln's personal secretary, John Hay, a Secretary of State under McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt.
More information on this recording might be available by contacting the Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment of Humanity in Boston, MA as they have extensive archival information on Mary Baker Eddy, the Christian Science church, and, of course, all of its key individuals such as Rathvon, who, as a personal student of Mary Baker Eddy, a church treasurer and church director, certainly would have been. As a Christian Scientist and a amateur church historian, I had known about Rathvon for more than 30 years. But I didn't hear about this recording until the early 1990s. David Keyston, the founder of the web site http://www.christianscience.org first put the tape on line on his web site. If anyone would like a copy in MP3 format they can email me at SimonATL@yahoo.com as Keyston said I could share it with whomever I liked. I no longer see the recording at that site. SimonATL 15:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Add External Link to audio recollections of the Only Known Gettysburg Address Eye Witness - William V. Rathvon