Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Lincoln Letters

On March 26, 1863, Lincoln wrote Johnson, "The colored population is the great available and yet unavailed of force for saving the Union."

To J.C. Conkling, August 29, 1863 he said "The emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to rebellion and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of the colored troops."

To John T. Mills August 1864, "The slightest knowledge of arithmetic will prove to any man that the rebel armies cannot be destroyed by Democratic strategy. It would sacrifice all the white boys of the North to do it. There are now in the service of the United States nearly 150,000 colored men, most of them under arms, defending and acquiring Union territory. The Democratic strategy demands that these forces be disbanded and that the masters be conciliated by restoring them to slavery...Abandon all posts now garrisoned by black men, take the 150,000 men from our side and put them in the battlefield or cornfield against us and we would be compelled to abandon the war in three weeks."

To Chas. D. Robinson, August 17, 1864 "Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give and promise us and neither the present nor any coming administration can save the Union....The party who elect a President on a War and Slavery Restoration would of necessity, lose the colored force; and that force being lost, would be as powerless to save the Union as to do any other impossible thing."

"It is not a question of sentiment or taste but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated as horse-power and steampower are measured and estimated." To J. M. Schermerhorn, Sept. 12, 1864, he adds emphatically as regards this Negro balance of power, "Keep it, and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it." Reference: Speeches, Letters, and State Papers, Nicolay & Hay, 1922". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.170.241 (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted refimprove

The refimprove was stale...it was almost a year old, and since then several GOOD references have been added. Now, Lincoln should have a clear path to GA, which I'll probably renominate in a day or two. If you have a problem with the deletion of this, say it here or to my face. Thanks, Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC), a history major.

I started going through the article after reading your comments and found there is a problem with the following material in the Gettysburg Address section of the article:

Abraham Lincoln's carefully crafted address, secondary to other presentations that day, came to be regarded as one of the greatest speeches in American history. In just over two minutes, Lincoln invoked the principles of human equality espoused by the Declaration of Independence and redefined the Civil War as a struggle not merely for the Union, but as "a new birth of freedom" that would bring true equality to all of its citizens, and that would also create a unified nation in which states' rights were no longer dominant. Beginning with the now-iconic phrase, Four score and seven years ago..., Lincoln referred to the events of the Civil War and described the ceremony at Gettysburg as an opportunity not only to consecrate the grounds of a cemetery, but also to dedicate the living to the struggle to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth". Despite the speech's prominent place in the history and popular culture of the United States, the exact wording of the speech is disputed. The five known manuscripts of the Gettysburg Address differ in a number of details and also differ from contemporary newspaper reprints of the speech.[47]

With this edit [1] a fact tag was added to the section.

With this edit [2] a source was added to this [3] website.

The problem is that the material sourced is identical to the language in the article. To further complicate matters, the actual material is also in the lede to Gettysburg Address (without footnotes). If in fact the website was the source, then the whole thing should be in quotes.

However, the website does not appear to be up to the NPS’s usual standards. It is my guess that the original source of the material is the Wikipedia Gettysburg Address article and a NPS employee copied it from us. However this is only a guess. The material was on the Gettysburg Address article well before it was added to the Lincoln article.

What I have done is eliminated the footnote and restored the fact tag. To my way of thinking, the material is accurate, but it will probably take a while to source the various parts of it. With the intent expressed by another editor to submit this for GA review, the problem should be resolved now. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've counted four fact-checks in this article. That'll kill GA in about five seconds. You will be seeing me add citations and/or rephrase portions of this article so that citations are not necessary. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Since all fact-checks are gone, and content has stabilized, I'm nominating it for GA again Purplebackpack89 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of African-American troops

Another editor had fact tagged the claim that the use of black troops was related to Grant's move to the East. Two sources were added but the only one I was able to check (Nevins) did not make this claim. In fact, the recruitment and use of black troops began in 1863. I added a short paragraph sourced to Donald stating this and eliminated the reference to Grant. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Simpson (2000) makes the claim about Grant.Rjensen (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved a section

I moved "Conducting the War Effort" from after the 1864 election to after "The Fighting Begins". It made more sense that way, and addressed some concerns about the article that were expressed on my talk page. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. I want this to be nominated for GA in a few days.

Killed during or after the war?

I always had the impression that Lincoln was killed when the fighting was actually over, yet the opening paragraph of this article suggests that it was still ongoing at the time of his death. What's the view?--Marktreut (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good question, and one that has been discussed here before. The impression that the fighting is over is common, because for all intents and purposes, the war was "over" when Lee surrendered to Grant. However, it still took a while for everyone else to get in line, so there was a bit of fighting still going on. Unschool 00:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A lot was still going on...Johnston and Kirby Smith were still fighting, the Rebel Congress was still meeting, Davis was still at large, the blockade was still up. The rebellion wasn't declared over until Johnson had been President for over a month Purplebackpack89 (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnson's declaration was August 20, 1866. See Conclusion of the American Civil War#Presidential proclamation ending the war. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. Unschool 00:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea that the Civil War ended in 1866 is inaccurate and misleading. Ask any teacher or professor what year the war ended, and they'll tell you the same thing: 1865. At best it's a piece of trivia that doesn't belong in an article about Lincoln. The impact Lincoln's assassination had on the war's outcome and on the subsequent reconciliation would make a useful article (and even then, Johnson's declaration would comprise but a minor detail). Indeed, the article on the Civil War makes no mention of this August date whatsoever. Rklawton (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No one believes the war ended a year later. NO ONE. Saying it ended a year later is going to cause a lot of confusion with people not familiar with this esoteric bit of trivia. If you want to put Lincoln's death into perspective, then say something like, "with the South's eastern army crushed, the war was effectively over. During the month that followed Lincoln's assassination, most remaining confederate units had surrendered and Jeff Davis had been captured". Rklawton (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC Push review

Per a conversation on my talk page with Bigtimepeace, I reviewed the article as if it were up for FAC. (I realize that it has been nominated recently for GA, but I am not familiar enough with that criteria to review for GA status.)

MOS-type changes needed (I can fix these later in the process)

• Need to separate out further-information-type notes fron sources
• Referernces must be formatted properly
• Further reading section needs to be cut way down
• External links should be trimmed a lot
• will need to audit to make sure useful links have been created

Content

• I can't judge whether the best scholarship is used, but I would definitely cut down on the number of websites referenced.
• What did Lincoln do between 1832 and 1842? never mind, I see this is covered later
• the births of two sons within the first forty months of their marriage helped relieve some of that tension" --ummm...how would bringing two kids into the world relieve tension for being poor? Kids bring their own tension
• Was Lincoln's child-raising philosophy a response to how he was raised? If so, how?
• We know that Lincoln's family moved partly because of slave laws (pro or con?) and that he married the daughter of a slave owning family. How did this reconcile with his opposition, as early as 1837, to slavery?
• I was surprised to see that there was enough information for an entire article on Lincoln in the Black Hawk War, when this only warranted one sentence in this article. Was this service important?
• If Lincoln had little influence as a freshman legislator, how could he become "a key early supporter of Zachary Taylor's candidacy"? Who would have cared that he supported Taylor?
• Why didn't he run for reelection in 1848?
• Article assumes I know something about the formation of the Republican Party/demise of the Whigs. I don't.
• The article doesn't adequately tell me how Lincoln became so influential in the new Republican Party that he was almost elected VP candidate - he hadn't really been in politics in several years.
• I just skimmed the Civil War section... I'll leave the initial overview to someone more knowledgeable
• The Home front section seems out of place; some of this information should be folded into the paragraphs that discuss the events in other sections; other parts might best be placed in the Legacy section
• I don't think that the article needs to include cabinet appointments or Supreme Court appointments in tables such as this. If the information if important, it might be best to have it in prose, with an explanation of why the appointments were important. It is probably notable that he appointed 5 Supreme Court justices - that seems like a rare event.
• The States admitted to the union section also needs to be made prose, with an explanation of why they chose to join at this time.
• The legacy section is completely uncited. It does a decent job at explaining how he has been memorialized, but does not touch on the legacy of his actions and ideas. We need more information about his impact on history

Prose

• The prose is often repetitive. For example, in the first paragraph of Childhood and early education, all 3 sentences begin with "Lincoln"
• Some of the prose is written in a storytelling manner rather than an encyclopedic manner (for example, the storytelling story in the first section)
• The current layout jumps around; we hear about his marriage before we hear about the courtship

Relevancy

• I'm not sure whether the information about Lincon's ancestors' migration is really relevant. Perhaps that could be fleshed out so that we see that this was important to Lincoln in some way?
• Not sure whether it is important to know when Thomas Lincoln bought the farm and for how much
• Not sure what "losing their land through court action" means

"Linconl's last undisputed lineal descendant"...we certainly don't need to know that this early in his life; I'm not sure we need to know this at all

• " It is reputed that, had Stuart not lent Lincoln his law books, Lincoln would not have gone into a career in politics" - not important in this article; important in Stuart's

Overall

• I'm not really getting a good idea of what motivated or shaped Lincoln to form his eventual opinions. (Some of this, I see, is in the religion section further down. I wonder if this section should be incorporated into other sections?)
• There is a lot of telling and not as much showing. I want to know what caused Lincoln to be influential, or see some evidence of his influence, not just be told that he was influential

Karanacs (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. I believe the major differences between GA and FA to be less nitpickyness and lower standard of prose. The reason that the resources section is so long is because Lincoln is one of the most biographied people in the history of the Western World--yet despite all those books, there is no consensus as to what went on in Lincoln's head. I would note that Lincoln was a GA awhile back, but it was citation issues (which have been resolved) that sunk him, not content issues (which seem to be the thrust of . I hope my comments will help you or somebody else write an official GA review of Lincoln, and eventually get him back to GA status. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mary Owens

An apparently good faith edit was made to the article regarding Lincoln's courtship of Mary Owens. It was sourced to a book that had individual biographical sections on all the US Presidents. However I went to three biographies of Lincoln, Donald's Pulitzer Prize winning biography, Thomas' 1952 biography that was generally considered to be the best one volume biography of Lincoln until Donald, and Burlingame's recent and massive two volume biography of Lincoln. All three contradict the claim that Lincoln proposed marriage before ever meeting Owens. I have rewritten it and sourced it to the first two works mentioned. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

GA preparedness

I am/was seriously considering taking on this article for GA review. So much so that I asked my Lincoln-obsessed mother (seriously -- she's a total fan) to assist in the content assessment while I concentrate on prose, formatting, and other issues.

However, there are entire paragraphs that are uncited. Lincoln is such a popular subject of academic study that multiple cites and a separate footnotes section could easily be populated. Technically, this is cause to quick fail it right now, but I want to ask the nominator's intentions.

If there is no motivation to improve the sourcing of the article, it should be removed from the GA nomination list. If you are interested in pursuing a GA review now, you would have to cite the uncited paragraphs over the next few days. I wonder, however, with a subject that has as much written about him as Lincoln if it's quite possible to do that. There is no shame in removing the nomination until it is ready. What are your thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

At least one other user is adding citations as we speak. Right now there are 111 refs in this text. If you want to call attention to a place that you think really needs a ref, slap a tag on it Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC), the guy who nommed in the first place.

This is a problematic response. I'm trying not to open a wasp's nest because I have the impression that this article has been a battleground in the past. But everything should be cited in this article. Paragraphs should have multiple citations that lead to page numbers in books. 145 years after Lincoln was assassinated, he remains a controversial figure with a vast canon of academic writings about him. It may seem that 111 citations are a lot, but considering the subject and just how much has been written about Lincoln, a well-researched FA-quality article about one of the most important historical figures in the US may easily top 250 cites. A GA would not be that far behind. You have taken on a monumental task in this article. I wish I could point you in the direction of a similar article, but it speaks to how unique this one is: no other GA subject comes close to Lincoln. I seek to encourage you to see it through, but I want you to understand the enormity of constructing, citing, and writing this article.

I should not have to put fact tags in the article. It should be ready to go, so to speak, when it is nominated. The Conducting the war effort section needs multiple citations. If ever there was a plethora of sources, the Civil War and how Lincoln dealt with it fits that bill. The Legacy and memorials section has only one citation. If you see paragraphs that have no or only a few cites, it needs more. Don't look at it as a ratio of numbers, however. You should know all the sources and what cites correspond to what page numbers. This article has a long history of participation from probably hundreds of editors. If there are sentences, paragraphs, or passages that you did not write, you should familiarize yourself with them as soon as you can.

Just the review for this article would take days or weeks. Purplebackpack89, you have 9 edits to this article. Rjensen has much more, but the speedy adding of cites after my first message is confusing. What is the possibility that the both of you would be able to add about 100 cites from about half the biographies in Further reading within 4 or 5 days? I'd like to hear from Rjensen as well. --Moni3 (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably low. I don't have any of the books on me at the moment. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Over the years I have worked on most parts of the article, and have looked at 5 or 10 sources for every one cited. It's a matter of choosing the cite that is most useful for users. Another 100 cites would not be useful to anyone. Rjensen (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue of comprehensiveness, not usefulness. There are some indisputable facts that probably do not need cites, like when Lincoln was elected and the dates of the Battle of Antietam. However, dozens of historians have written about Lincoln, giving their own ideas about why he did what he did, his true motivation for passing the Emancipation Proclamation, and their summaries of how Lincoln's contemporaries viewed the success of the Gettysburg Address.

Perhaps it was contradictory of me to post that ratio and numbers are not so important then to ask if 100 cites in 4 or 5 days could be added. The practical question stands: could someone cite the uncited portions from the best sources in 4 or 5 days? I do not feel it is ready to be nominated for GA right now. Unless someone very dedicated to the subject is able to work diligently on it for the next week, it should be taken off the GA nomination list to be worked on and renominated at a future date. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My two cents. My personal opinion is that the only way to bring this article to the GA and FA levels is to write it as the main article for a purely summary style article. The problem with doing that is that while many of the sub articles needed exist, the most important ones (Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln's early life and career are not in particularly good shape -- I’ve recently tinkered with first and just added a lot of material to the latter, but much more needs to be done). The article Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is dominated by a fringe theory and is totally inadequate as a sub article for the section “Marriage and family.” Other than citations, the main problem, IMHO, with this article is its comprehensiveness. Some examples of missing material:

1. Any narrative at all on the selection of his cabinet.
2. Any real discussion of civil liberties -- the subsection on this is a single sentence.
3. Any significant discussion of the events of his decision-making during the Ft. Sumter crisis and his mobilization of the military prior to his July 4 message to Congress.
4. Any discussion of his interactions with Fremont, Halleck, Chase, Stanton, and Seward.
5. Any discussion of his pre-1850 law practice or any specifics on his Illinois legislative career.
6. Very little concerning his life in New Salem which is certainly as significant as his life before he left home.
7. No narrative on his Supreme Court selections or the issues he faced with the SC.
8. No discussion of foreign affairs or the blockade -- the Trent Affair is mentioned in the lede but is nowhere in the body.
9. Very little discussion of the 1864 presidential election and little discussion of the political conflicts Lincoln faced in attempting to moderate between conservatives and radicals.

Granted, many of the details belongs in subarticles, but at present the info is either not there or is not readily accessible to a reader from this article. Many, many editors have spent considerable time on and made excellent contributions to this article and other related Lincoln articles. The problem, as you've said, is the inherent difficulty in addressing such a significant issue on which there is so much of interest to the public. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this article is over 120K, and we think it is not comprehensive enough. Perhaps we need to expand subarticles. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I thought I said. One way to meet the comprehensiveness requirement would be to refer to properly comprehensive side articles. IMHO, a reader should be able, when reading this article at the GA or FA level, be able to find information on all of the above either in this article or as the result of clearly identified SEE MAIN ARTICLE references. This would require considerable coordination and time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So you want to add more of

Main article: these tags

? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Either the info necessary to insure comprehensiveness should be in this article or this article should use those types of tags to show where the information is. The problem is that much of the info is not in this article and not in any article that the reader can be referred to. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mental health

It is still very much supported by evidence that he suffered from depression. The claim has not been dismissed, as the article would lead one to believe. The cited source indulges in speculation, so I did not find it appropriate. The webpage, drzebra, admits Lincoln spoke and wrote of suicide yet seems to argue it could have just been a metaphor.

In my opinion, the facts available point to a mood disorder. This is why this is still the position held by experts in the field. Due to its uncertain nature, I would either remove this part or present both cases.76.29.127.25 (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I find the dismissive tone concerning Lincoln's mental health to be insulting and inaccurate. The 2006 book "Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatnesss" by Joshua Wolf Shenk provides an extremely well-documented and thoroghly researched account that I believe shows that Lincoln did, in fact, suffer from depression. If no one has any objections, I intend to change this section to reflect on these facts, using Shenk's book as my primary citation. 151.201.234.198 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC) J.B. from PA

I commend J.B.'s initiative. I was put off by that section as well.Pandamaria (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abraham Lincoln/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be reviewing this article. Please allow me a while to gather my thoughts. I am a slow reader and this is a long and detailed article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I approached the nominator about a GA review for this article in this thread here a few days ago, noting there are large sections of uncited material in the article. I was encouraging the nominator to de-nominate when the only step to take was to quick fail. Now it's your call. --Moni3 (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to help improve the article and I am going to add comments. When I go through the checklist, I will look at the citations as a part of that process. I will require citations for promotion, but am commenting on other issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

first set of comments

• I see you mention he served in the Illinois House of Representatives in the WP:LEAD, but not in the infobox. Can you add his service to the infobox.
• It also seems that later you establish Lincolns rank in the militia but do not include it in the infobox.
• "Thomas Lincoln, Abraham's father" and later "Lincoln's father, Thomas Lincoln" seems excessive since you already established one paragraph earlier who his father was. Just use his name.

 Fixed Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• public land[9] and several later instances - refs should follow punctuation so move it somewhere else in the text.

Fixed #9

• "desolate and especially brutal" seems overly wordy and could just be replaced by harsh without loss of meaning to the reader.

 Fixed Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• The "Marriage and family" subsection should be put in chronological order.
• Black Hawk War should be linked in its first instance in the text.

 Fixed Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• he won an election to the state legislature - say which house and link it on its first instance.
• four successive terms - say which years he served and include this in the infobox
• Mexican–American War should appear in the text so the reader is not wondering and forced to click through.

 Fixed Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Lincoln was still the only President of the United States to hold a patent", Chronologically, he has not yet become President at this point in the article so it should say something like "Lincoln would be the only President of the United States to hold a patent".

 Fixed "Lincoln is still the only person to both hold a patent and serve as President of the United States" Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why is the 1860 Republican National Convention not mentioned? It was a complicated multiple ballot election. You need to expand the "1860 Presidential election" to include a paragraph about this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed It had a paragraph on why he was chosen, just not that he was chosen. I added a couple of sentences about the stuff you mentioned. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You did not add any citation for the new content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

second set of comments

• What does "first major sectional party" and "politics became the stage on which sectional tensions" mean? Is there a link for the term sectional (if it is a real term)?

 FixedSectionalism is a major theme in American politics, and is now linked Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• "President-elect Lincoln evaded possible assassins in Baltimore, and on February 23, 1861, arrived in disguise in Washington, D.C." is a one sentence paragraph in need of either being merged or expanded. It also needs a citation as do each of the subsequent paragraphs.
• "frustration for the president, and occupied nearly all of his time" should be conjoined without the comma.

 Fixed

• I don't like the passive voice in consecutive sentences "After Burnside was stunningly defeated at Fredericksburg, Joseph Hooker was given the command, despite his idle talk about the necessity for a military dictator to win the war and a past history of criticizing his commanders.[47] Hooker was routed by Lee at the Battle of Chancellorsville (May 1863), and relieved of command early in the subsequent Gettysburg Campaign replaced by George Meade."

 Fixed

• "At first Lincoln was reluctant" s/b "At first, Lincoln was reluctant"
• "Fondly do we hope..." seems to be a speach that should be offset or italicized or otherwise indicated to be so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

third set of comments

• "Lincoln declared the final Thursday in November to be a day of Thanksgiving, and the holiday has been celebrated annually at that time ever since." at some point it was changed to the fourth Thursday, which 2 out of 7 times is not the last.
• Can you add some links to "round-slug 0.44 caliber Deringer"
• Why does the adjacent caption say "the casket of his son, William" and the text mentions nothing about this?
• At one point you say "Lincoln believed in the Whig theory of the presidency" and later you say "Lincoln was a strong supporter of the American Whig version of liberal capitalism". I don't know what this means and neither will anyone but 19th century political historians.
• "who, more than most politicians of the time, was able to express his ideas within the context of Nineteenth Century religious beliefs." seem to be poorly constructed.
• can you link of explain "doctrine of necessity"
• link the first instance of William Wallace Lincoln rather than a later one.
• update "upcoming 200th birthday in February 2009" and mention Inauguration of Barack Obama, which was Linoln-themed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

General

• Numerous refs have spaces before them. Citations should immediately follow a punctuation mark or the preceding citation.
• Inline citations are needed in each paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now finished my basic review of the text. I will soon go through the images and then do a review of the WP:WIAGA criteria. If you would like to start working on the concerns outlined above, please comment below each line of my concern your action. I will strike through resolved issues or comment further.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have only found one problematic image: File:Mary Todd Lincoln.jpg does not have any licensing information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is one of the most important biographies on all of wikipedia according to numerous accounts (200 most important biographies, 201 core biographies and 120 vital biographies). I commend the editors who have undertaking the enormous task of returning this article to the standards of reviewed article despite the ever rising bar of the review process. The article has come a long way, but still has a way to go to achieve WP:GA status according to the current interpretation of WP:WIAGA.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   When it uses references they are reliable.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   There are many places where additional references are necessary to bring this up to standard.

   C. No original research:

   I do not feel that there is original research, but sources are not always cited.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   For a biography of this importance, I feel very comfortable with the breadth and depth of coverage

   B. Focused:

   Despite the influence of Lincoln on American History, the article does not extend beyond the appropriate scope

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   I have noticed no problems although there are numerous reversions in the history, it seems that this is the result of concerned editors attempting to maintain neutrality and othe MOS issues.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   One image does not have proper licensing information

Which one? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See comment above. (The last one before this checklist).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is on hold in large part due to the need for more adequate referencing. If this article is going to pass much work needs to be done in this regard. Everything else seems to be on track.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the article has gone a week without any progress. I will check back in a few days to make my evaluation of this review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this nomination has been abandoned. I am failing this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you do, make sure you provide thorough referencing with exact page numbers. Right now I'm adding citations for stuff I can find good sources for, and after that I'm going to remove anything that I (or other editors) cannot find good sourcing for. I don't know the book you're talking about, but if it is considered WP:FRINGE, it will probably also have its info removed. I'm assuming its a good source, in which case, please add it, the article can use the help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

his body

it should probably be mentioned somewhere that there was a plot to steal his body after he died and sell it for ransom. That is was supposable caused the creation of the secret service. I saw a history channel show on it... -lazeman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.116.29 (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the article, but thanks. Rklawton (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article

I'm trying to find refs for the unreferenced stuff. If someone can find a reliable source, we should ad this stuff back. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Liberty ship SS Nancy Hanks was named for his mother.

And some stuff doesn't seem as important as the Lincoln Memorial and the penny. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Lincoln Shrine in Redlands, California, is located behind the A.K. Smiley Public Library.

Counties in 18 U.S. states (Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, West Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) are named after Lincoln

Probably should remove even more of the historic sites. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

it is a major tourist attraction, with state-of-the-art exhibits. The Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery is located in Elwood, Illinois. The Abraham Lincoln Library and Museum is located in Harrogate, Tennessee.

Mary had a hard time adjusting to her new life because she was used to having slaves perform most of the chores all of her life; she was accustomed to more wealth than Lincoln at first could provide.

This part is probably good. I think Abraham Lincoln: The Prairie Years and the War Years By Carl Sandburg talks about it around page 160, but I don't have the book. I only removed the horseback part. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Back in Springfield, Lincoln turned most of his energies to making a living at the bar, which involved extensive travel on horseback from county to county.

Another good one I forgot I removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A staunch Whig, Lincoln often referred to party leader Henry Clay as his political idol.

I removed the part that says "that he would continue to uphold throughout his career." in the following statement. It's a good statement, but the ref didn't support it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln spoke to a crowd in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, outlining the moral, political, and economic arguments against slavery that he would continue to uphold throughout his career. This speech marked his re-entry into public life.

This was right before the Peoria quote. I've seen some free soil stuff, but it was more about the ideas and not the party. Could be wrong, though.

Lincoln first stood out among the other free soil orators of the day,

Some interesting stuff, but I'm going to focus more on what he did, and less on what others did. I may add some back later. It comes for the third para of the 1860 election section.

The party did the leg work that produced majorities across the North. They produced tons of campaign posters and leaflets, and thousands of newspaper editorials. There were thousands of Republican speakers who focused first on the party platform, and second on Lincoln's life story, emphasizing his childhood poverty. The goal was to demonstrate the superior power of "free labor", whereby a common farm boy could work his way to the top by his own efforts.

all the biographers cover the material--how Lincoln won the election is a main point in US history for this period. Let's keep it. Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to have something about the fusion stuff, maybe.

There were fusion tickets in some states, but even if his opponents had combined in every state, Lincoln had a majority vote in all but two of the states in which he won the electoral votes, and would still have won the electoral college and the election. Lincoln was the first President elected from Illinois.

The other states can be covered later, I think.diff

The upper South (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas) listened to, but initially rejected, the secessionist appeal.

Cannot see why this was removed

There were fusion tickets in some states, but even if his opponents had combined in every state, Lincoln had a majority vote in all but two of the states in which he won the electoral votes, and would still have won the electoral college and the election. Lincoln was the first President elected from Illinois.

it should be easy enough to get a ref that fusion tickets existed. the rest is deriveable by anyone who looks at the statistics, (and could also be easily found in sources). Perhaps change "had combined" to "were combined"... --JimWae (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for its inclusion, I just couldn't find a ref for it. I looked for 30-45 minutes, then gave up and moved it here. I'm trying to leave as much stuff as I can. Every so often I just can't find a good ref. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's three for fusion 1 2 3 --JimWae (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a NYTimes account. Would you like to add that one? I'm not sure the FAC reviewers will like ourcampaigns.com, and I'm trying to keep the number of books used down, unless they can be used more than once. Or whatever you think is best. I'm not super particular at this point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

there were fusion tickets in New York, New Jersey and RI says Potter, Impending Crisis p 437 Rjensen (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I added that.[4] Google books won't let me read that page, but it's a start. Thanks, RJ. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I summed it up briefly, adding more details in the footnote, and three standard sources. Rjensen (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Super work! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good, now do we need a ref that says 1>he was the first president from Illinois, and that 2>even combining the votes for all his opponents he'd still have won the election - that is simple math.--JimWae (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it already says 2. 1 would need a ref, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

GA or FA

Who here wants to go for it? I added about 15 refs, all from books. We probably need to add 50 more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I added refs almost all of the legacy part, although it still needs work. Right now, the "Secession winter 1860–1861" and the "Assassination" sections need to be refed. And, as mentioned above, if the refs are from websites and not books, we'll never get this article through FA (probably could get past GA, but then FA would require a big rewrite). Anyone read any books on the subject? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've got a ton of books on Lincoln at home that I'm sure could provide refs for some of this stuff, but I won't be able to check until I go home in a couple of days. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be awesome. Getting this article to a high quality will take weeks or months, so if you can do something in a couple of days, that's a fine timeline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've volunteered before, I'll be happy to help with copyediting or MOS fixing once the article is written. Given the sheer number of books written about Lincoln, however, I think you'll need a pretty good plan for how to finish writing the article. This isn't as simple as sourcing what is already written in the article or adding a few sentences here or there. To get this to FA (can't speak for GA), the article will need to accurately reflect the larger body of knowledge, which means someone or a group will need to read multiple Lincoln biographies to determine whether what is in the article a) accurately reflects scholarly consensus b) is included in the appropriate weight and c) is fully comprehensive. I tend to go with Peregrine Fisher's high end estimate; bringing this article to FA status is likely to take months. Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Srs, I'm thinking of asking my mom to participate. She's all gay for Lincoln. I collect all kinds of books, and hers are all on Lincoln. I hope I can direct her to this page so she can see this comment... It will take months to do, but very dedicated editors (i.e. gay for Lincoln) would find it a joy. --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be awesome. Do you know which books are considered the best for his bio? I know the Lincoln by Donald is a big one, and thanfully its used a lot already, but I'd like to know a few others that are regarded very highly. I think A. Lincoln by Ronald C. White Jr is up there, but I'm not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl Sandburg's series is widely considered to be the definitive biography of Lincoln. Others may disagree, but this article is incomplete without Sandburg as a source. --Moni3 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought we frowned upon old sources? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Moni on this one. There needs to be a link to Sandberg someplace. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the editor who started the last GA, right? Want to help out? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I am presently seperated from my Lincoln books (I have Sandberg at home, but I'm at school now) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your situation lets you help at a later date, that would be great. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandburg is no longer considered an up-to-date or reliable source. His writing style is poetic and very appealing, but he wrote 80 years ago and did not see most of the sources and scholarship that is now available. Biographies by White, Burlingame, Harris, Carwardine and especially Donald are much more advanced in terms of modern scholarship. Thomas, Randall and Beveridge are the older biographies most relied on by scholars. Rjensen (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. I'll stop trying to add as many Sandburg cites as a I can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know who added the Team of Rivals info?

Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals is a good book for this article, but whoever added info from it didn't add page numbers. I don't have the book, so I may have to replace it if we can't figure out what pages the info comes from. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the diff. Darn, and inactive user. Should have guessed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mary Owens & Elizabeth Abell

The newly changed text about Mary Owens & Elizabeth Abell makes it sound as if Lincoln initiated the engagement (btw, while he was still depressed over the death of Ann Rutledge). The "Mr Lincoln & friends" website (previously included as a ref) includes a quote from a letter written by Lincoln which much more believeably casts this as a case of matchmaking by Elizabeth Abell. I am not saying the website is more reliable than Donald, but Donald (apparently) uses the vague "reportedly" while the website quotes from a source - Lincoln himself --JimWae (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that other source is really from a book, and it gives page numbers, which is good. It didn't seem totally accurate was the problem. It said "In 1836, in a conversation with Elizabeth, Lincoln agreed to court Mary if she ever returned to New Salem." The article says "Mr. Lincoln joked later that he had promised that if Elizabeth's sister would visit New Salem again, he would marry her." Not sure if that's the same thing Donald is referring to, but I didn't want to use a source that said it was a joke. Maybe I'm misreading things, I'm kinda tired right now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you think we should word it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Further along: "Mr. Lincoln himself recorded the history of his relationship to Elizabeth Abell and Mary Owens in a letter to Eliza Caldwell Browning in April 1838:

It was, then, in the autumn of 1834, that a married lady of my acquaintance, and who was a great friend of mine, being about to pay a visit to her father and other relatives residing in Kentucky, proposed to me, that on her return she would bring a sister of hers with her, upon condition that I would engage to become her brother-in-law with all convenient dispatch - I, of course, accepted the proposal..."

I'm inclined to say: "Still grieving over the death of Anne Rutledge, Lincoln agreed to a match proposed by Elizabeth Abell between him & her sister" -- but that might require more sourcing. "In 1836, Lincoln agreed to a match proposed by Elizabeth Abell between him & her sister, Mary Owen." --JimWae (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about using too many indented quotes, or at least the ones we use should be the super important ones ("Four score and seven years ago..." maybe). What do you think about using some of his words in quotes, but maybe not the whole thing. That said, we may be able to fit in something about grieving. The removed ref says "Mr. Lincoln told her one rainy day that he could not bear the thought of rain falling on Anne' grave." I don't know if we can say "Still grieving over the death of Anne Rutledge" because the timeline of the events are a bit unclear to me. I think the "rain" stuff came earlier. Not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I changed a couple words.[5] Revert if you don't think it helps. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we like the further reading section?

The bibliography is starting to get big enough that I'm not sure we need those extra books. There are probably some really important ones in there, and maybe they should be worked into the bibliography. Thoughts? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We may want to consider making a whole article that's just Abe Lincoln books. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Truman has one. Category:Bibliographies by subject.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Then Lincoln almost certainly should have one, he's the most biographied man in the history of the world Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography of Abraham Lincoln - good work. I'm sure it will grow.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Now do we eliminate all but the key sources on this page, as they did with Harry S, and redirect the rest of the biblio traffic to the biblio page? I've already added a "main article" link to the biblio Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

I took out the hatnote for it. Where do people think it should be added to? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

For starters, what's a hatnote? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's what they're called. I'm talking about the "Further information: Mary Todd Lincoln and Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln" part. Someone emailed me about the removal, and I said I'd start a discussion. After no reply for a while, I just put it back. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Too long?

This article is about 11,000 words, I think. Wikipedia:Article size says articles should be between 6,000 and 10,000 words. Do we think we should take maybe 1,000 words and put them in a sub article? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

DrPda's tool says Prose size (text only): 59 kB (9682 words) "readable prose size". Compare that with User:Dr_pda/Featured_article_statistics. --Moni3 (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I get 11125 right now with a quick and dity copy and paste, although that's including tables, captions, and the TOC. I guess I don't have to worry about it now, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a script to your monobook. Refresh the article and look on the left side of the page under special pages for "Page size" and click it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me. I use Chrome. In any case, I believe you. The article is big, but maybe not too big. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Born outside of the 13 cite fact

True fact. The argument about KY being part of VA for awhile is irrelevent for two reasons:

1. Kentucky was already a state when Lincoln was born there
2. In theory, nobody was born outside of the original 13 since most of them had "sea-to-sea" grants at one time or another

Citation probably needs to be found, but the "not exactly true either" argument is wrong if you consider the 13 states to be the 13 states as their boundaries were either at the time of the Constitution (when VA had already renounced KY) or current boundaries (which are pretty much the same except for WV) Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Had VA renounced KY in 1776 - when USA claims to be founded as a union of 13 states? If so, then the claim is OK as it stands. If not, then claim needs clarification. How does it matter anyway? On what date did VA surrender claims west of the Appalachians? Was the area in which AL was born part of the original 13 when there was just the original 13? If it is important, one could state he was first born in a state that was not one of the original 13 states--JimWae (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1787 is probably a better year then 1776 because the Presidency is based on 1787 rules, not 1776 rules. And 1809 is a better year than either, because that's when Lincoln was actually born. I would note that "Lincoln was the first President born outside of the the original thirteen states" appears in some form in virtually every Lincoln biography, and as such, I'm removing the dubious tag. The previous thing we had about the Appalachians was clearly dubious. This is nowhere near as dubious. And FYI, I believe the year was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1781 Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the dubious tag because I replaced claim "outside the original 13 states" with "in a state that was not one of the original 13 states". I think a more collegial environment is enhanced by not removing tags until disputes are resolved (especially when the only source provided has been a blog)--JimWae (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• not only was he born in a state not one of the original 13, he was from a state that was not one of the original 13 states. Had he moved to MD (eg) at age 2, the birth claim would be all that remained, and would mean far less. He was perceived as being "from Illinois", besides being born in KY. Perhaps even, he had never even "resided in" any of the original 13 -- unless perhaps he lived outside of DC while there--JimWae (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Phrase it however. The Appalachian thing was even more dubious, since Filmore was apparently born there, and several Presidents have lived West of them Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fillmore was born IN the Adirondack-Appalachian range, just west of the ridge - so saying Lincoln was the first born west of the Appalachians was perhaps not technically incorrect. But, that too was a bit misleadingly vaguely. I guess the soldier presidents slept in places not part of the original 13. Which prezes before Linoln had residence in a state not in the original 13? --JimWae (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jackson, Harrison, Polk and Taylor, though some of them went west after baby abe was born Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Review for grammar and prose round 1

Per User:BillTunell's talk page.

Lead will be last.

Childhood and education

• and was killed in an Indian raid in 1786. Any idea what tribe?
• How might the family's membership in a Hardshell Baptist church have affected his upbringing? Provide a bit of an explanation - like a clause or sentence - to summarize what a Hardshell Baptist church is.
• Lincoln later noted that this move was "partly on account of slavery", and partly because of difficulties with land deeds in Kentucky explain this a bit, please.
• Any insight into his distance from his father?
• A wrestler? I did not know this. I can't imagine he wrestled in high school. Did he compete in town matches or something?
  • Wrestling was a very popular informal sport in those days...there were no high schools. Abe was the tallest and perhaps the strongest young man around, and doubtless got many challenges. The reports are well authenticated of his prowess at rough and tumble wrestling (with few rules or standard holds). Rjensen (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I think she just wants more info on the wrestling, because it's interesting. Not that she doesn't believe it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Marriage and family

• They met in Springfield in December 1839, and were engaged by 1840. This denotes that they were engaged by January 1, 1840. Is this the case, or can you say that some months later they were engaged?

• • Well, some of the books say they were engaged in 1840, and that's all they say. I don't have Lamb, but apparently it says that, and it's also what White says. Donald says they were engaged "around Christmastime". It's all in there now. We'll have to figure out how to word it best at some point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Early political career and military service

• The difference between a GA and FA will be a recurring theme in this article of what drove Lincoln's humanity and his vast impact, which was rooted in a deep sense of morality. The article must explain how this developed. I asked some about the church issue, but here when Lincoln goes into politics, his motivation to do so must be included. People enter politics for distinct reasons: family obligation, desire for money, power, or a sense of helping their fellow countrymen. What was his reason?
• During the 1830s, Lincoln let his disdain for slavery be known. In what ways? he and another legislator declared that the institution was "founded on both injustice and bad policy." describe the circumstances of how this opinion was issued.
• Lincoln was a Whig declared himself a Whig? Agreed with the ideals of the Whig party? Provide some details about their general philosophies. Whigs are extinct. Another mention of his party two sentences later. Watch for repetition.

Prairie lawyer

• even appearing before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1849. Mention the court case/nature of the case.

• • The books don't go into detail on what Lincoln argued in front of the Supreme Court. Maybe White Jr. discusses it on p. 163, but I don't have the book. The other books just say he appeared, some saying 1, 2, or 3 times. I guess it depends on how you count his appearances. I'm sure I can find something on it, but I'm going to leave it as it is for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Never mind. Donald did discuss it a bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• By the mid-1850s, Lincoln faced competing transportation interests—both the river barges and the railroads. Sentence is vague. Does not give a sense of what he is facing.
• This section has some difficult wording and needs to be organized to read smoothly. Let's work on this paragraph.
• It was in Illinois in 1854, speaking not as a politician but as a private citizen, that Lincoln gave one of the most pivotal speeches of his life – a speech that marked his re-entry into public life nature of the speech? This is a good place actually to bring up his gift with words. How did that develop, and how did it manifest itself in his early life? You'll foreshadow some of the greatest words he wrote in the Gettysburg Address here.

Stopping here for now. Plenty to work on. Again, well done so far. Will be happy to assist in the prose and copyediting throughout. --Moni3 (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll try and deal with issues over the next few days. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor update. I've sorted out a bit of what you've commented on, but it turns out I skipped referencing the first paragraph (due to a story about the notes section that I won't bother you with). Anyways, the Indian "was probably a Shawnee" but our resident Lincoln scholar removed that.[6] I think he's right. The book that said "probably" was a respected one, but with the limited space we have here, I don't think repeating speculation is a good use of it. So, I think I'll leave out the type of Indian that shot grandpa Lincoln. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Things needed for comprehensiveness

I'm starting to notice big things that are missing. I'll try and note some of them as a reminder for later.

Emancipation Proclamation, what did this mean to African-Americans, and is there a good quote from it? Who were Davis and Lee? Who is Hannibal Hamlin? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, those four should be covered in their own articles. Just a thought. Analyzing the last GA review, comprehensiveness wasn't the problem, it was citations...and since you have been gracious enough to add about 100 of them, it should be almost ready Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, GA is pretty easy. FA is tougher. For both, the article needs maybe 70-100 more citations. For FA, the Civil War stuff needs more context, and not just "general X did poorly, and was replaced by general Y". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

300 citations is what we're shooting for now? Earlier it was 200. I feel part of the problem was that the article got really, really long and that made it harder to ref. There also may be some redundency, since, for example, Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, Joseph Hooker, and Battle of Chancellorsville all have their own articles. I think the first of those subarticles is weak and that may be where we should turn. Just my observations Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's how many refs it takes instead of a specific number. I think there were about 15 screens worth (at my resolution) of poorly cited text when I began. There's about six left. I would say jump in, and see how it goes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This completeness discussion might be the appropriate opportunity to hash out the inclusion of well-documented minority views. Clicking around other US president pages, I don't see criticism sections in any of the FAs, but I want to mention the King Lincoln website, which collects scholarship presenting a distinctly different Lincoln than that described by Sandburg and Donald. I'm in no good position to advocate positions taken on that site, but as an American (secular) saint literally carved in stone at his own national shrine, Lincoln pagespace deserves a comprehensive collection of scholarship threads. Previously we have reflexively reverted such insertion. I question the wisdom of such reversion. BusterD (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would love to include that kind of stuff, if it is considered of the highest scholarlyness. I don't know anything about it. Can you do it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The folks at Lew Rockwell and King Lincoln, with respect to Lincoln, can make no claims whatsoever to any scholarly standing among legitimate Civil War historians or Lincoln biographers. The site is nothing but a blog written with a clear present day political agenda that requires a neo-confederate interpretation of Lincoln and the Civil War -- no footnotes, no bibliographies, and certainly no peer review. The few like Adams and Dilorenzo that have actually written books virtually ignore archives and primary sources and spend their time quoting secondary sources out of context (except when they are simply makig stuff up). While there certainly are legtimate criticisms to be made of Lincoln, such material is readily available in the sources already being used in this article.

I suggest Buster pick specific article from "King Lincoln" and explain on the discussion page just exactly what he feels needs to be added to this article from those sources. Here is a typical comment from the website at [7]:

The Lincoln administration cast a very wide net indeed in rounding up any and all political opponents in the Northern states. Anyone overheard questioning virtually anything the administration had done, let alone publishing critical articles or editorials in newspapers, could land in prison without any due process. In fact, Lincoln himself even argued that those who simply remained silent and did not actively support his administration should also be subject to imprisonment.

Perhaps someone could explain exactly why we would use such fringe nonsense as a source when we could instead use a Pulitzer Prize winning work by Mark Neely that tackles the issue in a scholarly and balanced manner. The article currently has a one sentence section on the subject of civil liberties -- if it is expanded there is little that DiLorenzo could add to it. Indeed, if the determination is made to expand it, then what is needed is facts and intelligent analysis rather than extremist, unsupported neo-confederate rhetoric.

Anybody who had read Neely (or even Donald) will realize that claims that Lincoln is treated as "an American (secular) saint literally carved in stone at his own national shrine" are simply wrong. The extent to which scholarly criticisms of Lincoln belong in this aticle depend on how deep the subject is covered. Extremist stuff like that produced by DiLorenzo melts away when it is put in a proper context.

I suggest that NOTHING from this website or its like be included in this article without a clear consensus being reached to do so on this discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't going to add anything from a website. The article currently doesn't have much criticism, though. In my quest for comprehensiveness, I'd like to include a summary of it if there is such a thing. I haven't seen much in Donald, other than maybe some poor decisions related to choosing and managing his generals in the CW, minor things, which aren't important enough to make it into an article of this length. It sounds like you are aware of criticism, and which is scholarly and which is not. Could you point me in the direction of the top 2 or 3 criticisms of Lincoln, so I can research them? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the attacks on Lincoln reflect the Copperhead wartime critique, which is mentioned in the article. That website cited is about 50% diLorenzo and his commentators--screeds mostly with little value for this article. (Lincoln was a big-government tyrant!!!! seems to be the main argument). Rjensen (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The other major source of wartime criticism of Lincoln came from the Radical Republicans. I think asking about the top two or three criticisms of Lincoln is not a helpful inquiry. Within the scope of this article about Lincoln's highly eventful and thoroughly documented life, the decision of what to include in each separate section of the article should involve determining what differing opinions need to be included here and what belongs in more detailed spin off articles.

A long, well-documented separate article could be written on different approaches to the study of Lincoln that would include scholarly analysis of Lincoln's strengths and weaknesses. Or scholarly differences on civil liberties could be discussed in the unwritten article "Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties." There is room in Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War to discuss criticisms of his leadership decisions, both political and military. Any post Civil War criticism and analysis by historians has to be presented in its proper context with more space dedicated to current, majority opinions than to older, minority opinions. If you attempt to do this properly in this article (beyond what was circulated during the war by Copperheads and Radicals), then you risk a vast expansion of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the King Lincoln cite itself is not reliable, it is a good stating point for citations of original sources. The article definitely needs balance, as it borders in some places on being WP:Peacock in favor on Lincoln. Stylistic edits will help to some degree. But there is too much criticism, both contemporary and subsequent, of Lincoln's civil liberties record to relegate the discussion to a separate article. Not that a separate article would be a bad thing, though. I think a separate section on historical analysis of Lincoln is probably appropraite, to which we could shift the discussion in the lead about scholarly rankings, and then supplement with a summary of critical analysis. BillTunell (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A site that is not reliable in the first place, is not reliable in its selective use of primary sources. The sources may be properly quoted by DiLorenzo, for example, but since we don't write articles based on primary sources, we still need a RELIABLE secondary source to put that primary source information in context.

The first thing necessary in discussing civil liberties (whether in this article or a new article) is discussing what the actual events were and how policy changed over time. If someone is willing to do that work, then the criticisms will naturally follow. I can't think of any serious scholarly work that gives Lincoln a pass on this subject. There is no shortage or reliable secodary sources that address these events. But of course in addition to the facts and the criticisms, it will also be necessary to discuss the justifications. How big of a section do you actually envision?

Here is what the current section says:

During the Civil War, Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money before Congress appropriated it, and imprisoned between 15,000 and 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial.

The first part on the blockade certainly belongs in the article, but it has little to do with civil liberties. It should be broken off and probably combined with other war measures implemented by Lincoln before the first War Congress met. The spending of money is part of the early actions and Congress' prompt ratification of these decisions is relevant.

The suspension of habeas corpus definately needs to be discussed and should include when it was declared, the circumstances that led to it, how it was applied throughout the war, and how Lincoln sought to end it towards the end of the war. Only then is it appropiate to discuss the legality, pro and con, of the suspension -- including contemporary and historical criticisms. It's important to note that there is no question whatsoever whether it was legal under the Constitution to suspend habeas corpus. The only question is whether it was a power limited strictly to Congress or one that the President could independently exercise when Congress was not in session. What is the significance that Congress ultimately did authorize the suspension without ever officially commenting on whether Lincoln's actions were justified. There is also the question of whether Taney was actually exceeding his authority -- Neely has contributed a new essay to Foner's "Our Lincoln" that is relevant to that discussion. The actual numbers need to be explained -- especially since smugglers and draft dodgers are also generally included in arriving at the numbers. Also important is when and where the arrests occurred. I believe the bulk occurred in border areas where there were legitimate concerns about treasonous activity.

Newspapers were definately subject to censorship and were closed on occassion and restricted from the public mails in other instances. What needs to be explained is how frequent it occurred, under what circumstances, and what was Lincoln's involvement.

Declarations of martial law were also issued. It should be explained how this came about and how it related specifically to Lincoln. What I'm generally saying is that this is a big subject and requires more that the DiLorenzo approach of throwing out a few quotes, some sloppy analysis, and calling it a day. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note about Sandburg refs

Sandburg refs from before I started a couple of months ago are from the original Prairie Years, and will have to have their page numbers updated to where they are in the 2007 version. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Donald citations

There are two citations ot (one or otehr) of the Donald books, that just read "§7" and "§20." I assume that means chapters, but I can't cnofirm the citations on the web. It shoudl have page numbers. BillTunell (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I checked it out from the library the other day. I'll look into it. It's good to know those are chapter symbols. I didn't know what the heck they were. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the chapter 7 ref. The info was already covered. I haven't gotten to refing the part with the other chapter ref, but we should probably do the same there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Action items

As I think of pre-FAC work that needs to be done I'll jot them down here and mark off as appropriate:

• flesh out all the missing citation fields (a big hassle given the state of this article)
• reliability check (this will be a big issue IMO)
• WP:Peacock and WP:NPOV review: probably not a big issue, but IMO the Civil Liberties Suspended section needs to be fleshed out a lot in order to give balance to the article. Here is where the King Lincoln cite could be helpful.
• image review (likely not much of an issue)
• deadlink review
• reform/move See also section per WP:See_also#See_also_section
• reformat judicial/statehood sections
• develop a separate article on Religious and philosophical views
• reform External links section per WP:External links
• plagiarism review
• footnote numbering order check
• Layout check per WP:Layout
• possible quote box insertions
• Project Gutenberg e-text review: not sure if there is a guideline for this or not

This is all in addition to a good sit-down session at a library. I'll probably have some time on the weekend of the 24-25th for that. But the above list will not be complete by then. BillTunell (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Earlier I had provided a list of items that reflected on the comprehensiveness of the article. For what it's worth, let me repeat it here:

1. Any narrative at all on the selection of his cabinet.
2. Any real discussion of civil liberties -- the subsection on this is a single sentence.
3. Any significant discussion of the events of his decision-making during the Ft. Sumter crisis and his mobilization of the military prior to his July 4 message to Congress.
4. Any discussion of his interactions with Fremont, Halleck, Chase, Stanton, and Seward.
5. Any discussion of his pre-1850 law practice or any specifics on his Illinois legislative career.
6. Very little concerning his life in New Salem which is certainly as significant as his life before he left home.
7. No narrative on his Supreme Court selections or the issues he faced with the SC.
8. No discussion of foreign affairs or the blockade -- the Trent Affair is mentioned in the lede but is nowhere in the body.
9. Very little discussion of the 1864 presidential election and little discussion of the political conflicts Lincoln faced in attempting to moderate between conservatives and radicals. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln Classroom Website

For those of you inserting references, the following looks like a substantial site for virtually all aspects of Lincoln's life. Hadn't seen it linked before yesterday:

Lincoln Classroom

Everything here seems very well documented/referenced. Generally I would like to rely on original book material for an article like this, but as webiste information goes this is pretty conprehensive. And this site could probably stand some backup web citations instead of a lot of books, most of which seem difficult to access. BillTunell (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Civil Liberties and all that

The article is about AL and the policies that he was personally involved with. He supported but had little direct involvement in many policies (like the Pacific Railroad or the tax laws). He signed thousands of documents --as does every president--but only the ones he worked on personally should be emphasized. On Civil Liberties he supported the policies that were set by the War Department and the State Department, and in a few cases was involved by reversing those departments. The danger is letting some of his violently hostile critics set the agenda. The neo-Confederates for example don't much care for civil liberties (they rarely criticize the Confederacy, which had a much worse record), but are merely looking for a club to bash Lincoln.
The article does criticize AL on a number of points--for example his position on the Mexican War. Also his denial of the risk of Civil War. It cites Nevins: Historian Allan Nevins argues that Lincoln made three miscalculations in believing that he could preserve the Union, hold government property, and still avoid war. He "temporarily underrated the gravity of the crisis," overestimated the strength of Unionist sentiment in the South and border states, and misunderstood the conditional support of Unionists in the border states. The wartime battles between Lincoln and the Radicals are presented in even-handed fashion, not favoring either position. Rjensen (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article 2

It's been a while since I've moved anything, so I figured I'd start a new section. The following text came from the paragraph about the second confiscation act.

The goal was to weaken the rebellion, which was led and controlled by slave owners. While it did not abolish the legal institution of slavery (the Thirteenth Amendment did that), the Act showed that Lincoln had the support of Congress in liberating slaves owned by rebels.

Am I reading this correctly?

I just added some stuff from Donald about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation draft that I'm pretty sure says he would free the slaves, but he says it in a weird, roundabout way, and I don't want to put words in his mouth that he didn't say.

Lincoln wrote "And, as a fit and necessary military measure for effecting this object, I, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, do order and declare that on the first day of January in the year of Our Lord one thousand, eight hundred and sixtythree, all persons held as slaves within any state or states, wherein the constitutional authority of the United States shall not then be practically recognized, submitted to, and maintained, shall then, thenceforward, and forever, be free."full text]

The "not" in "shall not then be practically recognized" gives me pause, though. Is he really saying they're free? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The "not" refers to the areas where the Union's authority is not currently being recognized; in other words, the slaves were being freed in all places that were not in Union control; i.e., the areas that were still in revolt, not the slave states which never seceded or parts of seceded states where Union authority had been effectively re-established. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

someone please fix "brdige"

{{editsemiprotected}} someone please fix "brdige"

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. Rodhullandemu 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The North waited to see if ...?

I think this passage is meant to be a way of saying that 4 states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas) did not immediately join the CSA. However, saying "the North waited to see if they would secede" makes it seem as if nobody in the North did anything besides wait. Also, if we really want to say this, why would we not say the same about the North wating for the border states? --JimWae (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Back in June, the text was "The upper South (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Arkansas) listened to, but initially rejected, the secessionist appeal." I think this actually gives more info - that secession was rejected in several places - though there might not be refs for official rejection in every one of those--JimWae (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

let's go with the June text. The scholarly source is Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis by Daniel W. Crofts (1993) Rjensen (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

who else gave no speeches?

1860 Presidential election section: "As Douglas stumped the country, Lincoln was the only one of the four major candidates to give no speeches whatever." I for one am very curious as to the identity of the other candidates. I'd like some sort of link, or a short list in the sentence. I think others would enjoy that tidbit of knowledge as well. Jessemv (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My recollection of sources is that it was Douglas who was unique: It was customary for the candidates NOT to "go stumping" during the campaign, and that Douglas broke the mould. I think it would be quite hard for any source to demonstrate that Lincoln was the only candidate to make exactly zero speeches during the campaign. There's quite a difference between "going stumping" and making a few local speeches. --JimWae (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

someone please fix error

{{editsemiprotected}} the following passage: "With the emergence of the Republicans as the nation's first major sectional party by the mid-1850s, the old Second Party System collapsed and a realignment created the Second Party System." needs to be changed to read: "With the emergence of the Republicans as the nation's first major sectional party by the mid-1850s, the old Second Party System collapsed and a realignment created the Third Party System." (see wiki articles on Second Party System and Third Party System). Could someone fix this error please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgerckn (talk • contribs) 14:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

nicknames

I'm no expert and a non-American, however it seems strange to me that this article does not mention other names by which Abraham Lincoln went - Abe Lincoln, Honest Abe and even just Abe seem common to me. Shouldn't these be added to the article, with at least the most common few in the lead? --MegaSloth (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)