Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm not going to rehash all the arguments against postal trivia in biographical articles. Anyone interested in my opinion on the matter can look at Talk:Benjamin Harrison, the last place I fought the Stamp Power. (Some of it is archived, too, if you want the full extent of this tedium.) That discussion took months and wasted productive editors' time. Let's not do it again here. My impression of the opinions expressed here is that one editor is pushing for more and more stamp images and postal history in the article, while the rest of us just want it to look like a normal encyclopedia article (and maybe get it back to FA some day). If there's consensus to excise this stuff, I say we do it and put an end to this edit warring. Who's with me? --Coemgenus 12:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to waste time then please stop trying to provoke another edit war! Stamps and currency exist in most of the presidential articles, and rightly so, and for many legitimate and historic reasons. No one wants to write an essay or at length about the 'stamp' it self, only brief mention, in legacy and Assassination, regarding honors, memorial, any history, etc. Btw, the first Lincoln stamp was far from a 'trivial' event, one year after his death. As for the "stamp power", please keep these underhanded remarks out of the discussion. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, this page didn't lose its FA status because of any stamp images. Now that the topic has been brought up, it would do well to see which editor(s) was primarily responsible, and why. Also, I asked you to explain how Lincoln's image on a postage stamp is less "relevant" than that found on a painting. If we can have many paintings, photos, etchings, sketches, we can have a stamp image or two, used for their historic illustrations and national honors. There is more than "stamp trivia" here, that's another misrepresentation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted the changes you made that are contrary to consensus gathered on this page. You're going to have to learn consensus. You've been holding up progress on several articles because you want things the way you think they should be. Enough is enough. Brad (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your sweeping reverts. Treat each item individually and with discussion as the rest of us have. Also, you should name the articles where I am 'holding up progress' and explain this claim or retract the slanderous comments. As for this page, the image issue started when I simply restored an image that was on this page for many months with no issues. Much has been discussed and many compromises made already, so again I don't appreciate the slanderous remarks. There are many more pressing issues with this page. We have two sections named after Generals Grant and McClellan, both very long, for openers. No one is keeping you from tending to them. Please discuss before making sweeping reverts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And I have reverted yours. That makes three editors now who insist that you're violating consensus. You must follow consensus, even when you disagree with it. --Coemgenus 16:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually you and Brad are the only ones insisting on sticking the memorial stamp in a section to which it does not relate, in direct violation of MOS policy'. Carm' if I am not mistaken, has not made that insistence, and was in the process of helping me out with cite-book/reference items, as I thought you were at one point. Oh well. Your 'consensus' has no legal basis and lacks actual confirmation. Meanwhile, I will wait for fair comment before correcting the MOS violation, by restoring the image to its 'relevant' section. If you can offer a legitimate reason for its relocation or removal and can also establish a fair consensus, then and only then will you be allowed to (re)move this good faith and quite relevant contribution. Also, please refrain from making sweeping reverts as this practice is also in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Again, discuss each item individually, establish a basis for a consensus, and then obtain and confirm that consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Your constant habit of throwing up deflector shields by telling editors what they should be working on is tiresome. I'm no longer discussing this issue with you. Do not edit against consensus. Brad (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually the shoe is on the other foot, as Brad is attempting to deflect fair discussion with bogus claims about 'image crowding' in the 'Assassination' section, conversely insisting on what other editors, me in particular, should be doing. In the process Lincoln's memorial stamp image is removed from the section to which it directly relates, in violation of MOS which clearly states Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate. The present location for the memorial image is in violation of MOS policy and therefore there is no basis for consensus for sticking the memorial image where it presently exists. Further, the image was moved before fair consensus had been established. You don't establish a consensus for an edit overnight and with just a pat on the back from one or two other editors. Sorry.

Consensus must be respected, but there has to be a basis for consensus to begin with. i.e.If ten people want to put a picture of 'Bart Simpson' at the top of the Lincoln page, they can go rah-rah-rah, all they like, but they have no basis for such consensus. Be clear on that. And so far as I have seen, only Brad and Coemgenus are insisting to keep the memorial stamp out of the 'Assassination' section -- and in violation of MOS policy. They have failed to establish a basis for consensus (image crowding is a false claim, there is plenty of room -- and the "relevance" argument failed as some of the items in legacy, and elsewhere, are less relevant than Lincoln's stamp.)

I will again await for any response before returning the image to the original and correct section where it was viewed by thousands per day for many months with no issues. If you want to have this item moved or removed, please offer a good reason to do so, establish a fair and confirmed consensus and it will be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this belongs in the article but "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" (2012) is the latest of many films starring the Great Emancipator:
Michael Cieply (May 9,2011). "Aside From the Vampires, Lincoln Film Seeks Accuracy". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) based on the book of the same title.
--Javaweb (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I noticed that in the 'Assassination' section, in the passage covering the manhunt for Booth, mention of Secretary of War

• Swanson, James L. (2007). Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer. New York: Harper Perennial. pp. 113–115.
  ISBN 9780060518509.
  I'll add it in if there are no objections. -- Gwillhickers (talk
  ) 12:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we follow most biographers and limit events after Lincoln's death to his funeral and memorials. The chase is about Booth, Seward etc and not about Lincoln. Rjensen (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. It's always good to conform to existing scholars' efforts. The Booth and Stanton articles might benefit from that material, though. --Coemgenus 13:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is Assassination of Abraham Lincoln which has some of that info already. Better off there. Brad (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that any more than a metion of Stanton per his activities begins to get away from the subject of Lincoln, but then we see the same thing occurring with people like Grant, McClellan, etc, where very much material was given. Stanton was Lincoln's War secretary and cabinet member. Seems we should at least mention his name and that he successfully hunted down Lincoln's assassin. Army doctor Charles Leale is mentioned in the section simply for examining Lincoln. No mention for Stanton, Lincoln's cabinet member and War Secretary, leading the successful manhunt? Gwillhickers (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Did I miss something? I realize that FAC mentioned a concern for too many stamps but I don't see where they suggest that we remove all stamps, or that they don't belong. Also I don't see any discussion for removing the legacy section. Changes are happening much too fast leaving little time for other editors to comment or discuss. Also, no one has yet submitted a good reason for removing any of the stamps, much less all of them. Where is the consensus to remove all stamps?? Where is the consensus to remove the Legacy section, a section that exists in almost all other presidential pages? Where is the discussion that lead to this highly unusual decision? -- Gwillhickers (talk)

In my opinion, adding a brief paragraph on the Lincoln stamps is appropriate. Apparently, there is a paragraph on Lincoln's "racism". The paragraph seems to make a generalization by using the terms "some liberals". Cmguy777 (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki relies on the considered scholarly judgments of the Reliable Sources, so it is dangerous to remove them and instead rely on editors' personal reading of Lincoln's words. Those words fill 8 fat volumes and can be and have been twisted this way and that. It's much better to tell readers what the experts make of that. As for "philosophy" that is not at all covered in the section....there is nothing about his use of rationalism, common sense realism, idealism, Emersonianism etc. --And there is nothing based on the RS. Rjensen (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I just traded one problem for another, which I do understand. I will leave further work on this to your good judgment and others. Due to the limited space, I suggest using Lincoln's word's and the circumstances in which he used them is reasonable, in addition to providing references for further research. The section title perhaps should be changed.

talk

) 01:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to summarize Lincoln's philosophy in a few paragraphs is foolhardy, especially when one considers the hundreds and hundreds of books on the subject. Should we even try to synthesize all of that scholarly analysis? Most biography articles don't have such a section. --Coemgenus 01:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually any topic can be summarized. What is preventing anyone from making summary statements about Lincoln's beliefs in general? There may be hundreds of books on the topic, but we're not going to be referring to all the books regarding particular items of interest. There are 'hundreds' of books for Grant, yet we can still summarize his involvement with Lincoln in terms of his biography. Your 'solution' is to simply eliminate the topic of Lincoln's beliefs also? There are a number of presidential feature articles whose length is considerably longer than the average page because of all the history and other items of great interest involved. Are we trading off page scope and depth, eliminating numerous topics, for page length considerations alone? The presidential pages cited are very long and are still feature articles. While being mindful of page length we should also remember that Lincoln's page will naturally be longer because the subject is Lincoln. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand the controvery over Lincoln was his view of the Bible, Jesus, and the Christian faith. The importance of Lincoln's beliefs are warranted since there is interest over Lincoln's personal faith. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is not summarizing facts, but summarizing opinions about Lincoln's character, beliefs, and ideology. Are you prepared to do the research and analysis that task requires? And is that even something that should be found in an encyclopedia article? This is not a compendium of everything about Lincoln, it's a brief summary of his life and times. I'm not saying it's impossible, but questioning whether it's appropriate. If it is, I'll help make it work, but we should consider first whether it's worth all of the edit-warring that is bound to ensue. I don't want to turn this into another version of the clusterfuck that the Thomas Jefferson article has become.--Coemgenus 08:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cm' makes a good point. Anyone who feels they are not up to the task of summarizing this material should let capable editors who can handle this sort of thing do the job. Also, discussion, debate, and disagreement is not edit warring. Your habit of tossing this term around is beginning to sound like 'Wolf!'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you're "capable" of is wasting everyone's time and effort with your endless filibustering talk page disputes. Why not let editors who more familiar with biographies and the FA process handle this one? We certainly don't tell you how to edit your

magnum opus; why not extend us the same courtesy and make the encyclopedia better in the process? --Coemgenus

11:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What is this "we" and "you" baloney? The prez on stamps page does not belong to me, this page does not belong to you or any one else. Also, please make an effort to refrain from personal attacks. This will make at least the third time inside a few days that you have had to resort to such behavior. I could run to a noticeboard and 'tell the teacher', or you could just get a hold of yourself and simply knock it off. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And what? --Coemgenus 20:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And lighten up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the suspense was getting to me.  ;) Maybe I've been uncivil -- I was up half the night with a screaming baby when I wrote that. I think you're wrong about all of this stamp stuff, but I should try to keep it professional. --Coemgenus 20:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, referring to this as 'Stamp stuff' is like referring to the Lincoln Memorial, as 'Architectual stuff', a rather narrow view. If this was about 'stamp stuff' I would mention that there were only 2 million+ of these stamps printed, a very low number as national stamp production goes, and that the engraver was James McDonough who modeled his engraving of Lincoln after a photo by C.S. German, one of the last photographers to photograph Lincoln, and that today a mint copy of this stamp commands a price of about $1500 while a used copy goes for a couple of hundred, depending on condition, and that this stamp also had utility and paid the 1st class letter rate to France in 1866, which is where the majority of used examples have surfaced, and that if you can still find a block of four of these stamps still intact, mint or used, you are more or less a rich man for your finding. (Pew!) -- No, none of this 'stuff' is gone into -- only history, Lincoln's prominence, honors, legacy and things like national morning, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to keep it simple – provide Lincoln's quotes and the occasions of their utterance. Provide the readers with references and change the name of the section to "quotations" or something similar. The readers should not be denied access to his words because we don't have the time or space to give an ad nauseum analysis.

talk

) 12:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. Getting tired of some 'editors' whose only solution to problems on a page is to make deletions, shuffle stuff around and make personal cracks to those who disagree. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to move along here. From the previous FAC there are a few outstanding issues:

• Pics were a concern but after the latest merry-go-round of changes I think this is as close to solved as possible.

Except for one small item. You objected to the memorial stamp for reasons of 'overcrowding'. The image where it was (lower left) presented no crowding problem at all. Coemgenus, after his objections failed ('relevancy') finally revealed he was concerned about some 'stamp power', and so apparently has other issues he's dealing with, not an encyclopedic issue. Carm', while expressing concern for images has not insistend that the memorial stamp be outright removed from the page -- and few other editor/historians know about your particular disagreement, such that it is. Don't want to be obtrusive with this, so I will leave the image off the page for now. In the mean time I would like to get a fair consensus and so will attempt to seek one, calling other historians in for comment. Also since Lincoln is almost as common to postage and currency as Washington is, it should be mentioned in Legacy. No other presidents besides Washington and Lincoln can claim that for their legacy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is only one stamp in the article, I would suggest going with Lincoln's first memorial stamp.Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41,22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier reviewers that stamps are not sufficiently germane for this article. The article has the difficult task to selectively highlight the life of the top ranking president with limited space. The preponderance of biographical sources do not mention postal commemorations. I recall a FAC reviewer saying the Legacy section only had room for one image. I am prepared to remove the remaining stamp and leave the Lincoln memorial in place.

talk

) 13:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the replica log cabin pic in the Early life section be replaced by the young Lincoln sculpture pic above.

talk

) 13:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Both changes sound good to me. --Coemgenus 15:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree. There was never a good reason cited for removal. No discussion occurred. There was talk about pix size, relevance, nothing about complete removal. The stamp is just as relevant to Lincoln's legacy as is the memorial and other items that were in Legacy before it was eliminated, along with most of its contents. FAC expressed concern for too many stamp images. Don't see where they recommend elimination of all stamps. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I brought up an issue with the Religious and philosophical section asking if it was too large. Please read my review section in the FAC for more details. Apparently others weren't pleased with the section but didn't voice so at FAC.
• Wehwalt thought there wasn't enough analysis of Lincoln's decisions as president but also admitted that that could be a rocky road to enter without expending acres of text to explain it fairly. Brad (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Another issue is that the Abraham Lincoln link articles need to be in a cleaned up status. For example, the Abraham Lincoln and slavery link article has multiple issues. I am not saying these articles need to be GA or FA status, but just cleaned up or without tag issues. If a reader clicks a link and goes to a Lincoln article that has any multiple tags, in my opinion, reflects negatively upon the main bio article on Abraham Lincoln, especially in a potential FA status. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to improve those articles, sure, but their quality doesn't affect the quality of this article. Let's finish here before working on sub-articles. I made a first pass at the Religion and Philosophy section, but it needs more. I'll try to give it another go tomorrow. --Coemgenus 01:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln has tag issues also. Again, what I meant was just getting those Abraham Lincoln link articles tag free; fixing them enough to remove the tags. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The General Grant and General McClellan sections might be an issue with their names used as section titles. Also, these sections are a little on the lengthy side and seem to venture into areas that get away from Lincoln's actual biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Grant and McClellan sections are lengthy and much of the information can be transferred to the

Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War article, if not already in that article. Another issue is the lede mentioning Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in the first and last paragraphs. I believe best to put the assassination by John Wilkes Booth in the last paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk

) 04:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy: I think what's going on with the lede is that the first paragraph is a short summary and the next three are a longer summary. It seems to be the trend around here to do it that way. I resisted at first when someone suggested doing that in Rutherford B. Hayes, but I made the changes and ended up liking it. --Coemgenus 11:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am for concensus, however, the first paragraph needs to just mention Lincoln's strong points as President. The assassination in the last paragraph can go into depth with the date of his assassination and the assassin John Wilkes Booth. The term "until his assassination" comes off a bit casual. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I rearranged the lede a bit. --Coemgenus 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

re the lede. I like the style of lede with the first paragraph as a short summary and the next three are a longer summary. The average user (says Alexa) spends only five minutes on Wikipedia at a time--barely enough to read the lede--and studies show that most users are interested primarily in short summaries. As for people with a deeper interest, they are well served in this article. Rjensen (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't know who 'Alexa' may be, or how the claim was arrived at, but I don't think rendering the page to accommodate readers with a five minute attention span is the way to build a FA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I see JimWae reverted me. That's fine. I don't have strong feelings on the matter. What do the rest of you think? Assassination in the first paragraph? It is a fairly important part of Lincoln's story, and one of the facts most people know about him. --Coemgenus 01:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am for concensus. There seems to be some protectionism on the lede. I believe best Lincoln's assassination would be mentioned only in the last paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The lede has to begin with the birth and death, and the reference to the word assassination there, as well as a more descriptive reference to it as the concluding event in the lede, seems compelling to me.

talk

) 14:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Why mention Lincoln was assassinated two times in the lede? I was just stating an opinion on where to mention the assassination, in the last paragraph. Yes, Lincoln is popularly known for his assassination, however, I am not sure the need to mention twice in the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems a bit odd that mention is made of Lincoln's death -- in the first sentence of the lede. We can still mention Lincoln's tenure without qualifying it with 'assassination' at that point. Best to mention that at the end of the lede as the event was correspondingly the end of his life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Should these be combined? There is one duplicate link - to the poetry of AL.

They definitely need a trim, but I think it's standard to keep the sections separate. External links proliferate like weeds when the garden's untended. I'll be glad to help you take a lawnmower to them. As to "See also" sections, my own belief is that they should never be necessary in a well-written article, but I suppose there could be exceptions. --Coemgenus 12:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I culled the external links on the last FAC review and they may have re-bloomed. My only immediate question is which section should have the poetry link.

talk

) 12:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the see also section could be eliminated entirely. Electoral history link can be placed under both the 1860 and 1864 sections; the family tree link can be moved to marriage and family or early life. The portal block can go to external links and the book is already linked in external links. The urban legends article is trivial in nature and the poetry article is dismissible. Brad (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed a few more external links. I agree with Brad about eliminating the see also part altogether. --Coemgenus 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Carm', 'See also' is for internal links, 'External links' is for -- external links. You can't combine the two sections. Also, the 'See also' section serves to offer

links to topics related but not discussed in the text. See also serves to highlight important subject/links found in the text but are a long way from the beginning/middle of the article. Often times a reader will have no interest to click on subject/link until later on during the read. Instead of having the reader go back and search through the text for the subject/link it cold be listed in see also if the subject is prominent enough. A discretionary call, but let's not eliminate the 'See also' at this point in the page's development. -- Gwillhickers (talk

) 22:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

See also should not be eliminated, it is a standard part of the format and useful for researchers.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's part of a format that can be eliminated in lengthy and informative articles. It is by no means a requirement. See

WP:ALSO. The template {{Abraham Lincoln}} at the bottom of the page already contains links to multiple other articles on Lincoln. The urban legend and poetry articles should be on that template but are not currently. Brad (talk

) 01:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I placed the urban legends and poetry articles in the template. I just now removed the external link to physical-lincoln as it has little value as a destination for further pics when compared to commons. Brad (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to restore the title of this section to Legacy. Most of the presidential articles have them. The FA Ronald Reagan has a legacy section with sub sections and is pages long, 'with five images' -- not including the table chart that is also there. Also, there are many items in the 'memorial' section here that are not memorials at all. e.g.The city of Lincoln, NE, Mount Rushmore, Ford's Theatre, the Lincoln $5 bill and Lincoln cent, the Lincoln Library and Museum, the Abraham Lincoln Association, the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, cannot be summed up as memorials. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Memorial is the better term to use. It has a broader and more appropriate meaning. The self-made definition above is not accurate.

talk

) 02:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Accurate? I just outlined a string of examples that do not pertain to memorials. Legacy otoh covers all of those things that remain in Lincoln's wake, .i.e.memorials, libraries, Lincoln foundations, postage/currency, special honors, etc.affording a greater range of subjects. Again, most president's pages have this. Many

feature articles do also, and apparently with good reason: FA's have greater scope and depth which takes the reader above and beyond the limits of a GA. Given Lincoln's legacy, some more thought needs to be given to expanding the Memorial or Legacy section offering the reader/researcher more than what the run of the mill Legacy and Memorials section offers, and I think more importanly so it doesn't read like someone is simply reciting from a list. i.e.Well written. -- Making a feature article involves more than just removing the dead wood from a GA. It requires that you go the distance and expand on information with greater scope and depth. -- Gwillhickers (talk

) 03:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. FACs I've participated in call for shortening as often as lengthening. It depends on the content. Greater depth is sometimes not needed, and when it is it usually means greater depth about something the subject of the article actually did, not things that other people did after his death. Featured articles are about quality writing, not quantity. --Coemgenus 08:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No doubt there has been many calls to shorten an article or section, but as you also indicated there have also been needs to lengthen, no doubt because the info' was less than adequate for a FA. Also, the first criteria listed in FA is Well written. This would apply to things before and after death. Your above statement suggests that FA concerns don't apply to Legacy and Memorials. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. --Coemgenus 20:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What he's saying is expand the memorials section so that he can then campaign for another stamp pic on the basis that there is plenty of room for it there. Quite transparent. Brad (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, I think we can all agree (or all but one of us) that it's quite long enough already. --Coemgenus 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Brad, Page length was a point of concern. I merely pointed out that many such sections are quite longer in FA's, and rightly so. I suspect if you had some sort of actual argument to counter this idea you would have posted it instead of the sophomoric crack. -- Coemgenus, as I pointed out, there are many feature articles with much longer legacy sections, and again, as anyone can see in my draft, even with larger pix sizes, the images work in with the text nicely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Memorial" is both an adjective and a noun, it covers what's in this section. But none of the things described in the memorial section are A. Lincoln's legacy (except, perhaps, his home and books). If you want a new section on the importance of Lincoln, that's not covered already, you should sandbox one or expand the Historical Treatment section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How does 'Memorial', the adjective or noun, include the Lincoln Library?

Anonymous questioner: Presidential libraries are standard memorials to former presidents, often their primary (only) one. Other libraries, dedicated to the memory of a person, are also standard memorials; and they don't have to have 'memorial library' in their title to be memorials. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, Gwil' seems indeed ambitious – quite willing to try to rewrite Webster's and the OED, not to mention WP:Featured Article Guidelines.

talk

) 12:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How about "Legacy and memorials"?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That could work. Another idea is having "Legacy" as the top level and "Historical treatment" and "Memorials" as sub-levels under it. --Coemgenus 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently no one word will adequately cover the variety of items that surrounds Lincoln's Legacy, memorials, honors etc, so I have to go along with Wehwalt here also. Coemgenus' suggestion is even better, allowing the section to expand and cover a variety of items with a little order and structure to the presentation. Examples of long legacy sections in FA are numerous. Along with

Ronald Reagan's long legacy section there is Samuel Adams, two pages long, Daniel Boone has a Cultural legacy section with subsections, five pages long, Joan of Arc, 2 pages for Legacy, Neville Chamberlain, 2+ pages for Legacy -- all very famous individuals, all Feature Articles. There are many other FA's which offer the reader broader scope beyond that which the average legacy section affords the reader. -- Gwillhickers (talk

)

I choose the Legacies of Lincoln! I like Alliteration! SenatorSteve (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

in recent years historians use "Memory" -- I suggest either "Memory and Legacy" or just "Memory" Rjensen (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rjenson. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Rjenson. 'Memory and Legacy' covers both memorials and legacy, 'Legacy' is the established and accepted norm', evident in many FA articles. Too many changes happening too quickly, mostly at the hand of one or two editors, too often with no discussion beforehand or with only token and hurried consensus. One of the FAC reviewers, one, mentioned page length and since then there has been this slash and burn approach to the page in the usual hurried fashion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I can find no section on Lincoln's foreign policy. The Trent Affair is foreign policy, and possibly needs to be mentioned as foreign policy. Did all diplomatic relations cease during the Civil War? Other presidential articles have a foriegn policy section. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No meaningful foreign affairs issues have been omitted so a foreign policy section is not warranted.

talk

) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested in researching more about Lincoln's foreign policy, [http://www.amazon.com/Abraham-Lincoln-New-Birth-Freedom/dp/080327565X/ this book] is a good place to start. It's all pretty much related to the Civil War, though. --Coemgenus 17:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Diplomacy with Great Britain must have been critical. Great Britain suffered from not having cotton to run their mills and people there were thrown out of work and starving. Britain had to be convinced not to break the blockade or recognize the Confederacy as a country. The most important thing the US did was try to defeat the Confederates in battle, of course.

Were there diplomatic discussions to develop colonies for the freed slaves outside the US? Foner's book might answer these questions. --Javaweb (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

There is the Trent Affair, Neopolian III and Mexico, and Czar Alexander II, the Union's only European allie, freed the serfs. (Charnwood (1919), Abraham Lincoln, pp. 256, 257, 263) Abraham Lincoln Foriegn Policy and England These are important issues. The Trent Affair and British-American relationship needs to be expanded. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln had nothing to do with the Tsar-Liberator. Louis Napoleon's Mexican adventure concerned Lincoln, but America wasn't in a position to do anything about it until he was dead. The Trent Affair is really the only foreign affair of note during his administration. And anyway, let's resolve this malarky with the images before we open a new can of worms. --Coemgenus 18:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Czar Alexander II freeing of the serfs in 1861 gave Lincoln precedent for the Emancipation Proclamation. Alexander II also had a navy and as an allie to Lincoln was able to keep France and England in check. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link: Modern History/American Civil War/Wartime Diplomacy/US-Russian Relations

That's not a real book. --Coemgenus 18:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a book titled Lincoln and the Russians by Albert A. Woldman (1970). How can a President who served over 4 years not have a foriegn policy? There would be three things I would briefly mention; British-American relationship, Napoleon III invasion of Mexico, and Russian as Union allies. The British and French favored the Confederacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

the Russians were not in any way allied to or supportive of the US (that's a myth long since rejected). Lincoln was involved chiefly in the Trent affair & otherwise let Seward handle foreign affairs Rjensen (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess the information from the Lincoln and the Russians book is bunk. This was the quote from Woodman (1970):

United States and Russia:
Strange Bedfellows

The "traditional relations of amity and friendship" between the United States and Russia which Ministers Clay and Cameron were instructed "to confirm and strengthen" during their respective missions to St. Petersburg, were the incongruous relations between two of the most mismated international bedfellows in all recorded history.

No two civilized nations were more unlike than the United States, where the people had elected Abraham Lincoln President, and imperial Russia, where Czar Alexander II ruled by the divine right of kings. Their peoples had different backgrounds, different cultures, different outlooks on life. Russia of the Czars was an absolute monarchy -- the most repressive despotism on earth, where the Emperor reigned without any constitutional limitations whatsoever. The Republic of the United States -- with its government of the people, by the people, for the people -- was the most liberal democracy in the world, hated and feared by the autocrats of Europe. " (page 124) Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

On the Russian myth see "The Russian Fleet Myth Re-Examined" by Thomas A. Bailey online Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Golder said the Russian ships were moored in the United States to get out of the ice. Yet, the Russian ships were in port in 1863. If there is no historical concensus on Russian "allie" that is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What about a section on the Trent affair and British-American relations? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

the Trent affair is already covered. As Donald points out, Lincoln let Seward & Sumner handle foreign policy & this was the one case he was involved in (since it involved his war powers). Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So other then the Trent Affair there was no foreign policy or treaties? I thought Lincoln "owned" Sec. Seward on foriegn policy. Sumner was Senator. Did he have the power to negotiate treaties? Sumner and Lincoln were at odds over the Trent Affair. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sec. Seward wanted Samaná Bay as a protective naval harbor. Did Lincoln say anything against Napoleon III invading Mexico? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

On February 17, 1863, the U.S. and Britain signed a treaty to stop the slave trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

the US had a very active foreign policy. But Lincoln's role (apart from Trent) was limited: a) handle symbolic duties (greet ambassadors, sign documents); b) make senior patronage appointments c) keep on good terms with key decision makers Seward (sec State) and Sumner (chair Senate Committee). Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks Rjensen. The only issue to me is that other Presidents have foriegn policy segments. However, since the Trent Affair is covered, that counts as Foriegn Policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln was a man who stood up for his word.--70.114.175.30 (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)--70.114.175.30 (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Did Lincoln have an Indian policy or were there any Indian wars during the Civil War? I have read that Lincoln reduced the size of land occupied by American Indians. Is this true? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Abe was a frontiersman and did not much like Indians (he fought them in 1832). A dozen years before he was born Indians attacked his family's cabin; his father escaped but his grandfather was scalped. The Sioux in Minnesota attacked the German farmers there, killing many; Lincoln sent in the Army and hung the murderers. see Dakota War of 1862. He also sent the Army to stop the Navajo who were marauding and killing Hispanics and other Indians in New Mexico (see Kit Carson). Rjensen (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This is good to know. The Dakota War of 1862 seems to be a foot note in the article. Does Lincoln's Indian Policy or any hostility toward Indians need to be expanded in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jensen sums it up perfectly, to my mind. The war with the Sioux is Lincoln's most notable interaction with the Indians (aside from his own service in the Black Hawk War). For most presidents, this event would stand out as a significant action but, with Lincoln, the Civil War makes everything else fade into the background. I'd say one long paragraph on Indian policy would make sense, maybe following the domestic policy section. --Coemgenus 11:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln's Indian Policy could best be described as "hold the line." Most Regulars were stripped from the Frontier at the start of the war. Lincoln tended to become engaged when a frontier conflict threatened to either disrupt the flow of State volunteers and/or supplies to the main war effort (Minnesota) or endanger areas with significant mineral resources (New Mexico). Part of the reason Union forces were in New Mexico and what's now Arizona was to defend against any Confederate incursions from Texas (as happened early in the War). Also, I suspect he was somewhat suspicious of the role Utah might play in the conflict, as a number of troops were kept there. Obviously local commanders in California and other southwestern territories had a fair amount of discretion when it came to field operations (look at Carleton in New Mexico and Arizona for examples), but their campaigns were not often ordered by Lincoln.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

More could be expanded on Lincoln's views on Indians and his policies towards them in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In the article Lincoln religion was influenced by Reverend Smith. What difference does this make if this comes from a book or newspaper? Link: Abraham Lincoln's religion not easily defined Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly books cite their sources and are peer-reviewed. Newspapers don't and aren't. --Coemgenus 18:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that books (peer-reviewed) have more historical weight then newspaper articles. I am not disputing that. This information came from 1st Presbyterian Church historian, Jane Running. I believe she is a reliable source for the article. This section is on religion and information from the Presbyterian Church is applicable to the article, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The historian, Jane Running, is the historian to Lincoln's First Presbyterian church in Springfield, Illinois. She even stated Lincoln tithed to the Church and listed the specific amount. She said Lincoln was impressed by Reverend Smith's The Christian's Defense written in 1843. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link to James Smith's bookThe Christian's defense.

James gives signifigant defense and support for the Jewish people in the first chapter. Lincoln, himself, rescinded Grant's antisemitic general orders #11. Many Jewish scholars have maintained that Lincoln had a favorable relationship with the Jewish people. My point is that Running's statement that Lincoln was influenced by Smith is supported by Lincoln's actions toward Jewish people. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What specific statements does the news article make that cannot be cited to other sources that are better peer-reviewed?--JimWae (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of Lincoln's Jewish support or mention that Lincoln was influenced by Reverend James Smith in the article's religion and philosophy section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is dated May 20, 2011. This is recent news. Why do we have to wait for the books to come out? I am not sure scholars have yet to cover Reverend James Smith. Adding something on Lincoln's Jewish support would be good for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing in the news article about Jews. Are we to surmise "influenced by Smith" = "supported Smith's views re Jews" ????--JimWae (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish people and Lincoln I believe is covered in a book. The Smith influence has been stated by Running. Here is a direct quote from Abraham Lincoln. "I have been reading a book by Dr. Smith on the evidences of Christianity, and have heard him preach and converse on the subject, and am now convinced of the truth of the Christian religion." Barton (1920), The Soul of Abraham Lincoln, p. 164

the newspaper clipping--and the comments by Running (the local church historian)-- adds nothing of use for the article. It is certainly not "news"-- (she's repeating info that was known by 1920s). For a scholarly perspective in depth see Abraham Lincoln: redeemer President by Allen Guelzo p 151 online . Rev Smith was a Democrat, by the way. He and Abe chatted but it was Mrs Lincoln and the children who joined his church, not Abe. As for Smith's book--Abe read all the books that came his way. Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Barton is from the 1920's. Running and Barton are saying the same thing. I was unaware of the 1920 study. Nothing in the article mentions Smith's influence on Lincoln. Yes, Lincoln read many books, but Smith's book convinced him Christianity is the truth. That is not covered in the current article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that anything important on Lincoln's religious inclnations can be found in a newspaper article but not in any of the hundreds of scholarly biographies and journal articles about the man. If it's true, a better source exists. If no such source exists, it's probably a fringe theory. --Coemgenus 01:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theory? Lincoln stated that he was convinced Christianity is the truth. Barton is reliable. Running said that Lincoln kept his beliefs to himself, yet, there is the Barton quote from Lincoln. Running specifically studied the Springfield church Lincoln seldom attended due to 8th Judiciary Curcuit work. Barton can be used as a source in the article, in my opinion. Any objections or concerns? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Alan Guelzo mentions Reverend Smith. I just believe that Smith had some influence over Lincoln, especially his book. I am not sure how that is a fringe theory. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Lincoln stated that he was convinced Christianity is the truth." -- well that's dubious. Hundreds of people knew Abe well and only one person (Ninian Edwards) made that claim (and that came after Abe's death). Most biographers do not include it and most scholars do not have faith in Barton. When Lincoln was in Springfield he usually stayed home on Sunday (Pratt has published Lincoln's day-by-day activities)Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Guelzo stated that Lincoln had a "fairly sophisticated comprehension of the intricacies of Prostestant Christian doctrine." He believed in Baptism by full immersion. Reverend Smith evaluated Lincoln and stated that Lincoln was a skeptic who constantly read the Bible and had "speculative difficulties, connected with providence and revalation." Can any of this information be used in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of "equal rights" or the "end of slavery" in the Gettysburg address, yet this is mentioned in the article lede and section on the Gettysburg address. Did Lincoln specifically state what the Union men had died for?

I think that section is one of the best in the article, and it's current, post-FAC state looks fine to me. --Coemgenus 11:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I was just skipping ahead to the next question. The best way to answer the actual question would be to read the Gettysburg Address. --Coemgenus 16:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That is to say, "no". He wasn't even addressing the Union men in particular; he was addressing all the Americans who fell on that battlefield. (Or so I was taught, but it occurs to me my early elementary education was in 1960's Virginia, so that might be a piece of Confederate revisionism.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I posted this section because I have read the Gettysburg address. Again, there is nothing on "equal rights" or the "end of slavery". Lincoln does not specifically state why the Union men had died in the battle at Gettysburg. There is an allusion to "new birth of freedom." What does that mean? However, that is not "equal rights" or "end of slavery". Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever else could a "new birth of freedom" mean? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Lincoln does not say anything on the "end of slavery" and "equal rights". And yes, Lincoln does not even single out the Union soldiers, but (I suppose) included the Confederates. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not in those words, no. "Dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" seems to suffice, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"All men are created equal" was in the Declaration of Independence too, and clearly didn't apply to slaves. You can quote somebody else saying Lincoln was referring to slavery, a reliable source, but we can't just assume that's what he meant. --AW (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We can't assume anything. The end of the sentence in question in the article points to a source; what does the source say? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources given are Donald and Wills, is there some claim that they are misrepresented? Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources would need to be checked. The Gettysburg Address mentions "new birth of Freedom". Was Lincoln refering to a new nation without slavery? That statement, I suppose, could mean the end of slavery, however, he did not mention slavery specifically. And yes. Many of the founding fathers were slave owners and the slaves were not liberated after the Revolutionary War by the federal government. In that sense, Lincoln was excluding slaves. The initial constitution protected slavery as well as the Fugitive slave law of 1793. "Equal rights" clearly is not mentioned. "New birth of freedom" is open to interpretation and does not specifically say "end of slavery". Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If they need to be checked, then by all means check them. They're not hard to find. --Coemgenus 19:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln does not specifically mention what the cause was that the Union Soldiers were fighting for. Brogan stated that "all men are created equal" was Lincoln's primary focus, meaning that emancipation and the causes of the Union for fighting were one in the same. One then can state the Gettysburg Address, according to Brogan, was Lincoln linking slavery to the Union's war effort, without specifically stating slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually -- that's

WP:SYNTH. We'd be extrapolating, and I doubt there's any need to do so; some other reliable source must make exactly that point. --jpgordon^{::==( o )}

21:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

no. synthesis is taking ideas from different sources and coming up with something new. There is nothing new or synthetic here. Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I don't see synthesis, here. Its certainly not a new claim re what Lincoln was referring too in stressing 'all men are created equal' and 'new birth of freedom.' But I am still puzzled at what Cmguy is trying to get at, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it either. Cmguy: which part of the paragraph do you think is wrong? What new sentences do you want to add? --Coemgenus 22:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are sources or a source that stated that the statement "all men are created equal" means that Abraham Lincoln was for the equal rights, the source needs to be cited in the article. Was the source referring to equal rights for African Americans? Brogan believed that the "all men are created equal" taken from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independance meant that Lincoln believed the "causes of the union and emancipation were one." Since Lincoln did not directly mention slavery or equal rights, I believe the source needs to be stated in the article as a quote or as a restatement of a quote. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

For example, "Biographer Donald stated that Lincoln..." could be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What does Bogan have to do with the section? At any rate, I still don't know what the issue is; and the form "so-and so says" is just bad encyclopedia writing; there is a source, so people know who to look to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Brogan is a historian. I do not have the Donald book on Lincoln. The Google version only shows certain pages. Did Donald state that Lincoln, in the Gettysburg address, was for equal rights and for the end of slavery? Can someone put Donald's quote in this discussion section? I just wanted to know what Donald said. How is Donald interpreting the Lincoln's Gettysburg address?

Cmguy777 (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy777 rejects what all the other editors patiently tell him. It appears to me he needs to read Donald and Wills for himself if he thinks editors have misread them. Rjensen (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Donald book was very popular when it came out. I'd be surprized if you couldn't get it through your school or public library system. --Coemgenus 04:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the editors' patience. There are copies of Lincoln at my library. I do not reject any editors concerning Donald's work on Lincoln. I am attempting to verify what Donald said. I can see if Brogan and Donald match up or agree with each other. The book I have by Stauffer, Giants, does not comment on the Gettysburg address. From reading the Gettysburg address, Lincoln does not mention Union or Confederate. Lincoln also does not directly mention slavery, slaves, or emancipation. I suppose what is intriguing for me is what Lincoln does not say. Again, thanks for your patience. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

On Gettysburg address I strongly recommend concentrating on the Garry Wills book--which Donald (and many others) rely upon. As to policy: at Wikipedia we paraphrase sources and the paraphrases in question are not at all ambiguous or controversial. Rjensen (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Will's book is also at my library. I would have to read the sources. When the article states that Lincoln was for "equal rights", I would need to check the source for further understanding. Equal rights for women, men, African Americans...who? There is no direct mention of "end of slavery" in the Gettysburg address. I wanted to know how the source makes that conclusion. Brogan stated that when Lincoln spoke on "All men are created equal" he was taking the position that emancipation was now part of the war effort. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You could add Brogan as a source, if you want. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Section break I

I found three sources at the Library; Lincoln (Donald, 1995); Lincoln At Gettysburg (Wills, 1992); and What Lincoln Believed (Lind, 2004). Will's stated "This is the belief of Lincoln---that the Declaration is a pledge "to all people of all colors everywhere". That is on page 105. Ok. This makes sense. "All men are created equal" then means that Lincoln was inferring that all people of all color were equal in the Gettysburg Address. Donald stated that Lincoln was refering to "human equality". According to Donald, there was no reason for Lincoln to mention slavery because "the Confederacy did not share these values". This was found on page 462. According to Lind, on pages 273-274, Lincoln is defending democracy, since the world was watching whether the nation founded on "All men are created equal" would dissolve. Had America failed, totalitarian governments would use this as an example of how Democracy does not work. Lincoln was protecting democracy in the Gettysburg Address. Possibly the Lind explanation can be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I added sources and context. How much was Lincoln dedicated to the equal rights of blacks? He stated that he believed the declaration was for all races, however, he wanted them colonized out of the country. Lind stated that Lincoln was for Black codes. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Brogan (an old textbook) and Lind (a popular journalist) are not experts on Lincoln and should not be cited when there are so many better sources given in the bibliographies. Perhaps the best is the new book by Eric Foner The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery (2010)(portions of which are online at google and [http://www.amazon.com/Fiery-Trial-Abraham-Lincoln-American/dp/0393066185/ search text at amazon].Rjensen (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Foner is at the top of the field. I saw that he had a new Lincoln bio, but I haven't read it. It would make a good source for this section. --Coemgenus 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to locate it in a library near you:

OCLC 601096674

. Agreed, Great Reference for this article. --22:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

I would have to check the Foner source. Foner is an excellent and relevant historian. Donald is 1996 and Wills is 1993. One could argue they are older sources from the 20th century. I would hope Donald and Wills are good sources because they have done reliable research. Brogan may be old, however, I believe his views on the Gettysburg Address are relavent. I am not sure how Lind is excluded for being a popular journalist. The whole book, in my opinion, is a well researched book on Lincoln and his views. I find Wills to be a jumbled text on English prose and at times throwing in history on Lincoln. I find Lind to be critical of Lincoln at times and I believe offers a good counter balance to the article. My whole point for looking at other sources is to get as accurately as possible what Lincoln was saying in the Gettysburg Address. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Historians do not have a favorable view of Lind's book on Lincoln. McColley, for one, is devastating: ("In chapters on education, politics, slavery, nationalism, race, and the Civil War, Lind decides precisely where Lincoln stood, and happily excludes all evidence to the contrary."; "Lind concludes that Lincoln was a white supremacist throughout his life, and that his hope was for a purely white America....[but] In fact, there is no reliable evidence that Lincoln continued to advocate colonization after 1 January 1863, and abundant evidence that Lincoln was determined to accomplish the complete end of slavery in the United States as soon as he could, and find a comfortable and secure place for the former slaves. Alien C. Guelzo's book ...makes a case that rests on far more facts than Lind considers." . Robert McColley, Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society v.98#4 2005 pp 303+) I have not found a single scholar who cites Lind. I have not found a single positive review using JSTOR or Project MUSE or America: History & Life (which cover several hundred scholarly history journals). That makes Lind at best a fringe author.Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I used Lind [only] on the Gettysburg address, not on white supremacy. I randomly chose Lind at my Library since there was information on the Gettysburg address. I agree that Lincoln abandoned the colonization plan in 1863. I believe at one time Lincoln was comfortable with white supremacy. Lincoln did sign the Freedman's Bureau into existance. He did speak frankly and honestly with Frederick Douglas. That is evidence he had changed his views on blacks. Did Lincoln free the slaves to save the nation, or did he free the slaves for liberty? Initially Lincoln stated if he could save the Union without freeing the slaves he would. That apparently contradicts his view that the Declaration was made for "all colors". Cmguy777 (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I had also used Lind that Lincoln supported other Thirteenth Amendments. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The copyright on the Hugh Brogan book is 1985, not 1940. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

right--my mistake. In any case a 25 year old textbook is too old (and textbooks are weak sources in the first place). Brogan is not an expert on the Civil War/Lincoln materials. Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read Lind. He stated that Lincoln advocated Northern states to exclude blacks, and that the freedmen had the choice of leaving the country or remain in the southern states and live as peasantry. Is this why Lind is fringe by historians? Lind said historians have ignored this part of Lincoln's policy toward African Americans. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose we re-establish the current agenda of consensus items that need work; I will begin, as follows;

• Bibliography/Notes clean up.

• Paragraph on Indian affairs.

• External links & See also sections.

I removed the see also section. All of the links except Lincoln Park were moved elsewhere in the article or to templates. Brad (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Religion & philosophical beliefs section.
  talk
  ) 13:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Religion & philosophical beliefs section was edited down to some extent. It appears to be at least 25% smaller than previously. The external links section is in good shape after its cleaning. The see also section is ready to be gone; I was holding off doing anything further while the stampede was going on. Brad (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Deal with all request tags for clarification, dates, cites, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the article I have noticed there is apparent lack of critical review of Abraham Lincoln. Are any historians other then Lind critical of anything Lincoln did or said? Lind has been excluded from the article. The only criticism is that he neglected his family in the lede section. If I am in error, please point out the any criticism in the article. I admit there is not much to critisize Lincoln on. Did Lincoln make any mistakes? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If you read some of those biographies we discussed above, you'll see plenty of criticism by Lincoln's contemporaries. If you come up with some language you want to add to some section, we can all discuss it. --Coemgenus 10:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The biographies or books I currently have access to include Donald, Wills, Lind, and Stauffer. Stauffer contents that Lincoln had a romantic relationship with Joshua Speed and that Lincoln became an antagonist of the expansion of slavery due to his rivalry between Stephen Douglas. (pp. 110, 187) Lincoln supported Zachary Taylor for President who owned 130 slaves.(p. 177) Stauffer stated Lincoln was considered inconsistent with his anti slavery views.(p. 175) Lincoln was not against the annexation of the slave state Texas. (p. 175) Lincoln was comforable with slavery at Joshua Speeds family's plantation in Farmington, Kentucky. (p. 118) Lincoln followed a policy of concilliation to the slave South. (p. 183) Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That Lincoln-was-gay crowd is the definition of

WP:FRINGE. They conflate Victorian sentimentality and poor hotel accomodations with 21st-century homosexuality, a conflation that serious historians like Donald reject. Even so, there's already a link in the article to Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, where such things are discussed. As to supporting Taylor, it seems unremarkable that a Whig supported a Whig candidate, and the article already mentions it. --Coemgenus

16:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The term romantic and gay are not one in the same thing. Lincoln did live in the age of romanticism. I was not implying Lincoln was a 21-Century homosexual. There is no evidence Lincoln had a sexual relationship with Speed. The article does not mention Taylor owned 130 slaves. Is Lincoln supporting a slave owner for President fringe? Stauffer is not fringe. Is there any objection to putting in the article that Lincoln supported Taylor, a slave owning candidate? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the proposed sentences:

Realizing Clay was unlikely to win the presidency, Lincoln, who had pledged in 1846 to serve only one term in the House, supported General

1848 presidential election. Lincoln believed party loyalty was more important then the anti-slavery cause. Cmguy777 (talk

) 17:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

that is misleading. Lincoln never opposed the election of slave owners (he married into a slave owning family himself, as did Fremont and Grant), and anti-slavery was not an issue for Whigs in 1848. T introduce Taylor's property holdings tells readers it was an important issue in 1848 and that is false Rjensen (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on Grant does mention he did not have any animosity towards slavery before the American Civil War. Possibly more could be said on Grant and slavery, particularly at the beginning of the War. Grant may have made a statement that he would not fight Confederates if the war was over slavery. That may shed light on Lincoln's view of the war. Possibly Lincoln did not immediately free slaves to keep northern soilders in the Army as well as the Northern states. I thought Freemont supported abolitionism. Can an abolitionist own slaves? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Stauffer the source said that Lincoln agitated abolitionists by supporting a slaveowner. I was going by the source. Is Stauffer fringe? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(od)Cmguy, you appear genuinely concerned about helping the article obtain FA status but in this case you are going about this in the wrong manner. You've read the article and decided there isn't enough criticism and now you're going out and attempting to find some. This is rather backward reasoning because there isn't a person in the world who hasn't been criticized at some point in their life. An issue such as AL backing a political candidate who happened to be a slave owner just isn't worthy of mention considering many politicians of the age were slave owners. In this sense an entire political body supported a slave owner for the position of first US President. Very few complaints are ever heard about Washington owning slaves. At the last FAC, lack of criticism in the article was brought up over Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus but it was also discussed that introducing that controversy into the article may take things towards an off-topic discussion. If any criticism should be in this article it should focus on the points that had effect on the entire country as a whole. Brad (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going by the source Stauffer. This is a biography article on Abraham Lincoln. I am not for putting in controversy for the sake of putting in controversy. Lind has been considered fringe and he has been excluded from the article. I accepted that. Stauffer in my opinion is not fringe and focused on Lincoln as a person. Yes. Lincoln was a public figure, that is true. However, I believe once a person is involved in public life, then the person can be historically accessed. I was focusing on Lincoln's views on slavery since he was the President who freed the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation. Adding any critism, if there is any to add to the article, would not in anyway take away Lincoln's greatness as a President or a human being. Stauffer also mentioned that Lincoln was in favor of the Mexican American War before he was elected. This may show inconsistency in Lincoln's stand on the Mexican American war, a national issue. Lincoln was not adverse to the annexation of the slave holding Texas. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln opposed the Mex-Am War. Find "spot" in the article. Clay also owned slaves. Texas was annexed in 1845. Lincoln was not in office in 1845. Fillmore opposed the Wilmot Proviso. Taylor said he would not veto it. --JimWae (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Stauffer is an English prof writing an intepretive essay and often gets his facts wrong (Lincoln did not support going to war with Mexico). Stauffer does not pretend to be a biographer and should not be relied upon for facts. Rjensen (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln's opposition to the Mexican War is well-known, and any biographer who misstates so basic a fact is not to be taken seriously. Harping on his support for Taylor is similarly nonsensical. It's like complaining that Walter Mondale wasn't for gay marriage in 1984. Neither was anyone else in the political mainstream: it wasn't a big issue yet. An historian would know that, but not every Lincoln biographer is an historian, it seems. --Coemgenus 11:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Stauffer is an English professor and Chair of History of American Civilization. On May 30, 1846, according to Donald (Lincoln, pp. 122-123), Lincoln gave a speech that encouraged enlistment in the Mexican American War. According to Stauffer (Giants, p. 175), this was done to appease Illinois voters. Yes. Lincoln spoke out against Polk and the war while in Congress. Lincoln then voted for a provision to supply the Army and honor the officers, thus, according to Stauffer, Lincoln supported the war. According to Stauffer (Giants, p. 379), most Whigs voted for appropriations not to appear unpatriotic. Rep. Adams and Rep. Giddings refused to fund the war. Adams and Giddings were against the war. Even according to Donald (Lincoln, p. 124, 125), Lincoln had failed to tell his constituents he was against the war before being elected. Lincoln's opposition to the War was hardly noticed after the war ended. I believe the article needs to mention Lincoln voted for the Ashmun resolution that funded the war. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

the way politics works is that you can oppose a war but are not allowed to oppose the troops. Stauffer did little or no research on the topic and does not pretend to be a RS on political matters. Rjensen (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If that is true, Rjensen, then Lincoln was just another politian. This is a bio article on Lincoln and not on politics. My proposed sentence is this:

"Lincoln, however, out of patriotic duty to his party and country, voted for the Ashmun amendment that funded the troops and officers." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

that misses the main issue, which is that AL opposed the war and that badly hurt him in Illinois, where the war was popular. Beveridge is good on this point. Rjensen (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln did not run again because he made a pledge only to serve one term. I pledge he tried to get out of by saying if no one else ran he would serve again. I was not disputing that Lincoln's opposition to the War "hurt him" in Illinois. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Ashmun amendment was an amendment to an amendment[1] It opposed the Mexican War. I think it could be time to stop giving Stauffer any credence. --JimWae (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Stauffer is bunk, or, rather, de-bunked. --Coemgenus 19:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Lincoln voted to fund the Mexican American War and the Ashmun amendment that stated the war was unconstitutional and uneccessary. The Ashmum amendment does not exclude that Lincoln voted to fund the war. In any case, since other editors oppose any discussed inclusions, I consider this section on criticism closed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What about Lincoln's friend Frederick Douglas, whom Lincoln invited into the White House to discuss the inclusion of black troops, with equal pay, among other things? Douglas was also very critical of Lincoln's 'Negro colonization policy' and that he had spent so much time on a 'discredited issue'. Both D.H. Donald (pp.221, 429-430) and C. Sandburg (p.381) cover this pretty well. Btw, the only place on the page here that mentions Frederick Douglas' name occurs in a sentence/link. A section devoted to 'Criticism' may not be the best approach but perhaps any criticism made toward Lincoln can be worked into the text where appropriate, per the topic in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The source is in the bibliography section. Foner stated that Lincoln diverged sharply from party vote with the Palfrey bill. Lincoln boarded with Rep. Giddings an abolitionist. Lincoln's own abolition plan and Gidding's support got him the 1860 Presidential nomination.

"But in these December votes, Lincoln diverged sharply from nearly all the other northern Whigs. Thus, forty-nine northern Whigs voted in favor of allowing Palfrey to introduce his bill abolishing slavery in the District; only six, including Lincoln, opposed."

Foner, Eric (2010). The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery (p. 56). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

But the "one exception" in the text need clarification. Was it his "one exception" to his opposition to slavery or to party loyalty? Was he the one exception in the party?(NO) Was this his ONE and ONLY exception to party loyalty?(not clear from source)--JimWae (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I clarified. I put Lincoln diverged from Northern Whigs. The 30th House had 116 Whigs. There were 55 Northern Whigs. That would make 61 Southern Whigs. Six Northern Whigs voted against Palfrey's bill and included Lincoln. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not implying that Lincoln had an exception to slavery opposition. The clarification was needed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Voting with 66 of 115 other Whigs is not an exception to party loyalty (which is topic of preceding sentence). Is the paragraph topic party loyalty or slavery or his term in HR? Acc to [2] and [3], there was no vote taken on the bill itself, only on the procedure of introducing w/o notice. Apparently AL was sponsoring a competing bill that did follow procedure. Votes on procedural matters do not indicate policy positions on issues. Are such votes important to his term of office?--JimWae (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Foner, the source, believed this information was important enough for his book. I took out the word "exception" and replaced with diverged. The point Foner was making is that a majority of northern Whigs wanted to vote on the Palfrey bill. Foner stated that Lincoln in collaboration with Giddings made their own bill. Why would Lincoln make a bill to allow the vote to abolish slavery in Washington D.C., paid emancipation, and enforcement of fugitive slaves not be his policy. The article does not mention why Lincoln voted against the vote to vote on the Palfrey bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the section to emphasize that Lincoln and Giddings had a bill to abolish slavery in DC with compensation (Lincoln always insisted on compensation, which is why he could not support the Palfrey plan, notes Foner. I also gave a little more detail on Mexican war. Rjensen (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

After EC: A single sentence may have little weight when it appears in a complete book of 200 pages or so. The same sentence in an overview article of 10 pages or so can be undue weight -- especially without context. He did not vote on the bill itself - nor did anyone-- that is easily overlooked in "voted against the introduction of a bill". If his bill was already up for consideration (which later he realized had no chance of winning and withdrew), voting in favor of bringing forward a bill (possibly to be voted on ahead of his) with an obvious lesser chance of success would hinder his own bill - not just procedurally but also lose him support for his bill. Anyway, I see RJ has revised it --JimWae (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Foner mentioned that with another anti-slavery bill where Lincoln did not vote for to bring his own bill. That is how the House works, at least then. Each congress can make their own rules, according to the Constitution. However, AL wanted a moderated plan, and one he believed was constitutional as been shown by his actual bill he proposed. Foner pointed out Lincoln's abolition bill because there was concern at the 1860 convention on Lincoln enforcement of capturing fugitive slaves. Gidding's, an abolitionist, stuck up for Lincoln at the 1860 Convention to get Radicals to vote for him. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I accept Rjensen's edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln's memorial stamp was on this page since April 13 of 2010 and was removed before a fair and established consensus had been made. It was issued exactly one year to the day after Lincoln's untimely death. This was the nation's 1st Lincoln postage stamp, issued by the US government as a direct result of Lincoln's death and from overwhelming national pressure. Since Lincoln is almost as common to US postage as Washington is, the page should reflect this with at least one postage image and brief mention of this historical advent. This historical image is unique to Lincoln's legacy and should be restored to the page. I have left notice on the

• For -- Relevant image is a national 1st, an act of the US gov, directly related to Lincoln and his untimely death, a feature item in Lincoln's legacy that reflects Lincoln's prominence in US history. Gwillhickers (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose -- The unique memorials we could picture are nigh on endless. A stamp, no matter how unique, is far down on the list regarding general interest. (eg. there is a huge temple in the center our nation's capital, a massive carving on a mountain face, every place he ever lived, including the recreation of an entire village, where he was shot and died, a monumental tomb, coins and paper money, etc.)Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Ditto the above - this is the top ranking president and high selectivity is a must. The two links provided are quite adequate for this. The stamp shall remain as glueless in this article as the offering editor is clueless (and also tendentious per WP).
  talk
  ) 12:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

See Javaweb vote in favor below and ref. to Lincoln movie above - are we also going to add the vampire movie reference?

talk

) 17:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not if the decision is up to me. --Javaweb (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

Please stick to the arguments we make in this thread. They stand on their own. --Javaweb (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

• Oppose. This image is relevant to an article on stamps, tangential at best to a general biography. The Lincoln 1866 stamp is important, perhaps, in the history of American postage but it's insignificant in the history of A. Lincoln. --Coemgenus 12:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• For I fail to see the controversy on having Lincoln's first memorial stamp issued in the article or a brief paragraph on stamps. Lincoln is part of American myth and folklore. The stamp is part of Lincoln's legacy and a tribute to his life and death. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• For Postage stamps like this are official records of what the US wanted people to remember and the illustrations enhance the article. 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
• Oppose There are only two sections where this stamp would be applicable and those are Assassination or Memorial. If the assassination section were at least twice as large as it is now there would be room to support two pics; but it's not large enough. This means only one pic is acceptable and File:The Assassination of President Lincoln - Currier and Ives 2.png is much more visually relevant to the section text than the stamp would be. The assassination pic is also a featured picture. Featured picture in a featured article. If the Memorial section were at least twice as large as it is now there would be room to support two pics; but it's not large enough. This means only one pic is acceptable and File:Aerial view of Lincoln Memorial - east side EDIT.jpeg is much more visually relevant and immediately recognizable to the section text than the stamp would be. I also agree with the statements made in the above three opposes. Brad (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Even assuming there were room (in a larger memorial section) for another pic, there are other compelling pics that would have to take priority, e.g. Mt. Rushmore.

talk

) 11:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The stamp is pretty much blah, with a standard image of Lincoln. Seeing it doesn't really help the reader understand the subject of an article, it's just a stamp. I would agree with Brad101 and suggest that another image be selected. I guess the question is, what's more important, an almost forgotten stamp or a Washington DC memorial which has become part of our national heritage?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• For The stamp is crisp, clean and clear. Is it something that people can find easily, or will seeing it on Wikipedia, be the only time they may see it? How rare is it and how rare is it to see it? I hope we use a RARE photo over another "city skyline" or another "blah blah" photo! SenatorSteve (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose in the great scheme of things, a stamp seems minor. I don't mind having it in, but if there are space limitations and this much time is spent debating it, better to take it out. That said, people need to take a deep breath and be more cordial during these arguments, plus there are some borderline
  ownership issues. --AW (talk
  ) 22:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - not a big deal, but if forced to choose, I oppose because there are more dramatic and better-known memorial images. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although somewhat notable, not notable enough given the length of the article and the existence of sufficient images in the applicable sections. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

For If the stamp that is in Wikimedia Commons and all the copyright status is good (no copyrighted images of the stamp I mean), then I am for it.
I believe that since the stamp was issued due to Lincoln's death, then it should be on the article page, for it is an encypopedic information.
I do not however, think that it is a good idea to make a (an) image gallery on the article page, if there is, then I suggest that they should make an new article, like Abraham Lincoln Stamp or something like that. IF you have any comments at least leave a notice on

Hoping to reinforce his views about stamp pics, Gwillickers began canvassing on 25 and 24 May leaving messages such as this one on multiple user talk pages. If one of his canvassed subjects does not respond in a manner that Gwillickers approves of he will return and prompt them to respond correctly. Gwillickers has been warned twice in the past about canvassing including an AN/I where he was instructed to use RfC instead. So it's no surprise below when he begs for a few more days for editors to come and comment by his direction. Canvassing is disruptive behavior which should stop immediately. Brad (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There are several ways for Appropriate notification. All guidelines have been observed, thank you, so this message only serves to harass users to which you disagree. Some of the people I notified voted against inclusion of the stamp, btw. Only people with an interest in US history were notified. Please familiarize yourself with basic and fundamental rules regarding canvassing. -- As for this 'comment'.. If one of his canvassed subjects does not respond in a manner that Gwillickers approves of he will return and prompt them to respond correctly. 'One' comment was made to a user who only commented and didn't vote, apparently overlooking the consensus call in the lengthy talk page here. This and only this was all that was pointed out to this one individual, as the record will show. Sorry. This quite transparent attempt to convince others that I am approaching all such voters in this manner is in violation of several policies regarding (1, Harassment / Hounding, 2. Campaign to drive away productive contributors, 3. Civility) of which you should also familiarize yourself with. Again, you've demonstrated that you substitute rancor and harassment in place of any viable arguments. Please make efforts to curtail this sort of behavior, as it is unwarranted and assumes bad faith as I came to the page with the best of intentions. This latest attempt by a couple of editors to plunge the discussion into a rancorous dialog with the obvious intention of disrupting the consensus building process is becoming a serious issue. Please make a better attempt to abide by guidelines. Thanks, Brad. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the party, sorry. While I disagree with Gwillickers about the stamp, I fully agree with him on notification. It is perfectly reasonable to notify people who have expressed an interest in a subject of a current discourse. Gwillickers should be mindful, however, that discussions about the topic should stay on the topic's message page, not other users' message pages (he says was done only once). --BizMgr (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Arguments in Consensus call

(suggestion: anyone who needs to respond to someone's reasons in the consensus call
should do so here so we can keep the record clear and easy to read.)

Alanscottwalker's argument

(copy/paste:) Oppose - The unique memorials we could picture are nigh on endless. A stamp, no matter how unique, is far down on the list regarding general interest. (eg. there is a huge temple in the center our nation's capital, a massive carving on a mountain face, every place he ever lived, including the recreation of an entire village, where he was shot and died, a monumental tomb, coins and paper money, etc.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, the unique memorials to Lincoln are actually quite finite in number. We are not trying to include every bumper sticker or calender that has Lincoln's image here. Unlike other memorials, the Lincoln memorial stamp was a direct response to Lincoln's unfortunate death. It is an item that helped interface the hearts and minds of the people in the nation with this man's passing. It is also an item that involved Lincoln's Postmaster General (who was now serving under Johnson), Congress and great public pressure. While I have always fairly acknowledged that the item doesn't compare with the Gettysburg Address it still is an item that deserves highlighting in a legacy capacity. Btw, the other items you mentioned, (Lincoln Memorial, Mt. Rushmore, etc), also serve to highlight Lincoln's prominence and deserve brief mention in this capacity also. Lincoln was one of the nation's greatest presidents, the only one comparable to Washington. The items mentioned serve to demonstrate this idea nicely and in a way that could bring the page to sort of a poetic closing. (Sort of, but let's not forget we are writing for human beings who will turn the page if you hand them an account that looks and reads like a dictionary.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not the mentioning of the stamp, it is picturing it, instead of the other memorials. The other memorials are more important and relevant and deserve pictures before the stamp does. You cannot honestly maintain that the stamp is more important than the penny or the five dollar bill. And even these are not as important as the other massive monuments and shrines associated with his life and death. Within one month of his death, the largest Chicago park (and the second most visited public park in the United States today), Lincoln Park, was dedicated in his honor. So, even by your criteria, that deserves a picture before the stamp.Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the other memorials, the 1st Lincoln stamp was prompted by a landmark historical event, and turning point in American history. To many this is more important, and more related to Lincoln, than a statue carved in stone many years later. (and one of four, not specific to Lincoln only.) While the Lincoln penny is certainly more common place, it doesn't tie in with Lincoln on a personal note as does the Lincoln memorial stamp, again prompted by a specific event and great public/congressional pressure. Also, there is nothing stopping anyone from including images of some of these other items. Since legacy or memorial sections throughout wikipedia often contain more than the average amount of images there is no reason why we can't give the readers a picture of e.g.the Lincoln penny also. I would still keep the image of the Lincoln memorial at the top right of the page, and a little larger (250-300px) than the average size. The Lincoln fans will love it, and it would seem that the readers in general would appreciate the way the editors here have brought Lincoln's biography to a closing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the memorials were prompted by the same landmark historical events. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly right! Everything commemorating Lincoln "ties into Lincoln on a personal note," whatever that means. They're all memorials to the same man. It's not like he's on the stamp because he was assassinated and on the penny because he signed the Homestead Act. He's on both because of everything he did. And the penny, the $5, the Lincoln Memorial, and Mount Rushmore are far more important to the average reader because the average reader will have actually heard of these things. He is far more likely to notice the absence of these memorials than the more obscure ones (like a stamp issued 150 years ago). Step outside your own favorite interests for a moment and you'll see I'm right, Gwills. The rest of the world considers these things way, way more significant than a piece of postage. --Coemgenus 08:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly wrong. Name 'the' landmark historical event that prompted Mt. Rushmore, and the Lincoln Memorial. The memorial stamp was in direct response to Lincoln's death, a landmark event. While it can be said that all events tie into Lincoln's legacy one way or the other, to 'some' extent, it doesn't change the fact that Lincoln's death and memorial stamp are -directly- related. btw, there is plenty of room, for other images, and there is always the gallery foremat that can be employed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The preponderance of biographical material, especially of Lincoln, which is not in any way subject to the space limitations here, does not give postal commemorations the prominent display being suggested.

talk

) 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This concern I believe has already been addressed. Images hardly impact page length, and again, lets stop walking on egg-shells about page length. If the amount/scope/depth of material offered warrants it, articles still become FA if they are well written, regardless if they are somewhat longer than the average page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Bunk.

talk

) 02:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't just say that we should ignore page length because you don't like it. For one thing, other people care about it. FA reviewers care about it. It matters, even if you don't like it. For another, you're confusing the problem of the article being too long with the problem of there not being enough room for the images. This article has both problems, but the former is being addressed, mostly without contention. The latter is what prevents there being room for stamps -- there are already pics of more prominent memorials/legacies/whatever-you-want-to-call-it in the space you want to put stamps. --Coemgenus 20:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful -- I didn't say we should ignore it simply because 'I' don't like it. All I am saying is that there is plenty of allowances afforded to any section if it presents above average scope and depth. Again, there are plenty of FA that make full use of this allowance, and as far as I've seen no one has abused this allowance in FA's. This should be good news for everyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy777's argument

(copy/paste) For I fail to see the controversy on having Lincoln's first memorial stamp issued in the article or a brief paragraph on stamps. Lincoln is part of American myth and folklore. The stamp is part of Lincoln's legacy and a tribute to his life and death. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The stamps are objected to by reviewers on the recent FAC. The principal complaints I believe are 1) relevance and 2) space limitations.

talk

) 21:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I know of no objection to mentioning the stamp along with the money, etc. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the image is a good use of space, when we cannot picture every memorial. The memorials I listed above of of greater importance and relevance and deserve pictures, here, before the picture of the stamp, is even editorially considered. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt's argument

(copy/paste) Wehwalt: Oppose The stamp is pretty much blah, with a standard image of Lincoln. Seeing it doesn't really help the reader understand the subject of an article, it's just a stamp. I would agree with Brad101 and suggest that another image be selected. I guess the question is, what's more important, an almost forgotten stamp or a Washington DC memorial which has become part of our national heritage?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Response: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates

memorabilia such as postage stamps. Cmguy777 (talk

) 16:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Cmguy, your response doesn't address the issue here, and isn't based on any policy or reasoning. Wehwalt's point, as I understand it, is that there's only so much space for images and the Lincoln Memorial is more important and more relevant than a stamp no one's ever heard of. --Coemgenus 17:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently the 15 cent Lincoln - black stamp is worth $1,150.00 in mint condition. The stamp has value to any memorabilia collectors. This is from Wikipedia's article "Wikipedia's departure from the expert-driven style of encyclopedia building and the large presence of unacademic content has been noted several times." Stamps are unacademic content that can be used in the article. Large sections for the article are devoted to Grant and McClellan. Why can't a simple stamp in honor to Lincoln be included in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

So, you think the Lincoln Memorial image should be replaced by the stamp? There's not room for both. --Coemgenus 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of room in the section for at least two more average sized images. Also, am not sure who made the removal, but shouldn't the USS Lincoln along with other items possibly, be returned to the section? Again, plenty of FA's have much longer legacy sections. Seems as if we're making an issue out of something that has already been approved in FA articles many times. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

We're supposed to

avoid crowding. That was the rule behind this whole dispute, remember? What looks fine on your monitor might not work for others. --Coemgenus

21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see all this room you refer to, but even were that true the stamp would editorially be way down on the list, given all the other prominent things to picture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The memorial stamp ties in with Lincoln more directly than e.g.The library that was no doubt built many years later. Ditto with Mt.Rushmore. And while the 'stamp' itself may be not as prominent as e..g.The Lincoln memorial, the idea of 'Lincoln on Postage' is quite common and so this image could very adequately be representative of that idea also. Plenty of room for one or two more average sized images. See my draft of the Present memorial section on my user page. Even with the Lincoln memorial size set larger to 280px, there is still more than enough room. Besides, this section needs more work and material and will be getting longer anyway. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The images sandwich the text in your draft, at least on my computer, which is exactly why we shouldn't have two images. It looks a mess. --Coemgenus 02:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The images are well apart from one another, one image much lower than the first. What are you using for a monitor? A "mess"?? Not on an average sized (19-23") monitor. One time I stopped into the local public library and used their rig, with only a 17" monitor, just to see what some of the pages looked like. There was no problem whatsoever. Also, MOS allows for a pixel size of up to 500px "so that they can comfortably be displayed on the smallest displays..." -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This mess:

File:Too many images.jpg

It's the exact thing this policy was meant to avoid. Since you refused to take my statement in good faith, I uploaded the proof. Now can you admit that the image policy exists for a reason? --Coemgenus 02:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your screen lacks the wiki' sidebar, standard setting for most users. This is what it looks like from my end using a 21" standard monitor, and from this I can also determine it will look ok on library monitors whose settings are also standard. What are you using for a monitor, a wide screen TV? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I have the sidebar, it's just cut off in the picture. I don't have any unusual layout, just a Dell computer and monitor running Windows 7, like thousands of other users. I've proved that your layout is substandard and that the policy of fewer images is correct. Will you abide by policy, or shall we waste more time on red herrings? --Coemgenus 03:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have the sidebar out of the picture it only means your screen is even wider than what you are actually showing us. As for anything "proved", I could say I have 'proved' that standard monitors and settings are quite adequate and that it is you who's throwing out the red herring with a screen-capture obviously taken from a very wide screen (evidenced by an average of 32+ words per line, compared to my 16 words per line of text -- if there were no images next to the text the words per lines would be even greater). Even on your screen, the images are a mile apart. Doesn't look crowded at all. -- As for policy, I am assuming you are referring to policy pertaining to over crowding of images. There is none to speak of as both you and I have just demonstrated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is for everyone, not just people whose computers Gwillhickers deems "standard". --Coemgenus 11:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The stamp could be returned to the Historical treatment (formerly Legacy) section on Lincoln. Of course the Lincoln Memorial is more important, however, this is a historical article. The 1866 memorial stamp of Abraham Lincoln is a historical memorabilia item. The Grant and McClellan sections, diverge from the Lincoln biography and read as American Civil War sections. I believe these two section can be combined into one section "Lincoln and his generals" or "Finding a fighting general" or "Relationship with Union generals". Room can be found for the stamp. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Grant and McClellan sections are very long and need to be reduced, greatly. This material should come under the heading of 'Civil War' or 'Military involvements' or something along this idea. And yes, amid all the apparent concern for 'space' and 'page length' these sections have been sitting here untouched (in terms of length) for weeks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The McClellan and Grant sections quite appropriately stand alone and should not be sacrificed for this purpose.

talk

) 14:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Those two sections came through the last FA candidacy much improved and are of appropriate length. Let's stick to the subject of the dispute. --Coemgenus 14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

edit-break1

The stamp can be placed anywhere in the article except the lede and does not have to just fit in the Memorial section. The appropriate and best section to place the stamp to save room is the Historical treatment section. There seems to be strong opposition in the on the Lincoln stamp controversy. I suppose the dispute is length of article rather then the stamp. That is why I mentioned the Grant and McClellan sections. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For starters, these should be put in before the stamp . . .

Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The first Lincoln stamp Issue of 1866

Lincoln's profile on the US cent

Lincoln's image on the $5 bill

Lincoln's image issued by the Federal government

Three statues?? "put in before"? What section? The memorial stamp ties in directly with the assassination section. The penny doesn't, nor anything else on your list. (i.e.the Memorial in London??) Latter day museums are just general tributes and such, unlike the memorial stamp which is specific to Lincoln's untimely demise, involving Lincoln's PMG/cabinet member, congressional debate and great public pressure, unlike any item on the list. Also, what landmark event prompted Mt. Rushmore, the Lincoln Museum, and that memorial in London(!). As for image placement in the memorial section, I would say the Lincoln memorial should be the main image and made larger, btw. Because of Lincoln's long and involved history, the memorial or legacy section should have subsections as do other very famous individuals (in FA's) with an assortment of items offered. Items like the USS Lincoln were also removed. If the section is well written, there should be little concern for it growing accordingly, as well written and structured legacy sections exist in many FA's. In this particular case, the 'space limitation' argument doesn't wash. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

All of these are of greater interest and prominence. They are better pictures and more interesting, than the stamp. The great tomb is much more tied to Lincoln's death than the stamp. The penny and $5 bill, more evocative of his memory to more people, and more relevant to everyone. The cliff face sculpture more monumental and of greater interest. The Library Museum better illustrates continuing academic and popular interest. The London statue, his international prominence. The famous Lincoln Monument sculpture, all of the above, especially in light of the inscription. I won't go as far as the claim made for the stamp (above) that it belongs anywhere in the article but anywhere it does belong, these pictures are better looking, more interesting, and more illustrative of the point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The images you speak of would work nice in a memorial section but there are already many illustrations that deal with Lincoln in a general manner and there is already a picture of a statue. There is no arguable reason one of these items you mentioned along with a 1st Lincoln (memorial) stamp (good for DYK) would not work, as again, the memorial section can be made longer. -- Several editors now have expressed the idea of a larger memorial or legacy section or different image formats or placing the item where there is plenty of room. Again larger developed memorial/legacy sections work well in several Featured Articles. (thanks Coem') -- The stamp is not only representative of Presidents on postage but is also the first national memorial/honor given to Lincoln (aside from his military style funeral). Since Lincoln is about as common to US postage/currency as Washington it would seem this alone would merit at least one stamp image, and what better stamp for this than Lincoln's 1st memorial/postage stamp. Yes, show the readers as much common/famous material as is practical, but I highly doubt anyone is not going to find the story behind the 1st Lincoln stamp not interesting if they're allowed to view and read about it. And is this the criteria for information, image or text, that it must be well known before you can cover it in an encyclopedia? Isn't the main purpose of an encyclopedia to educate ... or is it merely something that should only cover items that are already well known about? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to educate people about the stamp, create an article on it, and by all means link to it, here. There is no call to shoehorn it into the general biography. This is a general biography article and the images I have identified belong here before the stamp does, as they are more interesting pictures, they are better looking pictures, they are more relevant, and they are more prominent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the stamp by itself, it's about the history prompting the stamp and the nation coming together one year later and honoring Lincoln, and it's also representative of Lincoln on postage, as he's the only President who is as common to US postage as is Washington. That by itself is an item that merits a stamp image it would seem. We already have a picture of a statue (however we still could use one more of Mt. Rushmore) and there are already many pictures that address Lincoln in a general way. The penny, while much more 'famous' is quite commonplace and I don't think most folks would require a picture of it. We still can add one or two of the images you offered, with a summary write up for each item, along with the memorial stamp, also with summary coverage about the memorial significance, honors and the national sentiment of the time. No reason why we can't offer all of these things to the readers if it's handled right. Many FA's have above average legacy sections that handle the variety of material nicely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

All of that stuff is about the stamp, not Lincoln, except for that part about the nation coming together, which is just something you've invented. There was no nationwide mass movement for a postage stamp.

More importantly, the opinion of editors here is running more than 2:1 against your proposal to add the stamp to the memorial section. Isn't it time we closed the book on this? You called for this !vote to establish consensus. Will you abide by the results? --Coemgenus 11:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole nation certainly didn't come together, but enough did where it got congressional support, (like any other commemorative/memorial issue) reflecting the nation's morning. And it doesn't matter it pertains to the stamp. There's nothing wrong with that if it's relevant to an event, which it was and is, suitable for a legacy presentation. You can't say the item is inappropriate just because it is a stamp. You need a rational reason. -- Don't know why you're asking me if I will abide by consensus when it was I who wanted it established. The stamp is already off the page. Consensus is presently in favor of the stamp not being restored to the section. I don't think it will change much, but let's give it time because many editors only log on once or twice a week. Putting it in a expanded legacy section is a new development that should be explored but I suspect at this point you want nothing to do with it for personal reasons. Maybe not. I made some contributions to the text in the 'Assassination' section, along with the stamp pix back in April of 2010 but have otherwise come to this page late in its development. Presently of course I'm trying to get an image restored, but have no plans on the page's development, other than to offer a hand on an item when I can. When the contributing editors get around to the legacy section, if they do, it would be nice to have it include this special stamp along with some other items Alan' brought to the table. If the FAC reviews then have any issue with a specific item it can be trimmed accordingly. Meanwhile let's give this a few more days. I have no plans on doing anything with the image, not without consensus. If consensus is appreciably split we can always work on a compromise that hopefully will not give anyone any headaches. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. If the weight of opinion remains unchanged, will you still pursue changes to the article that will, among other things, result in adding the stamp picture? --Coemgenus 17:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of the opinion that 'opposed' did so on the basis of having only one choice, and to that end such consensus must be recognized. If these same people were asked if they would like to see the image included in among other famous images their consensus very possibly would be different. Yes, I obviously 'wanted' to explore the idea of an expanded legacy or memorial section so we could include a variety of items, including the 1st Lincoln stamp, and in the process give the readers a section that is maybe worthy of the Lincoln biography. But at this point that doesn't seem like a peaceful endeavor, and it looks like relations are just worsening with a couple of individuals, given some of the remarks that have been made. As I said, I came to the page later in its development and it was good to finally see an editor or two adding volumes of well sourced material into other presidential pages, esp Lincoln's. If at some point a memorial section is developed, I can only hope it may include something that represents Lincoln on postage, as Lincoln is as common to U.S. postage for the same reason Washington is. A distinctive honor given to Lincoln by the U.S. government and the people of Lincoln's time. I have no intention of expanding the memorial section myself. Should it become developed and there is room for inclusion of Lincoln's 1st stamp along with good representation of famous images, then we should include it, but only if there is a wide margin of consensus to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't say I understood all the reasons for this lengthy debate about a stamp, until I just looked at the American Civil War article, for the first time in a long while. There are so many stamps pictured in that article that it almost looks like an article about stamps. I assume you and other stamp aficionados are responsible. I would suggest that if you dialed back on the overly liberal use of stamps, everywhere, consensus on such things could be more forthcoming. Although there is no excuse for rancor from your opponents, your restraint in such things could go a long way in improving all such discussions, as I now understand you or others have had them elsewhere. I intend to make a comment on the discussion page at Civil War re the numerous stamps.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Debate I can understand, the remarks and jeering were uncalled for, esp while consensus is being collected. Regarding the liberal use of stamps, they are either used for their illustrative value, as is the case with the Lincoln - Douglas debate commemorative or to display honors. If there are reasonable objections to them and they are not simply the object of someone's personal scorn then of course they should be scrutinized further. Paintings, photos, etchings, engravings, various postage stamps and coins can all be used for illustrative purposes and to display honors, anniversaries and other notable time/events relating a subject. If a stamp, painting or any other sort of medium is to be challenged, it should be done so on the basis of its subject content and relevancy to the subject discussed. You can't challenge an illustration because it was done in pen and ink, instead of oil, or because it exists on a stamp or coin. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

editbreak2

There was a consensus before; and now it has been reaffirmed. The stamps will not stick here. Gwillhick' will accomplish more by taking his "stampede" elsewhere. As ole' Roy would say, Happy Trails, until we meet again. (I'm sure we will.)

talk

) 12:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(Interjection & Recommendation) I do not have a strong feeling regarding the stamp's usage in the article, but with regards to the image bunching problem as displayed by the screenshots above I would recommend using the multiple image template which may help the folks here reach a resolve and at the same time allow more images to be used in the article. The example to the right may help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Berean Hunter's idea. Text could loop around the multiple image and save space. The penny photo is vivid and would add to the article along with the stamp and $5.00 bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Awiseman's argument

Oppose in the great scheme of things, a stamp seems minor. I don't mind having it in, but if there are space limitations and this much time is spent debating it, better to take it out. That said, people need to take a deep breath and be more cordial during these arguments, plus there are some borderline

Awiseman, while space is a consideration, the image itself will not impact overall page length and there are numerous places throughout the page text where it will fit in. Unfortunately the discussion is long but there were many deletions occurring at a very hurried pace without established consensus, and almost every objection to this 'process' has been met with a mixture of objections (which are fine) and sometimes with less than friendly personal remarks. In all fairness, this discussion should have taken place before the removal of good faith material that existed on the page for more than a year. That, btw, is another reason for the current discussion. As you also pointed out there is more at issue here than just one image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dank's argument

Weak oppose - not a big deal, but if forced to choose, I oppose because there are more dramatic and better-known memorial images. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Another editor is also stressing this point. However, there are already a number of famous images that address Lincoln in a general manner, and the page should have a good assortment of these images. There is room for them in many of the sections. The stamp was once very famous, demanded by the people and congress, and is representative of not just presidents on postage, but offered because it represented the sentiments of that point in time (in the Northern states anyway). This item would be well placed in either the 'Assassination' or 'Memorial' section, as this postage stamp was Lincoln's first memorial as well as the first Lincoln postage stamp. Odd that we can't seem to find room it. We shouldn't have to be 'forced' to chose in this rather rigid manner. There's adequate room in most of the sections and plenty of room in some of other sections for all of these images, and the memorial section can also be subdivided and expanded which has already been successfully accomplished on several presidential FA's. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why there is opposition to extending the memorial section. This is an encyclopedia, not a book or academic disortation. The Lincoln memorial close up photo could be put anywhere in the article. The money photos and postage stamp could be extended into the memorial section. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

a suggestion: Scatter the stamps through the footnotes and bibliography, which is now a forbidding sea of ugliness Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I infer a nay from RJ.

talk

) 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to exasperate the idea apparently. No one wants to 'scatter the stamps'. The Memorial section can easily be expanded. It's been done successfully in FA's. The general heading should be restored to 'Legacy' with sub sec's for Monuments and memorials, one for postage and currency, one for Museums, libraries, foundations, etc. Since Lincoln is among the most prominent of presidents it seems his legacy should be represented accordingly. Trying to chose one image for Lincoln's entire legacy is foolish, and treating his legacy with a couple of short paragraphs that read like lists seems to fall short of what one might expect to find in a Featured Article of Abraham Lincoln. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

BizMgr's argument

Weak oppose - The stamp is of its own historical significance and can be linked from verbiage in the Lincoln article to one of its own. I think the Lincoln article, by its nature, attracts a broad spectrum of people from around the world, some of whom may have extremely limited knowledge on the subject. Therefore from an encyclopedic view (not necessarily a biographer's one) the most approachable or "mainstream" pictures seem best suited to the subject, namely the Lincoln Memorial, penny, etc). The deeper histories, such as the memorial stamp, can be referenced to their own pages and viewed there. My 2¢ anyway. --BizMgr (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)