List of shopping malls in the United States

Lincoln Admits Who Won The Civil War

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

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

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

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

"It is not a question of sentiment or taste but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated as horse-power and steampower are measured and estimated." To J. M. Schermerhorn, Sept. 12, 1864, he adds emphatically as regards this Negro balance of power, "Keep it, and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it." Reference: Speeches, Letters, and State Papers, Nicolay & Hay, 1922".

It's clear that without the black troops saving the union, that the United States would not exist as we know it today. Black soldiers won their own freedom with their own blood. They have been repaid through an attempt to write them out of history. I don't expect grammar school history books to be rewritten even with the proof in Lincoln's own hand. The myth of the Union fighting for and securing the end of slavery is much preferred over the truth. Tom 03/18/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk • contribs) 15:05, March 18, 2008

There are no winners in any Civil War. To assert otherwise is just ridiculous. The majority of blacks who moved north were merely re-enslaved by the military-industrial complex and forced into city ghettoes. That doesn't seem like much of a 'win' to me. Lincoln had his own agenda for pushing the US into war; the Grant family at the time was very involved in the Underground Railroad and felt there were other options to provide for a smoother transition from a slave-based plantation system of pastoral agriculture to the hyper-chaotic manufacturing working environment prevalent in the northern states. It is folly to think that the US could not have re-adopted the original Articles of Confederation for a decade to have a more gradual transition from societal shortcomings in the South to the problems that arose in the North from a society obsessed with consumptive capitalism. FOMCForesterFault (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You and Lincoln obviously don't share the same opinion on the Articles of Confederation. You and the Union don't share the same opinion on the outcome of the Union's victory over the south. You and black people don't share the same opinion on the severity of slavery when comparing the labor of the north to the forced unpaid labor of the south. Folly is questioning such clear evidence of the influence that blacks had in their own liberation from slavery and even more so, their valiant success in saving the Union. There was no claim that they were delivered from racism or hatred. Indeed the very union that they were fighting for despised them. Nevertheless they fought valiantly to win a war that the north couldn't win but for their participation. There was no longer a need for the Union to passively negotiate. The Union now had at it's disposal the manpower to obtain it's interests by force. The folly is yours. Tom 03/23/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk • contribs) 02:16, March 24, 2008

Dear 'Uncle' Tom - Please see the section below. I made it just for you. If you think you can whitewash what really happened with some letters of dubious origin, think again. Also, start signing your posts or I will have a rollback editor in here so fast it will make your head spin. Peace. FOMCForesterFault (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• What suggestions do you have for improving the article? (That's the purpose of this page; not to discuss Lincoln, but to discuss the article about Lincoln.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon is right. see WP:Talk page for more information. And actually you should be discussing Lincoln on this page as long as your discussion can update the article. Discussing how to update this page would be impossible without discussing the subject, but I know what you mean, this talk page isn't SOLELY for discussing Lincoln. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many comments about Lincoln above that at best are silly and not worthy of consideration, and yet the right to submit them isn't questioned. I present letters actually written by Lincoln which cannot be submitted on the protected article page and I'm challenged for it. The factual evidence in the letters is completely ignored. These letters actually bring into clear light a key element in a Civil War that is forever tied to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. If others can submit speculation as to whether he was a homosexual and have the topic commented on, surely these letters written by Lincoln himself deserve the same consideration. Comments on homosexuality as well as other speculation seem to be more welcome than Lincoln's own comments. So much so that it is challenged whether Lincoln's letters should even be submitted because they may not actually improve an article written about him. Imagine facts that break up one hundred forty three years of bull not being considered an improvement to this article. Fiction and speculation are obviously considered more relevant, or at least more entertaining. Tom 03/24/08

Uncle Tom, I think your comments are valid, but probably not so much in this artcile . Perhaps you would be interesting in creating a article something like African Americans in the American Civil War. They were indeed an important force in the war, but let not make it sound as though they were decisive. In Shelby Footes civil war books it is clear that blacks were only a small percentage of the overall combat strength of the armies. But on the flip side how ridiculous it sounds to have someone say that african americans were "re-inslaved" and today they are in a somehow comparable state to slavery, that is completly ludcrous, but thankfuly it does not seem to have tainted this article. Lincoln was genuinely interested in freedom for the slave population, which he made clear should be done in measured steps, emancipation being the first step. Had he lived he likely would have been able to implement his plans much farther. I seen a study last week showing that you ar emore l ikely to be discriminated against for being overwieght than for your race[1]. Things are equallign out slowly. Point is, there are better places to discuss this information. Charles Edward 15:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Shelby Footes obviously didn't read Lincolns letters. When Lincoln declared that there were 150,000 black troops fighting for the union, that's what he meant. I'm not so much declaring that blacks were a significant force in the Civil War, Lincoln is declaring it. No one has to believe me. You can either believe Lincoln or believe Footes. These letters belong in this article because they were written by Lincoln himself. Lincoln declares that these troops were decisive in winning the Civil War in these letters. I chose to believe the sitting president of the time. Do you prefer the word of Footes? Oh by the way, I'm not uncle tom, and I think it classless to refer to me as such. I also didn't bring up the topic of discrimination in this article. Tom 04/17/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk • contribs)

Tom, I am sorry, I always read the story to show Uncle Tom as the Hero, it's a term of endearment. As I said I am interested in writing an article on African American contributions in the civil war. If would like to further discuss this topic i would be glad to do so on my talk page. Also, if you have read Footes voluminous series on the war, he did reference some of the letters you are referring to and he placed them in proper context. If they are used in this article they should be used in the same or similar context Charles Edward 13:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I am proud of the life of Josiah Henson (i.e. Uncle Tom,) as well, but he's not the mental picture that's in the mind of anyone who refers to me that way. If Footes refutes the words of Lincoln, then his writings and their sources should be presented here. Any information countering the written words of Lincoln should be displayed in Lincolns article. Personally I prefer Lincolns interpretation of the war and black troops. I'm sure that he made himself clear and I'm sure that he understood what he was writing about in his letters. What you should suggest is a separate article speculating a rumor of homosexuality, not a separate article for important facts that directly relate to his legacy. Tom 04/17/08

Uncle "Tom" Edits

The user who has been editing this page as 'Tom' should follow Wikipedia guidelines and start signing his/her posts with a real signature, or they will be deleted.

TO TOM : You are attempting to incite people, rather than striving to edify the public about the true origins of our war. U.S. Grant and his family knew that Abraham Lincoln and people of his ilk had designs on 'saving' the union so that they could break it up some 140 years later. When you look around the North today and see the seething resentment of black people who have been re-enslaved by the very system they thought would save them, its pretty obvious that the results of the American Civil War do not jibe with the historical justifications for that war, vis-a-vis slavery. Also, Mr. Tom, how do you know that I am not a black descendant of Frederick Douglass? Do tell, Uncle. FOMCForesterFault (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to incite anyone. I actually thought that everyone would appreciate these letters from Lincoln. I never thought in a million years that you or anyone else would stoop to calling me an "Uncle Tom". If the discovery of these letters has angered you,I'm powerless to help you. The truth is what it is. The person who's incited is you, though I don't really understand why. I also don't understand your question about being a descendant of Frederick Douglass and I don't see how Lincoln's letters obscure the true meaning of the civil war when he was the sitting president during the civil war. I am in no way detracting from any writer who has spent time edifying the public on the origins of the civil war. But I am shocked by those people who attack me for edifying the public of the unsung heroes who helped to bring the civil war to it's end. Tom 03/24/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I know you're trying to keep your IP privacy, but this isn't the right way to do it. Making an account is a better way to do it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to keep my IP private. When I tried to set up an account it didn't take in the system. I'm actually a little embarrassed about it and didn't want to take away from the topic being discussed at the times that I've commented on this and other pages. Tom 03/24/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.125.65 (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop deleting the signatures and time stamps. Thank you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln and depression

I definitely think that there should be a section at least partly based on Lincoln's depression. There is at least one book out on the subject called Lincoln's Melancholy by Joshua Wolf Shenk. Lighthead ^þ 04:05 21, March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I would like to add this source [2] to the {{fact}} tag about his avoidance of killing animals.Valkyrian (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined. Not a reliable source. Sandstein (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, why does the line directly quote the soulclassics comment anyway, even after it was pointed out as a poor source- but reference a statement from a book by Sandberg? Seems like someone's promoting vegan agenda, not expressing Lincoln's actual practice. What's wrong with some intellectual honesty? Lincoln would be ashamed!Batvette (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Had the jungle fever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladampire (talk • contribs) 04:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln most likely did not suffer from depression. Any claim that he did is inordinately speculative and does not merit inclusion in an article concerning what may be known of his life and character. What is known, however, is that Lincoln suffered from a melancholic temperament, or "the hypo," as he was fond of calling it. Doris Kearns Goodwin, the author of an insightful biography of Lincoln (namely Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln) spent 10 years researching his life and found no substantial evidence to support the conclusion that he suffered from clinical depression. Dewey56 (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am not convinced that Lincoln suffered from clinical depression. But I do, however, believe that the issue merits discussion in the main article. In Dr. John G. Sotos' book, The Physical Lincoln, there is a lengthy discussion regarding how Lincoln's physical appearance may have misled others to believe that Lincoln was perpetually "gloomy" ("hypo") in demeanor. Sotos believes that MEN2B (a rare genetic disorder whose symptoms include rendering many of its victims as appearing perpetually sad) was responsible for this. Sotos estimates that Lincoln's mood was probably somewhere midway between normal (i.e. average for the population) and that of clinical depression. Sotos does not believe that Lincoln's mood was indicative of pathology, but rather that Lincoln's mood was on the low side of normal, similar to how some individuals may typically exhibit low blood pressure (say, 100/65 mmHg), which is within the range of what is considered to be "normal", but which is on the low side of that normal range. Sotos adds that Lincoln's ability to rebound quickly from his bouts of the "hypo" would, in and of itself, disprove a diagnosis of clinical despression. In any case, in my opinion, Lincoln's mood is quite relevant to the discussion of Lincoln the man. It could be stated that while Lincoln did experience several episodes of depressed mood during his lifetime that Lincoln's overall behavior, particularly as president, does not support a diagnosis of clinical depression. Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

lieing Abe and the "civil war"

what most people do not know is that abe was actually for slavey his wife owned slaves and he also said and I quote "If I could save the union by freeing no slaves I would." and that is exactly what he did because when lincoln issued his emancipation proclimation the confedarate states were a separte country and lincoln had no right in telling another country that thay had to free their slaves. the only reason the EP was issued was to keep england from helping the confedarates by slandering their reputation. Yes, the CSA did have slaves, but think where were the slaves coming to the south from? the north of course, so how can you tell me the union fought aginst slavery when slaves were imported into the north? you can't. some say that the confedarate (rebel) flag stands for slavery, but did you know that Gen P.G.T.Beauregard designed the confedarate flag and was an abolitionist the flag is actually a christian symbol the red represents the blood of christ, the white border of the "X" represents the protection of god, the blue "X" is the cross of St.anderw (the first desiple of jesus christ) and the 13 stars reprsent the 13 states that seceded —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax Reaper 292 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You are completely incorrect. Your only quote, "If I could save the union by freeing no slaves I would," is a lie of omission. The full quote is: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." Clearly, Abe is talking solely in the context of what he would do to save the Union, and IS NOT talking about his own personal opinion on slavery. From the same letter: "If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them." Frederic Douglass wrote countless letters and works describing Lincoln's character and resolve regarding slavery. Anyone who does not believe that Lincoln was anti-slavery is fooling themselves. -JRTindall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.155.211 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln was no different than any tyrant leader who wants to preserve their empire. He will say anything to redeem himself and his reputation. He was only interested in preserving the union. He didn't care for blacks. Please quit trying to make him a Saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the article "Lincoln's position on slavery"

all in this article listed above is true

Jax K. Reaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax Reaper 292 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• You agree with yourself. That's stunning. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are not to make compliments about articles, it's about how to improve them, and I fail to see what your trying to point out. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

These statements are completely ludicrous...do some research before you post idiotic statements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.78.109 (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Before calling my statement "idiotic" see WP:Talk pages. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

There's a red navbox link that shows up at the bottom of the page that says "Abraham Lincoln was a stupid fag." I tried to remove it, but I can't find it. Someone please help. Thanks! --TiroAethra (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The vandalism was contained in an embedded template. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

the emancipation proclamation was in 1862 NOT 1863 —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

May 3, 2008 Edit

The existing text suggested that Lincoln believed there was some constitutional principle that prevented the Union from initiating military action against the Confederacy. This was certainly the belief of the outgoing Buchanan administration but was not the position of the Lincoln administration. Lincoln's refusal to take the first shot was based on political and strategic considerations, not constitutional ones.

My edit, of course, is still an oversimplification of the decision-making process that occurred in March and April of 1861. This definately, in my opinion, needs to be expanded -- probably in a spin off article. There is an article Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War that last I checked is simply a mirror of the Civil War section of this article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Legacy" section

Lincoln County, Tennessee is not named for President Lincoln, but for Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, aide de camp to Washington.

--150.182.148.55 (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

abraham licoln

Abraham Lincoln 

Lincoln warned the South in his Inaugural Address: "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you.... You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it."

Lincoln thought secession illegal, and was willing to use force to defend Federal law and the Union. When Confederate batteries fired on Fort Sumter and forced its surrender, he called on the states for 75,000 volunteers. Four more slave states joined the Confederacy but four remained within the Union. The Civil War had begun.

The son of a Kentucky frontiersman, Lincoln had to struggle for a living and for learning. Five months before receiving his party's nomination for President, he sketched his life:

I was born Feb. 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. My parents were both born in Virginia, of undistinguished families--second families, perhaps I should say. My mother, who died in my tenth year, was of a family of the name of Hanks.... My father ... removed from Kentucky to ... Indiana, in my eighth year.... It was a wild region, with many bears and other wild animals still in the woods. There I grew up.... Of course when I came of age I did not know much. Still somehow, I could read, write, and cipher ... but that was all."

Lincoln made extraordinary efforts to attain knowledge while working on a farm, splitting rails for fences, and keeping store at New Salem, Illinois. He was a captain in the Black Hawk War, spent eight years in the Illinois legislature, and rode the circuit of courts for many years. His law partner said of him, "His ambition was a little engine that knew no rest."

He married Mary Todd, and they had four boys, only one of whom lived to maturity. In 1858 Lincoln ran against Stephen A. Douglas for Senator. He lost the election, but in debating with Douglas he gained a national reputation that won him the Republican nomination for President in 1860.

As President, he built the Republican Party into a strong national organization. Further, he rallied most of the northern Democrats to the Union cause. On January 1, 1863, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation that declared forever free those slaves within the Confederacy.

Lincoln never let the world forget that the Civil War involved an even larger issue. This he stated most movingly in dedicating the military cemetery at Gettysburg: "that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln won re-election in 1864, as Union military triumphs heralded an end to the war. In his planning for peace, the President was flexible and generous, encouraging Southerners to lay down their arms and join speedily in reunion.

The spirit that guided him was clearly that of his Second Inaugural Address, now inscribed on one wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D. C.: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds.... "

On Good Friday, April 14, 1865, Lincoln was assassinated at Ford's Theatre in Washington by John Wilkes Booth, an actor, who somehow thought he was helping the South. The opposite was the result, for with Lincoln's death, the possibility of peace with magnanimity died —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrcghostrider (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Article length

The article currently contains 59KB of prose. This is almost double the recommended length (32KB). I suppose it's worth discussing whether there is any material which could be left to sub-pages.

I've also made an attempt to split the last 300KB or so of discussion into more readable archives. This covers material from approximately last September onwards. Previous archived material (in archives 1 through 6) is unchanged. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that, when I began writing my diatribe below, the above post by Chris Cunningham was not yet appearing. I appreciate the attempt to begin a discussion on this topic. Unschool (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this too long? And if so, then . . .

Is this article really too long? I think we'd all agree that some people merit longer articles than others. Lincoln is almost universally regarded as the most important president in the history of the most powerful country on the planet, I'm willing to give him a bit more of an article than, say, Jeremy Thorpe.

Now I'd be lying if I claimed to have scanned every word of this article and judged it impossible to thin it just a bit. It may well need to be trimmed back a bit in parts, and I'm willing to discuss it. What I do not want to see is a tag splayed on the top of a reasonably well-written article without a very good reason. Consider:

• The tag says that the article may be too long. May be? Then that means that maybe it's not too long. So why the heck is the tag needed at all?
• The tag says that we should discuss this on the talk page. Discuss what? The person who placed the tag on there hasn't given us any indication whatsoever of where he thinks the excess or redundant material is.
• The tag indicates that this article is in need of cleanup. That, to me, denotes something very different than an article being too long. I'd reserve a cleanup tag for the article that is difficult to read because of its writing or organization, not one that is ostensibly too long.

So what is this? Someone can arbitrarily come along and place a tag on an article because they think the article "may" be too long, but then, that's the end of their contribution? I believe if you are going to impugn the quality of an article (and thus, everyone else's writing), that you need to step up to the plate and tell us what the problem is. Because the truth is, there are thousands of articles on this project that are smeared with tags left by "editors" because it was the easy thing to do. And those tags often sit there for years, waiting for that editor or someone else to come back and clean it up.

And what does that tag at the top of the page do? It lets everyone who visits this page (in this case, probably hundreds of hits a day, if not more) learn first about the process of writing Wikipedia articles instead of learning about what they came here for—to learn about Abraham Lincoln. I know that it is a major ego trip for some people (and I'm not saying that about this particular editor, I have no reason to believe that this is a pattern for him or her, I just know it is for some people) to go around slapping tags on articles, much like a dog pisses on every vertical object he encounters on a walk around town. But the question is, does this tag really do anything to help the reader? I have no problem if placement at the top will benefit the reader in a way that cannot be matched. For example, if an article is slickly and smoothly written, yet contained significant bias, a POV tag at the top might be appropriate to protect someone learning about the topic for the first time. But this tag serves no such noble purpose. It just clutters up the top.

I know, I know, the argument is that we need for these tags to be visible if editors are going to see them and make improvements. I'm sure that that happens sometimes. But editors who are looking for articles to clean up (something I do myself, though less often than I should) can and do find those articles by their appearance on category lists, which could happen just as well if the tag was at the bottom of the article, or, better yet, on the talk page.

And how long will this editor leave this tag here? Quite often, these tag artists never come back at all, as evidenced by cleanup tags and others that hang around for two years sometimes. Can we just instead of having this tag placed at the top of the article, just discuss on the talk page what changes are needed. After all, discussing article changes is supposed to be the purpose of this page, not the mainspace page. And also , WP:MOS says that the article should begin with a declarative sentence, not a billboard.Unschool (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with cleanup templates in general, I encourage you to take that up with the project in a more appropriate place; as-is, such templates are a very widely accepted and recommended way of flagging article issues, especially for articles which are not yet at A, FA or GA status.

As the the importance of the subject, this rather fails to recognise that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We need not delete any material at all - it can be moved to a sub-page, linked from the appropriate section of this article, and then summarised in this article. This is, again, a very widely established and recommended technique which allows articles on important subjects to receive full and fair coverage on Wikipedia without their main articles being unreadably long. Wikipedia need not provide novel-length individual articles.

The question is whether there is anything on this article which could be moved and summarised for the sake of readability. I think we've got plenty of options there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with such changes, as I think was manifestly clear in my comments. My petition revolved around the common practice of some editors who jump from article to article, slapping tags on articles—sometimes with no appearence (given their choice of tag) of their actually having read the article—who then disappear into the night, apparently without even taking the time to put the article on their watchlist, since after a year they still have made no additional edits to the article. Your very reply is a strong indication that you likely do not fall into this category.

As to the tags in general, are they "accepted"? Of course. Are they "recommended"? Officially? Maybe they are, I suppose it's how you read the guidelines. Are they mandatory? No, they are not. And my point is that most editors are intelligent people who can and should use their intelligence to ascertain whether or not this tag they are about to place actually provides immediate benefit to the reader. I think in some rare cases, such as severe POV, they do. But in most cases, I think that a thoughtful editor, who thinks for himself instead of saying "I was just following orders, sir", is likely to use tags less often.

And I don't have to bring it up in any particular venue, I and many other editors for the past two years have been bringing it up on talk pages all across the project, and I now find probably 25%-35% of the tags on articles at the bottom of the article, as more and more editors realize what a plague these unsightly tags are on the project. (Sorry about that last POV statement. But this is a talk page.) Hey, when my oldest child was born, something like 80% of the baby boys in the US were getting circumcised. But a movement started and much of it was just fathers talking to fathers, and by the time my youngest was born, it was supposedly down to 50%. Accepted practices do change, and sometimes that change comes from the bottom, not from the top. You're obviously an intelligent person, and, as an intelligent person, you may give this issue serious thought (as opposed to being a bot) and you may still conclude that tags are better at the top. But at least think about it, man. Don't tell me that it's "recommended", tell me that you think it's a good idea. Unschool (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The article might be very very long, but it has a lot of headings, you could say too many, so readability shouldn't be a problem. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's possibly part of the problem. Some sections could be moved to sub-pages in their entirety. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it's harmful; I see tags as a valuable way of quickly flagging issues on article which don't yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, and use them heavily to coordinate my work (circa 20k edits at this point I think). To be honest I was surprised to find that this article isn't currently Featured; I do disagree with the use of tags on articles assessed as FA because it implies that the assessment was wrong. In this case, I think the tagger has a point, and while I'd have preferred it if said tagger had stuck around to provide a more detailed rationale (or to work on improving the article) I'm pretty strongly opposed to the tag being moved out of the way for being "ugly" while accompanied by a rationale which seemed to concentrate more on the evils of tags and taggers than of the actual issue. So I thought I'd bring that issue (the length) to the talk page. I'm not having an argument about the general merits of tags because I've had them before, and while some users obviously hate them with a passion that's a distinctly minority position. (as for 25% being located at the bottom, this is very far from my experience anecdotally; An editor once attempted to petition the project into re-adopting a tags-at-the-bottom policy and failed.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the tags-at-the-bottom is a minority position today. As I said, many things evolve. And I agree that they have the merit of helping bring one back to articles that need help. But this would also be the case if they were at the top of the talk page or the bottom of the mainspace. And I have no doubt that seeking the adoption of an official position to put them at the bottom would fail today, but that is largely because of the nature of the population that regularly participates in such policy pages, as opposed to the regular ground troops here on the project. There are thousands of editors who do not even know such policy pages exist, or at least that they exist with potential fluidity. These editors either stay away from such debates altogether , or else participate only in such debates on article talk pages. Enough already. As we both know, this talk page is for discussing Abe's article.

So as I gather it, you have given us the following to go on:

1. This article is simply longer than the recommended length.
2. This article has too many headings.

Do you have any more specific suggestions, such as places where you have spotted redundancies or trivial matters? Have you identified any specific sections that would better be turned into new articles, or their material that should be merged into other existing articles? Unschool (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a tough call. The assassination section includes a whole paragraph on relics in the Army Medical Museum which could go, but that's really only three lines. One option would be to attempt to split out the majority of the Civil War section into its own standalone article (Lincoln in the Civil War or the like); as this section is approximately the length of a good article in itself, this would provide us with two article of suitable reading length while following WP convention. I think this is a promising solution, though I can see the argument that having 50% of this article be about the war is correctly assigning it due weight in Lincoln's biography. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There was an article created a while ago titled Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War which was nothing but a cut and paste from this main article. Since the split, little if anything new has been added to the new article and nothing has been subtracted from the main article. If you're serious about shortening the article, this would be a great place to start -- providing there is consensus for such actions. This has been mentioned before, but nobody (myself included) has seen fit to follow through.

The suggestion made at one point above that entire sections should be completely removed from this article and into a new article would be a violation of WP:Summary style. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That article was created in April last year, over a year ago, I'd hardly call that "a while ago". TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What a truely valuable contribution to the conversation! Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY doesn't say that everything that is moved must be summarised in the main article; it'd be pretty hard to summarise things then! However, the Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War article is exactly what I was looking for here. I'll try to make a start of tidying that one and migrating stuff out of here tonight. Many thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can do as we did with the Christian metal article. it was too long, so we decided to split it into Christian metal and Underground era of Christian metal(our largest section). Though... You should do a better naming job than we did. Since it still seems too long, try making another split, one that is actually needed.¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 02:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Gettysburg Address

There's a lot of editorializing going on. "The political power of Lincoln's rhetoric was undeniable," for instance. The whole section really needs a facelift.Youdontsmellbad (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there does exist a tendency in Western civilizations to deify moral leaders who—just for the sake of making a political point—are killed on Good Friday, so a little POV is to be expected. :-) Unschool (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you TALKING about?Youdontsmellbad (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did he go to school?

It says how long he went to school, but does not say where. It would be helpful if someone could find this.
--Superstomper96 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

He attended public school while he lived in Indiana. According to A Scetchbook of Indiana History by Arville Funk, he attended a one room schoolhouse taught by Andrew Crawford starting in the winter of 1819. In 1821 he was moved to another school four miles from his farm taught by James Swaney. Then he attended a third school taught by Azel Dorsey in 1824 near little pigeon baptist church. It says he completed his schooling at age 16 and that it was a "practical eduction". Also noteworthy, the Indiana public school system was established the same year he began. And the Indiana public schools were the first state funded open-to-all public schools in the nation. Charles Edward 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

the Indiana public schools were the first state funded open-to-all public schools in the nation Hmmmm; that surprises me. Given the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance, I would have expected this honor to go to Ohio. Are you quite sure? Unschool (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone should put that stuff on the article (not me) --Superstomper96 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

New image

A newly restored political cartoon of Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, 1865.

Hi, I've recently finished a restoration on an archival political cartoon of Abraham Lincoln. Planning to nominate it for featured picture candidacy soon. This article is already well illustrated, so submitting for consideration here. Regards, Durova^Charge! 06:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a Factual Error on the Page

The Democrats won three, not two, states in the election of 1864. (New Jersey, Deleware, Kentucky) Lillie Yifu (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Another factual error -- the Lincoln cent pictured is not "proof quality." It can either be left at Lincoln cent, or it can be called "Uncirculated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbspiegel (talk • contribs) 05:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Complete Power?

I heard somewhere that Congress gave Lincoln total control of the Union during the war. Can anyone back this up?

As for where I heard it, I can't remember. I've been thinking about the implications of it for a few days (I have a thing for political stuff like the Cold War), and now the source is lost to me. Has anyone else heard something like this? 74.46.194.207 (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the images of Lincoln in the main article

When one goes to the Abraham Lincoln section of the electronic encyclopedia, one sees a well know photographic image of Lincoln universally known as Meserve # 1. The text reads, “The first photograph ever taken of Abraham Lincoln, a daguerreotype taken by Shephard in 1846.” That statement is doubly wrong. It is not the first known image of Lincoln, and was not made by Shephard (in Springfield) in 1846! The first known photographic image of Abraham Lincoln is known as the Kaplan daguerreotype. It was likely made in Louisville, Kentucky in late August/early September 1841 by the daguerrean/dentist, T. E. Moore of the itinerent daguerrean team, Moore and Ward. Its full details can be examined at www.lincolnportrait.com.

Frederick Hill Meserve collected all the known photographic images of Lincoln, and in 1944, he and Carl Sandburg co-authored the first picture book of Lincoln’s photographic images, “The Photographs of Abraham Lincoln”, published by Harcourt, Brace & Company.

Meserve # 1 was a gift of Robert Todd Lincoln to Frederick Hill Meserve. It is now in the possession of the Library of Congress.

In his 1944 book Mr. Meserve wrote, “Mr. Robert Todd Lincoln, who owned the original, stated to the author that he believed it was made in Washington about 1848 when his father was a Representative in Congress.” Surely Mr. Lincoln’s reported statement to Mr. Meserve ought to be considered as definitive.

The physical evidence supports Mr. Lincoln’s statement. Meserve # 1 does not appear to be studio-made. It is, in all respects, poorly made, and suggests that it was one of many daguerreotypes hastily produced at the Capital of the members of the House of Representatives, in a manner similar to the present day portraits of High School graduating classes. Moreover, in Meserve # 1 Lincoln appears very thin; and we known from the historical record that during his term in Congress he was unhappy and often ill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.27.92 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

POV additions to subsection "Positions on slavery and race relations"

I agree with the tagging of this section by another editor. I made a small correction, but the big problem is the attempt to take the focus off of the main issue, slavery in the territories (not interracial marriages), and concentrate on Lincoln's response to Douglas' race-baiting. The issue is complex which is why there is a separate article on the subject. I see no purpose in the expansion of this article with quotes that tell only a small part of the story when the best course would be to, if necessary, work on adding material to the articles Abraham Lincoln on slavery or Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. Providing balance to the section in this article can be done, but would require incorporating large amounts of material from the two spinoff articles -- this would have the effect of working exactly in the opposite direction provided in Wikipedia:Summary style. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to New York

One of the big debates on the New York talk page focuses on the reference by many to New York City simply as New York. Yet, typing New York leads to an entry for New York the state. One of the major objections with moving the New York page to New York State and making New York either a redirect to NYC or a disambiguation page is that so many other pages link to New York. Perhaps we might consider changing the one link for New York in this article to New York State, as this redirects to the current article for New York the state anyway. It will help pave the way for a future move, should there be one. --JBC3 (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln in Indiana

≠Here is some information on Lincoln in Indiana - My grandmother was a member of the Lincoln Club of Southern Indiana and did extensive research on him. I have the records from this. Our family lived in southern Indiana while Lincoln's family lived there.

Lincoln did not like formal religion, but he did attend a church during this time. The preacher, Adam Shoemaker, was a strong abolitionist and preached on this frequently. This may have been some of the influence on Lincoln. Also, while in southern Indiana, Lincoln ran a boat taxi business. He would taxi people out to a boat that was in the middle of the Ohio river. He reasoned that since he did not cross to the other shore, he was not a ferry business and did not have to get a license for that. He was taken to court for this. I believe he lost, but he did represent himself, and this may have been his early influence to become a lawyer. He also worked on boats on the Ohio River and when in New Orleans, once witnessed a slave sale. This was very upsetting to him and when he got back to southern Indiana, he told people about this. When the Lincoln family left southern Indiana, everyone was very sad to see him go. The townspeople waited at the edge of the town of Gentryville (named for the Gentry family that owned the general store where Lincoln worked and the site of the rail splitting contest). They all bid the family farewell. This is documented through affidavits of people who were present for the establishment of the Lincoln Memorial Trail. There are many more things I could tell you, but I do recommend that people interested in his life contact the Lincoln Boyhood Memorial in Lincoln City, Indiana for more information. PWMakowski (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC) PWMakowski

Lincoln and income tax

Where is it mentioned he created the income tax?--Ericg33 (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

what schools did he go to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamyL07 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln's reaffirmation of the revolutionary right at his first inaugural

{{editsemiprotected}} I find this important aspect of Lincoln's ideology needlessly missing from the article: Abraham Lincoln's reaffirmation of the Revolutionary Right during his first Inaugural in 1861: ....."This country, with it's institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it, Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember of overthrow it." ....Do other editors also feel this is appropriate for the article? Have there been great edit conflicts over the context of this in the past? I need to look at the edit history here, but thought I'd get it out on the table here now for possible discussion.Critical Chris (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Deactivating request until appropriate discussion has taken place and course of action decided upon. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What? What request?--Critical Chris (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

First Republican President

I think it would be valuable information to note in the opening paragraph that he was the first president who was a member of the new Republican political party.

"Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865), the sixteenth President of the United States, successfully led his country through its greatest internal crisis, the American Civil War, only to be assassinated less than a week after the war's end.[1] He was the first Republican president elected to that office. Before his election as President..."

This one additional sentence speaks alot to the political atmosphere at the time with the end of the Whig party caused by the slavery controversy, and the birth of the new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into the new territories.

CFPeterson (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

END OF THE CIVIL WAR

As I have not scoured through the massive backlogs of the archives, so I am not sure if this question has been brought up yet. The first paragraph of the article says that Lincoln was assassinated a week after the end of the Civil War. That is wrong. Although it is popularly believed that when Lee surrendered the war was over, it was not quite over yet. Johnston, although defeated, was still in the field. For at least ten days after Lincoln's death. Even the citation given for the information does not say the Civil War was over, only that Lee gave up. I know that there are many out there who say that Appomatox was the end of the war, but only put it in the article if you can cite a reliable third party source.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair point, Jojhutton. I still think that Appomatox is the watershed moment, and I probably would have written something like

"[Lincoln] led his country through its greatest internal crisis, the American Civil War, only to be assassinated days after the surrender of the primary Confederate army"

The trouble with my version is, while Lee was technically in charge of all Confederate forces, he had only been so for less than three months, and while he surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia—the flagship of the CSA forces, he did not surrender all Confederate forces (as far as I know). So my version is not perfect, by any means. Now Jojhutton's version is technically correct, but it misses the feeling that was certainly present at the time, namely, that the war was, for all intents and purposes, over. This is not something I will debate at length, because there is nothing inherently wrong with the current version. It simply strikes me as incomplete. But if other editors are okay with it, I'm fine with it as well. Unschool (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I see now that have made an incorrect assumption. Given that the comment above by Jojhutton both appeared on my watchlist at the same time when I opened it earlier today, I thought that Jojhutton was responsible for this edit which resulted in the current version. I now see that it was just a case of great minds thinking alike. Sorry about that, JimWae. I remain curious about other opinions. Unschool (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that someone read my comment on this page and then, without leaving comment here, corrected the wording of the sentence. That user did leave a comment in the comment box that read "I agree", so I assume he/she was refering to my comment here. I always try to get a concensus on a topic before going through with an edit, with the exception of wp:vandalism, NPOV, and minor edits. I wouldn't have changed it so quickly, although I think the new wording reflects NPOV much better. We are not trying to get a "feeling" out of the article, we are trying to tell facts, so that someone not familiar with the subject can learn something new.

It is a common misconception to think that the war ended before Lincoln's death, but people get most of there history from movies and movies rarely get history correct, even when they try.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct on this point, as I acknowledged. Might you address my points? Unschool (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was more.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh—now I see; my eyes went straight to your outdent, and therefore I completely missed the paragraph above it which had been normally indented. So I missed where you did address my points. Sorry about that.

Anyway, I am talking about "facts", though I would have to take the time (which I won't) to source them. The fact of which I am speaking is that the feeling in the North was that the war was, for all intents and purposes, over. After Appomattox there was no anxiety in the North about how the war would wind down; it was over, as far as they were concerned. Yes, your observation is correct that wars do not often technically end in the way that they are commonly perceived to have ended. For example, technically, the American revolutionary war did not end until 1783. But if you were to transport back to 1782 and try to tell a Bostonian or Virginian that they were still at war, they'd laugh in your face; to the people, the war did not end with the Treaty of Paris, nor with the final surrender of British troops in America. It ended, in the eyes of the people, with Yorktown. Whatever mop up occurred afterwards was simply not significant. And that's why in history class even good students are more likely to know about Yorktown, New Orleans, and Appomattox than they are to know about 1783, Ghent and Irwinville. That's my 2¢ Unschool (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good comment. Ask those who died after April 9th if the war was over and I bet you get a different answer though. Yet we are only discussing the wording of a sentence and not determining the fate of the world, so as long as the facts are correct the sentence is sound.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedians (myself sometimes included, I must confess) often get more worked up over the wording of sentences than they do about the fate of the world. But, as I indicated in my original comment, I'm not unhappy with the current wording; its a shade of gray issue to me, and I can live with it. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Additions

I believe that this page should have information pertaining to Lincolns' sister Sarah, his arrest, and his job as a store-keeper.

63.135.51.93 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Ferrari

If you have citations, please add the information.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Inter-wiki link

Please Add te:అబ్రహం లింకన్ inter-wiki link to telugu article రవిచంద్ర (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Green Backs

any information about Green Backs ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.98.76 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

opinion

" ...successfully led his country through its greatest internal crisis..." (taken from the first sentence) Thats definitely an opinion. 97.102.154.152 (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it might seem like an opinion, but when it's an opinion shared by virtually every expert [i.e., historian] on the subject, it's still acceptable to place it in there in this way. If you want, we can put about 15-20 citations on that, but I think that it really detracts from the aesthetic appeal of the opening sentence. Unschool (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, Its an opinion and not NPOV. Only cited facts should be added, not cited opinions.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I admire your desire to better this project; your sincerity is clear, and I respect your motives. Nonetheless, I disagree with the bulk of your concerns here. WP:NPOV does not mean that we need to exclude all opinions. Look at the opening paragraph of WP:NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

What is a "view"? It is, of course, shorthand for "viewpoint". And what is a viewpoint? Fred has his viewpoint on John McCain's mortgage plan, and Barney has his; another word for their respective "viewpoints" is their opinions on the plan. And what does Wikipedia tell us to do with viewpoints? It tells us to represent fairly all significant views. It does not tell us to exclude these views, but to treat them fairly. And note that it does not say that we need to give them equal time. We are not only allowed to distinguish between them based upon their significance, we are expected to: not all viewpoints necessarily need to be included (though I would argue that the default setting should be to include all of them, until it is ascertained that conflicting opinions are too insignificant to include). We need only include those points of view for which there is significant published support.

So that brings us to the statement to which you have objected. That the American Civil War was the greatest crisis in American History is simply accepted as fact by probably 90% of historians of United States history. I actually think that this is so generally understood that it is unnecessary to provide citations, but I will put a few on there. Of course, you have also asserted that we should not include cited opinions. Joj, you will never exclude cited opinions from Wikipedia. They are a fundamental underpinning of this encyclopedia, more than any other encyclopedia, because they provide credibility to what would otherwise be mere anonymous opinion. Mind you, other encyclopedias use expert opinions too, but they don't cite them because the credibility of those encyclopedias is underwritten by their editorial process, which of course is fundamentally different than ours.

WP:NPOV does not exist to exclude anything that could conceivably be defined as an opinion. It exists to make sure that, where there are conflicting viewpoints, that this project does not favor one point of view over another. There is no extant authority that would argue against the proposition that the American Civil War was the greatest crisis in American history. Accordingly, WP:NPOV does not need to be applied to the sentence in question.

One closing thought. Be careful what you wish for. A truly, truly NPOV project, such as you think you desire, would be unbelievably bland and difficult to read. Most of what we say is, in one form or another, an opinion. Whether we refer to Shakespeare as the greatest writer in English or the Pittsburgh Steelers as the most dominant NFL team of the 1970s, or the American Civil War as the greatest crisis in American history, yes, we are expressing opinion. And we are also—hopefully—providing something that readers will want to read. Just my 2¢ worth. Unschool (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I always love reading your 2 cents comments. You truely love to comment and help every article. Thats great. Actually my only concern here is NPOV. Its not the fact of the Civil War being the "greatest crisis" in US history, which it most likely was, but the statement is too subjective. Too open to interpretation, especially through over two hundred years of history. It can be argued that the American Revolution was more of a crisis because the outcome was always in doubt, while it has been argued, by Shelby Foote for one, that the overall outcome of the Civil War was never in doubt, just the lenghth of the war. Now, by what definition do we place on "Greatest Crisis"? If it is loss of life than yes the Civil War would be that crisis. If it is financial, then perhaps the 1929 stock market crash would be the crisis. If we must place this TAG on the article then lets at least define it.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the statement we are discussing "subjective"? When you or I make it, yes, it is, as is virtually every statement in the social sciences. That's specifically why we cite experts. It's the closest thing to "facts" that we can find. And when they agree on the facts, then those are the facts, even when—on a semantic level—you can point out that these "facts" are subjective. You see, I don't have to determine by what criteria we will define the "greatest crisis", because the experts have done it for me. Unschool (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Any expert who writes a book will, and sometimes unconciously, make the topic that they are writing about seem more important than it sometimes is, especially when it comes to subjective opinions. They are in the bussiness of selling books and people are more willing to buy that book if it is about the "greatest crisis" in our history, rather than the second greatest. I respect the experts on the facts they provide and I do think, in my opinion, that is was the greatest crisis in US history, but perhaps it s a bit too [[NPOV[]] for the lead paragraph.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, You added like eight citations. Thats great. I am actually laughing out loud--Jojhutton (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to have brought you a moment of levity.  :-) Unschool (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Widely held opinions, especially by experts in the field, are indeed usable encyclopedic facts. That said, do we really need eight references? It looks a bit unsightly, when perhaps three would be enough. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that one would be more than enough. I think that references in the intro should be kept to a bare minimum, because, yes, they are unsightly, and generally, the facts are repeated later in the article where citations are less of an irritant. But I spent about eight minutes gathering citations just to satisfy another editor who objected to this ostensible violation of WP:NPOV. Unschool (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)