Talk:Abraham Lincoln

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

Moved footnote

A footnote on Lincoln's religious conversion.

(Just moving the link to this page because it is not actually an encyclopedia article. --Larry Sanger)

Moved text

The following is the text of a recent revision. It was removed because it is non-NPOV, and is a childish attempt at expanding the article. I would fix this article myself, but I don't have the time to clean up after others who don't take pride in their work. --maveric149

Born on February 12 1809 in Kentucky, he moved at a young age to the area near Springfield, Illinois.

Lincoln was elected president in 1860, when the republic was in crisis. Southern states had made clear their belief in the right to secede from the Union.

Lincoln was commander-in-chief during the American Civil War.

He wrote and delivered the Gettysburg Address, perhaps the greatest piece of oratory ever delivered in North America.

Another astonishing speech is Lincoln's second Inaugural. Lincoln might have been a great novelist or biographer had he not become a professional politician.

One of the most respected and beloved presidents, Lincoln was also reviled by millions of people, especially in the slave and border states. When President Harry Truman, of Independence, Missouri laid a wreath on the grave of Abraham Lincoln, he caught hell from his mother, who recalled with bitterness the depradations on family property committed bny Union radicals in the name of Lincoln.

Lincoln has been memorialized in many city names, notably the capital of Nebraska, in corporate and product names, and with the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C..

Truncated sentence

This sentence was truncated: "Shortly after his election, the South made it clear that secession was inevitable and war was all but impossible to avoid." I would restore myself but all I know about this dude is that he didn't like the theatre much -- Tarquin 00:21 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

Look at it this way - war was not inevitable - the north could simply have let the south secede. Look at it another way - it takes two to tango - the north didn't have to fight.

Alleged factual errors

There are several factual errors in this article, some of them quite glaring. I don't have the time or desire to fact check and rewrite this, but I will point out a couple of the major mistakes in the hope that any school kids wishing to use this as "research" will think twice and find a real encyclopedia.

The most glaring errors: Lincoln was never elected to the U.S. Senate. He served only one term in the House of Representatives from 1848-1850, well before he became president.

This is true. Another problem with this piece of garbage article is that it skips over a whole state that Lincoln lived in: Indiana. He lived there from a very young age and then moved to New Salem, Illinois at about 20 years of age. Did a sixth grader write this?

Stephen Douglas did run for president against AL in 1860. However, the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates that this article refers to (which are in fact very well-documented, which is why this error is so unforgivable) happened many years earlier when Lincoln ran against Douglas for the Senate seat in Illinois. Lincoln lost that election.

Also, Lincoln was a great orator but that had no impact on his presidential election. Because at the time, presdential candidates did not campaign. Their parties campaigned on their behalf and Lincoln gave almost no public addresses between the nominating convention and the election.

You're right about Lincoln not campaigning for the election but to claim that his oratory skills had no impact on his presidential election is ludicrous. If it were not for his oratory skills such as those on display in his "house divided" speech, he would never have been in a position to be elected president.

Picture not of AL?

Thats a very interesting early degurreotype of Lincoln in the article but I don't believe its him. Being a presidential history buff as well as a memorabilia collector, I've seen many a picture of Honest Abe, but never this one. If you've got any info on it, I'd like to here about it.

Longevitymonger

response to question on lincoln picture

I did a little research, and you can find "information" on the image at: http://www.lincolnportrait.com/ Interesting to note that they are trying to sell the original on ebay for $9,000,000 on ebay. hmmmm.

Lincoln's Honor rank

Go to the bottom of the Talk:George Washington page and look at the honored Americans. Does Lincoln go anywhere in the range from 5 to 10?? 66.245.115.51 00:14, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

removed link

I removed a link that was labeled "Lincoln Inougural address in different formats" because it was pointing to a pornographic site unrelated to Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln car

Latest comment: 21 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it worth noteing that he's the namesake of the Lincoln (automobile) company? -- stewacide 05:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

I think that would be more appropriately listed on the auto's page than on his; his page would get more than slightly cluttered if it noted all the things and people named after him. You'd still be able to find many of them through the "What Links Here" option. MisfitToys 23:38, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Mary Surratt

Latest comment: 21 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In this article it says Mary Surratt was later proved innocent. Why does it say nothing about that on her page? Munkee 18:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Because it's not true. She wasn't proved innocent. The exact degree of her involvement in the conspiracy is questioned, and some have maintained that she was an innocent "bystander", but the testimony of one of her boarders, Lewis Weichmann, and of John Lloyd, from whom she attempted to obtain "firing irons" implicates her as playing at least some role. Weichmann stood by his testimony on his deathbed in 1902. In 1977, the diary of Georg Atzerodt was found, and it provides evidence that Mary Surratt travelled to Surrattsville on the day of the assassination to check on the weapons. It didn't help Mary Surratt that she lied at her own trial. Anyway, I'll adjust this article to be less "certain" of her innocence. - Nunh-huh 21:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Hardin County

Latest comment: 21 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do you not understand how many generations of American kids were taught that Abe Lincoln was born in Hardin County? I even wrote (an atrocious) poem about it third grade. RickK 21:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

NPOV

Latest comment: 20 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Please read the Wikipedia policy page on Neutral Point of View then ask yourself how this article is or is not in compliance with the policy. For example, after reading about NPOV, take a look at what the article says about the Gettysburg Address, and compare it to what the NPOV page said about how Wikipidia articles are to be written. ChessPlayer 13:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Good point. This is one of the usual write-ups that makes Lincoln into a mythological hero. I don't know how it got featured status. 172 02:37, 15 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

As no one is moving to fix this article, I made a small step in the direction of transforming it from a biased article into one consistant with the NPOV policy. I attributed an opinion asserted by the article, that Lincoln was a "masterful politician," to un-named "historians", as I am sure some historians somewhere believe this, so its fact. Still, this is by no means satisfactory, and better yet would be if whoever originally created the claim, stepped forward and cited his sources, attributing the opinion to them, and not the article. ChessPlayer 00:10, 17 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that's not a glorification of Lincoln. Calling him a "masterful politician" is a value-neutral statement. Stalin, for example, was a deft politician as well, that is when it came to consolidating his own personal power. 172 00:28, 17 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say it was a glorification. The point is, its an opinion, and articles may not assert opinions, they only may give facts. If opinions are stated, they must be cited with whose opinion they are. ChessPlayer 00:39, 17 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be adhering to quite an extreme interpretation of NPOV policies. 172 00:41, 17 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

I am adhereing to what it states on the policy page; it is not extreme to simply follow what it says. Wikipidia articles can assert facts, but can only attribute opinions, not assert them. I agree with your opinion of Lincoln. I think he was a deft politician. But that doesn't mean we can make the article say that; we do have to follow the rules. There is good reason to, too, it vastly increases the ability of people to cooperate if they don't have to fight over what opinions will be asserted by the article. ChessPlayer 00:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

If it helps you sleep better at night, cite historians such as David Herbert Donald and Alan Nevins. 172 01:03, 17 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see anything in the NPOV policy about external links. I submitted the following be added to this article's external links http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html . However the link was removed for being "viciously biased." While the articles in this archive are outside of the maintstream of Lincoln literature, I do believe they serve a great purpose of giving a better overall picture of Lincoln's life and his public policies. These articles were written by many different scholars, historians, and economists and I feel they are a great resource for anyone interested in Abraham Lincoln. I am hoping to get some input on whether this link should be added to the article. Thanks. --JimGar 17:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree the http://www.Lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html link should be listed. It gives the negative side of the story about Lincoln that no one hears about in the media or in government schools. Its very biased, but just imagine if one-hundred years from now the only accepted history is that President Clintion was an honest man or that President Bush invaded Iraq to "free the Iraqies". It's like that in my eyes. Markes15 20:44, 13 December 2004 (UTC)Reply

Deletion of Racist Quotes

Latest comment: 21 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Wikisux, if you think the racist quotes should be deleted, could you explain why? Surely the more information in the article, the better? Rosemary Amey 17:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Hnnuh? Take a closer look. There's a reason I labeled my edit "remove duplicate section"... unless you think that section is important enough to appear twice in the article, I would recommend you get rid of it again. :-) -- Wikisux 18:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I took care of it myself. -- Wikisux 03:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

D'oh! Sorry about that... Rosemary Amey 04:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

I have trouble with the following: "Canadian ethicist David Sztybel has found many examples of racism in Lincoln's speeches and writings." The examples that follow don't seem to show that Szrtbel did anything that one can call "finding." No especial diligence was required. He simply looked up familiar sources in equally familiar reference works or collections. The better verb would be that he "collected" not that he "found" such statements, since they plainly weren't lost. --Christofurio 19:29, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Content stolen by Civil War site?

Contributors to this page may wish to know someone has stolen the content without credit, violating our license. See Wikipedia:Copies of Wikipedia content (low degree of compliance), section Civil-War.ws. You may wish to contact the site at [e-mail] to voice a complaint. Deco 00:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AL an "abolitionist"?

I made two minor edits to the section "Assassination," correcting the official time of death and the name of one of the conspirators (Edward Spangler). I was rather suprised, however, to see Lincoln incorrectly characterized as an "abolitionist" at the time of his election in the introduction, despite the accurate summary of his views on slavery given in the section "Lincoln on Slavery." At that time Lincoln was certainly not an abolitionist, despite his personal anti-slavery sentiments.

It is very well documented that in 1860 and previously, Lincoln was adamantly opposed to the extension of slavery into states and territories where it had not previously existed, but was reluctant to attack the "peculiar institution" where it was already established. This was likely in the vain and unrealistic hope that such a quarantine would lead to the eventual end of slavery. There is more than adequate evidence that despite Lincoln's personal abhorrence of slavery, he felt the country was not yet prepared for outright abolition and thus refused to advocate it, to the anger and disgust of the abolitionists. It remains to Lincoln's credit, however, that when he perceived changes of circumstance during the war that would allow for the weakening or destruction of slavery, he did not shrink from exploiting them. --Edeans 00:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I've seen this here & in the article on Lincoln & slavery

Lincoln believed that African-Americans were entitled to "natural rights" as declared in the Declaration of Independence, but not necessarily civil or political rights,

Can anyone elaborate? Don't all rights flow from natural rights, according to theory at the time?--JimWae 05:31, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

---

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Abraham Lincoln article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abraham Lincoln}} to this page. — LinkBot 11:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lincoln's sexuality

Please vote about this issue below; please discuss the issue up here

There's a new book coming out soon that looks at evidence of homosexuality in Lincoln's life. This has been cropping up periodically for the past twenty years, but this book is apparently very detailed. I suspect it might become an issue, and have added what I can remember. I've added it in its own section, as part of the sections on his personal life, to minimise its impact on the rest of the article. Can we all please approach this maturely and responsibly, admitting that none of us know for sure and we can only examine the evidence and judge the veracity of the claims; documenting claims and rebuttals and anything pertinent in an academic manner, and discussing the changes we've made here; rather than getting into all reverty?

Thank you for adding this section. Whatever our beliefs on the matter, it is clearly an issue/debate of interest, and should be mentioned in the article accordingly. AvestanHamster 02:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The past few edits on the Lincoln page have certainly shown that a great variety of views on Lincoln's sexuality exists; but no matter what our personal opinions are, this is a topic which has fostered public discussion, including debate on university level. It is also an issue that matters to a great number of people - not only homosexuals, but also those who wish to refute the thesis that Lincoln was homosexual/ bisexual. As such, I feel it fully deserves its own section on this page. 10:43, 23 Dec 2004

The Lincoln's Sexuality section, I think, merits its own article, which has been created: Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality. I have included a link to it from the main article. I think this debate is definitely important enough to deserve its own article.

Let me elaborate further on why Lincoln's sexuality needs its own page. The main "Abraham Lincoln" page is a biography; it deals with factual claims. For example, the claim that "Lincoln approved the Emancipation Proclamation as a wartime measure" is factually correct, for this is how Lincoln constitutionally justified his action. However, "Lincoln's Sexuality" is an interpretation of factual claims about Lincoln's biography, and the resulting speculation is not necessarily factually correct. As such, it is a meta-biographical section, but it is not in itself biographical. It deals with interpretations of factual claims, but is not factual in itself. Because of this key difference, I think it needs its own page.

I'm afraid I disagree. Lincoln's sexuality is no longer than other sections in his biography and it maintains NPOV. It is completely relevant to our understanding of Lincoln's role in history, and should not be moved off to another page. I have reverted the page, and suggest that a consensus be arrived at here before we get into a "reversion" battle. If there is a consensus to move this to a separate article that's fine, but let's move slowly to ensure that the reasons are sound, that everyone who cares has a say, and that this is not just avoiding what some may find a troubling aspect of Lincoln's biography. Jliberty 15:02, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

• I think it has become far too detailed (looking especially at the poem) to stay on the main page - I would on the main page perhaps mention friendship with J Speed ( a Southerner, right?) & then link to new article. How come nobody has mentioned JS being a Confederate supporter? --JimWae 18:02, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

• I take offense to your characterization of Lincoln's sexuality as "troubling." I don't see why it is troubling to be homosexual, if that is true. Lincoln's sexuality lengthens an already long article. It is completely relevant, but it is also speculative. You did not respond to my point that it is much more speculative than other parts of the article, and before I allow the section to stand I will insist you give me some reason why speculation belongs in an otherwise completely factual article. Lincoln's sexuality has its own page now, and it will stay there until you give me some reason to put it back here. NP

And if you revert, I will insist you give me some reason why this information must be on the Abraham Lincoln page as well as the Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality page, and why you removed the link to that article from this page. Is it because it includes some additional information than what you put on here? NP

I certainly am not suggesting that Lincoln's homosexuality is troubling, (please note that I have been an out bisexual and GLB activist for 30 years), what I said was that the fact that some may find it so is no reason to hide it off in a corner. So please try not to "take offense" at my writing (see Staying cool when the editing gets hot)

I personally do not think it is too detailed, but that is a matter of opinion. Further, I do think it is restricted to NPOV facts, but that is subject to perception. The speculation involved is reported objectively, and is relevant to understanding Lincoln.

If I removed a link, it was entirely unintentional, and I apologize. I do not think it should be in two places; I think it should be in one (on the main Lincoln page). If you wish to have a second page, that is up to you and the community (as is the entire decision, I should think).

In an attempt to cut the Gordian knot, I've reinstated the section, but shortened it to its essentials, and I've restored the link I inadvertently deleted. I've made my arguments, I think we should give others time to participate. Jliberty 02:14, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

No, you have not made your arguments, you have addressed none of my contentions as to why it should be a separate article. Why should the Sexuality section not be its own article? You give no reasons as to why it should be on the main page. Why should the info. be on the main Lincoln page when that information is redundant with the new article? Again, no explanation. I would submit that there is consensus as to the need for moving to a new page from all but J. Liberty. NP

Please read the comments above. As far as I can tell, (a) few have voiced an opinion and (b) the majority of those who did voice one think the information belongs on the main page.

I personally have nothing against referring folks to another page for further discussion. I did not read the other page and pick and choose what to include (as you imply); I simply restored what I had written. I even shortened it, but someone else put back the cuts, so clearly some folks think it all belongs on the main page intact. I respectfully but strongly request that you stop reverting it away, and let the discussion go for a while before making the change back to the way you want it.Jliberty 13:31, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

And there is nothing speculative here except for the section on Lincoln's sexuality. I would submit further that the section that J. Liberty keeps trying to restore was not npov. The new article contains a much longer counterargument for Lincoln's heterosexuality, which J. Liberty does not believe relevant to put up. Speculation is often inherently biased, and at the very least dangerous when mixed with an otherwise completely factual article. There is a great risk readers will regard the speculation in the Lincoln's Sexuality section as fact, because of its presence on the main page, instead of baseless speculation. The new article gives the section better context. NP

Speculation is part of the game; it is part of any aspect of a biography. We can only say that Abe Lincoln was born on 12 February 1809 because we speculate that the registrar did a proper job when taking down his date of birth, we can only say that he was the son of Thomas Lincoln, because we speculate that his parents didn't lie about that, we can only say that he was heterosexual, because we speculate that he was. Theories on the life of an eminent person should be not entirely far-fetched if they are to appear in a biography; they should be of some importance to the public if they are to merit a section in their own right. The theory on Lincoln's sexuality is certainly not a speculation that remains in the realm of the far-fetched or the ludicrous – its supporters have provided us with some interesting and sound arguments (be they convincing or not). Nobody who has followed debate in the media on this topic can argue that the theory has engendered no public interest at all. This is clearly a topic that matters to a great number of people; as such, it deserves a section in its own right, on the main page dealing with Abraham Lincoln's life.

Lincoln's birthdate is not a matter of speculation at all (no historian suggests he was born except when he was), nor is his parentage (no historian has suggested Lincoln was born to different parents). Lincoln's sexuality is speculation. We have NO evidence as to the sexuality. Its supporters have not provided sound arguments, but rather innuendo. That Lincoln shared beds with other men is proof of nothing-- if Lincoln slept with his dog, is that evidence he was a beastiophile? That Lincoln wrote a rhyme about a boy marrying a boy is also proof of nothing-- if I write a commentary about gay marriage, does that mean I'm gay too? Where is the causal link there? Where are the hard facts? There is nothing. Why on the main page, further? It has its own page now, and because it is 1000% more speculative than anything else.

As to the dangers of speculation about political figures, let me propose an example. Suppose on the Bill Clinton page I posted a table of Clinton associates who died under mysterious circumstances. That would be totally unfair to Clinton, but it would also be perfectly npov.

Why does this info have to be on the main Lincoln page? No one has even come close to suggesting an answer.

I did suggest an answer to the question why it has to be on the main page, when referring to the public interest in Lincoln's sexuality. Not my fault if you dont' bother to read previous comments. As to the speculation: Lincoln's birthdate or parentage do not appear to be matters for speculation because nobody ever cared to question them. Hence we do not know of any solid reasons why they should be subjected to discussion. This is not the case with Lincoln's sexuality: Tripp has taken up the case and provided reasons. Other historians follow him in this. We may or may not agree with it, but it is a topic of importance for a great number of people and inextricably linked to Lincoln's biography. [24 Dec 2004, 1.15 pm]

Why is that public interest not satisfied by the new page? The fact that a "historian" questions something does not establish a legitimate grounds for debate. Eg, Holocaust revisionists, Belasailles' Arming America, etc.

Again, why both here and the new page? There has been no answer, and your "public interest" argument is nonsense.

Every time I try to return the section you have deleted, you delete it again. Following Wikipedia policy, I will not revert it again. I believe, again according to policy, that you should leave it intact until others weigh in, and a consensus emerges (which manifestly you do not have). I have asked other Wikipedians to take a look and to weigh in on the discussion. For now, I will hold my peace.Jliberty 13:47, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, you're not the only one who wants this section here, Jliberty. I tried to re-establish it too, but then got told off for making too many 'reverts' in 24 hrs. One would rather hope that wiki would apply the same policy to 68.41.239.188 and his purges of the section, but that's perhaps too much to ask for. [24 Dec 2004] 1.52 pm (GMT)

Your protagonist, User:68.41.239.188, has been temporarily blocked for 24 hrs, after they wiolated the WP:3RR at 09:35, after being explicity warned not to at 9:13. So, please do not take their silence for assent. They will be able to resume discussion shortly, please be patient until then. Noel (talk) 14:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On reflection, I decided to shorten their block to 12 hours; they weren't a vandal, just would not listen to requests to please follow the Wikipedia rules. If they are still a problem, please report them at WP:AN I will repeat here a note I made to them: please be aware that if the community consensus is to move that content on Lincoln's sexual orientation to another page, or whatever, people really have to go along. Refusing to follow a community decision, and making edits in the face of it, is a serious infraction, which can garner you a much longer block; repeated failure to do so has led to people being banned. I know it can be a problem sometimed - numbers do not make for correctness. Nonetheless, like Churchill's saying about democracy, it's the best rule we have, and to discard it would lead only to chaos. Noel (talk) 17:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure we will all go with the decision, whatever it is. Can you tell us a bit more about the process? Specifically: how long is the vote held open? When the vote is tallied, if it is about evenly divided, is the "default" position to leave the original page intact (Note: that is not its current status, the section is currently missing) or is the default position to remove the disputed section? Thanks again for your help. Jliberty 17:43, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Good to hear that my "public interest" argument is nonsense. Forgive me, I forgot that wiki wasn't really about serving the public interest. I also forgot that "this is nonsense" is a good sound argument. Merry Christmas! [24 Dec 2004] 1.53 pm (GMT)

Why is that public interest not satisfied by the new page?

Any reason for hiding away Lincoln's sexuality on an extra page? Question: If there were reasons to believe that Lincoln was Jewish, should we better put that theory away on an extra page, so that unsuspecting people don't stumble upon it when they visit the biography page?

I do not support the inclusion of the debate on Lincoln's sexuality on this page. I support the inclusion of a link to another entry about his sexuality on this page, with all of the discussion there. I am a lot more conservative about what belongs on a page when it comes to a featured article. Samboy 14:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm voting with Tallulah Bankhead on a comparable occasion: when asked about a prominent friend, she said, "Well, I don't know, darling. He never sucked my cock." ...I'd have to agree. --Wetman 19:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

change Lincoln's Family to Lincoln's personal life. Add a sentence about Speed & link to the new article--JimWae 18:30, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

it is lengthy & detailed compared to other, probably more important, sections AND it is pretty one-sided at this point, making an attempt at persuasion (I think) that is premature. For example, many men correspond about their inner thoughts more to long-time friends than to their wives. There is less coverage of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, less on Emancipation Proclamation, ... --JimWae 02:25, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

I add this to explain my "no" vote below, and why I agree with JimWae here. While I am willing to accept that Lincoln may indeed have been bisexual, or even homosexual, I also feel it is rather unlikely that this debate will ever be settled as a historical matter. We should recall that being "open about one's sexuality" in Lincoln's time was considered at worst vilely amoral, or at best in exceedingly poor taste. It should be little wonder then that the evidence for either case (for or against heterosexuality) is rather slim, requiring significant interpretation.

I believe that JimWae's suggestion is the most appropriate here in view of this, and not merely because "it splits the difference." The debate on Lincoln's sexuality is nothing new, and there is no legitimate reason I can see here to bowdlerize this article. However, I also agree that the section as previously worded had too much coverage for this article.

A word of warning: I will feel free to change my vote to "yes" should a "Bowdler faction" appear to be winning out here. Edeans 05:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Maybe the best option is to look at other biographies and see how sexuality is handled. For example, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. As you can see, their sexuality is not mentioned but major people in their lives, including sexual partners (ie. Martha Washington and Sally Hemings) are mentioned. There is, however, certainly no attempt to list every sexual partner.

I suggest that Lincoln be handled the same way. If the article gets to the level of detail that his relationships with minor players like David Derickson and Joshua Speed is discussed then it is appropriate to note the speculation that his relationship with these people may also have been sexual although this is not documented. If the historical information on his presidency starts covering all of the various personal attacks that were made on him then the gossip about his relationship with David Derickson will become relevant.

Direct information about sexuality should be reserved for biographies of those who made their sexuality a key part of their public lives (ie. Boy George) or who had their sexuality become part of their public lives involuntarily (ie. Liberace).

In short, this section should be deleted. If you choose not to delete it it should be drasticallys shortened and demoted to a footnote, perhaps by changing "Lincoln's Family" to "Lincoln's Personal Life". Right now, about 10% of the entire Lincoln article is devoted to his sexuality. That's agenda, not NPOV biography. Find a general bio of the man that devotes even 1% of its text to this issue and I will be amazed!

Mike Friedman 04:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• There's a theory that Geo Washington was a woman too. Does every theory about every president deserve 5 persuasive paragraphs? There is not enough info counter to the theory in there to make this a balanced entry. There's also more about what other people said about the theory compared to the little about actual factual evidence. The stuff about what the AIDS activist said is inconsequential - and waste of space even in a sub-article. It would have more import to make a statement about how this might affect acceptance of gays by society in general--JimWae 17:50, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

No, but every serious theory by a respected scholar that directly pertains to our understanding of the President does deserve some space. You may be right about the statement by Larry Kramer, except that it points out how relevant some folks think this information may be to current political issues. Jliberty 19:47, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• • I'd agree with "some space" here -- the section in question is far too long. A brief mention that questions about his sexuality have been raised will send interested readers (and that will probably be most of them) will click through to the more detailed stuff. As long as it's on the level of speculation, it doesn't really pertain to our understanding of the President; rather, it pertains to our understanding of speculation on the nature of the President. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

• I'd like to raise a delicate question about the voting. When we are voting on a controversial subject, such as Lincoln's sexuality, or GLB issues in general, to what extent should the vote be weighed in the light of the general American hostility to homosexuality? I do not mean to imply that any given vote is homophobic, but rather that we live in a homophobic society, and thus should be especially sensitive around votes having to do with the possible homosexuality or bisexuality of public figures, especially ones as revered as Abraham Lincoln. Jliberty 17:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Sure. We should weigh it like we would any other vote... with a weight of 0. JEEZE... are you seriously suggesting that we should do something like "GLB votes count double"?!?!?! If you want something like that start a separate Wiki just for GLB topics. Mike Friedman 01:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No I'm not suggesting anything like that. What I am suggesting is that when you have a marginalized group like homosexuals, and a national figure of the republican party like Lincoln, it is reasonable to be cautious about popular votes on what aspects of his disputed sexuality will be shunted off to the side. It is too easy for those who are uncomfortable with the idea that Abe may have been bisexual to vote to hide that information. That is all I'm suggesting: serious careful consideration of external considerations affecting our judgment (e.g., I must be particularly careful not to give too much credence to these reports just because I think it would do so much good for America if they turn out to be true). Jliberty 03:04, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Jliberty raises some valid points concerning how homophobia can warp our view of history and historical figures. This being said, I believe there may be a larger problem here: anachronism. That is, engaging in historical writing that reveals more about the writer and the time of writing than it does about the subject (paging Parson Weems). Attitudes toward homosexuality, bisexuality and sexuality in general have varied greatly over time. Fifty or one hundred years from now, the current majority opinion on such matters may well be regarded as quaint, unhealthy, or downright bizarre (one can only hope). It is probably true it is not possible to write history or biography without some anachronism. IMHO, that is no excuse for not trying. Edeans 06:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • But if there was gossip about Lincoln's sexuality, in particularly his relationship with Derickson, at the time, surely that can't be considered anachronistic. I agree that the information on the modern debate (who agrees with whom etc.) should be in a different article. But Lincoln's relationship with Speed (even if there weren't any homosexual suggestions, as it does seem to have been one of the most important personal relationships Lincoln had) and any documented gossip of the day about Derickson, should be mentioned in this article. 195.92.67.71 12:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • Except perhaps on the part about gossip being mentioned in the article, I agree. By "anachronism" I mean the expression of a modish POV in reaction to known historical facts; not the documented facts themselves. Edeans 20:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I reverted Kevin Myers change (from "number of biographers" to "A recent book makes the claim") back to "a numnber of biographers" because we know that this claim was made or endorsed by Carl Sandburg (The Prairie Years), Charley Shively (historian, author of Drum Beats), Jean Baker (biographer of Mary Todd Lincoln) and Michael Chesson (Dept. of History, U. Mass, Boston)

The phrase "a number of biographers" suggests that a number of biographies about Abraham Lincoln have made the claim. AFAIK, only the Tripp book, and some vague inferences by Sandburg are the only bios of Lincoln that fit the bill. The article on Lincoln's sexuality is full of weasel phrases like this which create the impression that there is more expert support for this claim than there actually is. Mind you, I'm not invested in any particular interpretation -- let the truth lead wherever it may. But this article needs a little more intellectual honesty about who (so far) supports this theory. --Kevin Myers 20:43, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

You are right. I will change it to "a number of historians" which is more accurate. Does that sound reasonsable?Jliberty 22:22, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks. Now, I might quibble that Tripp was a "writer" rather than a "historian" -- I prefer to be pedantically precise when identifying the credentials of writers of history, since professional historian undergo (in theory) peer review and professional scrutiny in a way that other writers of history do not. But I suppose that's another debate. :-) --Kevin Myers 22:43, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Compromise Solution (Vote) Discussion

This is a new vote aimed at achieving consensus. Jliberty 18:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Resolved: leave the single paragraph under Early Life as it is (neither expanded nor contracted).

• Reproduced here for reference: Abraham Lincoln lived for four years with Joshua Speed, from 1837 to 1841. They shared a bed during these years and developed a friendship that would last until their deaths. A number of historians have suggested that this relationship was sexual, though others have argued that Lincoln and Speed shared a bed because of their poor financial circumstances, and that at the time it was not necessarily unusual for two men to share a bed. See: Abraham Lincoln's sexuality

Sorry, but I edited that a bit. Here's how I wrote it:

• Abraham Lincoln lived with Joshua Speed from 1837 to 1841. They shared a bed during these years and developed a friendship that would last until their deaths. Speed was, according to biographer David Herbert Donald, "perhaps the only intimate friend that Lincoln ever had." Some historians have suggested that this relationship may have been sexual, though most biographers have traditionally argued that it was not unusual for two men to share a bed in that era, and that Lincoln and Speed did so because of their poor financial circumstances. (See Abraham Lincoln's sexuality).

I thought it appropriate to mention that even "traditional" biographers recognized Speed & Lincoln's closeness. Also, I wanted to make clear that the "sexual" interpretation is less accepted; the earlier version was vague on this.

Obviously, I vote "yes" for my version. ;-) --Kevin Myers 21:59, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I reverted today's revisions to the primary page, as it resumes the polemic against the theory that Lincoln was gay in the main article. By consensus we've moved this discussion to the Abraham Lincoln's sexuality) page, and that is where it belongs. I will add that there are strong opionions on both sides of this issue, and clearly there are political motivations, not just historical, in the analysis on both sides. I believe this should be handled with a light touch so that we do not reignite the revision wars. Jliberty 13:05, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Vote to maintain the "compromise" solution as is

A Yes vote indicates you agree the current hanlding of Lincoln's sexuality should be left unchanged. A No vote indicates that you would prefer some other decision.

[Please Do NOT duscuss here. Only vote here. Discuss above, in the section Compromise Solution Discussion] To vote, find the vote you favor and vote by adding # ~~~~ Below the vote you favor.

Yes

1. Jliberty 18:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
2. gK ¿? 20:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
4. Edeans 18:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. I agree with Tony Sidaway here.  :-) Samboy 23:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No

1. bernlin2000 ∞ 15:49, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) : Perhaps a separate article or a sub-article.

(Suspended) Vote for Lincoln's Sexuality

This vote is suspended pending the outcome of the vote above

This vote is very simple:

Should the section on Lincoln's Sexuality be included in this page?

To vote, find the vote you favor and vote by adding # ~~~~ Below the vote you favor.

Yes

1. Jliberty 15:31, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
2. Yes, it is easily as important as those events that happened *after* Lincoln's lifetime and yet find mention on the main page (e.g. "Lincoln exhumed" / "Lincoln memorialized") Josias Bunsen 12:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Ryan! | Talk 13:21, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
4. Yes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Yes, or at least a brief mention and link. --Swamp Ig 01:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. Yes, having read Bill Clinton's book and having seen how the speculation associated with his administration was handled with great humor or cleverness, I think this information has a home on the article. Lincoln is no more sacred than any other president so why hide this under the rug? In AB's time there was no conceputal basis for the homosexual or bi-sexual identification other than having Walt Whitman wandering around writing poems that make a gay man's heart soar. Did Lincoln appoint Whitman as Poet Laureate of the United States? That would make for interesting speculation. "Oh Captain, My Captain" the poetic eulogy for AB written by Whitman. Ray Foster 17:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. gK ¿? 19:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Yes, the brief mention as shown in the compromise suggestion above, along with the link to the larger article.
8. 152.71.20.183 10:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No

1. I don't think this belongs in a feature article. Samboy 14:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. No, a section on Lincoln's sexuality is premature until more historians address the issue. A link to an article about the "controversy" is appropriate. --Kevin Myers 15:08, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
3. Emancipation Proclamation, Fort Sumter, L-D Debates have their own pages. I do think it merits more than an "Also See" on the main page. Use the structure under Lincoln's personal life that 83.216.148.11 considered vandalism. --JimWae 17:44, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
4. No, it isn't appropriate for this article. Carrp 18:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. As long as it's kept in a seperate article and linked to from this page. Dan100 21:14, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
6. See above. Edeans 05:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) See below. Edeans 22:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
7. No. Premature. Michael L. Kaufman 05:56, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
8. No. Not until we have a multi-page bio where a small footnote on this becomes appropriate level of detail. Mike Friedman 04:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
9. No. Brief mention of speculation and link, sure. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. No. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. No. PedanticallySpeaking 20:06, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
12. No. --JPotter 01:16, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
13. No.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 18:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
14. No. Maybe on a page not featured. This page should focus on his political life and accomplishments. A personal page would be ideal for this speculation (unless some kind of real proof is found). bernlin2000 ∞ 15:56, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comment

• Will there still remain ANY mention of his sexuality, if the section is removed? --Golbez 19:07, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• I think there's a seperate article about it, and a link to it from this page. Dan100 21:14, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the dispute is whether there should be a separate page with a link from the main page (vote no) or the information should be on the main page (vote yes).Jliberty 04:34, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, it would make sense to, at the bottom of the featured article, have a sentence that links to a page on the person life of Abraham Lincoln. bernlin2000 ∞ 16:20, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I requested this vote, and the results are pretty clear, though certainly not unanimous. That said, I think the version as it now stands (with a single-paragraph in-line section on Lincoln's sexuality, and a reference to the full article) is the perfect solution, and I'd propose that we end the vote, and end the reversion wars, and just leave things essentially as they are for now. Jliberty 17:11, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• The current brief paragraph, about eighty words or so, with a link to the main article, seems difficult to fault. An article about Lincoln that did not mention the fairly well founded speculation would not be balanced. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • As things now stand, I concur with Jliberty and Tony Sidaway. Edeans 22:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • See new vote aboveJliberty 18:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should have a separate vote for this? --Swamp Ig 01:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Size of article

This article is currently 37KB long. I've made some edits to slim it down from about 42 KB but I'm wondering if the section on Lincoln's assassination should be moved to its own article as well.

Part of the slimming was by moving quotes from letters to Abraham Lincoln on slavery. Someone has listed that for moving to something called Wikiquote. I removed the following quotes from the section on Indians, which I merged with the rest of the section on his Presidency, but couldn't think of anything to do with them and they should maybe move to Wikiquote too:

Executive Mansion

December 6th, 1862

Brigadier General H.H. Sibley

St. Paul Minnesota:

Ordered that of the Indians and Half-breeds sentenced to be hanged by the military commission, composed of Colonel Crooks, Lt. Colonel Marshall, Captain Grant, Captain Bailey, and Lieutenant Olin, and lately sitting in Minnesota, you cause to be executed on Friday the nineteenth day of December, instant, the following names, to wit [39 names listed by case number of record: cases 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, 24, 35, 67, 68, 69, 70, 96, 115, 121, 138, 155, 170, 175, 178, 210, 225, 254, 264, 279, 318, 327, 333, 342, 359, 373, 377, 382, 383].

The other condemned prisoners you will hold subject to further orders, taking care that they neither escape, nor are subjected to any unlawful violence.

Abraham Lincoln,

President of the United States

Saint Paul

December 27, 1862

The President of the United States:

I have the honor to inform you that the thirty-eight Indians and half-breeds ordered by you for execution were hung yesterday at Mankato at 10 a.m. Everything went off quietly and the other prisoners are well secured.

Respectfully,

H. H. SIBLEY, Brigadier-General.

I deleted the "Lincoln exhumed" section and created a page entitled Lincoln's Burial and Exhumation to conserve space here. I think this action is appropriate, given that the exhumation section of the old page deals with Lincoln after his life ended, as opposed to Lincoln as an animate human being. As such, the events described actually involve people other than Lincoln, as opposed to Lincoln himself. Additionally, the section is very long and contentious. 199.111.225.59 15:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters

I also deleted the quotes section and the trivia section. The fact that Lincoln's date of birth is the same as Darwin's belongs on a "Birth Date Coincidences" page or something like that, but probably not here. The "Quote" included in the "quotes" section is not Lincoln's most famous, and in my view is fairly arbitrary. 199.111.225.59 15:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)Noah Peters

• Where does one find out article size? I've found it before - but not now. What are the reasons for having such a fairly low limit? (download time?) From what I can tell, the photos are quite large files - they count too, right? Would it not be far more effective to reduce the file size of the photos? - that way we could KEEP some of the info that is getting spread around & even lost e.g. - Where is the stuff about attempts to rob his grave now?--JimWae 17:04, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• I have commented out speculation on Lincoln's health & argumentative text that South should have been permitted to secede from the Assassination (maybe it belongs somewhere else?) section - next person please remove.
• The Emancipation Proc photo can go - it's very big & is on the Emanc Proc article too--JimWae 20:30, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• If you move the Darwin-Lincoln coincidence , who interested in either man will ever see it? It will get pretty contentious & of little value deleting single sentences to save space.--JimWae 20:33, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
• I moved some info. on the Gettysburg Address to the G.A. page. Jim makes a good point about the Darwin-Lincoln bit which I deleted, but it did not seem to merit its very own section, which it previously had. NP
• removing EmancProc photo reduced file size. Next person's removal of <<Image:Abelincoln1846.jpeg|thumb|Lincoln in 1846 or 1847>> actually increased file size - what's up?--JimWae 23:03, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

AL's view of the Constitution and the Union

I am once again deleting JimWae's dubious assertion that a slave state which rejoined the Union would have been able to keep slavery. This is a counterfactual, because it never happened. It is enough to note that the U.S. did not emancipate slave areas that it occupied, and there is no need to go further. Let's not speculate about hypothetical situations.

I am also deleting the bit about the union as a contract. Lincoln did not assert this, he asked, as a rhetorical question, "If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" I do not read Lincoln's question here as the crux of his argument, and it is highly dubious if we were to interpret it as a legal matter, for a contract may typically be broken at the will of one of its parties. Lincoln's arguments about the organic nature of the union are more widely known, so I am reinserting Lincoln's more famous quote, "I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments." NP

• On this one, I agree more with Noah than I do JimWae. However, this is a substantive revision, not a minor one. Edeans 00:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Breaking a contract is to violate it. Such would require legal remedy. Contracts cannot be legally rescinded unilaterally. Though Lincoln makes the point as a rhetorical question, it is still part of a cogent argument.

1. The first sentence recently inserted (below) is a summary overview, not a cogent argument & as such just takes up space here.

   I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual.

2. The second sentence (below) is exactly what the south contested, & thus less persuasive than the stuff about the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union & contracts. (Remember USSR? , Czechoslovakia?)

   Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments

There was a SCOTUS case, I will check but believe the 2 points I added were more central to the decision than the 2 recently added

--

The Emancipation Proclamation was actually 2 separate documents. In September, Lincoln said what he would do, but did not name the places[1]

That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress, to again recommend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all slave states, so called, the people whereof may not then be in rebellion against the United States, and which states may then have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter may voluntarily adopt, immediate or gradual abolishment of slavery within their respective limits; and that the effort to colonize persons of African descent with their consent upon this continent or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the governments existing there, will be continued

That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any state or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free

That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the states and parts of states, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such state shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such state, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.

And the Executive will in due time recommend that all citizens of the United States who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout the rebellion shall (upon the restoration of the constitutional relation between the United States and their respective states and people, if that relation shall have been suspended or disturbed) be compensated for all losses by acts of the United States, including the loss of slaves.

The January proclamation omits mention of Tennessee, so their slaves were not freed, though it had seceded. New Orleans & several LA parishes, as well as WV & several counties of VA were specifically exempted - and so their slaves were not freed either.

It seems clear to me that the Emanc Proc was at least an incentive to rebel states to return & get paid for their slaves, and had any returned they'd have been in the same position as the border states. As unlikely it may have been that any would accept the offer, I think this is more than an "interesting interpretation" -- It seems clear to me that if a state had returned its representatives to DC, they too would have been exempt. Lincoln has given the rebels one last chance. If that does not seem so clear to others, perhaps they could say why.--JimWae 02:24, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

New Vote on Lincoln's Sexuality paragraph 1/18

I have come across several credible book reviews that seem to completely discredit Tripp's Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. See: [http://slate.com/id/2112313/ Slate.com review [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E5D61439F93AA35752C0A9639C8B63 New York Times review [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/107koqzy.asp Weekly Standard review. Basically, it is all unsubstantiated innuendo, not even rising to the level of circumstantial evidence, mixed in with some dubious Kinseyian stuff about kids who hit puberty early getting addicted to masturbation. Historically speaking, it is the equivalent of an urban legend, and its presence on this page tends to discredit the rest of the article. Given that all the evidence relied upon for the Lincoln is gay thesis comes from Tripp's book, I think we should put the discussion exclusively on the Lincoln's Sexuality page and delete the entire paragraph in this article about Lincoln's sexuality. I think such action would help maintain the integrity of this page and slim the length of the article.

Yes (delete)

No (keep)

1. Jliberty 13:08, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) - We've been through this too many times. For every article "discrediting" Tripp, there are others, by very credible historians that substantiate it. Nothing substiantial has changed, I reverted the Lincoln page and propose you move the discussion on why the article is not credible to where it belongs Abraham Lincoln's sexuality).
   1. • I haven't seen any articles by "very credible historians that substantiate it," I'd be more than happy to read one, if you would care to provide a citation as opposed to mentioning it in generic terms. I don't consider Gore Vidal a "very credible historian," however, nor do I consider Larry Kramer a "very credible historian." By the way, why did you revert? All the info. I provided was factual.

I reverted it because (a) we went around this for weeks and agreed that the article would stay as is, and discussion of its validity would be in Abraham Lincoln's sexuality) and (b) because what you wrote was not NPOV. - As for credible historians, Carl Sandburg, Jean Baker and Michael B. Chesson are all credible histrians and are mentioned in the Abraham Lincoln's sexuality) article as supporting the thesis that Lincoln was bisexual or gay. Jliberty 19:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment The proposal to delete the paragraph on Tripp's book seems to be based on the rationale that Tripp's speculation has received some bad reviews. However this is a bogus rationale--if we write about Tripp's speculation at all, it should be because it is being discussed by serious historians and by the media, not because we buy its conclusions. Among serious historians who have examined (and largely rejected) Tripp's reasoning are Michael Burlingame, a retired professor of history at Connecticut College and author of The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln, David Herbert Donald, a former Harvard professor and Lincoln biographer, and Michael B. Chesson of the University of Massachusetts at Boston, a former student of Donald's. Tripp's reasoning and these historians' comments on it should not be airbrushed out. Tripp has been taken seriously, even if his conclusions have not found a general chorus of agreement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. FearÉIREANN 16:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) I agree with the above.

Other

• 1 or 2 sentences in main article. ALL details -- including all criticisms -- in its own separate article. In other words, pretty much the way is was for weeks --JimWae 17:49, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  • I agree, that seems like the right choice. --fvw* 20:07, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)