This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I have received an angry e-mail from RN because I removed links to his self-published website ( http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/). His basis for including the links is 1) that he is an "expert", and 2) that his website ranks high on Google searches for Lincoln.
1) RN does not claim to have a Ph.D., nor does he claim any peer-reviewed researchor citations in other's research. (claims now made and validated)
2) As far as Google is concerned, it is my contention that ranking high on Google is not an indicator of expertise but rather, an indicator of popularity. Wikipedia's article on Lincoln ranks #1 on Google, yet many schools ban using it as a source for research papers (for good reason).
As a result, I see no reason to include links to RN's website – preferring instead to use this article's external links section to point to useful academic undertakings that students might be encouraged to cite rather than to self-published websites authored by self-appointed experts. Rklawton ( talk) 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
RN's website is listed as a reference here: "The Undergraduate's Companion to American Writers and Their Web Sites" [1]. His work is also cited in two or three scholarly books. The link itself is not to disputed content (as far as this talk page goes), so I see no reason why I shouldn't re-add the link. Rklawton ( talk) 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have a section entitled Modern criticism of Lincoln, in which it is acknowledged that over a century following the death of his opponents during the war, he still is a magnet for heated criticism in some quarters, not only in the South, but by some strains of libertarians. I noticed that at least two of his current critics, Lew Rockwell and Thomas DiLorenzo, are prominent enough to have Wikipedia articles themselves. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to describe the main points of their criticism and allow these links to be the gateway through which Wikipedia readers examine their views, in contrast to uncommented references in the External links section. (Note: since I claim little interest in Lincoln other than as commander-in-chief, I am not volunteering to write such a section.) Hal Jespersen ( talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am referring to Benjamin Thomas' biography - in it he states that lincoln abolished slavery in ONLY states that were in rebellion, maintaining slavery in states that were loyal to the Union (e.g. Delaware and a few others). He also believed that it was the right of each state to determine the slavery question and that the release of slaves was SOLELY to help the war effort - after all, it was only the slaves in the rebellious south that received their freedom. Slaves were not released on a point of morals etc - though lincoln did state his own personal opinion on the matter, that slavery should be abolished. he even tried colonisation of Negroes in some island - the survivors making it back by federal boat, where thereupon he realized that the negroe and the white man must somehow learn to co-exist.
this article makes Lincoln sound like an abolitionist - (which today sounds right and just etc, while opinions remotely contrary are presently rightly denounced - how times have changed!)- and he clearly was not an abolitionist. he was a moderate man by politics and it make sense..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaPanasonic ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Lincoln is listed on the chart as a Republican, but there wasn't officially a Republican Party at the time. At least the article does not specify under what president did the party form.
My changes were reverted -- unfairly, I believe.
Warned by his law partner, William Herndon, that the damage was mounting and irreparable, Lincoln decided not to run for reelection.
Herndon may have warned Lincoln about the damage, but the idea that his anti-war statements doomed his re-election is simply false. As David Herbert Donald and scores of other Lincoln historians have noted, the Whigs in the Seventh Congressional District agreed to one-term limits for their candidates, and the rule was iron-clad. Moreover, the Democrats won the seat in 1848 but lost the district to Taylor -- if Lincoln's anti-war stance was really that disastrous, the whole ticket would have fallen.
The edits were reverted for "muddying the issue." It's not muddying the issue to state over 100 years of Lincoln research.-- Idols of Mud ( talk) 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I splitted the Presidency part of the article into its own article because it's getting too large. We have similar sections for George Washington and George W. Bush. It was reverted, and I think I need a second opinion on this. December 21, 2012 ( talk) 18:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that the message says the article is too long, should we shorten? I'm thinking that the section on Lincoln's religious beliefs could be deleted entirely except for a "see Lincoln's religious beliefs" link, after insuring that all the info is in that 2nd article, and that the section on memorials and such could be shortened, given that that is also a separate article. Vidor ( talk) 19:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Unindenting. If you're not familiar with the significance of Lincoln's "rhetoric"--I am, so we can dispense with that insult. your "valuable" contributions--You want to make this personal? Very well, we can make it personal. the Department of Agriculture--One sentence. One sentence that you wish to equate with an entire section. I doubt any American has had his speeches covered in the depth that Lincoln's have.--That's super, awesome, and lovely. Unfortnuately the subject at hand is the long, long section on "Lincoln's religous beliefs", and whether or not that long, long section should continue to take up space in a 100K article WHEN A SEPARATE INDEPENDENT ARTICLE ALREADY EXISTS FOR THAT VERY TOPIC. If you paid a little more attention--If you check the footnotes and have any familiarity--Insults and more insults. the nation's first three presidents...all of them have religion sections--Awesome! Super! #4 doesn't. #7 doesn't. #11, possibly the most unjustly forgotten, doesn't. #26 doesn't. #32 doesn't. #33 doesn't. #37 doesn't. #40 doesn't. Even #43, who cited Jesus in a debate, doesn't. Those were all important folks.
One more thing: I also like the way you have decided to proceed with your plans. The awesome thing about Wikipedia is that you don't have to ask permission from other people before you edit an article.
In summary, and despite the insults above, I'll just quote that big ugly message atop the article, the one by the picture of the broom: "This article may be too long. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and help summarize or split the content into subarticles of an article series." And hey, look at this: "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up". What silly person wrote that? Vidor ( talk) 00:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "deletion" was not a good word choice in the section title?? The section that takes up by far the most is that on his early life - and there is a separate article for that. Important & interesting topic, but it really delays "getting to the things he is most well-known for". No matter what is done to the "religion" section, the article will still be too long. How about some discussion of "what else needs to be shortened"? -- JimWae ( talk) 06:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah! The owner of the Lincoln article has responded! Splendid. I can’t help but notice that you continue to avoid discussing the merits of the material that you plan to unilaterally delete. I would have hoped that recommending portions of an article for deletion would have given a hint that one does not think that material is very useful. But by all means, let's hear more about what Lincoln thought about John Locke. I was originally drawn to this article out of curiosity to see what it said about Lincoln's presidential policies on matters other than the war. Answer: almost nothing. Not nearly as much as what it says about John Locke and the Declaration of Independence. You were presented by me and anther editor mre likely areas to cut, yet you neglected or refused to address them. You as a Wikipedia user are free to cut anything you like. You’re stuck on article size Kind of gets to the heart of the "article is too long" problem. So we still have a large article, but it is a long, long, way from the 100 KB Super! Now you've gotten us down to "Probably should be divided". if you wish to still pursue this, it seems like you need to show where the information you wish to unilaterally delete is not “valid and useful”. Actually, no. I can delete anything anytime I want. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? Is there anything besides your “original research” that suggests this material is not “valid and useful”? Tsk tsk. Somebody doesn't understand what "original research" is. Here's a hint: it doesn't involve editing decisions. Vidor ( talk) 23:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I have received an angry e-mail from RN because I removed links to his self-published website ( http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/). His basis for including the links is 1) that he is an "expert", and 2) that his website ranks high on Google searches for Lincoln.
1) RN does not claim to have a Ph.D., nor does he claim any peer-reviewed researchor citations in other's research. (claims now made and validated)
2) As far as Google is concerned, it is my contention that ranking high on Google is not an indicator of expertise but rather, an indicator of popularity. Wikipedia's article on Lincoln ranks #1 on Google, yet many schools ban using it as a source for research papers (for good reason).
As a result, I see no reason to include links to RN's website – preferring instead to use this article's external links section to point to useful academic undertakings that students might be encouraged to cite rather than to self-published websites authored by self-appointed experts. Rklawton ( talk) 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
RN's website is listed as a reference here: "The Undergraduate's Companion to American Writers and Their Web Sites" [1]. His work is also cited in two or three scholarly books. The link itself is not to disputed content (as far as this talk page goes), so I see no reason why I shouldn't re-add the link. Rklawton ( talk) 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be perfectly reasonable to have a section entitled Modern criticism of Lincoln, in which it is acknowledged that over a century following the death of his opponents during the war, he still is a magnet for heated criticism in some quarters, not only in the South, but by some strains of libertarians. I noticed that at least two of his current critics, Lew Rockwell and Thomas DiLorenzo, are prominent enough to have Wikipedia articles themselves. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to describe the main points of their criticism and allow these links to be the gateway through which Wikipedia readers examine their views, in contrast to uncommented references in the External links section. (Note: since I claim little interest in Lincoln other than as commander-in-chief, I am not volunteering to write such a section.) Hal Jespersen ( talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am referring to Benjamin Thomas' biography - in it he states that lincoln abolished slavery in ONLY states that were in rebellion, maintaining slavery in states that were loyal to the Union (e.g. Delaware and a few others). He also believed that it was the right of each state to determine the slavery question and that the release of slaves was SOLELY to help the war effort - after all, it was only the slaves in the rebellious south that received their freedom. Slaves were not released on a point of morals etc - though lincoln did state his own personal opinion on the matter, that slavery should be abolished. he even tried colonisation of Negroes in some island - the survivors making it back by federal boat, where thereupon he realized that the negroe and the white man must somehow learn to co-exist.
this article makes Lincoln sound like an abolitionist - (which today sounds right and just etc, while opinions remotely contrary are presently rightly denounced - how times have changed!)- and he clearly was not an abolitionist. he was a moderate man by politics and it make sense..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaPanasonic ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Lincoln is listed on the chart as a Republican, but there wasn't officially a Republican Party at the time. At least the article does not specify under what president did the party form.
My changes were reverted -- unfairly, I believe.
Warned by his law partner, William Herndon, that the damage was mounting and irreparable, Lincoln decided not to run for reelection.
Herndon may have warned Lincoln about the damage, but the idea that his anti-war statements doomed his re-election is simply false. As David Herbert Donald and scores of other Lincoln historians have noted, the Whigs in the Seventh Congressional District agreed to one-term limits for their candidates, and the rule was iron-clad. Moreover, the Democrats won the seat in 1848 but lost the district to Taylor -- if Lincoln's anti-war stance was really that disastrous, the whole ticket would have fallen.
The edits were reverted for "muddying the issue." It's not muddying the issue to state over 100 years of Lincoln research.-- Idols of Mud ( talk) 21:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I splitted the Presidency part of the article into its own article because it's getting too large. We have similar sections for George Washington and George W. Bush. It was reverted, and I think I need a second opinion on this. December 21, 2012 ( talk) 18:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that the message says the article is too long, should we shorten? I'm thinking that the section on Lincoln's religious beliefs could be deleted entirely except for a "see Lincoln's religious beliefs" link, after insuring that all the info is in that 2nd article, and that the section on memorials and such could be shortened, given that that is also a separate article. Vidor ( talk) 19:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Unindenting. If you're not familiar with the significance of Lincoln's "rhetoric"--I am, so we can dispense with that insult. your "valuable" contributions--You want to make this personal? Very well, we can make it personal. the Department of Agriculture--One sentence. One sentence that you wish to equate with an entire section. I doubt any American has had his speeches covered in the depth that Lincoln's have.--That's super, awesome, and lovely. Unfortnuately the subject at hand is the long, long section on "Lincoln's religous beliefs", and whether or not that long, long section should continue to take up space in a 100K article WHEN A SEPARATE INDEPENDENT ARTICLE ALREADY EXISTS FOR THAT VERY TOPIC. If you paid a little more attention--If you check the footnotes and have any familiarity--Insults and more insults. the nation's first three presidents...all of them have religion sections--Awesome! Super! #4 doesn't. #7 doesn't. #11, possibly the most unjustly forgotten, doesn't. #26 doesn't. #32 doesn't. #33 doesn't. #37 doesn't. #40 doesn't. Even #43, who cited Jesus in a debate, doesn't. Those were all important folks.
One more thing: I also like the way you have decided to proceed with your plans. The awesome thing about Wikipedia is that you don't have to ask permission from other people before you edit an article.
In summary, and despite the insults above, I'll just quote that big ugly message atop the article, the one by the picture of the broom: "This article may be too long. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and help summarize or split the content into subarticles of an article series." And hey, look at this: "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up". What silly person wrote that? Vidor ( talk) 00:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "deletion" was not a good word choice in the section title?? The section that takes up by far the most is that on his early life - and there is a separate article for that. Important & interesting topic, but it really delays "getting to the things he is most well-known for". No matter what is done to the "religion" section, the article will still be too long. How about some discussion of "what else needs to be shortened"? -- JimWae ( talk) 06:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah! The owner of the Lincoln article has responded! Splendid. I can’t help but notice that you continue to avoid discussing the merits of the material that you plan to unilaterally delete. I would have hoped that recommending portions of an article for deletion would have given a hint that one does not think that material is very useful. But by all means, let's hear more about what Lincoln thought about John Locke. I was originally drawn to this article out of curiosity to see what it said about Lincoln's presidential policies on matters other than the war. Answer: almost nothing. Not nearly as much as what it says about John Locke and the Declaration of Independence. You were presented by me and anther editor mre likely areas to cut, yet you neglected or refused to address them. You as a Wikipedia user are free to cut anything you like. You’re stuck on article size Kind of gets to the heart of the "article is too long" problem. So we still have a large article, but it is a long, long, way from the 100 KB Super! Now you've gotten us down to "Probably should be divided". if you wish to still pursue this, it seems like you need to show where the information you wish to unilaterally delete is not “valid and useful”. Actually, no. I can delete anything anytime I want. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? Is there anything besides your “original research” that suggests this material is not “valid and useful”? Tsk tsk. Somebody doesn't understand what "original research" is. Here's a hint: it doesn't involve editing decisions. Vidor ( talk) 23:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)