Wikipedia:Featured article review/Abraham Lincoln

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Abraham Lincoln

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

• Comment The lead appears to be more of an opinion piece and in direct contradiction to his views on slavery as explained later in the article.

Messages left at User talk:Sarge Baldy, Template talk:WPMILHIST Announcements, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kentucky, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political figures, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Sandy 00:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't meet current criteria - whole sections lack inline citations and there's even direct quotes with no cites. --plange 16:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment More inline citations are needed amongst the article's sections. ALL direct quotations need inline citations, a major violation of 1. c. LuciferMorgan 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Lead needs some love too... RN 08:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I added some detailed refs (although they could perhaps be better formatted). Now all (long) direct quotes are directly sourced. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'll work on the lead. It should be at least two paragraphs, explain his slavery views a bit more in-depth (though obviously not over-detailed), touch on his upbringing and law career and mention his legacy beyond "icon and martyr". Anything I'm missing? Stilgar135 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry is typical of the whitewash of the actions of America's version of Joe Stalin. He had northerners who opposed the war on their southern brothers shot down in the streets of NYC by federal troops. While it's true he approved all the northern generals and their tactics, I see no mention of Lincoln's policy of waging war on the CIVILIANS of the South. It was not only Sherman who indiscriminately burned towns, stole or killed livestock, burned wheat and flour, destroyed mills and even ripped up fences. These were war crimes even in the age of Lincoln.

Lincoln's most lasting legacy was probably the federal contract - the spending of huge sums of confiscated tax dollars on "internal projects" like the railroads. Previously, these had been handled through private companies - but with Lincoln, the means of rewarding his industrialist backers with juicy federal contracts came into its own. The new federal railroads were even built on ice and snow, in full knowledge they would collapse in the spring melt. The contractors counted on being paid for rework - just as they were paid per mile of track laid (no matter that the tracks weren't anything like the most direct possible route.)

Almost completely ignored is one of the main reasons for the outbreak of the War of Northern Aggression: Lincoln imposed huge tariffs on imported goods. The agrarian South had long imported good from England and a much lower cost than they could buy the same goods from the North. Lincoln raised the tariffs to put British goods beyond the price of the Southerners and force them to buy northern goods. For the South, that was never an option. The costs would have financially ruined those saddled with the higher costs.

From imprisoning people who disagreed with him (one preacher was even jailed for failing to offer a prayer in support of Lincoln and his war!), to creating a system for wasting federal dollars on sweetheart contracts, to gutting significant portions of the Constitution, to grand-standing on the slavery issue (Lincoln is on record as saying he didn't care one way or the other), to causing the deaths of more Americans than any other person in history (over half a million dead), "Honest" Abe ("Honest" was an ironic term of derision, much as you might say, "Honest" Bill Clinton), was quite possibly the single most destructive force to America in our history, setting in motion disasterous consequences which are still with us today.

I highly recommend the book, "The Real Lincoln" for anyone who wants to get a better view of this EVIL, self-centered power-monger from the mid-19th century. It contains direct cites for all of the above.

Not to derail this page, but The Real Lincoln is an awful book regardless of its author's intent. DiLorenzo may be 100% right, but that doesn't change the fact that he contradicts himself, plays fast and loose with the facts, and has no idea how to make an effective argument. I'm sure there are at least a few good anti-Lincoln books out there, but that sure isn't one of them. Stilgar135 02:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

He couldn't possibly be 100% right. See my comments below. Durova 16:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 07:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, no concerns substantial enough to warrant defeaturing. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - still whole sections lacking inline citations, a violation of 1c --plange 22:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As someone who holds a degree in history from an Ivy League university I can state with assurance that the anti-Lincoln diatribe posted above is fringe scholarship. For example, its claim that the South seceded in response to Lincoln's tariff policies is preposterous: seven states had already seceded before the first day of Lincoln's presidency. Those accusations are the sole edit of an anonymous IP address. Durova 16:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - that diatribe has nothing to do with this FAR however... It was posted by an anonymous IP. This article was nominated for FAR due to its lack of inline citations -- can you help get those added? --plange 16:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What facts do you think require inline citations, beyond what is present? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely any place where there's a quote, or asserting a stance of his, like "ridiculed religion". Plus one style needs to be picked, right now there's a mixture of <ref>/CMS and Harvard style for inline citations. --plange 18:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Remove for now. Per Plange. Whole sections and sub-sections of this article have not even one inline citation! It still needs referencing, but it can be saved.--Yannismarou 14:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Entirely uncited and unstable. Sandy 16:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. Had a good look at this one because of its importance. It's very patchy, both in terms of writing quality and citations (the lack of the latter is enough to defeature). The early life section contains unsourced speculation ("he may have witnessed a slave auction that left an indelible impression on him for the rest of his life" is a gem), while the lead is just...off. Hard to place exactly, but "overthrow" and "destroying" slavery as verb choices, are examples. There's also some repetition and an imperfect TOC (the style of Homefront jars, for instance). There's certainly copious material here—not a bad read, but not an FA. Marskell 13:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - Insufficient inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 13:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)