Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

• Note - this is the second nomination, the previous debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln.

I put this page to AfD for second nomination because of its biased intonation, also its controversial features. This article totally bases on a single view from a book "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln" by the late researcher C.A.Tripp. The book itself is among controversy and a lot of other biographists and researchers on AL's life have made counter-arguments against this theory. Up til now no one can bear out the tangibility of the thesis. As I've said above, this article bases on almost every proofs that Mr Tripp used to convince his idea, which leads to the complexion of the article looks like a script of original research. In other word, the article can be seen as a brief material of the book. Moreover, if this article exists, we must create another article called "Counter-arguments for SoAL thesis". Wikipedia is not a source which only reflects one-sided viewpoints. _AbelinCAusesobad 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep One of the great values of Wikipedia is the comprehensive coverage that it gives to topics either excluded or neglected by other encyclopedias. This subject belongs in Wikipedia. Critics of its tone or content should, rather than delete it, offer corrective content. CoppBob 15:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Wikipedia is the comprehensive coverage, which doesn't mean that it must contain all the research on a particular personage or an event.etc. Every given information should have steady reasonings, which have been justified by factual evidence. The article is just merely an original research, plays no role in Abraham's biography. Also, the fact that this subject belongs in [to] Wikipedia or not is being discussed. _AbelinCAusesobad 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Although I see CoppBob's point, I think this article's content should be integrated into the main Abraham Lincoln article, to make it more accessible to casual readers. Walton monarchist89 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment what you're saying is "delete and merge", but that violates the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • User changed vote to keep, below, so I have struck out the "delete". — coelacan talk — 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per CoppBob's rationale. I really think this topic is complex enough that if it were integrated into the Lincoln article, it would wind up getting separated out.--Wehwalt 16:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: You feel that this topic is complex enough just because it contains nearly all the proofs given in Tripp's book, in which he alleges "the two men shared the same bed", "his relationship with his wife was stormy" etc. _AbelinCAusesobad 17:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  ResponseTripp is the most prominent exponent of the theory. But he is not the only one. Personally I think it is garbage. But it is out there and should be covered at the length necessary to cover it in WP, which is probably longer than can be accomodated in the Lincoln article.--Wehwalt 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Response to response: Of course I know Tripp is not the only one who agree to this theory, but you should remember that the number of researchers who disagree to it is much considerable, most notable is Havard Professor David Herbert Donald who has been studying Lincoln and the Civil War his whole life and has published his own book "We Are Lincoln Men" in 2003 and says there is no definitive proof of Lincoln having affairs with any men. This theory is still controversial and can't find any reconcilement among the reasearchers. This article is a brief version of Tripp's book, so should we add another one which is a brief version of Donald's book? NO. Wiki is NOT a place to contain every research around a person. Theories around Lincoln are many, including "Was Lincoln a racist?" Should we need another article on this, too? NO. Wiki doesn't welcome one-legged articles. _AbelinCAusesobad 04:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion - given that this pretty much revolves around one book, why not just move the contents to an article about the book? Rklawton 17:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per CoppBob and Wehwalt. It's a notable debate about an aspect of his life too large to merge. It has its references well-cited, so it isn't original research. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Response: What do you mean by "It has its references well-cited, so it isn't original research." Do you need to be provided with other "well-cited" sources which are against this theory, I'll be glad to help you. _AbelinCAusesobad 04:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not changing my vote. It's quite easy to view the references at the bottom of the page. This page is not supporting or denying the theory, merely identifying it and its arguments. You merely dislike the page because you feel it puts Abe in an unfavorable light. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: I wonder why you say "I'm not changing my vote." Have I hustled you into changing your vote? I just want to suggest you some materials that help you widen your knowledge of Abraham Lincoln. Moreover, I hope that you shouldn't mention the reason: "You merely dislike the page because you feel it puts Abe in an unfavorable light" since it's really worthless in deciding to keep this article or not. Your comment can be considered parti pris until you use clear explanation, reliable citation and tight-fisted ratiocination to protect your idea. _AbelinCAusesobad 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  You're commenting on virtually every keep. AfD may be a discussion, but questioning the motives of everyone opposite your side just seems excessive. You keep trying to play off comments as worthless, which I simply find annoying and a childish tactic. You don't get to discount votes, and I find the attempt sad. AfD does not exist for you to prove a point, nor does it exist as simple motivation. I will not go any further in explaining myself, as it has been done for me by those I have cited. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Response: "You keep trying to play off comments as worthless, which I simply find annoying and a childish tactic." First, yous should differentiate between the assessment about "a comment" and the thing that you call "a childish tactic". I use no tactic here, also I don't need to use it because my judgement is staunch enough to provoke your idea. I feel in vice-versa that it's you who play off the "childish tactic", in which you constantly mention my favor on Lincoln to scatter the prejudice on other commentors that I propose the idea just because I like him, instead of giving out "clear explanation, reliable citation and tight-fisted ratiocination" (as I mention above) to the dicussion. _AbelinCAusesobad 06:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not going to argue with you on this fact. I have voted keep. Move on. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The subject of this article is a widely-debated one by American history students. It's too large to merge, and is suitable for its own article. Perhaps it could be slimmed-down?? --SunStar Net^talk 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I wasn't saying the topic of the article wasn't significant - I agree completely that it belongs on Wikipedia, but I still think it could be easily integrated into the article on Lincoln. Walton monarchist89 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  ResponseWell, merge is a form of keep, ain't it? Wanna change your vote?--Wehwalt 18:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Pare down by about 90% and then merge to Abraham Lincoln. There is simply not enough material for it to be anything more than speculative, and such speculation, while may be appropriate on a biographical article, doesn't warrant an article of its own. --Nlu (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln (book). If the article is mostly about the book, make the article be about the book. Then write a sentence in the Abraham Lincoln article with a link to the article about the book. Argyriou (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete! Frankly who gives a flying fig if he was hetero, homo, or a sexual? Jcuk 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rename or Keep Rename, according to the argument proposed by Argyriou and Keep if his assumption, that the article is based almost solely on the book, is false. The article is badly written, the writer of an important source seems biased (he's a gay activist) and I think that Lincoln' sexuality is not important enough for us to have an article on it -- I don't care if he liked men, women, both or even goats as long as he did not act unethically ; yet I vote for a keep because it seems to be a topic that is being discussed. --A Sunshade Lust 21:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but the article does need attention. The argument predates the 2003 book so it isn't really possible to rename it to be a summary of the book. It should be made clear that many of the instances discussed as evidence are "as argued by Tripp", rather than stuffing him into an afterword. Nobile's counterarguments should be more thoroughly aired. But this is a content dispute. The topic is unquestionably notable, and I don't think the existence of the article per se is POV as the nominator argues, and we absolutely should not have a separate article from the opposite POV as that represents a fork. --Dhartung | Talk 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the gay theory is probably bollocks, the fact that there is a discussion, nay controversy, is notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting article. It sites its' sources thouroughly, it isn't about a hoax of any kind, and the article just needs to be re-written, not deleted. Power level (Dragon Ball) 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: The crux of the matter is not that whether you find it interesting or not. Get to the main point and make another clarified explanation for your viewpoint. _AbelinCAusesobad 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per Dhartung's argument. Also, comments such as this one: "...I don't want people to have bad impression on Abe (the homosexual thing does spoil his image) since he's my hero" [1] made by the nominator show a bias against writing a correct, not to mention truthful, history. If Abraham Lincoln turns out to be gay, that's history. Forget your personal opinion of his "image!" --Dialecticas 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Response: I don't deny that I have written the sentence, he's my hero and it's the sentiment from my part. However, that's not the reasons for you to against my idea. I have given clarified reasons and other reliable exemplariness to delete this article. If my memory is not bad, I haven't quote any words like "I love Abe so I want this stupid article to be deleted". Your work is to make comment and put forward your ideas which can provoke my argument. If your only reasons just limit to my quotion (which hasn't been written the full sentence), your proposition is worthless. _AbelinCAusesobad 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The book caused quite a stir when it came out and the topic was featured on the cover of Time among other places. Unlike Abe Lincoln's encyclopedia, we don't shy away from controversy here at wikipedia. Let's not be afraid to cover important people in depth, and yes, that includes their sexuality. --JJay 22:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article proves nothing and further confuses people about the subject. And the dude is dead now so I couldn't care less about his sexuality.Sam ov the blue sand 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Please don't call Abraham Lincoln the word "dude". It's a negative slang. _AbelinCAusesobad 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. NPOV or neutrality concerns should lead to editing the article not AfD. Actually the article seems reasonably balanced. It does not say Lincoln was gay, it presents verifiable information about Lincolns relationships and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions. AfD is not the place for content disputes. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: It doesn't bluntly say that "Lincoln was gay", but the intonation of the language makes strong allegation to the theory that ""Lincoln was gay". The neutrality of the article is not only based on the mere affirmation but also on the writing style. It's obvious that the article just mentions reasonings which prove the one-sided thesis "Lincoln was gay", not any little information about the counter-arguments from other researchers. _AbelinCAusesobad 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Well, if you have a problem with the tone of the writing style, why not change it? The article is called sexuality of Abraham Lincoln- any notable research on this subject is valid. If you feel the "Lincoln was 100% straight and happily married" arguments are not made strongly enough- improve them based on the research you refer to above. But deletion is not the answer. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Response: If you are curious about why I don't change the it, I'm going to explain it to you now. Firstly, if I change, maybe I must change the whole article, and then other editors (like Someguy0830, who only knows about the existence of this article in 14 January 07 through a discussion between me and Mr Lawton) will accuse me of being PoV, opinion-based, speculation etc and I really don't have time to argue with them, which can cause to long-term conflicts. Thus, I decide to nominate the article to AfD, the quickest way to discuss in light and may get to the result without wasting too much time. _AbelinCAusesobad 06:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  I'm afraid you misunderstand. POV problems simply are not grounds for AFD. Read the very top of WP:AFD. It says to tag POV articles with a POV tag instead of listing them for AFD. And please read my comment right below this one; the POV-is-not-an-argument point is made again further down the page on WP:AFD. The fact that you can't be bothered to work on the article and the problems you perceive there is not grounds for dragging everyone else into an AFD debate. You are wasting editors' valuable time with what you are essentially admitting was a bad faith nomination. — coelacan talk — 06:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  I open this nomination just to get the whole viewpoints from other editors to solve the problems. If you feel it a waste of time, just come back to your own work and I don't bother you to care about the problems anymore. The contribution is voluntary and I don't oblige you to post any arguments here. Cheers. _AbelinCAusesobad 06:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  No, listen, if you want comments and viewpoints that's what Wikipedia:Requests for comment is for. You are putting this article on the chopping block with the intention of deleting it, not getting viewpoints. And now that you've admitted it, it's clear that this is in fact a violation of WP:POINT. You are disrupting Wikipedia for your own ends, and it is perfectly disingenuous of you to argue that we can just ignore the fact that you are trying to delete an article. Leaving you to your own devices would mean that a good article, which passes WP:V and WP:N and in most editors' opinion WP:NPOV, would be deleted. Do not hold articles hostage to make your point. — coelacan talk — 10:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Original research, on Wikipedia, does not mean "some author I don't agree with wrote it." The content of this article is derived from multiple independently published sources. There's no reasonable claim of original research here. As to POV, I'm not seeing the problem, but if there is a problem, WP:AFD nevertheless says, "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." So source more content from the writings of David Herbert Donald if there's a problem. There is no argument for deletion. — coelacan talk — 04:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I offer only this; keep a biased article that is clearly in violation of wikipedia's NPOV on the suggestions of biased wikipedians. I say deletion of this article would prove that narrow minded thinkers can not flourish within wikipedia. Why not start your own wiki that only offers your point of view? This way when I need opinion and not fact I will visit your wiki (not). --knowpedia 07:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  I can only suggest that you actually read WP:AFD. Supposed violations of WP:NPOV are not grounds for deletion. I quote from the top of the page: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." — coelacan talk — 10:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  I would also say that typically deletion (or censorship in the case of POV issues) would typically show the opposite of what Knowpedia is suggesting. Deleting a serious, scholarly and well referenced article about a historical figure's sexuality would show that at least a narrow minded point of view can flourish in wikipedia and be the only articles left standing. Agne 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Agne points to one original piece of work written by a biased author (subsequent articles written on the subject all source the same original work = same source different print). I do not in general feel that more than one or two verifiable sources are necessary for a good article; however in this case were the subject is dead and he can not defend or confirm the accusations against him, there should be a minimum of five independent verifiable sources. Everyone who wants to keep this article has an agenda and its not an encyclopedic agenda. "Being gay is so out of style it makes frozen yogurt cool." —Author unknown --knowpedia 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The idea that this article is biased is false. This is not original research, it's the result of a significant amount of source-based research, and should stay. I would add that this article is absolutely NOT entirely from one book. I read about this subject in a totally different book which cited it's own underlying primary sources. Wjhonson 07:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable topic that was the subject of at least one book, and numerous magazine and newspaper articles. I can't see any reason to delete, and only weak reasons to merge it into the already very long (85KB) article on Lincoln himself. Jeffpw 11:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete --Mactographer 12:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

any reason, Mactographer? Jeffpw 12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — Notable topic, mentioned in more than one book (at least four being referenced in the article under discussion, contrary to the nominator's claim that it's all about C A Tripp). And as User:Jeffpw two comments ago. — OwenBlacker 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Controversial does not equal Delete. This is an extremely notable subject that has been around a long time. The relevant details would be overbearing within the main Lincoln article. Any POV concerns are content related and should be discussed and dealt with on the article's talk page. It is certainly not a reason to delete. Agne 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge I think that it's interesting, informative and VERY well written. If it cribs too much from one book then we should have other sources used more prominently in the article. If not, I back slimming down the articl eand including substantial info from it in the AL page. Elefuntboy 06:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not certain, as I stopped watching Abraham Lincoln many moons ago, but I believe this article actually arose out of that article's regular editors' determination that the content not be mentioned there. A merge would probably not be tactically possible. And there are plenty of separate sources for the content, so it shouldn't be a problem to expand further from those other sources. As I suggested above, if David Herbert Donald has disagreed with hypotheses on Lincoln's sexuality, then somebody should source from his writings on the subject as well. There's plenty of room for NPOV balancing, and plenty of sources to use, so if it's not currently at that stage, it really should be expanded rather than merged. A merge would eventually lead to the recreation of this article if/when more sources are utilized, per WP:SUMMARY. — coelacan talk — 06:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Changing my position to Keep - I wasn't trying to say that this topic didn't deserve coverage. Initially I didn't see why it couldn't be integrated into Abraham Lincoln, but looking at that article, it's very long and easy to get lost in. So I'd suggest creating a brief section in the main Lincoln article marked "controversy over sexuality" with a link to this page, just to make it more accessible to casual readers. Definitely keep the article. Walton monarchist89 09:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Having been a part of the great-and-glorious-edit-war of 2006 I can tell you why. There are some editors on the AL page who will simply not have it on that page. This page was most likely created as a way to mollify the battle. Wjhonson 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Response - It's not their choice whether or not to "have it on that page"; if it cites published sources (i.e. Tripp's book) then they would be unjustified in removing it. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Walton monarchist89 10:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Aye, but such inclusion has been a tactical failure, and it never seems to stick around. To get it put there and for good will probably require WP:M intervention, and nobody has wanted to pursue that yet, as far as I can recall. Probably best course is to get this article up to exemplary condition first. — coelacan talk — 11:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Based upon Wjhonson's comment, this article is a POV fork. See the Traditional marriage war. Nkras 08:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Hi there. Please review what WP:POVFORK means. This article presents multiple points of view concerning Abe's orientation. — coelacan talk — 08:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Traditional marriage presented facts that were edited out in Marriage, and tried to present facts that could not be stated in Ssm. Nkras 13:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Suggest you spam every page in the wiki that has absolutely nothing to do with your complaint, starting with this page, which you've done a fine job on. — coelacan talk — 13:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the suggestion. Nkras 02:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Great example of WP:BEANS Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles like this need to be improved, not deleted. "I put this page to AfD for second nomination because of its biased intonation, also its controversial features" is an example of precisley what AfD should not be used for. Why not withdraw the nomination and edit the article instead? Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know how much the article has been edited since this discussion started, but the article itself seems mostly neutral, and I don't see that the topic can be considered un-neutral if it has been in discussion for almost a century. --Jaibe 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A notable topic about an important Historical figure. There is much discussion about the topic out there. The article is too large to merge but needs work.Parammon 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 62.113.159.156 20:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.