Talk:Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment

I posted this to the Abraham Lincoln talk page and will post it again here:

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 think an additional reason why we need this page is so the discussion can be more fully fleshed out here without making the Abraham Lincoln page absurdly long. The recent revisions to this page, I think, are further proof of this. --NP

What nonsense! There are no facts only texts and interpretations of texts.Seneca_2007 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• This page should also mention some things about Speed - southerner, Confederate sympathizer... I've also seen that Lincoln was very depressed as his wedding approached, and that Speed helped him "take the plunge".--JimWae 18:43, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

NPOV

The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln (ISBN 0743266390) (published posthumously)

Tripp, a well-known sex researcher studied under and worked for Alfred Kinsey and he authored the seminal work The Homosexual Matrix in 1975.

During this period it was not unusual for two men to share a bed. According to some sources, two other men also shared the same living quarters while Lincoln and Speed lived there.

Writes Christine Stansell of the period in her review of Tripp's book in The New Republic, "Travelers piled in with each other at inns; siblings routinely shared beds; women friends often slept with each other as readily on an overnight visit as they took their tea together in the kitchen—and sometimes displaced husbands to do so. Civil War soldiers 'spooned' for comfort and warmth."

--- It needs to be balanced and have sources cited. Get rid of the "some sources". And this is a Lincoln bio, why are we also doing a bio of Tripp on the same page? To discredit him? If you include his views why aren't you including short bios on other sources like the new republic magazine (very conservative, against gay rights, even discrimination protections for gays)?? And why does Tripps book say posthumously? All of the biographies are posthumously, it is just another instance of the violation to specify it only on Tripps book.

Doesn't the "posthumously" refer to the fact that the book was published after Tripp died? 216.64.249.160 22:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too many weasels, not enough meat

This article has far too many weasel phrases for such a short length. Such as:

• "Several sources characterise the relationship..."

Which sources?

• "Again, some biographers have interpreted..."

Which biographers?

• "A recent study has also pointed..."

What recent study?

• "The theory is explored in detail in a number of works, most recently in the book The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln by C. A. Tripp."

What are some of the other works?

I get the sense that all of these "sources" are actually just one source -- the Tripp book. This may be untrue, but the weasel phrases give this impression that this "article" is really a just a book report. The antidote is, of course, to cite your sources. --Kevin Myers 21:13, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't like POV-breakouts. This should go in the Abraham Lincoln article.

This should go into the Abraham Lincoln article and get wordsmithed until consensus is reached.

A discussion of Lincoln's sexuality belongs in the article about Abraham Lincoln. It's not exactly historical in the sense that it probably didn't affect his public Presidential career or the conduct of the civil war, but it's certainly biographical in the sense of being part of his life.

I'm not currently working on this topic and haven't read any Lincoln bios recently, but although the issue was just thrust into the spotlight by Tripp's book, and although this article may be mainly based on that book—I wouldn't know—there should be plenty of corroboration from other biographies. I'd certainly heard of this long before Tripp. Sandburg states it as clearly as anyone would have dared to state it at the time.

There's rarely any conclusive evidence on an issue like this; the past is always mysterious. If it were anybody less iconic than Lincoln, I think most people would accept the evidence as pointing at least to the likelihood of a relationship between Lincoln and Speed.

As for the "it didn't mean anything for men to sleep together" argument, I've seen this in a variety of forms and I'm deeply skeptical of it. A man and a woman can share a bed without having sex, too, but if they do it for years and express affection most people assume the likelihood of a sexual relationship. Some people seem to think that homosexuality didn't exist before the 1950s. These are the sort of people who think that when Melville has Ishmael awaken in Queequeg's "bridegroom clasp," with "Queequeg's arm thrown over me in the most loving and affectionate manner. You had almost thought I had been his wife," that Melville wasn't implying anything sexual. Well, there's no way to prove any of it. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above post is very silly. If Lincoln weren't such an icon I doubt there would have been any discussion of possible homosexuality at all. Really famous public figures tend to attract this sort of uninformed speculation. Tripp and Sandburg are the only Lincoln biographies out of many to advance this theory; there is no corroboration from anyone but Sandburg in empty innuendo. There is very often conclusive evidence on the sexuality of historical figures; Eleanor Roosevelt's letters to Lorena Hickok are an example of such evidence. The evidence is sorely lacking here. As the main author of this page, I wouldn't mind seeing it deleted or moved to an article on Tripp's book. There is little on this subject besides Tripp's book. ~~Please Don't Block

• this article needs much editing -- so it is no longer POV--JimWae 22:02, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Any proper treatment of this topic will be much, much too long to fit into the main article. The historical context has to be discussed, as well as the various arguments for and against. This is long enough to be its own article, which is why it is its own article. And that's a common Wikipedia practice... see Mars in fiction, just for one example. -- Curps 15:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page serves no purpose. Are the dubious piece of dirty laundry dreamed up by Kitty Kelly or The National Enquirerer also going to get there own pages? If there's any legititmate reason for including this information it should go on the Abraham Lincoln page. If it isn't warrented there, it isn't warranted anywhere.--198.93.113.49 16:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Title of article

why was article changed from Abraham Lincoln's sexuality to Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln? With the former title it would appear together with Abraham Lincoln in any alphabetical index of titles.--JimWae 22:22, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Why is it "sexuality" at all? Is the article meant to cover Abraham Lincoln's sexuality in general, or more specifically his sexual orientation? It seems to me to be the latter, and it's frustrating when the two are confused. -Emiellaiendiay 03:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if sexuality "refers to sexual behaviour" and sexual orientation refers to some innate property, really it seems the article covers both. Not just his innate identity which is subjective and not explicitely onfile (to my knowledge), but also his sexual behaviour, that is, with whom did he have sex? (Or at least appear to have sex.) Wjhonson 17:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, this is a bad example of a neutral title for an article. Whether it is titled "Abraham Linclon's Sexuality" or "Sextuality of Abraham Lincoln" is not what the article is about and misleeds person who would consult Wikipedia for information. Firstly it is clear Lincoln was a male which is gender. In theory a male can have sex with a female, another male or whatever, and his sexuality is still male. I say this unless someone can offer biological evidence or Lincolns physical makeup to the contrary. The article title should say "The Sexual Orientation of Lincoln" or "Lincoln's Sexual Orientation" which is what is the general topic. Secondly his sexual orientation, while of interest to some people, is irrelevant to his presidency. Whether Lincoln was oriented heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or whatever other orientations can be a full description of every possible orientation, Lincoln was Lincoln. Far other more relevant heredity, life experience, environmental and political factors influenced his actions. Rather than a conclusive title, the article might be properly titled "Alleged Sexual Orientation of Lincoln" to have a meaningful description of the contents. Mfields1 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Book Report

Um...come on. This article is a book review of this C.A. Tripp's The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. Tripp is more or less the only source for what this article is saying. If Tripp is notable, or if this book is notable, then they should get articles under their own names. Lincoln's sexuality is not notable, because this one guy Tripp is just about the only one to ever note it. It simply isn't appropriate to create an article on an historical figure's sexuality when one author writes one book. Again, if the book has become exceptionally notable, then it should get its own article, otherwise, Lincoln's sexuality can probably be dealt with in 1 or two sentences in his article. func(talk) 03:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Since this remark has not been commented upon, I would like to point out that Tripp is not the only, and not even the first author to remark on this possibility. Tripp is undeniably the most in-depth author on this subject however, summarizing basically all the prior work, and adding new ideas as well. Wjhonson 17:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to move this page in 1 week

Regarding what I say above under "Book Report", I think this article should be moved to The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln. The book gets 7,760 google hits, which makes it pretty notable for a work of this nature. Unless someone can show significantly more evidence that Lincoln's sexuality is/was ever notable outside of this one author's book, the topic isn't really deserving of its own article outside of an article on the book itself. Please comment here if you disagree with a page move to the book title. func(talk) 16:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the page move (for reasons, see my "too many weasels" above). --Kevin Myers 00:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I had skimmed over the above comments, but I hadn't noticed that you had used the same phrase: "book report". :) func(talk) 01:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The weasel phrases have mostly been removed, but as the main author of this page I would not mind moving or deleting this page. This page was created in response to an edit war on Abraham Lincoln in the months following the release of Tripp's book when it was being hyped from all quarters. Then Tripp's work was roundly panned by several critics ranging from such anti-gay hotbeds as the New York Times and slate.com and forgotten. I am now satisfied with what is written on the main Abraham Lincoln page about this. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

"Yours Forever"

"Tripp notes that Lincoln signed his letters to Speed, 'Yours Forever,' which Tripp points to as evidence to support his thesis; but Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald has pointed out that Lincoln used this closing in letters to several other friends."

Where has David Herbert Donald pointed this out? I have read the claim in U. S. News that Lincoln used this closing in letters to at least half a dozen other people. But it does not mention Donald specifically in this passage. Can we get a more specific reference, please? --Susurrus 02:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ann Rutledge

I made some edits to the last paragraph to point out that the existence of Lincoln-Rutledge "romance" has been a matter in controversy for a long time. Tripp himself notes this in some detail in The Intimate World. Tripp and many serious Lincoln scholars strongly reject the idea that any relationship between Lincoln and Rutledge was romantic. Edeans 02:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln was a Woman

While many of you were off pursuing Lincolns sexuality, the Weekly World News broke the American history story of the 21st century: Abraham Lincoln Was a Woman! Thanks to maverick historian Jessica Durbeen, we now know that Honest Abe was born Abigail Lincoln, a victim of Marfan's syndrome, a genetic disorder that can cause disproportionate growth. As a young girl, she decided to dress as a man to work as a rail splitter and, thanks to some Log Cabin luck, found a male transvestite to marry ("'Take a look at a photo of Mary Todd Lincoln and you'll be convinced'"), by whom she gave birth to six children while, possibly--and here Durbeen can go no further than the evidence allows--carrying on a torrid affair with John Wilkes Booth. In a year when one front-page revelation after another has led Americans to question historians' credibility, perhaps you're right to be skeptical. How does Durbeen know all this? And why haven't we heard about "Babe-raham Lincoln" before? All is answered in the January 22, 2002 issue of the WWN: like any sex scandal worth its cigar, it begins with former President Bill and and his wife Hillary Clinton, After the Clintons and their staff left Washington in January 2001, a secret cache of Mathew Brady photographs was discovered in the White House basement (under the sealed box containing all the missing W's from the West Wing's computer keyboards?). In four Brady photographs, "reproduced" in a quite lovely spread in the WWN article by Mike Foster, Lincoln sports everything from a housedress to a hoop skirt. (Note to Scarlett: Back off.) Faked photographs, you say. Photoshop is easy, you say. But there's more "striking evidence": "A jar of glue, used by actors to apply fake beards, found among Lincoln's personal effects at the Smithsonian Museum--along with a dozen sanitary napkins." When two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner David Herbert Donald toured the country promoting his 1995 biography of Lincoln, the first question audiences asked was, invariably, "Was Lincoln gay?" One elderly radio listener phoned a call-in program to assert that she had read, somewhere, that Lincoln was black. "She thought she knew this," Donald recalls, sadly Americans are miserably ignorant of their nation's history and, truth be told, they're pretty darn gullible. Maybe "Americans are Gullible" isn't as good a headline as the New York Times' Onion-ish "Writers Beware: History Is an Art, Not a Toaster" (February 28, 2002), but it's surely at least as true. That Jessica Durbeen is nowhere to be found in the American Historical Association's 2001-02 Directory of History Departments, Historical Organizations, and Historians isn't likely to trouble the sleep of many readers of the Weekly World News, but it sure keeps me up at night. If journalists are going to lecture historians about accountability, maybe we could all take the time to think a bit harder about the past we're trying to protect from would-be plagiarists,as seen here at Wikipeada. Meanwhile we can all take comfort that Jessica Durbeen was herself once a doubter: when she initially came across the claim that Lincoln was a woman in "a tattered old Confederate pamphlet," she found it preposterous: "At first, I thought it was just wartime propaganda, but then I took a closer look at a photo of Lincoln and realized the beard does look bogus." --Tinki_Winki 22:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm laughing anyhow. I like the post, but the signer should take credit by signing name. --Noitall 20:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why Thank you Noitall! (Tinki Winki 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

This may sound screwed up, but Lincoln as a woman rather than as a gay or bi-sexual man is more controversial. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay. The idea sounds more interesting. Could a woman already served as president. Many many times in history presumed closet gay people have served in many civic positions. If Lincoln liked to make love to a man, who gives a fuck. Thats his flavor. Lincoln a women is huge. The facial hair could have been his own. My grandma has beard. Come to think of it, if grandma dressed as a man... --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 18:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to say, man?! Use complete sentences and correct grammar! --Viannah 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be a joke. --Viannah 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess having four children with a woman would indeed be a difficult feat if Abraham Lincoln were really a woman. How about we print all of this in the National Enquirer and delete this entire article? --Rcronk 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Revision

I can't believe I just spend 4 bloody hours reorganising this page and adding additional material, but I have. Anyway, this hopefully turns it from a book report on Tripp to a more balanced article which puts the whole theorizing of Lincoln's sexuality in historical perspective. It's by no means perfect, but it's a start. This will hopefully also enable the page to provide the room for a proper laying out of the issue when it inevitably blows up again...perhaps with the long rumored Kramer book. Anyway, in line with the broader changes, can a Wiki Admin please change the title back from The Intimate World to Sexuality of AL, as it was previously. Ta. --Engleham July 10, 2006

I can't believe there isn't some kind of explanation that this is about a book full of speculation and not a serious article. Could someone please make clear WHAT this article is for (IN the article) and why it's not a serious article, but rather, an assemblage of speculation. Upon first reading it appears to be an attempt to sneak a barrel full of rumors into wiki as a real article. 70.115.211.122 03:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)fix it or delete it, it's garbage right now

The article name should never have been changed to the title of the book - it should be Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln - as it used to be --JimWae 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it should be deleted, and if necessary, a new one for the book written. There is no reason, outside prurient interest, to be discussing speculation, much of which is completely unfounded, on a dead president's sex life. There simply is no reason for this article unless it is to directly discuss the book.70.115.211.122 07:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Please try not to confuse classlessness with thoroughness.

I think a dead president's sex life is notable. We talk about the sex life of King Charles II - eg Nell Gwyn, and Edward II of England. horseboy 17:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources from Tripp

If sources other than Tripp exist for factual statements, they would be less susceptible to suspicion, I think. --JimWae 06:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested move to Personal Life of Abraham Lincoln

It was suggested at the afd (result above) that this article should be moved to Personal Life of Abraham Lincoln and expanded to include more details on familily etc. This sounds like a good idea, and the afd closure in no way prevents this. Petros471 19:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It used to be at "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln", focused on the book by that name. If its moved again, note that the title should be spelled "Personal life of Abraham Lincoln", with a small "l" in "life". -Will Beback 21:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

First two external links

Expand those first two links into their own section. Counter arguments or something to that effect. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kramer as unreliable

The statements by Ktamer that he has secret sources means it is not a reliable source, especially in the Lincoln field with many hundreds of scholars and archivists at work. Including his personal beliefs violates wiki policy. WP: RS Says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

1. Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
2. Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
3. Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
4. Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, Rjensen 05:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kramer's claims, however wrong they may be, are still notable in that he has gotten attention through them. Notice how it is already written to discount him (supposedly, said to). – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Kramer's claims do not even make his Wiki page. Including them is bad and violates wiki policy. 5 years ago he "claimed" to have discovered secret diaries that had been missed by hundreds of archivists and collectors. He never showed one page to anyone. So he makes us look like a supermarket tabloid with secret space aliens -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 06:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

We're not claiming it's true, though. We are citing a notable event in the history of this topic. As full of it as this guy may be, and I am just as convinced as you are that he's lying, that he has garnered attention is enough. Now, if you show that his claims are basically the equivalent of ignored rantings, I'd have no problem with doing away with it. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Someguy, I think that you are a bit confused here. This article is itself a work of a reasearcher. There're a lot of arguments around this topic, both agreement and disagreement. Which one can you differ as "notable" and "unnotable"? You say to Rjensen that "if you show that his claims are basically the equivalent of ignored rantings.." OK, I ask you, you can clarify the veraciousness of Kramer's claims for me, can't you? If you CAN DO THAT, I'd have no problem with leaving it. _AbelinCAusesobad 07:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, it's not about whether he's actually telling the truth. It's noting an event and nothing more. You're the one confused. You want the other side represented, then add the other side. By that I do not mean using negative language to discredit claims through implications, I mean get your own sources and add them. You've claimed you've done your research, let's see it. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I just fear that if I add new information and an ignorant guy will revert it and conlude: PoV. _AbelinCAusesobad 07:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've reverted thus far has been the purposeful dispariging of the topic. Make a new section and add it. That is all you would have to do. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That Larry Kramer said he had this new material is definitely something that should be in the article. We aren't here to say what's *true*, we're reporters... and he said it. That's all that matters. Wjhonson 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not "reporters" --we are an encyclopedia that people come to for authoritative treatments. We dismiss junk statements by cranks that no one believes. That's Kramer--even he stopped claiming he discovered rare manuscripts (that are worth millions if genuine and zero if fakes). The Lincoln literature is littered with fakes and falsehoods.Rjensen 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rjensen, it just costs much of our time to prevent these "reporters" from making an "encyclopedia" into a "yellow press". Let them do what they want, as long as this theory can't be testified just through an article. We should come back our normal work instead of wasting time debating here. _AbelinCAusesobad 15:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We are "authoritative" and yet we ignore some authorities? That Kramer is a "crank" seems to be slander. Should we now ignore everything you say for here on out? Authoritative does not mean truthful. You seem to want to make it so. Saying Kramer said it, does not make this a "yellow press". All this outrageous hyperbole only shows your argument clearly for what it is... weak. Wjhonson 17:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

This is a dispute about the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. 00:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Over 1600 words clearly claiming him to be a gay or bi-sexual man, compared to only 52 words stating this may be only a opinion and not factually true. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ

• The other part of your edits tends to try to water down the actual facts as we know them. We know that he was distraught at the marriage of his "most intimate friend". He is called his most intimate friend, he is not called his "best friend", that is a gloss by prissy historians to mask what is actually said. - Wjhonson

• I enjoy the article. After my first read, I found it cogent. On such a contentious topic the reader should not be convinced by its context. I uderstand the infancy, and would like to improve the article. -ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ

Comments

I've tagged the article with "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed." This tag will stay until all editors involved can agree the article is factually accurate. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going further, as it's not even a neutral article. I've added {{totallydisputed}}. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It states the arguments used in the sources. We are here to give those arguments, not our own. If you read the sources you will see, that they do, in fact, say exactly what this article is saying. If you won't actually read the sources, then of course you won't see that. Wjhonson 06:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I was struck by the beginning of the article which stated that "commentary on Abraham Lincoln's sexuality has existed for some time." How much time exactly? Also, this does not seem to me to be a mainstream scholarly POV - it seems to be given undue weight, especially by being given its own page. I noticed that the article had been slated for deletion - I would agree. This page should be radically condensed and included in the Abraham Lincoln page. You might also consider explaining more clearly that the professor making the claim that Lincoln was gay is a psychiatrist while the professor you cite in the lead as one of the disputers has a Ph.D. in history - they come from different disciplines. Awadewit 09:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Many decades. An article cannot be undue weight, only part of its contents can be. Undue weight applies to the internal statements, not to the whole. We've been over the "entire page" argument many times and it's been voted to stay each time. We cannot include it in the AL page because feisty editors there will not allow it. You are welcome to add your notes to the article. Wjhonson 18:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Larry Kramer's claims

Larry Kramer has claimed that he has uncovered new primary sources which shed fresh light on Lincoln's sexuality. Other than his claim has anyone seen hitherto unknown Joshua Speed diary and letters?

"These items were supposedly discovered hidden beneath the floorboards of the old store where the two men lived, and are now are said to reside in a private collection in Davenport, Iowa." - Larry Kramer

The Capital Times newspaper of Madison has liberal bias.

Kramer has yet to publish any of this material. Until we see his published work or the letters I say this section jumps the gun. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Sen. McCarthy can wave his piece of paper at the cameras, but until he actually produces his list of 207 card-carrying ... oh, I'm sorry ... lost temporal focus there ... Evidence alluded to but not revealed is evidence that does not exist. If these documents actually exist, Kramer has had more than enough time (eight years) to produce them, and a powerful interest in doing so. He has not. (I am aware of the peculiarities of private collectors, but really -- in eight years he hasn't been able to arrange for even a snippet of an excerpt?) Until he does so, I for one conclude that they do not exist.

Still, the paragraph in which they are described does quote plenty of sources that dismiss Kramer's claims (including Tripp). The problem is not so much with inclusion of the reference to Kramer, but with the confused structure of the article, which quite effectively churns facts, counterfacts, and nonfacts into an undifferentiated mush. I am not taking any personal position an the issue of Lincoln's sexuality, but what this article needs, like so many articles on controversial subjects, is to go back to the drawing board and start with a sensible outline (in edit wars, the first casualty is clarity).

However, as long as this article is about nothing but the claims and counterclaims of a small sect of gay activists bent on claiming Abraham Lincoln and an equally small sect of vocal opponents, with all other elements of his intimate life reduced to foils for one side or the other, that will probably not change. If this article as about the sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, let it be about that. If it is about the claim that he was homosexual (if that word means anything at all), let it be about that. But we have no hope of doing anything with this trainwreck if it's about the one while pretending to be about the other. --7Kim 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your comparison of a “small sect of gay activists” with “an equally small sect of vocal opponents”. While the former characterization is probably accurate, I fail to see how the scholarship of over a century of Lincoln scholars and biographers can be reduced to a “small sect”. The plain fact is that Tripp et al have produced absolutely no new facts to add to the historical record, and their speculative interpretative analysis does not hold up to the standards that professional historians adhere to.

In the New York Times Review of the book by historian Richard Brookshire, the obvious flaws in the work are emphasized early on:

Tripp died in May 2003, after finishing the manuscript of this book, which means he never had a chance to fix its flaws. The prose is both jumpy and lifeless, like a body receiving electric shocks. Tripp alternates shrewd guesses and modest judgments with bluster and fantasy. He drags in references to Alfred Kinsey (with whom he once worked) to give his arguments a (spurious) scientific sheen. And he has an ax to grind. He is, most famously, the author of The Homosexual Matrix. Published in 1975, it was a document of gay liberation. Since the other president sometimes thought to have been gay is the wretched James Buchanan, what gay activist wouldn't want to trade up to Lincoln? Still, obsession can discover things that have been overlooked by less fevered minds.

Tripp surveys seven of Lincoln's relationships, four with men and three with women, as well as two episodes from his early life. The discussion of Lincoln's youth is worthless. Relying on Lincoln's law partner and earliest biographer, William Herndon, Tripp decides that Lincoln reached puberty when he was 9 years old. Since Kinsey concluded that early maturing boys tended to become witty masturbators with lots of homosexual experience, Tripp concludes the same of Lincoln. He claims even more for Lincoln's adolescence, including a source for his religious heterodoxy. "Since Lincoln had already arrived on his own at the powerful pleasures of orgasm . . . one can be sure that like most precocious youngsters he was in no mood to give it all up for bookish or Bible reasons." One can be sure, if one is as credulous as Tripp.

Yet the footnote in the Wikipedia article (footnote 1) to this work does not let the reader know how seriously Brookshire rejects the quality of Tripp’s work.

The problems with the Kramer claim are so obvious that in normal circumstances it would not even be a topic of discussion. It is absurd to think that in any peer reviewed work of actual history or biography (or encyclopedia) an eight year old claim about a secret document that the possessor of refuses to make available to scholars or the public would actually be cited.

The Wikipedia article claims the following:

In his biography of Lincoln, Carl Sandburg in 1926 made an allusion to the early relationship of Lincoln and his friend Joshua Fry Speed as having "a streak of lavender, and spots soft as May violets." "Streak of lavender" was slang in the 1930s for a "sissy" or an effeminate man; later "lavender" connoted homosexuality.

The problem is obvious – since Sandburg published in 1926 (and possibly wrote the actual phrase well before that) how is his choice of language a reflection of slang language that did not yet exist? The poetic use of “streak of lavender” (and Sandburg was after all America’s number one poet) is, at best, ambiguous and of no historical value until that ambiguity is resolved. Folks who have actually read Sandburg will find nothing factual in the actual work itself to indicate that Lincoln and Speed engage in sexual activity.

It all comes down to what sexual connotations, if any, were involved with the sharing of a bed by two men in middle 19th Century America. Historians for over a century have concluded that it was a common practice with no sexual connotations. I conclude after reading Tripp's book (I wish the supporters of this article would weigh in on whether they've read the book) as do the reviewers cited in this article that Tripp does not make his case. This article is a disservice to any readers to the extent that it still (after the revisions) implies that this issue has two relatively equal, scholarly positions being debated. Tom (North Shoreman) 14:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point entirely.  :) The words I used (about small sects) are not statements about the balance of evidence but about the numbers of people who are actively involving themselves in the debate. The vast majority of people who espouse your belief would not voice an opinion unless directly asked because they believe that scantily-evidenced imputations about Lincoln's sexuality are not worth their time, their attention, or the dignity of acknowledgment. Those people -- the best people to be working on this article precisely because they have no investment in the topic -- are not here.  :) And my point was that there is a problem with the article that will not go away until the article either comes to be genuinely about what it claims to be about ("Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln") or claims to be about what is obviously is about ("Abraham Lincoln sexuality controversy"). --7Kim 12:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually consider myself quite well read on Abraham Lincoln, although I have never been particularly inclined to delve into works making detailed analyses of Lincoln’s relationship with his wife, the veracity of the Anne Rutledge relationship, the causes of Lincoln’s melancholy, etc. The only reason I became involved with this article at all is that people attempted to feature this article prominently on the main article of Abraham Lincoln. My additions to this point have been based on works I already own, checking whether available online sources cited have been correctly used (in many cases they haven’t been), reading this Discussion Page, as well as getting the Tripp book out of the library.

In the last week or so I have gotten several other books out of the library that relate to the subject of the article (assuming the subject is Lincoln’s sexuality rather than strictly his alleged homosexuality) -- Mary Todd Lincoln by Jean Baker (who wrote the intro to Tripp’s book and contests Tripp’s treatment of her), The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln by Michael Burlingame, Love Stories: Sex Between Men before Homosexuality by Jonathan Ned Katz, The Women in Lincoln’s Life by H. Donald Winkler, and Lincoln’s Melancholy by Joshua Wolf Shenk. Katz, Burlingame, and Shenk have already been quoted in the article.

A total rewrite of the article, which you suggested, would involve an intro that reads something like this:

Aspects of the sexuality of Abraham Lincoln have been a topic of historical study since at least William Herndon’s biography, Lincoln was published in 1889, provided specific information on women Lincoln had courted, the troubles he experienced with his wife, and his most serious love Anne Rutledge. In the 1940s historian J. G. Randall dismissed the work of Herndon, which was based largely on oral histories, as unprofessional and Herndon himself as unreliable. In the 1980s and 1990s a new generation of historians with a greater respect for oral histories rediscovered that there was much historical value in these early sources, resurrecting the importance of Anne Rutledge as well as opening up new areas in the psychological analysis of Lincoln that includes his overall reaction to women and the influence of melancholy on all aspects of Lincoln’s personal and public life. In the 1990s this exploration, led by gay activists and social scientists such as C. A. Tripp and Jonathan Ned Katz, has raised the question of homosexual attachments made by Lincoln during his life.

My first thoughts are to eliminate the section Historical Scholarship and start right out with a section On Herndon’s Lincoln which would describe briefly his methodology and conclusions. This is important because much of what comes later, including Tripp and Katz, relies on source material gathered by Herndon. From there I would proceed chronologically with Lincoln’s Youth, expanding on the issue of the bawdy poem. The next section would involve Lincoln and Women and would relate the theory that much of his feelings towards women comes from his relationship with his mother. The next sections would be Anne Rutledge (this would involve the reasons for Randall’s dismissal of Herndon and modern scholars rejection of Randall on Rutledge), Mary Todd Lincoln (which would include folks like Mary Owens and Sarah Rickard as well as an introduction to Speed), and then a separate section on Speed-Lincoln as viewed by Tripp. Shenk’s work may deserve a separate section but my current inclination would be to work it in throughout the article where appropriate.

A couple interesting tidbits on the current article. The article reads:

While Lincoln was devastated over the death of Ann Rutledge, whether he loved her is much disputed.

This is footnoted to an article by John Y. Simon who, I have now found out, was instrumental in resurrecting the importance to Lincoln of Rutledge and actually says in the article:

Available evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Lincoln so loved Ann that her death plunged him into severe depression. More than a century and a half after her death, when significant new evidence cannot be expected, she should take her proper place in Lincoln biography.

I was also surprised to see that Katz pretty much agrees with the general perception of bed sharing expressed by historians – from page 6:

In the nineteenth century, Speed was probably not conscious of any such erotic possibility. His immediate, casual offer, and his later report of it, suggests that men’s bed sharing was not then often explicitly understood as conducive to forbidden sexual experiments.

Comments and suggestions from you or others are welcome. It seems from the Discussion Page that there is already a consensus that information on the heterosexual orientations of Lincoln belong in this article. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposed introductory paragraph is a model of how to put NPOV onto a POV-ridden topic. My only objection to it might be that it gets into details that should properly be in the body of the article rather than the introduction. I might propose an amended version:

The intimate life of Abraham Lincoln has been a topic of historical interest since William Herndon first addressed it in his 1889 biography, Lincoln. In the 1940s historian J. G. Randall dismissed Herndon's work, which was based largely on oral histories, as unprofessional and Herndon himself as unreliable; but in the 1980s and 1990s a new generation of historians with a greater respect for oral histories came to value these early sources as a route of access to Lincoln's psychology, opening up a new dimension of understanding the profound importance of Lincoln's intimate life. In the 1990s this exploration, led by gay activists and social scientists such as C. A. Tripp and Jonathan Ned Katz, has raised the question of homosexual attachments made by Lincoln during his life.

Anne Rutledge should, I think, be reserved for a body section, as should any other person intimately connected with him. The intro paragraph should just give an overview, not present the meat of the article. I changed "sexuality" to "intimate life" because I feel that the word sexuality, with its late-20th- and early-21st-century heavy implications of "sexual identity" and its implied focus on sexual acts as defining a person's being, is part of the problem. (Lincoln still lived in that strange time, all but incomprehensible to late-20th-century Euro-Americans, when the concept of "homosexuality", let alone "gay", simply didn't exist; there was sodomy and such, but it was something that someone did, not something that someone was. I submit that twisting the historical Lincoln into serving the needs of modern-day sexual ideologies -- gay or straight -- represents a profound disrespect for the man, verging on contempt.) I don't think the meaning is sacrificed by favouring intimacy over sexuality; what are we talking about if not Lincoln's network of intimacies? --7Kim 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I object to the phrase "gay activist", it's a loaded phrase typically used to discredit the work of gay historians and scholars. I do not object to calling the authors gay, but to calling them activists. Wjhonson 02:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you likewise object to "straight activist"? Mfields1 (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Non neutral language and bias

Let's start, as the {{totallydisputed}} tag is now disputed in itself. "His relations with women were either problematic or distant, while those with a number of men were warm."

Many men have problematic or distant relations with women, and warm friendships with men. That does not necessarily make them gay.

"Thomas Jefferson Withers and James Hammond, provides clear evidence of a sexual dimension to some same-sex bed sharing"

How about you write what was actually said. Give us some more detail as to what part of the correspondence is being referred to.

"The fact that Lincoln was open about the fact that they had shared a bed is seen by some historians as an indication that their relationship was not romantic."

Weasel word! Surely we can do better than this? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Again these are paraphrases and/or quotes of what the sources say. We are not here to present our own opinions. If you want to read sources which counter-argue the case and present them you are certainly welcome to do that, but our job is not the argue the case. It's to present the case. We are not the lawyers for either side, more like the clerk who writes down what's being said. Wjhonson 06:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we'd better clarify what the sources actually say! As for paraphrasing a source in the lead section, with no source, that's making Wikipedia take a position. That's not neutral. Therefore, this article is not NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If the intro is paraphrasing a source (your words), then it *is* using a source. The only way around that, would be to say that the intro, in your opinion, is not based on *any* source. You would do better to add {{fact}} tags where you think appropriate and wait for other editors to post exact citations for you to verify. Coming in fresh and slapping everyone in the face who has worked on this article, isn't going to win anybody to your side of the issue. Wjhonson 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. By it's very nature, paraphrasing a source should at least give more specifics than have been given in this article, especially when the assertions are controversial (which they are). As for "winning" - whatever made you think that this is some sort of competition? I only want an improved article for the entire community (and outside community who don't edit on the project). Please be reasonable here. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My last major edit was to quote an exact source with a full citation to it as you can see in the history. I am the one who added the long blockquote on Speed. We don't get anywhere if people manipulate the arguments used in the sources to be something other then they are. That isn't our job. Paraphrase doesn't mean *spin*. If you have a source which say something different you are welcome to cite it. Wjhonson 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What you did or did not contribute is not the issue at hand. The material on the article, regardless of whether it was you who tried to fix it or whether you added it in, is biased and poorly written. If we could focus on the issues I've raised, I'd appreciate it. I'm not here to fight you, nor win an argument, nor disparage your views! I merely see an article that has severe neutrality and factuality problems. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is of course biased, it is paraphrasing the sources used. It's not paraphrasing sources not used. If you have other sources which say something different than cite them. That's the only issue that exists. And facts have nothing to do with it. Wikipedia is not about the "Truth" because truth doesn't exist. We cite verifiable sources. That doesn't make them True with a capital T.Wjhonson 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should then take a look at the word biased. To my mind, it means that the material being presented has been slanted in such a way as to give greater weight to one opinion that to another opinion. This would be fine on many mediums, however Wikipedia has a strict neutral point of view policy, which as a long-time Wikipedian I'm certain you know about. If this article is biased against one viewpoint, then it should be corrected to also give more weight (but not more weight than required) to the other POV. We can make this article impatial (neutral) by doing so. Therefore, the article doesn't meet NPOV standards, and as there are factual concerns, {{totallydisputed}} should remain on the top of the article. This tag is there to show to readers that a. there is a dispute going on, and b. that they should be checking their sources very carefully and should be reading the article with a pinch of salt. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Undent. I disagree with your analysis on what the tag totallydisputed is used for. There are many tags that could be used that are not offensive. Instead you choose to use the most extreme one in the book. I don't find that helpful whatsoever. In addition you have consistently, so far, refused to actually tag any statements in the article that you find to be lacking in citations. I have mentioned several times how to do this and so far you just want to convince me that your tag is valid. It is not valid in my opinion. And this talking in circles is pointless. I have read the sources. I trust you will as well. Wjhonson 07:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, {{totallydisputed}} is not offensive. If it was, it would have been deleted long ago. I am happy for you to tell me what tags should be used in its stead, however. I can't think of any. I've already told you several things I'm not happy about above, so it is somewhat disingeneous of you to accuse me of not adding tags into the article. You know what many of them are, why don't you add the tags? Incidently, if my emphasis of the word "you" seems like I'm getting upset inside, I can quite assure people I'm not. I do appeal to reason and good sense, however, with respect to the addition of the tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait now I'm supposed to add the tags based on what you want to do with the article? That makes no sense to me. How in the world could I possibly know what you are thinking. If you've taken so long to respond over and over and over surely it seems a very minor step to actually add a tag that could be useful instead of one that is vague and unhelpful. Wjhonson 08:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's actually not what I said. If you recall, you wrote "There are many tags that could be used that are not offensive." I was merely asking what tags you were refering to. I should note that the tag is probably as specific as you can make it, which I have a feeling is what got you so offended. I should note that I haven't taken a very long time to respond. In fact, I've been responding within about 5-10 minutes of you adding your comments to this page. This is about to end, however, as I'm off to a place that has no Internet access (my home). I'll pick this up tomorrow. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bias

According to the Discovery Channel:

Douglas L. Wilson, co-director of the Lincoln Studies Center at Knox College, told the Southern Voice newspaper, "(Lincoln) and Speed were soul mates and all the indications I have seen show they had this close relationship. They were both the same age and in the same situation. They were concerned about this transition from bachelorhood to marriage and all that."

Wilson added, "I can see how that is suggestive and points in other directions but it really indicates that they saw things in very similar ways and had the same emotional take on the world." [1]

I don't notice any dissenting views in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very stupid and insulting. "Oh, this will be funny! Let's accuse Lincoln of being gay!" Yeah, ok. Lincoln's gay, and the Earth is square, and the sun revolves around our planet. -Yancyfry 02:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken to RFC

This is what I wrote:

to my mind, this is not neutrally written, and there are many citation needed tags, as well as disputes. I have added a {{totallydisputed}} tag, but it keeps being taken off by User:Wjhonson. I suppose I should also note that Jimbo Wales has already spotted this (it's how I found out about it), and he has written "No, it seems extremely biased to me. It looks like a legitimate topic, but as written now, it's a bit horrible". [2] Now I'm not cowtowing to him as a God-king or anything, but I agree.

Ta bu shi da yu 06:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And as I stated, you are welcome to read and cite your sources. As is Jimbo or anyone else. If we allow an editor to revert published argumentation based on their own *opinions* then we are violating the very nature of our job here. Which is to report what the sources say, not to interpose our own ideas into the articles. I'm referring to our standard policies of No Original Research and verifiability in addition to neutral point of view. We don't get to NPOV by making up things that our sources don't say. We get there by finding additional sources that agree with what we want to present. Wjhonson 07:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted reply) I quite agree. There's crystal ball problems (a paragraph that goes over speculative content on diaries not even released to the public yet), opinion-as-fact, and some very controversial and poorly-cited facts. The article is also missing any sort of discussion of debate/rebuttal on these points. Seraphimblade 07:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that is? And who exactly do you think should do the debating,within the article? Us? Wjhonson 07:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One imagines some reliable sources have disputed this. But I'll sure have a look around. However, the crystalballery and opinion-as-fact (whether the source's opinion or our own) is unacceptably POV regardless. Seraphimblade 07:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you could be excrutiatingly specific it would help. If it's the sources opinion and disputed then it needs quotation marks and an exact citation. You accomplished this goal by slapping a {{fact}} tag on those statements you think need this. Not by changing them to say something competely different from what the source actually says. Than the editor who placed those can come back, add quotes, add a page number or whatever for you to verify that the source does actually state exactly what it states, or not. Putting totallydisputed on this article is a slap in the face to all of us who have worked so long on putting it together. It's totally out-of-line. Wjhonson 07:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The {{totallydisputed}} tag, as I say above, is not an offensive tag. If you have taken it this way, I do apologise, but there was nothing personal about it. The article is biased (by your own admission) and it's factuality and accuracy are currently disputed. It is entirely appropriate to add the tag to the top of the article, and there is nothing personal about it. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu has put it exceptionally well. The tag is simply a statement that a dispute is currently in progress. It simply is a notice that the article is in need of work. It's not intended to disparage the work that's come before any more than a {{stub}}, {{cleanup}}, or {{unreferenced}} tag is-it simply identifies areas that can use some work, which is pretty necessary for a collaborative and distributed project! Seraphimblade 08:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well now you know that it is in fact taken that way. Now if you two could please STOP talking about the tag ad infinitum and actually get out some source to use, that would be great. Wjhonson 08:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to be insulting, but most of the discussion about the tag has been generated by yourself. I have been trying to restrict my comments to why I don't believe it is neutral. You have responded to one aspect (the paraphrasing) but you haven't commented on anything else. I have also responded to your claim that the paraphrasing is OK. I'd be interested in your response. If we never speak of the {{totallydisputed}} tag again, that would be fine by me! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

First, let's start with the parts that are disputed even given the current sources. One main problem is the "crystal ball" phrases regarding journals that were supposedly found. At most, this should receive a brief mention in passing-these claimed journals have never even been produced, let alone examined by historians who could interpret them and verify their authenticity. I personally don't think it should be included at all-it seems to have attracted press based on sensationalism, not any substance of any kind. Of course, if someday they are produced and verified as authentic, they'll merit a tremendous amount of attention! But until that happens, it's just unverified rumor. Seraphimblade 08:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good start. I suggest that unless the journalist has some significance in highlighting something on this issue, or if they have material that is truly valuable, that we remove their quotes. That would be a good start in removing the slant from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ta bu shi da yu. The article itself is biased with full of one-legged words and citations got from different articles written by "people who agree to this theory". And what about other sources which demonstrate the counter-argue, to all are ignored dubiously? I'm under the impression that the main aim in the content is trying to lead readers to the point that "Lincoln was gay" (which is totally disputed) by all means. Let's find pros and cons:

• The prologue begins with "The sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is a topic of dispute." Yes, I agree, no problem with it. But the next one is a fully-biased redundant sentence: "His relations with women were either problematic or distant, while those with a number of men were warm." Why must we put it in the intro paragraph, for what? Lincoln’s contrapositive relationships with men and women reach another problem in Lincoln’s characteristics which has been fairly scrunitized by Michael Burlingame in his book “The inner world of AL”. A judgement like this can make heavy stereotypes on the readers who read the article for the first time.
• Section “Relationship with women”: this sentence should be remove: “…was repeated in various forms by many others.” Who can cite all the “various forms”, let alone that no citation given.
• Anne Rutlegde: “…whether he loved her is much disputed” is also an improper judgement . See 1
• Relationship with Joshua:
  

“At the time it was not unusual for two men to share a bed due to financial or other circumstances, without anything sexually being implied. However, it has been argued by Katz[2] and others that such cozy sleeping arrangements did reflect a distinct emotional landscape for men, and they were sometimes part of homoerotic and homosexual desire, i.e. while what is considered sexual changes greatly over time and within different cultures, human sexual desire remains unchanging. “
=> Speculative intonation, make all efforts cite a source as testimony. In Love Stories: Sex between Men before Homosexuality (2001), Jonathan Ned Katz finds a real intimacy in the Lincoln-Speed letters, but insists this was a foreign land of love and lust, a universe differing substantially from today's. Remember that Katz is a sex leftist who is diametrically in consensus with Tripp, thus citing his opinion to strengthen the evidence somewhat violates NPOV.

• “Certainly, correspondence of the period, such as that between Thomas Jefferson Withers and James Hammond, provides clear evidence of a sexual dimension to some same-sex bed sharing.” => Wiki is not a place for OR, it’s funny to synchronize all cases of bed-sharing. Moreover, the detail "bed-sharing" unecessarily iterates all the times in both Joshua and Derick's sections, emphasized as clearly "assumed-homosexual-indication", which is very ridiculous and contradict to the statement noted above:"two men to share a bed due to financial or other circumstances, without anything sexually being implied"
• “That their sleeping arrangements raised eyebrows at the time is indicated by the reaction of Elizabeth Woodbury Fox, the wife of Lincoln's naval aide. After hearing the rumor, she wrote in her diary for November 16, 1862, "Tish says, Oh, there is a Bucktail soldier here devoted to the president, drives with him, and when Mrs. L is not home, sleeps with him. What stuff!" => this detail completely originates from Tripp’s book. Should we add more details from the book?
• “Simon argues that Lincoln ‘’’was never a "ladies' man," and that his prior unhappiness in courtship had never affected him so much as on this occasion’’’. Various issues in Lincoln's young life at that time included politics, his law firm, Joshua Speed's moving away, and Mary's relatives disapproving of their relationship. ‘’’Some local people said at the time that he "went crazy,"’’’ and a letter written to one of Lincoln's colleagues stated, "We have been very much distressed, on Mr. Lincoln's account; hearing that he had two Cat fits and a Duck fit since we left." => weasel words, read like a collection of hoax. The information that "some local people..." is totally trivia, unconfirmed conjecture.
• “But his work suffered greatly and he described himself as "the most miserable man living," and said "I must die or be better, it appears to me." During this time, he avoided seeing Mary, causing her to comment that he "deems me unworthy of notice." => all we have known that Lincoln had a stormy marriage with a harridan, what the point of citing this detail as an evidence for the sexuality problem?
• And the fairly long paragraph about Larry Krammer’s claim (this problem has been brought up twice): once again, it must be taken into consideration whether Larry’s claim is reliable? In 1999 Kramer read from his unfinished book "The American People," quoting that diary: "He often kisses me when I tease him, often to shut me up . . . he would grab me up by his long arms and hug and hug," Speed purportedly wrote. "Yes, our Abe is like a schoolgirl." But Kramer said he wouldn’t bring out his source material to public until the book's publication. 8 years have gone by with no sign of Larry’s evidence. Historian Gabor Boritt calls Kramer's claims "almost certainly a hoax"; Lincoln scholar David Donald says they're "highly dubious." Kramer for his part says Donald is a "dried old heterosexual prune at Harvard." By and large, nothing has come out to light and Larry’s claim is still unrealiable.
  

Those are my ideas about cleaning up the article to make it less "horrible". Causesobad --> (Talk) 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like your ideas about cleaning it up, mean basically, removing direct quotes from primary sources. To state that the quote "comes directly from Tripp's book" is to ignore the source of the quote itself, Tripp didn't make it up. Wjhonson 17:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Tripp didn't make it up, but the veracity of Tripp's evidence is among controversy. Causesobad --> (Talk) 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about Truth. It's about citation. If you have a source which says that the passage is flawed, quote your source. Wjhonson 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not about Truth"? No, Truth is a very important part of Wikipedia. Citation is also a part of Wikipedia, and citation must be selective. The matter here is NOT "how many sources can you quote", or "if you can quote more sources than me, OK, I'm lost." Let's look through your editing again and see how "successfully" you convince the readers to the point that AL is gay from the very beginning, by which you try to "quote" every statement that approves of this theory. Causesobad --> (Talk) 18:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, wikipedia is not and has never been about "Truth". And what the snickers are you talking about now? I did not write this article, can you understand that concept? I'm just not about to let a person muddy the waters on the argument with their own voice. You and your friend seem hell-bent on not actually consulting any sources, but only using your own argumentation to water down the ones we have. That's OR and it's not going to fly. Wjhonson 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the reasonable objections placed above. By all means cite works where someone has a particular POV. However, do not give them unbalanced emphasis, and be more specific about what they say. Paraphrasing is OK if it is done right. It's not been done correctly in this instance. Please also stop making the talk page personal. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

References and footnotes

References all allude to the possibility of a love affair. likely a gay or extremly intimate relationship. One reference, Tripp, is an standpoint to connect all the dots. There in lies the problem, most who diagree with the article claim "the dots do not connect". That is an attempt to take a effeminate man who is the object of great attention and make the claim that he is gay icon (Gay icon). This article may be better served with a renaming: C.A. Tripp's perspective on the sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. Leaving out any opposing POV. Leaving the tag The neutrality of this article is disputed. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been a suggestion that we should merge this article into one about Tripp's book but it doesn't meet consensus. Also, I used to put the template The neutrality of this article is disputed one time and it seems that people here don't like it. Causesobad --> (Talk) 16:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo weighed on the article and he doesn't like this article. [3]. Tag stays until he likes the new article. So we need to fix it. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 16:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I think the template {{totallydisputed}} is liberal enough. The main problem is the article still looks like a mixture of desultory sources and then be gathered in a gauche way. Wjhonson has collected enough references for his statements but the contents of references themselves are controversial and PoV. We should look over them again and choose NPoV ones as reliable citations. Causesobad --> (Talk) 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Direct quotes are not counter-argued by *wikipedians* smoothing them over. They are counter-argued by *other* direct quotes. That is the nature of scholarship. We are not here to argue the cases *for* historians, that's not our job. We are here to *find* those other historians who argue against this case and *quote* them. Wjhonson 17:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, our work here is not merely "quote, quote and quote". We must be careful in selecting sources that are reliable and remains balance in NPoV. We are not the "hunter" who make every effort finding counter-argue from all historians and then "blindly quote" without considering the bad consequences of misleading the readers to biased views. Causesobad --> (Talk) 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Causesobad is correct. While it is not our place to dispute sources "in our own voice", it is most certainly our place to question and verify how reliable the source is. WP:V and WP:RS specifically offer cautions we should take in cases where a source may be biased or have an agenda, and advise us to regard these sources with a healthy skepticism. This is most certainly also part of the process. Scholarship is not simply finding and blindly accepting sources, it also involves evaluating them. Certainly, for example, we would not blindly quote an anonymous post on a blog. Why? Because we evaluate it as unreliable. We would not (or at least should not!) blindly quote The New Republic or The Nation without taking a good, long, hard look for rebuttals. Why? Because both of those publications have an evident, well-known bias. When it is obvious and evident that a position is a minority one among scholars, one should not simply cite the source without looking for rebuttals or disagreements-if the position is notable enough to merit mention, but minority (which appears to be the case here), the position should be clearly framed from the article intro onward as a minority one, and rebuttals to the position actively sought out and presented. That is not the case here, which is why the neutrality here is in serious dispute-this article seems to give undue weight to the position of those who believe that Lincoln was homosexual, and therefore violates WP:NPOV. Seraphimblade 18:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You balance undue weight with other weight from sources, not your voice. So why are we going in circles? Do you have any sources at all? Wjhonson 18:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"That is the nature of scholarship" Is to repeat a quote and repeat opposing qoute? I'm sorry but knowledge is not quotes. Knowledge is awareness and understanding obtained through personal experience and study. Now back to Sexuality of Abraham Jimbo says he'd rather have Zero information is compared to misleading or false information. [4]. With that said I propse a major cleaning. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 18:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing what I said. Knowledge is not Knowpedia's opinion foisted on the rest of us. Knowledge on wikipedia is based on citing sources. Why is it, that I'm the only one of you repeating that you need sources? I certainly hope you're not going around changing articles based on your opinions of what you wish were but aren't verifiable. Wjhonson 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say opinion foisted on the rest of us. Now you are mischaracterizing what I said. Read wikipedia scholarship I cant find the word quote anywhere in the article. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Than knowledge must be Mr. Tripp's opinion foisted on the rest of us. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 18:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I got factual sources: Licoln married, had 4 children, never was asked or admitted to being gay. I'll even indulge you for the sake of the argument. Lincoln and speed did hook up. No one would ever be able to prove the amount sex they had. So lets say once. One man's experiment with the same-sex love is not a definitive gay man. Look at the snickers commercial. I digress. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 19:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure let's go. Cite your source, with quotation marks to show exactly what it says and let me validate it. I have no problem with that. The rest of your paragraph is your own argumentation which is original research. But if you can find an author who does address it in the terms you have, go for it! That's what I've been requesting since 1912 already. Wjhonson 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a referance that kills the whole article. "but only you would know whether you're gay or not" [5] Only Lincoln could come out himself. take Jim J. Bullock it was clear he was gay, however until he confirmed to the public himself, it would of been unfair to refer to him as gay. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well add it, whose stopping you? But some other editor may remove it as being irrelevant since the article doesn't say "Lincoln WAS Gay" as far as I can see. It's an article discussing the scholarly argumentative cited from various sources on the subject of what his sexuality was. I don't see a lot of absolute conclusions. Wjhonson 19:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll: leave as-is(Content forking), rename, merge?

I would like to take a sample on the general felling of the article in its current state. WP:STRAW

• I suggest a rename or merge of the article in its current glory. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• (Unstated fourth option): Stubbify and rewrite, with possible rename. Seraphimblade 19:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The article is fine, just needs more citations from editors willing to actually consult sources. The heading is predujicial, so I've changed it. A straw poll which limits the options to choose from, is pre-determined to come to a conclusion wanted by certain editors isn't it? Wjhonson 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• (RFC respondant) The article appears to totally fail WP:NPOV, based on the evidence within it. The evidence in the "Historical interpretation" section is that, even in one of the books most pushing the claim that he was homosexual, the published afterword comes down at "possible but highly unlikely". If that is the conclusion of the best sources, the article should look like that, not look like he probably was homosexual. In other words, it should emphasize evidence that he was heterosexual. One valid way to get there would be to stub and rewrite, remembering to emphasize the majority view, in accordance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Remember that the minority view should not be given as much space as the majority view. Remember that undue weight can be given by placement, which means that piling all the disagreement at the end of a long article is itself a failure to adhere to that section of the policy, even if the amount of content was balanced. GRBerry 21:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• There's no reason to stubify a cited article. Add more citations from other points of view. That is now NPOV is done. If you feel there's undue weight, and if you're right, then it should be easily possible to add content to overcome that undue weight. If you can't add content, then perhaps it's not undue weight after all. And this straw polling suggesting deletion is rather unhelpful, considering the article already survived AFD on the weight of its citations. — coelacan talk — 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The state of this article is concerning. Due to its origins it reads as "Evidence Lincoln was gay" rather than a neutral discussion of Lincoln's sexually. Evidence and commentary indicating that he was straight is woefully under-represented. I guess that's partly because there's never been much point in writing about Lincoln as a happily married man -hence such sources are hard to come by. Nonetheless this article does give undue weight to those sources that have suggested attraction to males. I don't think we need to stub the article, but it needs a lot of new material to ensure that the sources are put in the correct context in NPOV is to be achieved. WjBscribe 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose moving this article to another title. It's fine as it is, and there is nothing to say we can't fix it's current issues. I'm not certain where we would merge it in either. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Causesobad suggests merging this article into one about Tripp's book. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 00:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't just about Tripp's book, though, and the topic has been discussed in many other places. That would be a fruitless merge. It would have to be split right out again. — coelacan talk — 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• (RFC respondent) Agree with GRBerry, this article gives undue weight to a minority view, which makes it appear very POV. Stub and rewrite per Seraphimblade. PubliusFL 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Knowpedia's proposed rewrite with new title

I've moved this to Talk:Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln/proposal; subpages are the way to do article proposals. — coelacan talk — 21:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what's the new title? — coelacan talk — 21:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

See above References and footnotes --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at Talk:Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln/proposal#References and footnotes and I don't see a title there or above it. I don't understand. What is your title proposal? — coelacan talk — 00:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. C.A. Tripp's perspective on the sexuality of Abraham Lincoln. Well, no, that doesn't sound like a good idea, considering that Tripp is not the only source for this article. — coelacan talk — 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He not the only source, however he is the main source. Tripp is more than half, could be even higher. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 03:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I dispute that uncited opinion. Wjhonson 06:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't much matter. The article's about more than his sources. So let's drop this suggestion now, since it's not going anywhere. — coelacan talk — 09:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is in its infancy

The article is in its infancy. I don’t doubt that 2-5 years more evidence will shed light on this topic. 5-8 years this may even be part of curriculum in many schools. From a perspective of having a gay president is huge. Not only for LGBT community as an Icon, but for society. It would change Lincoln's place in history. That is why this topic is highly controversial.

Many conclusions can be drawn from Sandburg's observation "a streak of lavender, and spots soft as May violets" from is 1926, 6 book autobiography of Lincoln. The poem will tell us something about Lincoln, but the question is what?” — Joshua Wolf Shenk on the Suicide Poem. Left is some great but controversial works from about 2001 to current. Larry Kramer claim's uncovered new primary sources into the sexuality of Lincoln. If these sources actually existed and were proven valid; my argument may very well be over.

However, why counter a quote? A quote that may or may not be factually true. Editors who counter quote will actually bring some validity to the questionable quote. An example of validation; the year, 1992. The place, the presidential debates. The validation of Ross Perot. Bush chiefly and Clinton to a lesser amount did not want Ross Perot in the debate. Not because they didn’t like him. They new having Perot with them at the debate, would only validate the Ross Perot campaign, and give him momentum. Ross got into the debate, and the rest is history. Prior to the debate most Americans knew little about Ross Perot. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why counter a quote? Because that's the only legitimate way to achieve the NPOV you say you are looking for. If you'd prefer to simply not touch it, nobody's forcing your hand. — coelacan talk — 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. Not have the opposing POV represented. The reason I want to work on the article is WP:BIAS, WP:RECENT. I think if a consensus could be taken on the importance of this article in 20 years and than in 100 years, we would find article needs help. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I feel this article will be very important in the future. So lets work on it now. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, it needs to be important right now for it to be included on Wikipedia, not in the future :-) I think it's important enough right now as a topic. Whether it gets better, who knows? I hope it does. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is not what WP:NPOV says. I quote: "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one". The way that NPOV is formed is by having opposing POVs represented. — coelacan talk — 09:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No it actually says, NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. Even if it didnt state the obvious quote, NPOV and bias don't work together. Stating the facts, not the facts with opinions. The opening of Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln explains that sexuality 150 years ago and today are different. From there, state the facts w/o bias and let the reader draw there own conclusion.

FACTS

• Lincols slept with men
• He and Speed were very close
• He had trouble with the ladies
• He was depressed to the near point of suicide
• both his poems
• At that time some questioned his relationships (Stepmom, Elizabeth Woodbury Fox)

bias

• However, it has been argued by Katz[1] and others that such cozy sleeping arrangements did reflect a distinct emotional landscape for men, and they were sometimes part of homoerotic and homosexual desire, i.e.
• Lincoln is believed to have suffered something approaching
• Some local people said at the time that he "went crazy," and a letter written to one of Lincoln's colleagues stated, "We have been very much distressed, on Mr. Lincoln's account; hearing that he had two Cat fits and a Duck fit since we left." Another account said that Lincoln was "having some 'painful' experiences in his romantic life." no citation
• But his work suffered greatly and he described himself as "the most miserable man living," and said "I must die or be better, it appears to me." During this time, he avoided seeing Mary, causing her to comment that he "deems me unworthy of notice." no citation
• Historical interpretation = Historical perceived bias

The facts are few the opinions are many. Many more opinions than I've quoted above. Undue weight Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. If I added my bias, we would have two bias forked of the main article. WP:POVFORK --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 18:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

One of the listed references is another Wikipedia article (homosexuality). This seems a bit ridiculous. I'm not sure of the rules about citing Wikipedia in Wikipedia, but surely there are some? — Emiellaiendiay 02:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Referring to my source as ridiculous is not WP:EQ. For citing sources read through WP:CITE.--ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I'm convinced that Wikipedia is reliable enough to be used as a source. Where backed up by reliable refs, those refs make better sources. But if you are going to use it, you might want to use Terminology of homosexuality#Homosexual as the ref for when the word homosexual was first used, the treatment is more thorough. WjBscribe 02:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that has an issue that needs to be sorted out first... The section "Homosexuality" in Terminology of homosexuality has a {{main}} that points to Homosexuality, and the Homosexuality article has a {{main}} which points to Terminology of homosexuality... I'm not sure how this should be resolved. I've added a note about the problem to both talk pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been through this one before. Don't cite internal articles in your reference! Don't even link to a permanent revision. Any info you can get out of Wikipedia, you should be able to get from another source. Don't use Wikipedia as your source within articles, ever (unless it is something to do with Wikipedia itself). If you need to mention an internal article, do it as a wikilink in the main article itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

done --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Right a wikipedia page should never be a ref. It can however be an in-line link. Wjhonson 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One more straw poll: Is Lincoln Gay? ( please only current editors voice your opinion.)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The outcome of this poll will play a major part in the future of this article. If the consensus is gay, than I propose all tags be removed and the article stands as is. If the consensus is not gay, than I propose a far more neutral and unbiased component to the page. Its obvious from the talk on the page, that there is two opposing views. To prevent POV forking, the article has to change Talk:Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln/proposal or stay as is.

• Not Gay. I feel the article is written so the reader believes that Lincoln was gay. I'm not convinced. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 23:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Totally irrelevant to editing It's not the job of Wikipedia to decide one way or another. Rather, it's our job as editors to verifiably summarize relaible sources using the neutral point of view. Let the readers draw their own conclusions. -Will Beback · † · 23:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• False dichotomy and irrelevant. I have no idea whether Lincoln was gay or not, nor has my belief or anyone's here any bearing on the matter. Our job is to properly present the debate-someone thinks he was gay, and puts forth his reasons, but most historians have said no such thing. Admittedly, it's hard to find sources saying he wasn't gay, but that's a bit of a "prove the negative" situation. Indeed, the fact that most historians have not said so is strong evidence in itself that they do not believe so-surely, they would find this a fact worth mentioning if they had found evidence otherwise! But a vote on what we personally think has no bearing on the matter-it'd be like taking a poll asking "Is abortion right or wrong?" and putting the majority opinion into that article. Regardless of our personal beliefs, this is a minority viewpoint, and we must report and frame it as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Irrelevant The article should contend itself solely with what reliable sources have published on the topic. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• What? How can the sexuality of a person be a proposal? We're not the ones arguing the case. No wikipedia articles in my view can be proposals, only WP articles. That is meta-articles. Wjhonson 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bold revision

Considering the path that this talk page was going, I decided to be bold and do some revision on the article. For the benefit of full disclosure, I am a member of LGBT studies project but I am also a hard ass when it comes to sources, citations, original research, and POV. I personally do not care whether or not Lincoln was gay but I do care that this article neutrally portrays all competing scholarly views on the matter. My objective in editing the article was to steer it away from a "Was he? or was he not?" basis to dealing with the actual scholarship and commentary on the subject. Obviously more work still needs to be done but it's a start. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The straw poll question was wrong. I should have asked is the article good or bad in its current state. Not the personal feelings of the editors. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 03:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to close the poll, but please don't delete talk page comments. -Will Beback · † · 04:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In terms of Agne's edit-a lot better already, thanks very much. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 05:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not about Truth. It's about citation."

I bring my question here because the quote was made early on this discussion page, from Wjhonson 17:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC). I did not address it two days ago for I felt the comment did not help with fixing the article. Now that the article is looking much better thanks to Agne. I'd like to know, is Wikipedia really not about truth or is this simply just the opinion of said? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 06:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:V. While obviously we don't knowingly put out lies, it is correct that no matter how "right" something may be, if it can't be sourced, it doesn't belong. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WIkipedia doesn't (or isn't supposed to) contain editors' opinions, but it can and does contain "facts about opinions." It is an indisputable fact that there is at least one book that says that Lincoln was gay. It is an indisputable fact that there is at least one book (Sandburg's) that hints at it without saying it. It is an indisputable fact that there is at least one book that says Lincoln was strictly heterosexual. It is an indisputable fact that there is a dispute about Lincoln's sexuality. This article reports what these various books say. That's what Wikipedia does. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of books out there. One can publish (or even self-publish[6]) just about anything they want. I'm not sure one or two citations, even in published books, are good enough to qualify for an encyclopedia entry. It seems that some sort of evaluation of the source itself should be required - not just the fact that it is published. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the footnotes (currently #2) refers to a book review of another source. This is pretty weak and sloppy work. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

""Wikipedia avoids continued, unfounded, unproven absurdity".

I agree if not removed entirely, This article should be a renamed: C.A. Tripp's perspective on the sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, or, Minority debate on Lincoln's sexual orientation. Leaving the tag The neutrality of this article is disputed. --jbartel 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated many times, this is not solely Tripp's perspective. The theory that Lincoln was homosexual in nature or action has been around for a long time, and discussed in a number of sources. Wjhonson 06:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with Wjhonson. In fact, part of the rewrite was in highlighting other scholarship on the matter (including those that explicitly disagreed with Tripp). The point of the article is not to say that Lincoln was Gay but rather to present the discussion that scholars have had on the subject. There is a difference between disputing the neutrality of the scholars and disputing the neutrality of the article and in how it is presented. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Wjohnson, but (to speak for myself anyway!) my dispute with the article's neutrality (and it is with the article's neutrality) is mainly that competing viewpoints or rebuttals are absent or barely presented. From reading this article, one would think there's an overwhelming scholarly consensus that Lincoln was undoubtedly gay, and that's just not correct. That's why WP:NPOV contains provisions about undue weight. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the part of undue weight. But I will say that there is actually a dearth material dealing with Lincoln's sexuality from an exclusively heterosexual orientation. It is sort of just assumed as matter of fact. This presented a lot of opportunities for WP:OR synthesis but I personally did not want to cross that line. There was some comment in response to Tripp's book which was available online and so I included what I could from there. I suspect that there is probably more offline but we will need editors who have access to those being able to include them into the article. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with Seraphimblade at all, on two points.

First, I've yet to find an example of anything that is really widely believed that can't be sourced. If there is scholarly consensus that Lincoln was exclusively heterosexual, someone, somewhere will have written something about it, and it can be cited. It seems obvious to me from Sandburg's quotation that the possibility of a homosexual relation between Lincoln and Speed was well known in the 1920s. If most scholars for the last eighty years have discounted it, somewhere there must be a comments, even elliptical ones, saying so.

Second, I can't imagine anyone reading the article thinking that "there's an overwhelming scholarly consensus that Lincoln was undoubtedly gay." The article makes it very clear that the Lincoln-was-gay theory has one major source, Tripp's book, and that there is another book opposing it. The opening paragraph says that the a topic of dispute and that "Other scholars, such as David Herbert Donald have strongly contested those claims." Looks balanced and neutral to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as an Australian who knows next to nothing about Lincoln, I was under the impression that he was gay after reading this article. It was only after a little more digging that I discovered the opposite was true and that this is disputed. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says "The sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is a topic of dispute." Why did you need to dig past that? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would have been a fair comment, however that was not what the lead said when I first read the article. It's been updated quite a bit since then. Might be an idea to look at the previous comments above. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Duh. Sory. I wuz dum. I yam smartur now. Thanx 4 enlihgt enlite makking me smartur. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First line in intro

Discussion moved from talk page of user User:Agne27
The article is not suggesting he is gay? Sure it is. I wanted to make clear that the article is a controversy. That is fair. I also wanted to make clear that his sexuality is not disputed, but the notion is. This is not clear in its current intro. The article itself that is disputed. This needs to be made clear to the reader. Its the article itself that is a controversy. See the talk page if you dont think the article is a controversy. Rather than tag the article indefinitly, state the fact its a controversial article not topic. The topic may or may not be, but the article is 100% controversial and has been. There have been 2 attempts to delete the article, as I'm sure you know. There will be a third, and a growing numbers of editors are unhappy with the article. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, you are always free to nominate the article for another AfD. I am confident that the article will be kept via WP:SNOW. However I will caution that AfD is not meant to be used as a substitution for clean up. Now in regards to the first line, I do think you are reading more into it then what the plain words of text are meaning to convey. As you allude to this talk page, the topic of Lincoln's sexuality is controversial but more importantly the diverging opinions of the reliable sources within the article show that there is a controversy and there is a dispute. The intro does not give more weight to either side of the dispute (that he is gay, bi or exclusively straight). It is not meant to. Rather its only purpose is to state the plain fact that the rest of the article's reliable sources attest to. It is a topic of dispute. Your edit, which I reverted, attempted to make that first line take a side. That is tipping the POV scale and it was why I reverted it. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)