<article_title>Abraham_Lincoln</article_title>
<edit_user>The Utahraptor</edit_user>
<edit_time>Monday, November 22, 2010 11:19:17 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* Marriage and family */ ce</edit_comment>
<edit_text>A wedding was set for January 1, 1841, but the couple split as the wedding approached.&lt;ref name=&quot;ReferenceB&quot;/&gt; They later met at a party, and then married on November 4, 1842 in the Springfield mansion of Mary's married sister.&lt;ref&gt;Sandburg, pp. 50–51.&lt;/ref&gt; While preparing for the nuptials and having cold feet <strong><strike>yet </strike></strong>again, Lincoln, when asked where he was going, replied, &quot;To hell, I suppose.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;Donald (1996), p. 93.&lt;/ref&gt; File:A&amp;amp;TLincoln.jpg</edit_text>
<turn_user>SusanLesch<turn_user>
<turn_time>Tuesday, November 23, 2010 9:34:30 PM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Religious views</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>Hi. I found an outright statement and cited that, from Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers (2004). It was so great to have Ms. Jacoby state the fact, that I thought it belonged here (I see some editors have spent years on the subject). -SusanLesch (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC) And it's been removed as "vague". I will wait until tomorrow to add it again, during which time the editor who removed it may find this discussion, which would be nicer than simply removing it. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)I've read the quotation (and the book she wrote), and the quotation adds zero to this article. For that matter the book is pretty confused as well.Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)I think she's explained a lot in this quote, that "everybody's right" about Lincoln, as she says later in the chapter. You are asking the reader to read all of this section, "Religious and philosophical beliefs", and then all of the article, "Abraham Lincoln and religion", to arrive at their own conclusion. I prefer to give the reader that conclusion up front. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)the Jacoby quote does not talk about the Wikipedia article and it conveys no new info on Lincoln--it is phrased in confusing paradoxical fashion and it seems to suggest that Wiki endorses her anti-religious viewpoint. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Perhaps you are confused. No, Jacoby is open on whether or not Lincoln was Christian. No, she doesn't discuss Wikipedia. Why you think she would, I don't have any idea! My last reply above explained why the article needs this: the article is long-winded on religion, and points to yet another whole article about Lincoln and religion. No reader could deduce any conclusion, and so, I think a one sentence conclusion up front does belong. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)the article is not long-winded on religion -- it concisely summarizes the scholarship. Jacoby does not do that (she is hung up on 19th century debates by Herndon, Mrs Lincoln, etc) and instead she poses a question in terms favorable to her anti-religious beliefs. Rjensen (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)It's important to let the readers draw their own conclusion from the best references to L's own specific acts and utterances, especially on this subject. It's far too easy for a writer's own preferences to cloud things here. I can plead guilty to this very problem in my own editing on this subject in this article, which has since been corrected. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, but the Wikipedia perspective becomes something like, "You said all that to say what?" We have a 38K article supplementing a 6,000 character section here. How about rewording what I've added? Without changing the meaning, it may be possible to soften the words so people of faith aren't offended. Ms. Jacoby may have concentrated on 19th century sources, but she doesn't exclude modern accounts (she mentions hundreds of books written on the subject of Lincoln's faith, several by name). She only mentions Mrs. Lincoln once, to say she despised Herndon. Also, she said the person who wrote the second inaugural address could not have been an "unbeliever" in the 20th century meaning of that term. (Just making corrections because we ought to characterize her work fairly. I think she is a valuable source, because she is a secularist.) -SusanLesch (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)instead of leading off with the speculation of an avowed atheist who wishes to cast doubt on Lincoln's Christianity, I revised it to open with a scholar who attempts to be fair and balanced and takes a NPOV approach that is consonant with Wikipedia's goals.Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Rjensen, it seems you have a problem with atheism. You repeatedly state an author's viewpoint in a negative light—and yes, she is a reliable source. When an author gives a point of view, that doesn't mean they can't be right. I'm sorry but I am tired of arguing with you. Take care. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)I've removed the contentious statements from Abraham Lincoln and religion as well. It is not correct to say that the question of Abraham Lincoln's religious convictions has never been answered. Rather, it has been answered but some scholars disagree on the conclusions drawn from those answers. I'm going to have to agree with Rjensen on this one and let the scholarship speak for itself. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)When you guys have authored ten books each, and both of you have been finalists for a Pulitzer Prize, then perhaps you'll be able to judge Ms. Jacoby as her peer. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Having now read the http://books.google.com/books?id=dj_BPwOrOn8C&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;pg=PA117#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false, I can conclude that not only are the claims of Lincoln's supposed atheism overwrought, but that you have misrepresented Jacoby's argument entirely to promote this fantasy on Wikipedia. At no point does Jacoby ever suggest that Lincoln was atheistic, only that he displayed a healthy skepticism of organized religion, which is not a revelation. The issue is sufficiently addressed in the current revision of this article and at Abraham Lincoln and religion. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)I object to Uncle Dick saying I misrepresented anybody. Take care. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Unfortunately you didn't dispute it. --greenTHE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>And it's been removed as "vague". I will wait until tomorrow to add it again, during which time the editor who removed it may find this discussion, which would be nicer than simply removing it. </turn_text>