<article_title>Abraham_Lincoln</article_title>
<edit_user>JimWae</edit_user>
<edit_time>Monday, February 7, 2011 10:16:03 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>after the war began</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Lincoln was an outspoken opponent of the expansion of slavery in the United States, which he deftly articulated in his campaign debates and speeches.&lt;ref&gt;Goodwin, p. 91; Holzer, p. 232.<strong><strike>&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  </strike></strong><strong>
&lt;/ref&gt;
</strong>As a result, he secured the Republican nomination and was elected president in 1860. As president he concentrated on both the military and political dimensions of the war effort, always seeking to reunify the nation after the secession of the eleven Confederate States of America. He vigorously exercised unprecedented war powers, including the arrest and detention, without trial, of thousands of suspected secessionists. He issued his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and promoted the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, abolishing slavery.</edit_text>
<turn_user>North Shoreman<turn_user>
<turn_time>Tuesday, February 8, 2011 4:09:34 AM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Opinion based assertions vs clear undeniable fact</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>Opinions should not be featured in the lead, and should be moved to the body of the article. Facts that can be tested and proven correct through scientific and historical documents should always be used in favor of common opinions.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC) What opinions are you thinking of? --darkorangeOrange Mike | orangeTalk 01:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)The ambiguous opinion that I had changed to actual factual verifiable without question wording.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)wikipedia does not deal in "facts" and "opinions" -- it deal with statements that come from reliable sources, regardless if someone calls them a fact or an opinion. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Then the wording should reflect the opinion of the source, which is an opinion regardless of the source. Yet facts are indisputable and cannot be questioned, which is what an encyclopedia should be aiming for. As it is written now, if purely presents an opinion as a fact without attributing the opinion to any single source or person.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Ah but we lack a convenient list of facts that we can use. So it's no help to say just state the facts. Rjensen (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)No list is needed, only a change in wording from what is now clearly an opinion, to what is clearly a factual phrase.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC) This whole issue was previously beaten to death -- see archive 17. The final result there was that numerous sources were produced supporting "greatest internal crisis" and none were produced suggesting anything else. This is non-controversial language. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Actually several were produced saying something else if you wish to look again.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)no editor, not even Jojhutton, has access to the true facts. All we have are reliable sources. So appeals to "facts" do not carry any weighht in Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)don't know what that meant, but OK. it us a fact that more people died in the civil war than a any other internal conflict in the United States. Do I need to cite that or are we Able to avcept that. This fact is undeniable and has millions if sources and canny be refuted. Calling the Civil War "the greatest internal conflict" is an opinion being worded ad a fact. The word "greatest" should have been everyones first clue. --Jojhutton 14:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Actually I agree with what you said back in 2008 when you brought this up before. You said: Lets just see if we can cut away all of the jibberish and get down to what the disagrement is really about.This is a discussion on what the first sentence should say, agree or disagree?The two versions of this discusion are: 1. Lincoln succesfully led his country through its greatest internal crisis 2. Lincoln succesfully led his country though the bloodiest war in U.S. history I agree with both of those statements, as I am sure most historians would, so arguing citations is pointless, because there are hundreds of citations that say both of these things. Since there is no controversy among reliable sources about the language that you want to omit,the language should stay. There is no need for an "according to" characterization when it is, in fact, undisputed. Whether or not "bloodiest" should also be added is a separate issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Who said that the first statement, which is the current wording, isn't disputed? Of course some may argue against this particular time period as being the "greatest", especially when it is undefined by any standard. I can think of at least 3 other periods in American History that could be considered great, if not the greatest internal crisis when measured by various other standards. The "experiment in democracy" probably came closer to collapsing at around the time of the signing of the Constitution, than at any other time in US history, but that is based on a separate standard. By simply making the statement that the Civil War was the "Greatest Internal Conflict" in US history, and wording it as if it was undeniable fact, is a problematic POV problem because most of us who work on these pages, are in fact Civil War buffs, and are very close to the subject. We are asserting our own bias and POV into the article by stating this as fact. The POV problem could easily be remedied by simply rewording the phrase to an actual factual statement, measured by numbers, rather than POV bias, as it is now.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)There are two issues here. On the one hand the business of facts and opinion. That is meaningless because there are no "facts" in Wikipedia, only reliable sources. Secondly using bloodshed as the criteria of importance trivializes the Civil War into a biological event, rather than the political and moral crisis that the reliable sources consider it. Rjensen 16:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)As reliable sources go, both phrases can be impeccably sourced. If that were the only issue,this wouldn't be a problem. Its about a POV opinion over a less POV fact phrase. As far as trivializing the Civil War, I think I know where you may be going with this, but correct if I'm wrong. You appear to want to have the phrase focus on the overall meaning of the war, rather than just the bloodshed of the battlefield. Am I correct? If so, shouldn't we just mention those overall meanings, rather than use the catch all phrase Greatest internal Crisis, which can mean just about anything to anyone. Remember, well respected historian Shelby Foote said that the result of the Civil War was just a foregone conclusion and the South was never going to win that war (I'm paraphrasing). So if the South had no chance to win, how was that the Greatest internal Crisis? If we are going to keep the phrase the way it is now, then I suggest we attribute it to a source of some kind, like according to many historians..., or something like that. Its not a weasel statement in the lead, as long as the sources are provided in the body. A good example would be the phrasing at Citizen Kane which doesn't state a widely held opinion as fact, but phrases it, so that there is a bit of ambiguity about the opinion and even provides a link.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC) The discussions by the 13 separate sovereign States before there was a country was not an internal crisis and there was no President at that time. What other event do you have in mind as a great internal crisis in the same league as the Civil War? There was a crisis of succession under Jackson and Calhoun but that is not even in the same league. --Javaweb (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Javaweb Are you suggesting that the United States was not a country prior to the signing of the Constitution because there was no President? Nope, I have to say that I can't agree with you on that. You may be hard pressed to find anyone who will agree with that.Moving on. We should not allow our personal POV to interfere with the writing of this article. If not the Pharse: Bloodiest War in United States History, then does anyone else have a suggestion as to make the lead less WP:POV. There are no POV problems with the language. From WP:NPOV: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. So where are the reliable sources that disagree with "greatest internal crisis"? Be specific. Back up your POV claim. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)So are you asserting that the Civil War was not the bloodiest conflict in American History? I just want to see who doesn't believe it? If not you, then someone here here doesn't. BTW, how many citations will you need? Just so I can prepared up front.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)King Phillips war was probably bloodier--the great majority of Amwericans (ie Northerners, Texas) were not touched or threatened in the Civil War. Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC) I am not sure how accurate this site is, however, the website claims WWII has the highest casualties and deaths for American soldiers. The Civil War comes in second in terms of both causulties and deaths.http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.htm Cmguy777 (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>This whole issue was previously beaten to death -- see archive 17. The final result there was that numerous sources were produced supporting "greatest internal crisis" and none were produced suggesting anything else. This is non-controversial language. </turn_text>