Talk:Abraham Lincoln/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Typo - "rgar" for that

The page says: "Attempts at compromise followed. Lincoln and the Republicans rejected the proposed Crittenden Compromise rgar was contrary to the Party's free-soil platform." It seems obvious that "rgar" is a qwerty-keyboard typist's shift over error for "that".

Also, "Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been opnen to their inspection." Here open was likely intended.

I am not privileged enough to edit these on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.109.208 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

Inside Lincoln's bio section, Andrew Johnson, his second vice president, is not linked. |vicepresident = [[Hannibal Hamlin]]<br>(to Mar. 1865)<br>[[Andrew Johnson]]<br>(from Mar. 1865) Jordanlees2 (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Jordanlees2,  Done. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Error in date of death for Abraham Lincoln as

DOD indicates 4/15 when in fact it is 4/14. Please edit. Thank you. NN NovemberNice (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

He died the day after he was shot. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble with the wording "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth on Good Friday, April 14, 1865," since that implies immediate death, which was obviously not the case. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

In what way is this embellished?

"Exploiting his embellished frontier legend (clearing land and splitting fence rails)"

As he actually did clear land and split fence rails, and this was not an uncommon occupation, why is the word 'embellished' used?

The use of a word with negative connotation seems biased, unless some details can be added to demonstrate.

"Exploiting" also has a negative connotation, although less strong, especially when the majority of the country was involved in agrarian activities in the run-up to the Industrial Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.22.99 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting feedback at Talk:Abraham Lincoln (captain)

I started a discussion at Talk:Abraham Lincoln (captain) because there is an un-addressed contradiction regarding his date of birth. The article claims May 13, 1744, but a memorial marker of his claims May 1738. Anyone with questions or comments can post on the linked talk page. Thanks. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2019

The Gettysburg Address is 271 words and is not 272 words; often misunderstood is the word "battle-field" which is one word and not two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmhatten (talk • contribs) d19:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I think it depends on which version one is counting the words from - there are at least 5 somewhat different "official" extant copies/drafts (the Nicolay, the Bliss, the Hay, the Everett, and the Bancroft) plus the Associated Press version which differs from the official ones. Shearonink (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2019

He was an affectionate, though often absent, husband and father of four children. Robert Todd Lincoln was born in 1843 and Edward Baker Lincoln (Eddie) in 1846. Edward died on February 1, 1850, in Springfield, probably of tuberculosis. "Willie" Lincoln was born on December 21, 1850, and died of a fever on February 20, 1862. The Lincolns' fourth son, Thomas "Tad" Lincoln, was born on April 4, 1853, and died of heart failure at the age of 18 on July 16, 1871.[12]:179–181, 476 Robert reached adulthood and produced children. The Lincolns' last descendant, great-grandson Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, died in 1985.[22] Lincoln "was remarkably fond of children",[12]:126 and the Lincolns were not considered to be strict with their own.[21]:120. In fact, Lincoln's law partner William H. Herndon could grow irritated when Lincoln would bring his children to the law office. Their father, it seemed, was often too absorbed in his own work to notice his children's behaviour. Herndon recounted, "I have felt many and many a time that I wanted to wring their little necks, and yet out of respect for Lincoln I kept my mouth shut. Lincoln did not note what his children were doing or had done." (Source: Emanuel Hertz, The Hidden Lincoln, p. 105 (Letter from William H. Herndon to Jesse W. Weik, November 19, 1885). NatePDThompson (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@NatePDThompson: Assuming the source is correct so  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Why does this article define Robert Smith Todd's life by Slavery?

In this article it cites Robert Smith Todd as a "slave-owner" yet in the Wikipedia article on Robert Smith Todd it says that Todd was a "lawyer, soldier, banker, businessman and politician." Why are we defining a man's life by the mere fact that he owned slaves - a common practice in the early 1800s, when he was much more than that? Where's the balance/neutrality here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpkatsa (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. We mention the slave-owning aspects later on in the article. On the other hand, Robert Smith Todd does not mention slavery at all. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Indian wars or policy section

Any chance of a section on Indian policy or Indian wars. I know the focus is the Civil War, but there were Indian Wars too including : Owens Valley War, Dakota War of 1862, and the Yavapai Wars. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• The Indian Policy of Abraham Lincoln W. Dale Mason (2009) Indigenous Policy Journal

I presented this talk for discussion. No one has yet responded. I believe and Indian policy section is appropriate for the article. Especially how much did the Souix uprising affect the American Civil War ? Lincoln may have used Confederate POWs to fight in Indian Wars. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reading it if it is written up and sourced properly. Maybe start with adding information to the war pages you linked first since this article seems to be continually protected, and then doing a summary edit here? My ability to track down good sources tends towards the sciences so I can't help much in terms of getting it put together, but that's my two cents. --A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I added two reliable sources and expanded information on Lincoln and Indian policy. I added the section to the article on November 12. I kept the focus on the Souix Uprising, or the Dakota War of 1862. There were the other wars. How did those wars affect Lincoln ? More information would be required. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Balance at Forced into Glory

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Forced into Glory § Balance: Conflict between Lincoln critics like Bennett, and critics of those critics.

The article (on a somewhat controversial biography of Abraham Lincoln) rarely has editors or even talk-page comments, so additional input is requested. PoV issues with our article have been pointed out since 2009, and the off-site academic controversy involving the book's notable author, Lerone Bennett Jr., and his views about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation goes back to the 1960s.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar."...except the man who creates a meme. -Abraham Lincoln

Hey all, is there anyone that knows the source for this alleged quote for Lincoln? I personally suspect that the quote is nothing but nonsense, but apparently it is nonsense with an at least sixty year history. [1] Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Good evidence that Ulysses Grant said it during the Civil War = Josiah Gilbert Holland; Richard Watson Gilder (1897). The Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine. pp. 359–60. Rjensen (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War, its bloodiest war and its greatest moral, constitutional, and political crisis."

It would be better if this sentence did not have the word "war" in it twice. How can we reword? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the common view, but sometimes the burdensome importance of a concept supports the repetition of a word. This may be such a case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps "its bloodiest conflict"? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Repetition works as Lincoln himself knew--listen to his second inaugural speech (1865): Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came. Rjensen (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

How about "Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War, its bloodiest war and its greatest moral, constitutional, and political crisis" becomes "Lincoln led the nation through the bloody American Civil War; its greatest moral, constitutional, and political crisis"? Less words = more pppwwwwwrrrrrrr! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

ok with me. Rjensen (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Grammatical note: I think that a colon, not a semicolon, may be more grammatical in this case. "its greatest moral..." is not an independent clause. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Dred Scott

This needs work. Within the section, Lincoln is quoted, and he in turn is also quoting the court decision. This is too much for the reader to follow. Hoppyh (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. May or may not be better. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Lincoln&type=revision&diff=940368338&oldid=940362369 Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Gettysburg image

The Gettysburg photo is very difficult to pick Lincoln out from (i.e. I could not, and Lincoln is very distinctive). I had to look it up, [2] this article does a very good job at pointing out who's who. If anyone fancies themselves good at photo editing, a version of the photo where Lincoln is circled in red or yellow would be most useful. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the edits we have been making lately are not causing a stir. So, if you think you are improving the article, just do it! And if you're not sure, mention it here on the talk page after you have done it. Then people can look at after the fact. But at some point, each sentence of improvement needs to involve less than one sentence of discussion. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher, I asked originally because I'm not very good at photo editing, but I proved myself wrong! Busted out Fire Alpaca and churned out a highlighted version in no time CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Great! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The lead section is not well balanced

In my opinion. First para has 3 sentences. Bit small. The second para has 6 sentences. Bit bloated. Third para is also bloated. Plus it starts with this:

"As the leader of the moderate faction of the Republican Party, Lincoln confronted Radical Republicans, who demanded harsher treatment of the South; War Democrats, who rallied a large faction of former opponents into his camp; anti-war Democrats (called Copperheads), who despised him; and irreconcilable secessionists, who plotted his assassination. "

Comma, comma, semi-colon, comma, semi-colon, parenthesis, comma, semi-colon, comma, period. Chuckle. I'll have to think about that one for a bit. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

So I took a 10 year hiatus after making getting this article to GA and failing at FA. Looking back at my GA version of the lead it looks like the lead has deteriorated since then. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Lincoln&oldid=402021833 Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher, I quite like He became a country lawyer, an Illinois state legislator, and a one-term member of the United States House of Representatives, but failed in two attempts at a seat in the United States Senate. He was an affectionate, though often absent, husband, and father of four children. from the GA version, especially the last sentence, although I'll admit I'm not sure where it would fit in.

The second paragraph could probably have some of the civil war info removed. I think They began the process of seceding from the union. To secure its independence, the new Confederate States of America fired on Fort Sumter, one of the few U.S. forts in the South. Lincoln called up volunteers and militia to suppress the rebellion and restore the Union. could get compressed down a bit. The middle sentence seems almost unnecessary; while Lincoln was certainly central to the civil war, this is an article about him not the war.

In reading through the lead I've also removed a redundant superlative at the end, regarding to "in history". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

So people know what's going on, read User_talk:Peregrine_Fisher#Abraham_Lincoln if you want to. My first question is "would the lead be better if we just copied the old one and replaced the current one"? Overall, would it be better? Would it be a better place to start from and then bring in whatever improvements have happened in the last ten years (if any). Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher, I think some of the improvements were good, but not all. We're going to have to blend the two together; harder than just choosing the earlier I'm afraid. Even then, the end result may look like neither. Also, I have opened a peer review for the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

(redent) I'm reading through the old version's lead [3] and the new version. I haven't read anything in the new version that is more concise, more punchy, more summarizing, or more anything good compared to the old one. I know editors would be shocked to just throw away 10 years of edits, but I think it should be considered. I could start redoing what I did years ago, line by line, 143kb .... whatever. I'm about to get hyperbolic and make unhelpful generalizations and who knows what else. I'll stop. If FA is the goal, swapping in the old lead will solve that section. Then we can move on to the next section. Or we can try and fix a lead, line by line, that isn't really that well written. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel sad talking about it, but I think the reason that old version was so great was because of Hoppyh. But I just talked to him, and he's in poor health now. User_talk:Hoppyh#I_think_we_worked_together_on_Lincoln_about_10_years_ago You definitely want more than one really good editor for a task like this. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but it really is undeserved. I will “take a wack” at ce in the lead but feel free to revert as desired. Hoppyh (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I have not looked at the old version, so any resemblance to my CE is coincidental. Hoppyh (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Also FYI, a quick review of the presidents’ FA’s shows most of them have no citations in the lead. I leave that issue for your consideration. Hoppyh (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

When at all possible, I agree that the lead should be without citations. With that in mind:

• Do we really need a citation for the pronunciation of his name?
• I think the Randall citation is also unnecessary. The page range is 65-87, so its unclear from exactly where the claim was taken, or what claim that would be. And we have covered that information in the text, so I think it could be removed.
• The ranking citations are already in the body, so I don't see why they need to be in the lead too.

Basically, I think all the citations could be removed from the lead without any ill effect or cleanup needed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The three places where I see citations in the lede are claims of some kind. In that case, I think the citations should remain.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Shouldn’t we mention his assassination in the first paragraph? Hoppyh (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, the current lead is basically structured as a chronology, and his major bio impact was as president - I think it is distracting to rush to the end and it is still in the lead (and he did not do any of the stuff in the current first paragraph because he was assassinated). Now, if the first paragraph were structured differently as basically a quick summary of his whole life . . . Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hoppyh (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Featured Article push

Howdy hello folks! This article was brought up to GA about ten years ago, but fell short of FA. As one of the most important figures in history and the 39th most viewed page of all time on Wikipedia, bringing it to higher quality is one of the most impactful actions on the project. Taking it to Featured status would be an amazing achievement. Its also one that can't happen alone. I'm looking to build a team of editors who are willing to help push this article through to featured status. It will be a vast undertaking, but it won't happen if editors don't make it happen. If you'd like to join, please sign your name below and say what areas you can best help with. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Participants

Serious folks only, please. This will be a vast undertaking, you will be expected to help significantly throughout the process. You are still welcome to improve the article without being part of the FA Team.

1. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
2. CaroleHenson (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Tasks

You are welcome to add tasks

1. Source reviewing: Existing sources need to be double checked to ensure that sources reflect the claims they are cited to.
2. Photo review: All photos need checking for status, quality, and applicability. New photos may need to be found, and poor ones removed or replaced.
3. Copyediting: All prose should be of professional quality
4. Neutrality: As a contentious subject, POV issues will need to be dealt with. If you identify a POV issue, please open a new section and discuss it.

Goals

You are welcome to add goals, but please keep them concrete

1. Address issues raised in peer review
2. Every claim well sourced and spotchecked
3. Pass a Featured Article nomination
4. Celebrate!

General discussion

I don't want to be a jerk, but I think we should just swap in the old lead and then move to the next section. Some real tough love. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Massive undertaking. The current article has certainly grown beyond. Whoever does this, I guess I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Split and identifying upfront the best/complete sources in the 21st century for Lincoln Bio (eg, book-length by historians, top publishers) and comparing with the best published tertiary bios. Good wishes to you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Turns out I was wrong about the size, the prose size is actually still in the 70k range, which is much more reasonable than I had thought. Must've misread the prose gadget, its got a lot of numbers bouncing around. So we actually don't need to do much cutting down, just need to ensure quality! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Best biographies?

I have a small collection of Lincoln books, but I'm wondering what folks think the best, most authoritative biographies are. The best I have is Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals", but it focuses more on the presidency and Lincoln's closest advisors, and neglects his assassination. I also have access to Nicolay and Hay's "Abraham Lincoln: A History", but it is now archaic, having been published more than a century ago. Suggestions on books to procure would be appreciated. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Donald (1995) is where to begin and then look after-that, there are some lists on the internet but I can't vouch for them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Donald was my primary source. Hoppyh (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Some others, in addition to Donald and Kerns Goodwin:

• "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era" by James M. McPherson
• "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade American" by Garry Willis
• "A. Lincoln: A Biography" by Ronald C. White Jr.
• Perhaps, "Lincoln's Body: A Cultural History" by Richard Wightman Fox. I am not familiar with this book, but I am interested in knowing more about this book from a top six list of Lincoln books.

–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln: A Life (2 vols.) by Michael Burlingame and Our Lincoln: New Perspectives on Lincoln and His World by Eric Foner.   // Timothy :: talk 

Notes section

I have moved subsection "Footnotes" out of the reference section and renamed it Notes per usage in other FA's. This is a great way to handle "parenthetical" comments or detailed remarks which you would rather not bog down the reader with, while maintaining thoroughness; this method is preferred over using references (e.g. see current refs #116 and #123 which I will be moving to the Notes section.) Hoppyh (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Unbroken forest"

See 3d paragraph of Early Life section—I'm unsure what the term means, and maybe we should define it rather than leaving the reader guessing. Hoppyh (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's poetic for no-civilization. I suppose southern Indiana (unlike northern-Indiana) is heavily forested but feel free to change. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Prairie lawyer section–only pres. to hold a patent

Query whether this is still true, after Trump. Hoppyh (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am so surprised that Jefferson didn't have any patents, Washington had created the patent office and processes as first president.

Lincoln was the only president to have a patent as of 2006, per the Smithsonian and Time said in 2016 that he was still the only president to hold a patent.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Copy vio issue

The first paragraph in "Republican values" is a copy vio of the page of this book, which was published in 1952. (I rephrased the first sentence, hopefully well enough.) The first paragraph of "Reunification of the states" is also a copy vio issue on the same page of the book.

I am afraid I will butcher it trying to rephrase it. Does someone mind tackling it? And, I'll keep working on checking content to sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been trying my best while super foggy. I will come back to this on a better day.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Overuse of cites

In my CE, I am encountering multiple cites for the same facts which I think are unnecessary, and sacrifice readability. I have removed a few in the early life section. If I am going rogue here, let me know, but an FA rating will require that the use of cites not be overdone. Hoppyh (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you creating those broken cites? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I double-checked and I think I’m innocent. Hoppyh (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think its a result of us removing double citations, thus leaving citations that are list defined, but are no longer represented in the article. Its not an immediate problem, we can go through and clean them up later. Its a side effect of using list defined references (a style I personally detest, but will use). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek and Hoppyh, I am happy to jump in, but I don't want to cause conflict with the work you are doing. I am happy to take a section and start checking sources to content... or whatever you think I could help with without causing double-work or edit conflicts. Do you have a recommendation?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to make small, frequent changes, that way any potential edit conflict is small. Also, we're all working in fairly different areas, so shouldn't be too big a problem. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you should go for it and if an issue arises we will work it out. Go girl! Hoppyh (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Hoppyh and CaptainEek, I will start with the Memory and memorial section... and stay in that section and work my way up.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I finished the Memory and memorial section, moving a paragraph about Barry Schwartz comments to the National reputation section where it seems to belong. It seems to me that the National reputation section and initial paragraphs of the Legacy section need to be rewritten - and use some content from Donald and/or Kerns Goodwin. It seems like it's morphed a bit over time as content has been added. It doesn't seem to make sense to check content against cited sources here if it will change a lot. Do you agree?

For now, I will skip up to the "Health section".–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I checked content against cited sources and added a failed verification tag for a few sentences. That section could use some work, too. My thought is that it would be good to summarize the content the most likely / confirmed health issues and summarize the current content in the health section, with consenting info mentioned in the separate Health article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done I edited the Health of Abraham Lincoln article, summarized it and put that info in the lede... and edited the Abraham Lincoln#Health section to be more of a summary of his health rather than focus just on potential genetic disorders... moving some of that info to the Health article. We may still want to use better sources, but it's better.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I will go back to checking sources in the Legacy section (and move up the article), but I will also be doing some copy editing... and any changes additions to content can be done later.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In a different vain, I must agree with @CaptainEek: above in a distaste for the style of refs being used here. Even after removing duplicate edits I find the in-line page #'s make the article painful to read. I'm not up to date on the FA preferences in this regard, but it's hard for me to believe that the lack of readability would not be a real problem. Maybe it's just the old man in me and my old eyes. Hoppyh (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think CITEVAR is what you have to deal with -- personally, I can't say I have allot of feeling in that regard and did not choose this variation, but if you two or three decide to go through all the work to change it, I am fine with whatever accepted citation style you change it to (or at least, I would suggest that it be one where you can reuse references with ease, and change page numbers when dealing with one larger reference work). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would suggest doing it sooner rather than later. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:CITEVAR we definitely should not make such a seismic (and laborious) change based on a personal preference. FA Truman is a good model I think. My concern is with the FA guideline that the article must be well written. I would suggest that the style in use inhibits the creation of an "engaging" prose. I think it's worth some discussion, and the decision should not be rushed for sure, in light of your own view for example. Hoppyh (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"The taste ‘is’ in my mouth a little."

This famous AL quote closes the section on the Lincoln-Douglas debates etc.. Note the italics used for “is” in the quote. The quote is taken from a letter from AL to Lyman Trumbull dtd. 4/29/1860. Since obviously handwritten, the question is what the basis is for the italics. If Lincoln added the emphasis, then ok, but if the emphasis is added by someone else, it may be appropriate for the quote to have [emhasis added] at the end. I searched the archives and don’t see this raised. If an FA nom is done, the issue will come up. That said, I obviously need to get a life. Hoppyh (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoppyh I could not find that letter at the Library of Congress (there is a letter there from Lyman to Lincoln five days earlier if that helps for context.) There is a web page that shows that "is" is given emphasis by italics. I don't know how that would be shown in penmanship. IMO the "is" was given emphasis to show how the phrase would be spoken. Sorry I couldn't provide more help. Totally get your point about a life!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Donald is the ref used for the quote. It would be interesting to see how he handled it, whether he said [emphasis added]. Hoppyh (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoppyh, Donald writes, in a section titled "The Taste Is in My Mouth" : "But after his return from New York and New England he made no attempt to conceal his desire for the nomination. By April he wrote the Trumbull, who inquired about his intentions: "I will be entirely frank. The taste is in my mouth a little."" Donald ends the section there, and makes no note of the emphasis, though many of Lincoln's letters and quotes have some form of emphasis, I had assumed they were original the letters, although Donald doesn't say. I can't imagine that Donald added the emphasis? The next section doesn't make note of the emphasis either, just goes into his roundabout seeking of the nomination. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The standard edition of Lincoln's Collected Works (1953) vol 4 p 45 shows is--they indicate Lincoln underlined the word in his handwritten letter. The original is in the Huntington Library in California and the image of the handwritten letter is at https://picpanzee.com/TheHuntingtonLibrary The printed copy is at https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln4?rgn=main;view=fulltext Rjensen (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the most appropriate way to represent the quote may be to underline the word "is" and use the Huntington ref as the source. I will await further input though. I apologize for this minutiae. Hoppyh (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020

I read on an article "Famous people with Asperger syndrome" that he was autistic. 75.182.29.222 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Well unless you provide the source, we can't really include it. Furthermore, none of the main biographies of Lincoln mention that, so it seems to be speculation at best. Many folks took many guesses at whether Lincoln had disorder X or Y, but few if any are concrete. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Secession

The first paragraph of the section says six of the seven states mentioned initially formed the confederacy but the confederacy article which is linked says all seven did. If six is correct, which state did not? Hoppyh (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Hoppyh, It seems a bit of trivia, but Texas voted to secede on Feb 1, and was at the Montgomery Convention, but apparently Sam Houston was able to delay joining the confederacy until early March, still before Lincoln's inauguration. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Alanscottwalker; I think a minor edit to the third sentence of the section with a source would do it, if you have it. Hoppyh (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Gen. Halleck's book

In the last paragraph of the subsection "Union Military Strategy", we are told that Lincoln was enlightened by a book by Halleck. I think we should specify the title.Hoppyh (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Elements of Military Art and Science (Course of Instruction in Strategy, Fortification, Tactics of Battles) see https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Military-Instruction-Strategy-Fortification/dp/1544684061 Rjensen (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks...I employed an abbreviated title per WP:MOSTITLE which appears permissable based on internet usage.Hoppyh (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's revert 10 years of edits and make this an FA!

10 years ago I came really close to getting this article to Featured Article. I did get it to Good Article. One of the hardest things I've ever done. Getting an A in 400 level mathematics was easier. Anyways...

I propose that we revert to that well referenced, tightly written version. Then we copy and paste all the text from the current version that is Featured Article level good back in.

A couple editors expressed interest in making this an FA, but they petered out pretty quickly when faced (in my opinion) with the gargantuan task of trying to fix the current version of this article.

If I act boldly, I imagine someone will revert me. Could we discuss it first? Why don't we just pick the best version and improve it? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's not be hasty. Scores of serious editors have made contributions that are essential to understanding Lincoln in 2020. The "tightly written" means that multiple perspectives are missing -- a fatal flaw in my opinion. That is it is better to have more multiple ideas and sources rather than rely on a single outdated interpretation that is no longer current. Rjensen (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Alas it's not that easy. What was close to FA ten years ago might not even pass GA today, the stakes have really gone up. Plus many folks have made a lot of positive contributions in the last decade. And we've ready come a long way with this latest push for improvements. You'll have to excuse my recent lack of action, real life has sapped away most of my free time for the last few months, and coronavirus hasn't helped matters. Once I've got some time on my hands, I'm gonna give this a thorough combing to help speed it to FA. I'm reading several Lincoln biographies at the moment to assist. I think we should also get the assistance of some folks from the Guild of copy editors. The moral: the FA process here won't be easy, but the end product will be well worth it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher's idea has merit in part. Perhaps he would like to use the old version as a reference point and apply it section by section. Changes which do not measure up can be omitted or adjusted as his review proceeds. Hoppyh (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen and CaptainEek. It would help matters if criticisms were not made in terms of grand generalizations. Simply reverting to a version of ten years ago would no doubt invoke the wrath of dozens of editors/contributors and throw the article into turmoil and instability, causing the article to lose its GA status. Currently the article size is at 75k of readable prose. Considering that the George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant, Featured Articles, are around 100k of readable prose I don't think article size by itself is an issue here. Any problems with the article should be specifically pointed out and dealt with on a per issue basis. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not suggest the old version be used in any sort of blanket reversion, only as a point of reference in reviewing and gauging the merit of recent edits for editing/discussion purposes. The old version can not be determinative as such.Hoppyh (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've been busy elsewhere and sort of popped in here to see what's new. Will add my valuable two cents worth from time to time if there's occasion to do so. Best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the concept of using the previous version as a reference point. It would help a lot in the rewrite... without losing valuable input.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: What specific revert do you want to make? Back to which version of this page? Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Who's talking about a "rewrite"?? This implies that the entire article has problems. No one has even pointed to a specific issue yet. Reverting back to a dated issue will take a clear consensus from a lot of contributors. Best to take on specific issues, and again, no one has pointed to any in specific terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be best to take this one section at a time and crawl our way through the article. I am not in favor of a blanket revert to a past version, that is stating that the older one is better than the other and I don't necessarily agree with that. If there is a consensus to move ahead with fixing up this article then someone will have to notify Peer Reiew since there is a Request that's been sitting there with no action since February 11th.

One point...it seems to me that the previous FAC of a 2011 version should be characterized as no-consensus. One clear support, one Not Yet, and posts about various aspects. Shearonink (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Generally agree with Shearonink. A given editor is free to inspect a section, and make any improvements that are called for. He or she can do this without a consensus so long as no major changes are made to this Good Article. One thing that is too often overlooked are the citations and sources. A general review of these, making sure the statements are supported by the citation PAGE NUMBERS, will reveal most problems, if indeed there's any to speak of. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I got a wild hair when I started this section. Probably shouldn't have started it, since it requires a ton of work to back it up, which I wont do. But...

There exists a version of this article that succinctly covers AL's life, with a tightly written lead. That version has been totally copy edited; which is worth 10s or even 100s of hours work. We should go back to it. Just for one day. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Gen. McLellan section

The fourth paragraph concludes by saying that Rosecrans and Burnside were “presumably more supportive.” Can this be more definitively stated? Hoppyh (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hoppyh, Looking through Donald's treatment, he doesn't really support that phrase. I take it to be WP:OR from someone. But he does talk at length about their ability as commanders, and Lincoln's shrewd abilities in appointing them, so perhaps that could be discussed? Something like "Appointing Rosecrans and Burnside showed off Lincoln's political acumen; the commanders were politically neutral, unlike the partisan McClellan – and Burnside was McClellan's protege which assuaged McClellan's supporters." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Reconstruction—what might have been

The following is from the Reconstruction section and I propose it be omitted as more appropriate elsewhere, e.g. the article on reconstruction. Thoughts? Hoppyh (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Historians agree that it is impossible to predict exactly how Reconstruction would have proceeded had Lincoln lived. Biographers James G. Randall and Richard Current, according to David Lincove, argue that:[97]

It is likely that had he lived, Lincoln would have followed a policy similar to Johnson's, that he would have clashed with congressional Radicals, that he would have produced a better result for the freedmen than occurred, and that his political skills would have helped him avoid Johnson's mistakes.

Eric Foner argues that:[98] Unlike Sumner and other Radicals, Lincoln did not see Reconstruction as an opportunity for a sweeping political and social revolution beyond emancipation. He had long made clear his opposition to the confiscation and redistribution of land. He believed, as most Republicans did in April 1865, that the voting requirements should be determined by the states. He assumed that political control in the South would pass to white Unionists, reluctant secessionists, and forward-looking former Confederates. But time and again during the war, Lincoln, after initial opposition, had come to embrace positions first advanced by abolitionists and Radical Republicans. ... Lincoln undoubtedly would have listened carefully to the outcry for further protection for the former slaves ... It is entirely plausible to imagine Lincoln and Congress agreeing on a Reconstruction policy that encompassed federal protection for basic civil rights plus limited black suffrage, along the lines Lincoln proposed just before his death.

we can keep it. Lincoln took charge of Reconstruction policy in 1863 and it was a high priority for him in 1863-65. Historians (thanks esp to Foner) now use 1863 as the start of Reconstruction (as opposed to the old views of Randall and Richard Current (their biography vol 4 1955=very old.) Rjensen (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I would opt to keep as well, it is not especially long, and the idea of "what if Lincoln had lived" figures pretty large in historiography and popular imagining. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Tribute at death

The funeral section includes the quote that African Americans had lost their “Moses.” I think the attribution for this comment is required since it is figurative. Hoppyh (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References—changes pending

In order to help with the FA push, I'm planning to clean up the refs/sources and inline citations by adding sfn refs throughout. I should be working on this throughout the next couple of days. Cheers! Aza24 (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I am delighted about your plan. It has potential to bring much improvement. Let us know of progress and problems we can help with. Hoppyh (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

So, I've cleaned and assembled a bibliography which I'll be incorporating soon (hopefully in 3-4 hours) and using to link the existing refs to. Here's the list in my sandbox: User:Aza24/Sandbox7

I had two things I should probably address:

(1) In the bibliography, based on the current sources, theres two that appeared and say they were "not used" these two are:

• Boritt, Gabor S.; Pinsker, Matthew (2002). "Abraham Lincoln". In Graff, Henry (ed.). The Presidents: A reference History (7th ed.). pp. 209–223. ISBN 9780684805511.

and

• McClintock, Russell (2008). Lincoln and the Decision for War: The Northern Response to Secession. Univ of North Carolina Press. ISBN 9780807831885.

Is there a reason for this (are they used and uncited?) or can I delete them?

I would delete them and set up a section here for your "orphaned" refs here so they can be accessed easily. Hoppyh (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(2) Also please let me know of any errors in the refs list I had assembled. I linked all the authors who have pages, should I link the publishing companies? And should I add in the publishing locations? (Because I'd be happy to do so!) Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Grant and Truman have the locations so I'd include them. I think you can do well to use them as models. I recall some years ago somebody suggesting we link the author the first time and not repeating it. Polk and Cleveland don't link them at all. Hoppyh (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright the ref list and inline citations have been implemented! I'll revise them and look for errors over the next few days. Aza24 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

At first blush I think you’ve given the article a quantum leap. Your work is appreciated I know. Hoppyh (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You may want to employ a tag at the top of the article to alert editors to your pending work. Hoppyh (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There are a fair number of cases where more than one ref is used for sourcing facts that are not in any doubt or dispute, so I will be paring those excess cites. I don't think this will interfere, but certainly let me know if it does. Hoppyh (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24:Per your advice, I am combining refs in these instances. Hoppyh (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Committee assignments subsection

Is there a reason that Lincoln's "Committee assignments" are a whole subsection? It doesn't make much sense and seems unnecessary. I would propose (a) his work in the committee to be expanded upon or (b) the committe assignments are moved to the prior paragraph. (the U.S. House of Representatives, 1847–1849 one) Aza24 (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Aza24, I think its an artifact of how we treat modern representatives, who are in far more committees than representatives in Lincoln's day were, and are by default given a whole section. But here I see no reason for a two bullet list to have its own section. I'm gonna go ahead and move it, feel free to revert me if someone thinks it should be its own section. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense as an expanded section either, his term in the house wasn't anything exciting. Donald has a cute note about how he cared about the post office, but doesn't really give much substance about his role on the committees besides that he was there diligently and was pretty quiet. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources in the lead

Do we need Lincoln managed the factions by pitting them against each other, by carefully distributing political patronage, and by appealing to the American people to be sourced in the lead? Or is there someway that we can make sure that it gets cited in the body so we can pull the ref out of the lead? Is it already cited in the body? Refs in the lead are not a popular FA look. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just thinking about that one. It looks like the patronage part is definitely mentioned under the ‘’Re-election’’ section and the appealing to the American people is discussed. (At least I terms of the American people ranking him highly after his death and the northern Americans of the time liking him) I’m not sure if the “factions pitting them against each other” part is though. Aza24 (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Cites omitted — see first paragraph of Other enactments. Hoppyh (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2020

RE: Nancy Hanks; cite https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/hanks-dna-project/about/news 168.103.223.213 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

IP has a good point. In essence, the source says that they have done a genetic test on the known descendents, and cleared up the issue of the lineage of Nancy Hanks. Also check out [4]. I'm trying to see if any of this has been published in a journal, as that would make our lives easier. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Upon doing some looking, I think the best way to incorporate any note on Nancy's heritage would be to instead link to Nancy Hanks Lincoln heritage. The website isn't high enough quality for this page, but would make an interesting addition to the aforementioned page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There is nothing in the source given that belongs in this article. Nancy Hanks's status as Lincoln's mother has never been in doubt and the new source doesn't dispute that. If there is something in the article that is relevant to Nancy Hanks, it can be added to that article. Looking at the source, however, I have doubts about the RS status of it and don't see anything particularly noteworthy or relevant. In either case, the request is not within the bounds of an Edit request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

House of representatives in infobox?

This edit removed the recently added material regarding Lincoln's term in the Illinois state house to the infobox. Should we include his state house term in the infobox? I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, what do you folks think? Pinging @Sleyece: and @Bergeronpp: since they made the edits, but also looking for feedback from the FA crew. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Every other Presidential Article has a consensus that nothing below State Senate seats are notable enough to be represented in the POTUS' Infobox. If Abraham's article is an exception to that rule, you'll need to sway editors of this article to support that need. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sleyece, What? Where is that so-called consensus, see George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither FDR nor George Washington were members of a State House of Reps. As a general rule Presidents do not have their state house of reps service in the infobox. Also, stop tagging me. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed the POTUS FA's...Truman has a state judgeship included, and Grover Cleveland includes his Mayor of Buffalo and Sherrif of Erie Count. Hoppyh (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

And? -- Sleyece (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You have misrepresented consensus. What could possibly be the reason for such an arbitrary "rule"? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

An Encyclopedia must be notable. None of your ad hominem examples have refuted consensus. See this. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sleyece, Notability has nothing to do with it, Lincoln's term in the state house is clearly notable, and we have a whole section on it. The question is: should it be in the infobox? Some president articles do include lower offices, some don't, there doesn't seem to be an overriding consensus either way. Why should we not include it here? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no ad homonym. Nothing you have said or linked to establishes the consensus "rule" you claim. Several counter examples have been given -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I said quit tagging me. If you want to change consensus, you'l need to do an RfP. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Another POTUS FA, on Arthur, includes his state militia service. Taken with the other POTUS FA's I have reviewed, I do not believe there is a consensus as you have suggested. There is no general rule as you have also referenced. Hoppyh (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No such consensus or "rule" exists. If Sleyece wants to establish such a "rule", Sleyece has to do it in RfC, so they are wrong about that too. And Sleyece claim of non "notable" for Lincoln's state house experience is false given the sourcing, even were "notability" relevant, which it is not. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I said leave me alone. I'm not doing an RfC. There are no other Presidents with service in the State House of Reps in the infobox. Attacking me does not establish consensus. Attacking me is not an RfC -- Sleyece (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No one is attacking you, you are making unsupported arguments, several of which are false. You do have to start an RfC, and get consensus, if you want such a "rule." Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• I support Alan's return of it to the infobox. Should we add successor/predecessor? I think Donald makes some mention of it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before on this page but if memory serves, representatives in his day were several-at-once, county-at-large. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I just went through Donald to try to find such information, but found it lacking. Merely listing that he served seems sufficient. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, listing that he served is sufficient. There is no historical record that Abraham had an identifiable Predecessor or Successor by modern standards. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Too many pictures?

There seems to be wayyyy too many pictures starting from the map of Illinois under Lincoln–Douglas debates and Cooper Union speech to the running machine cartoon. And from the Gettysburg Address to the Reconstruction. I'm sure moving some to the left would help but should some be removed? If so, I'm not really sure which ones would be most appropriate to be removed so I'm asking here. Also, the two cartoons and the picture from the civil war have captions that seem unnecessarily long, thoughts on this? Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The pictures seem consistent throughout. Keep in mind that this is one of the most notable figures in World History. Editors try to be thorough in presentation of both data and images of the late President. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

IMO there is not an image problem except maybe with the Cooper Union pic and the Illinois map which somewhat squeezes the text. This could be alleviated by reducing the sizes. I reduced the size of the Cooper Union pic. IMO the Illinois map should be omitted—it is included in the debates article which is linked. In the alternative, the map should at least be reduced in size, which I am unsure how to do. Hoppyh (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Illinois map could be removed and since it is a template I don't think it can be made smaller, so removal seems like the only option. Aza24 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I asked for help at the map wiki project and haven’t heard anything. Let’s wait a few days and see if anybody else here has an opinion before removing. Hoppyh (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Replied on the wikiproject maps thread - cheers EdwardLane (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)