Talk:The Real Lincoln

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

critical responses[edit]

We need to include some critical responses to The Real Lincoln. Most historians either did not take the book seriously, or they severely lambasted it. By not including critical responses, we violate NPOV. Firebug 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Firebug, the NPOV style guide says the solution to what you describe is not to dismiss an article as POV propaganda but to add sourced material to it and balance it. I appreciate your additions and have expanded upon them. It is generally better to quote passages from critics though rather than trying to summarize what they said, so I replaced your SPLC and Masugi descriptions with direct quotes. The Wall Street Journal poll section you added violates WP:NOR as it draws conclusions from a poll that was not specific to DiLorenzo's book and did not have scientific variables in it to account for DiLorenzo's book as a factor between it and the poll before the book was published. Also, statements such as "most historians did not take the book seriously" etc. are also in violation of NPOV, as they express an unsourced opinion based on anonymous experts. A better way to handle it is to quote some of the major critics like Masugi directly. Rangerdude 04:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with your edits. Reading over them, I agree that they summarize the situation in a more accurate manner. I tried to find as much information as I could online, but the Google responses for "the real lincoln" seem to be dominated by libertarian sites. Perhaps many of the responses from professional historians are available only in dead-tree format, or behind registration firewalls. Firebug 04:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


DiLorenzo and lewrockwell[edit]

DiLorenzo does not write like a historian. His screed at lewrockwell was terribly unprofessional. As Matthew Pinsker states at Presidential Studies Quarterly: "DiLorenzo adopts a posture more suitable to talk radio than historical monographs as he belittles and mischaracterizes most other work in the field." I wouldn't trust any radio talk show host on the right or the left to teach me history. Travb (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, DiLorenzo is not a talk show host. Cheers. Gwen Gale 05:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above did not claim he was a talk show host. Thanx for making his point for him again, that if DiLorenzo wants to be taken seriously, he should not be acting like what he isn't.--Buckboard 11:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckboard (talk • contribs)

The Rough Era[edit]

Abraham Lincoln was alive at the time when rough people were the commonest ones every place. He was called "the Rail-splitter of the West" because of his physical prowess. His mind was rough, too. While he was the President, people called him "The Autocrat." The book by Mr. DiLorenzo probably reveals some facts which disconcert some people, but those facts have been included in books written by authors who were alive in the 19th century. "Honest Abe" was not a soft, gentle person, nay, he was a man of his time. Superslum 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not alter the content page by claiming that "Honest Abe" was a kind-hearted "Great Emancipator," because that is blarney. He was aloof from every slave. Superslum 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:OR, thanks. Gwen Gale 05:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln instigated the Civil War?[edit]

Even ignoring DiLorenzo's dubious claims about Lincoln's motivations, the reality is that it wasn't Lincoln who "instigated" the war at all. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed blockquote from Foreword[edit]

Given it is highly unlikely/irregular for a Foreword *not* to endorse the contents of the book it's written for, and in response to the tag requesting that block quotes are kept to a minimum - paraphrased if possible - I have removed the block quote taken from Williams's Foreword, only retaining what appears to be his own points made to back up DiLorenzo's argument. Alfietucker (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar work[edit]

Should be mention or see-also link to Forced into Glory... AnonMoos (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Real Lincoln. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)  OK Jim.henderson (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Real_Lincoln&oldid=1210688797"